Hacker News Reader

But Google can support Flash and work towards openness

Here's the thing, though. Mozilla and Google, over the past year, have basically used the video-codecs thing as a publicity stunt. LOOK AT ME I'M SO PURE AND OPEN AND NOT LIKE THOSE VICIOUS CLOSED EVIL APPLE NAZIS (except please please please don't ask us about all that proprietary stuff we still do, please). It's hard not to see this as hypocritical.

So it's perfectly reasonable to, for example, call Google out on that. If they're really serious about openness, but need to make some compromises to deal with legacy proprietary stuff, why was this the specific compromise? Why not, say, keep H264 support in the <video> element while encouraging people to re-encode, and cut Flash? That at least gets you progress toward an open standard -- HTML5 -- if not a completely ideologically pure platform.

And especially given the fact that H264 has already literally won -- in the mobile market, in the broadcast market, in the home-entertainment market -- while Flash players which spool out H264-encoded video are essentially interchangeable with HTML5 <video> elements which spool out H264-encoded video, it's hard to see this as a genuine move in support of "openness".

It should be obvious that Google's hope is anyone using HTML5 video will eventually move to WebM exclusively.

This is the real point, I think. Google, I'm pretty sure, doesn't actually give a shit about openness; they care about getting people to use platforms they can control. See the requirements you have to meet to get the actual Android platform (you know, the one with the useful Google apps). See their ongoing spats with sites like Facebook, which are rooted more in Google not getting access to/control over data than any noble attempt to serve privacy. And see WebM, the codec Google owns, and which they're going to ram down everyone's throat via every channel they can use.

please don't ask us about all that proprietary stuff we still do

Like what?

[Regarding being downmodded]

Uh... okay? I'm completely serious here. Please tell me what you're referring to.

The big one is web search / advertising. The code that is making google money is not open source.

You also mentioned Mozilla there.

Pretty sure Google open-sourced vp8 (the video codec in webm), which means they don't own it or exclusively control it. I don't know how much more open you can get.

Open-source is not the same thing as public domain. See: MySql.

BSD (webm) != GPL (mysql)

Also the definition of public domain varies by country, and it's actually safer (for the rest of us) to prefer stuff under BSD-like licenses, although I prefer APL the most because it also has an explicit patents grant.

VP8 is open source, but Google isn't accepting patches, and it resembles H.264 in a lot of ways... and H.264 is patented. Google hasn't been sued over it yet, but if they are, it probably wouldn't end well for them.

http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377

It looks to me like Google plan to accept patches: http://www.webmproject.org/code/contribute/submitting-patche.... But maybe I'm mistaken. Are you saying they aren't accepting patches or just that they haven't yet?

Without more detailed analysis of the tech and patents involved, this is FUD. Merely noting that it "resembles H.264 in a lot of ways" doesn't mean that it violates (or is even just somewhat likely to violate) any patents.

"Star Wars" resembles "Lord of the Rings" in a lot of ways, but I don't think the Tolkien estate has sued over the hero's journey archetype yet.

I really agree with you, this is the first move in a larger push to make WebM the standard for the web, but I don't yet see what google stands to gain from controlling the video standard on the web. What do they get out of that ownership they dont get out of H264?

What I don't understand is how Chrome can remove h.264 (which is widely used) because they want 'openness', while at the same time shipping a browser (Chrome) where you cannot remove Flash (which continues to support H.264). It seems here that keeping H.264 support and dropping Flash would be more in the name of openness.

(Edit: bane points out that you can disable Flash in Chrome. My original point still stands, but my wording was misleading.)

As with most things Google does, I don't see this as being in the interest of 'openness' at all. I feel more like what they really want is a format that they can control and add features to (such as, for example, embedded advertising).

In the end, Google is a business, and its business is ads. Everything Google does is about either delivering ads to people (Google Mail), making sure it's their ads that are delivered (YouTube), or about making sure they don't get locked out of a market (Android).

So here's my question: where's the money here? It's obviously far more expensive at this point to use WebM than H.264, so what financial motivation is there for them to push the WebM codec this hard this fast?

while at the same time shipping a browser (Chrome) where you cannot remove Flash (which continues to support H.264)

You can turn off flash in Chrome

about:plugins

Flash is fading away, and should be kept for legacy reasons for a while. But not dropping h.264 now would make for another proprietary decade on the web.

