Hacker News Reader

Comment by pacifika | Hacker News Reader

This article would be correct if Google dropped flash together with H.264. The practical result of playing H.264 to Chrome users via Flash instead of through a native open source implementation (Chromium) is surely a net negative for free standards supporters? After all it's "proprietary, nonstandard software."

View on HN

> This article would be correct if Google dropped flash together with H.264

It's Adobe Flash, not Google Flash. It was Google implementing H.264 in the browser. You can still add a plugin to support H.264 in Chrome if you wish, just like you can remove the Flash plugin from Chrome. Essentially, the Google/H.264/Flash argument isn't logical. Essentially, it's like complaining that Apple doesn't ship Flash on iOS devices. It's a bad argument. Just because some ordinarily smart people are making the argument doesn't make it a good one. I cannot stress how bad of an argument it is.

> The practical result of playing H.264 to Chrome users via Flash instead of through a native open source implementation (Chromium) is surely a net negative for free standards supporters?

It's the status quo, but with a brighter outlook then before.

I don't understand this position. Dropping H.264 is aligned with the FSF's goals, so of course they should support it.

To me, Google's move is an indication that Google will eventually drop and/or downgrade Flash support.

You encourage institutions to do the right thing by applauding when they do the right thing. Not by saying "you suck because you didn't take it far enough". You say "Good move doing X. And when you do Y you'll be doubly awesome."

I fail to see how this move is good for end users.

By any chance, did you read the actual article?

Yes I did. Did you?

Of course. I'll even quote the article:

> H.264 is a patent-encumbered codec; the MPEG LA organization requires developers who implement it to agree to a patent license. This license is fundamentally incompatible with software freedom. It requires developers to restrict how their software can be used, and to collect royalties in many situations.

While the wording is not perfect, this is actually about end user freedoms and convenience. There's the same situation is with parts of ffmpeg/libavformat or libmad - you just can't ship and use them completely legally. This is why "restricted formats" notion appeared, and why Ubuntu started shipping Fluendo's non-free encoder binary (http://www.fluendo.com/shop/product/fluendo-mp3-decoder/, previous-to-last paragraph).

It was always a problem (albeit, nowadays, minor one) to use proprietary codecs on GNU/Linux systems. Problem not on developers' side, but the for the actual end users. Killing H.264, thus actively encouraging WebM support helps WebM to win the formats battle. In a short term, both end users and developers will experience compatibility problems, but in the end - if WebM will win - both end users and developers will benefit.

And please remember that we have Firefox, which - due to various FLOSS reasons - just won't support H.264 anyway.

The FSF has always been about the long term. This move is actually much less short-term user-hostile than many of their other moves.

I don't have the problem with FSF's long term. I have a huge problem with their vision of that long term. It looks miopic, if you ask me.

In long term, H.264 patent will expire.

This is going to sound somewhat trollish, unfortunately, but it's difficult for me to resolve the sheer cognitive dissonance in these complaints with anything other than either fanboyism or myopia.

Google may eventually drop Adobe Flash if it becomes obsolete, but there is no reason to do it out of spite. Plugins are a part of the web and are in line with Google's culture of extensibility. See also vendor modifications to Android OS. If anything Google will open up plugin autoupdates to more plugin vendors.

Google may eventually stop bundling Adobe Flash if it becomes obsolete, but there is no reason to do it out of spite. Plugins are a part of the web and are in line with Google's culture of extensibility. See also vendor modifications to Android OS. If anything Google will open up plugin autoupdates to more plugin vendors.

For the FSF, the medium-term risk of not eradicating Flash as quickly as possible is well worth the rare chance to achieve the only desirable outcome for open source in the long term: having the world's video encoded with a free standard.

After all, not needing a Flash wrapper is a hollow victory if your open source player can't legally decode the content. The content standard is the major battle. If that is won, getting rid of the Flash video wrapper is a trivial effort in comparison.

The scenario that everyone will just continue to use Flash with H.264 is assured only if nothing else changes. But Flash adopting WebM will change the support numbers dramatically, and being the odd ones out in not supporting WebM is the only way that Apple and MS would feel any pressure to follow suit.

What makes you think the world (outside HN) cares about the openness of video player they use?

I'll throw that back at you. What makes you think I think that, or that it somehow affects what I said?

Regular people don't care, nor do they need to. Browser makers (Apple, Google, Mozilla) and content publishers (YouTube, BBC) care intensely, and are driving the entire controversy. All have a significant financial stake. Sufficiently large content publishers like Google/YouTube and the BBC have been motivated enough to invest heavily in open source codecs themselves. Supporters and detractors of Flash are fanning the flames.

Google owns WebM. Just something to consider.

Google bought it in order to irrevocably release it as a free standard, and now it's baked into hardware where they can't change it further. That's less of a good way to exercise control over the video standard at everyone else's expense while reaping profit from them, and more of a good way to prevent anyone else from doing so. Are you suggesting something else?

I don't buy the argument that it strengthens Flash. Flash and H.264 are both 90% YouTube, e.g. Google.

Google can, therefore, flip a switch and turn everything to WebM. They just need broad support in place first.

If Google says they will switch YouTube to WebM gradually, then all the browsers and devices will need to support it. End of story.

Care to elaborate, how do I solder that WebM chip into my iPhone 4?

At least it's possible to get a software update to the Youtube player on your iPhone. It's not like, say, changing a battery.

Graphics chips with built-in WebM support are slated to ship this quarter. It's not hard to imagine that the 2012 iPhone hardware will get this ability for free, even if it's only a side effect of using the same graphics chips as Android devices.

Then it's just up to Apple whether to turn it on. Google appears to be laying the groundwork it can now so that the answer is more likely to be yes.

This will take a few years to play out.

You did not answer my question.

I hope I can be forgiven for interpreting what you said as a statement, instead of as a true how-to question. My statement in reply was that this will take a few years to play out.

Chrome's support doesn't make an immediate difference to you or to content publishers. Firefox doesn't support H.264 <video> either and has larger market share. So rest assured that no soldering gun is suddenly needed, and you can continue to use H.264 on your iPhone 4.

Google's groundwork is supposed to come to fruition years from now, when you find an iPhone 5 or 6 already in your pocket.

> Chrome's support doesn't make an immediate difference to > you or to content publishers.

True. But FSF calls to abandon support or h.264 altogether. I don't see how that helps me.

The FSF is calling for a strategic direction that helps their ultimate goals, which you may respect and share. But if you slavishly followed their edicts, you wouldn't have an iPhone in the first place.

You:

a) may be able to persuade your vendor (Apple) to support webm in your device,

b) for the time being, you are going to watch low-resolution, low-bitrate version of youtube. All higher quality streams will be webm and you can return to point a).

Any further questions?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com