Weekly Edition
Return to the Development page
| |||||||||||||
Chrome losing H.264 support
Google's Chromium Blog describes
some video codec changes in the Chrome browser. "To that end, we
are changing Chrome's HTML5 <video> support to make it consistent with the
codecs already supported by the open Chromium project. Specifically, we are
supporting the WebM (VP8) and Theora video codecs, and will consider adding
support for other high-quality open codecs in the future. Though H.264
plays an important role in video, as our goal is to enable open innovation,
support for the codec will be removed and our resources directed towards
completely open codec technologies."
(Log in to post comments)
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 11, 2011 21:35 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Cool.
All we need to do now is get Microsoft on board with WebM and then it will be world vs Apple.
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 11, 2011 22:47 UTC (Tue) by paragw (subscriber, #45306) [Link]
If Chrome or FF installers on Windows installed WebM codec which can be used by IE9, that problem will be solved without involving Microsoft! (Well for the most part - some IE6 class users are still not going to have Chrome or FF installed on their machines - for them Flash will do.)
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 12, 2011 1:06 UTC (Wed) by jamesh (guest, #1159) [Link]
I doubt either of Google or Mozilla would be willing to do that. If there was a security bug in the codec, it would essentially mean that installing Firefox or Chrome had made IE less secure. That isn't the kind of publicity either group would want.
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 12, 2011 7:07 UTC (Wed) by gmaxwell (subscriber, #30048) [Link]
I believe that Mozilla discussed bundling XiphQT, which gives safari Theora support, on mac and decided not to do this because it smelled a little too much like evil cramware.
That isn't to say that they may not make a different decision later for one, the webm Media foundations codec will probably be much higher quality than XiphQT (which, sadly, suffers from a near complete lack of interested and able developers). But I think it's a bit suggestive.
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 11, 2011 21:37 UTC (Tue) by Adi (guest, #52678) [Link]
Yay!
With WebM supported by Mozilla, Chrome & Youtube, and h.264 supported only by not_yet_released IE9 I think it's very likely that open source will win this battle.
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 11, 2011 21:54 UTC (Tue) by liljencrantz (subscriber, #28458) [Link]
Don't forget about the h264-only Safari. Safari Mobile really dominates the Smartphone/Tablet market, which is rapidly expanding.
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 11, 2011 22:41 UTC (Tue) by Adi (guest, #52678) [Link]
And what about Opera (Mobile)?
But, having read a few comments under the original blog post, it feels that majority of people isn't very happy with this decision.
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 11, 2011 22:47 UTC (Tue) by ochagenes (guest, #69235) [Link]
Opera is on the WebM side. At least on the desktop.
http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/opera-supports-webm-vi...
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 11, 2011 23:06 UTC (Tue) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link]
The majority of people are completely oblivious.
The majority of commenters at Google's blog don't like it. Big difference.
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 11, 2011 22:47 UTC (Tue) by Halmonster (guest, #4537) [Link]
Android now has a larger market share than iOS. http://goo.gl/0Hkhx This is not merely monthly sales, where Android has dominated for quite a few months, but in absolute terms.
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 12, 2011 14:17 UTC (Wed) by daniels (subscriber, #16193) [Link] Android now has a larger market share than iOS. http://goo.gl/0Hkhx This is not merely monthly sales, where Android has dominated for quite a few months, but in absolute terms.This is only true in the United States, which has massively distorted marketshare figures compared to the rest of the planet - witness Nokia's historic >40% global marketshare, versus <10% in the US. Also the iPhone/AT&T tie-up seems to be a massive issue (and fair enough - its network is a disgrace) in the US, which is non-existent for the rest of the planet.
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 12, 2011 4:36 UTC (Wed) by SEJeff (subscriber, #51588) [Link]
Funny, the latest trends about android seem to be saying the opposite. Android uses mobile chrome, which like safaris is webkit based.
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 12, 2011 8:34 UTC (Wed) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link]
Errrr, no. Unless you define smartphone/tablet market as iPhone/iPad.
- While this may be equivalent for the tablet market, it is most definitely not for the smartphone market.
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 12, 2011 8:49 UTC (Wed) by lab (subscriber, #51153) [Link] Well, as I understand it, Google pushed WebM out in Android 2.3/Gingerbread, and Android is becoming pretty dominant, so....
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 13, 2011 21:54 UTC (Thu) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link]
Most devices don't run Android 2.3 though, and many of them won't be upgraded.
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 13, 2011 23:07 UTC (Thu) by lab (subscriber, #51153) [Link] I would gestimate that most of the popular and widespread devices will be updated, and that in a year from now, Android 2.3/Gingerbread could easily be the dominant version. Check out the platform versions chart: http://developer.android.com/resources/dashboard/platform-versions.html I would say that the trend from manufacturers is, that the few really popular models, which account for the bulk of the userbase, does get updated to newer versions, if at all possible. There are exceptions of course.
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 13, 2011 9:45 UTC (Thu) by job (guest, #670) [Link]
Safari Mobile on the Apple portable devices plays only a dumbed down H.264 ("baseline"). I believe the older devices only plays a specific resolution or at least does not scale well. So you need to encode a separate stream for them anyway unless you want to serve your desktop browser clients the same quality.
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 13, 2011 17:24 UTC (Thu) by smokeing (guest, #53685) [Link]
For completeness' sake:
Gentoo ~amd64, midori-0.2.9 using WebKitGTK+ 1.2.5. Just tried a random video on youtube with html5 enabled, and got it playing back nicely (without Flash! Cool!). Downloaded the file, looked into its properties, found it encoded in H264 inside MP4.