I think a proprietary video codec is significantly less open-threatening than a proprietary runtime. For one thing, the codec will eventually lose its patent protections. The runtime will continue to evolve at the platform owner's discretion.

Regardless of how you feel about h.264 in general though, the decision to not support h.264 video in the browser through the video tag means that Flash is going to be sticking around just so we can watch videos.

An incredible victory for openness!

But the runtime will fade away. This is Google making a fresh start for the years to come. Shouldn't that start be with a open codec instead of a closed one?

The de facto standard for serving <video> today is making a h.246, WebM, a OGG and a FLV (for fallback). Look at videoJS.

So it doesn't mean Flash for video is sticking around.

Surely the defacto standard is h.264 with FLV for fallback.

Can anyone name a single site with significant traffic cother than Google/Youtube who are doing WebM or Ogg?

FLV is a container format, not a codec.

It's a great method for start using HTML5 <video>, cross platform - http://videojs.com/

Wikipedia.

Data outlives code.

Right now as a software developer you have the option of not using Flash.

Depending on your constraints, that may be a difficult choice to make, but it's a choice nonetheless: HTML5 is getting more popular, the JVM was always capable and popular enough for many scenarios, and there's also Silverlight.

But choosing another codec for your multiple TB (and growing) of video you want to serve on the web? You've got no choice but H.264, as anything else would cost you dearly.

And I'm pretty sure you don't know how software patents work. Companies apply for the same patents with different wording all the time. And there will also come a time when H.264 will not be enough, with MPEGLA in their infinite resourcefulness offering an easy upgrade to the next version under "reasonable" terms. By the time the standard will be patents free, H.264 will be as relevant as GIF is today.

> relevant as GIF is today.

What, you mean only useful for web comedy and image boards?

> And I'm pretty sure you don't know how software patents work. Companies apply for the same patents with different wording all the time. And there will also come a time when H.264 will not be enough, with MPEGLA in their infinite resourcefulness offering an easy upgrade to the next version under "reasonable" terms.

I really don't understand what your first part is getting at. MPEGLA will re-patent h.264 technologies under similar patents? As for the second part: Well, that gives Google a number of years to develop a codec that's actually really good and has hardware vendor support and is still free and all that. Just because you have multiple TB of video doesn't mean that different videos can't be encoded for web differently.

And your argument is moot anyway because this is introducing a significant fracture between Apple/mobile devices and desktop devices. People are still going to have to use another codec for their multiple TB and growing amounts of video!

The premise is that openness is all or nothing. But Google can support Flash and work towards openness, just as Apple can prefer open web standards in lieu of Flash while supporting proprietary systems. There's no hypocrisy or conflict.

The difference is that one company is claiming to champion open left and right whereas the other company focuses their discussion of open to very specific areas. There is hypocrisy with the former company in this case.

Maybe in the future. WebM support is new in Android, hardware decoders are really just coming to market, and there are enough existing and in-production phones that rely on H.264. The constraints placed on Google by the handful of Chrome users leveraging H.264 HTML5 video is completely unlike the realities of dealing in the handset market.

The point is that many view Chrome's move to eliminate H.264 as rushed, so why not rush Android's move? It's rhetorical. Google can't rush Android's move because it would kill Android to be unable to view 99% of online video.

It should be obvious that Google's hope is anyone using HTML5 video will eventually move to WebM exclusively.

Again, rhetorical. These companies won't move to WebM any time soon. It's interesting to me that very few of the comments here bring up the issue of encode quality. Netflix and Amazon are two companies that regularly deal with Hollywood studios, who have review policies for distributed video quality. WebM is inferior and very likely to remain inferior to H.264. One question Gruber failed to pose is: Does Google expect everyone to accept across the board lower quality of video content in the name of marginal "open"?

Content producers won't care if Chrome users end up in Flash, since the content's still available and very few non-mobile users are getting HTML5 video anyway. Flash is still the norm outside of mobile devices.

There are numerous reasons that's an unsupported blanket statement. Of course content producers will care. Why would they not care about how to support various and incompatible distribution and playback methods?

Were people ecstatic that Chrome supported H.264?

Clearly, there's a difference between caring about something that works as is generally expected and caring about something that doesn't work in opposition to expectations. People care when things break. The correct answer to that final question is: Adobe. Hurrah for them?

Meta: You should start "John Gruber and Methods of Rationality" blog.