Looks like Google is going to hack H264 support out of Chromium ('s own version of Webkit), no?
Wrong. Posted Jan 11, 2011 21:42 UTC (Tue) by mosfet (guest, #45339) [Link]
The headline is false. Chrome still supports h.264 through the bundled flash player.
It is also hilarious that Google talks about promoting "open web standards" while bundling flash.
A good day for Adobe.
Wrong. Posted Jan 11, 2011 21:57 UTC (Tue) by liljencrantz (subscriber, #28458) [Link]
Maybe I'm just over optimistic, but I feel the writing's on the wall for Flash. Google bundling flash, to me, seems like them carefully picking the battles that are worth fighting. By simply making a great browser, Google is slowly choking Flash to death, but h264 is still a viable long term threat to the open web, and hence to Google.
That's how I'd reason in their shoes.
Wrong. Posted Jan 12, 2011 10:21 UTC (Wed) by tajyrink (subscriber, #2750) [Link]
Note that Flash specifications are nowadays free to use, and one can do a non-patent encumbered Flash player implementation (albeit of course without h.264 video support). So Flash itself is more free than h.264, even though the only really working implementation is currently proprietary.
Wrong. Posted Jan 13, 2011 21:56 UTC (Thu) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link]
> Note that Flash specifications are nowadays free to use, and one can do a non-patent encumbered Flash player implementation
Why? Just because they document the format doesn't mean they don't hold patents about it.
Wrong. Posted Jan 11, 2011 23:00 UTC (Tue) by AlexHudson (guest, #41828) [Link]
So if someone links to a H264 video using HTML 5's <video> tags, it opens a Flash player and plays it?
Wrong. Posted Jan 12, 2011 17:00 UTC (Wed) by cowsandmilk (guest, #55475) [Link]
chrome doesn't do that, but most people using the video tag on their pages do that... see http://diveintohtml5.org/detect.html#video-formats for instance, and realize that many sites currently just encode h.264, so they're saying: if (browser.supports(h.264)) { video tag to play our h.264 } else { flash player to play our h.264 }
Wrong. Posted Jan 12, 2011 6:52 UTC (Wed) by gmaxwell (subscriber, #30048) [Link]
Flash is bad for the open web, no doubt. But flash is pretty much just as important to ship regardless of what Chrome's video tag supports. The decision to include flash or not is an independent one.
Look at the comments on the chrome blog, amid a myriad clearly misguided remarks (for example, that this means people would need to encode in three formats (h264/ogg/webm) rather than two(h264/ogg)) there are quite a few people saying that they won't encode to _two_ formats. This strongly supports the argument that so long as chrome was shipping h264 their support for Theora/Webm was pointless for the purpose of getting us to a world where H.264 support isn't a requirement.
Before this it looked like we didn't even have a roadmap of getting to a web where encumbered things weren't required you could use HTML5 instead of flash but the HTML5 was saddled with H.264 just like flash. Now switching to HTML5 may take more work, but at least you'll be dropping the encumbrance. It's not complete: Apple is still the holdout and Microsoft may join them soon if they don't change their plains, but its still a big step forward.
Should they drop flash too? Absolutely. But I think it's fine for them to move incrementally, and making sure the new thing wasn't also freedom compromised is an important step. Otherwise they'd eliminate flash at great cost and disruption and we'd still be stuck with an encumbered web.
Wrong. Posted Jan 12, 2011 10:26 UTC (Wed) by AndreE (subscriber, #60148) [Link]
Its not that hilarious.
Adobe hasnt sued gnash or swfdec and they released a specification upon which lightspark was built.
Any one is free to implement flash so it is far more open than something insidious like a patented standard
Wrong. Posted Jan 12, 2011 13:37 UTC (Wed) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link]
Not true. If you re-implement certain parts, Adobe will smack you down with a DMCA violation suit.
You're Wrong. Posted Jan 13, 2011 6:56 UTC (Thu) by AndreE (subscriber, #60148) [Link]
No.
With the Open Screen Project Adobe allowed for the free implementation of Flash and Air. The only part not opened up is the Sorensen H263 codec or whatever the legacy codec used was.
Lightspark is built around the released SWF v10 specification.
You're Wrong. Posted Jan 13, 2011 10:36 UTC (Thu) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link]
Adobe I should have linked to http://www.chillingeffects.org/anticircumvention/notice.c... in my original message, where Adobe had rtmpdump removed from Sourceforge.
Be serious Posted Jan 14, 2011 3:06 UTC (Fri) by AndreE (subscriber, #60148) [Link]
You are being disingenuous.You are talking about circumventing a specific RTMP DRM/encryption scheme that is not part of the Flash specification at all. In that case I may as well cite BD+, AACS, Fairplay, and a host of other DRM containers that wrap around H264 content as counterexamples.
Adobe will not sue anyone implementing SWF specification 10. That is completely free to use. Unlike MPEG-LA who WILL sue you unless you pay license fees to use and distribute an h264 implementation.
Adobe probably will sue you for circumventing their out-of-spec DRM. Which is exactly what the MPEG-LA cronies would do if you break AACS and BD+.
Flash is FAR more free than H264.
Be serious Posted Jan 14, 2011 6:59 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
But what's the point of having a Flash implementation if you can't implement the bit that's vital to its main use?
Be serious Posted Jan 14, 2011 7:41 UTC (Fri) by AndreE (subscriber, #60148) [Link]
How is it vital?
You don't need it for youtube/dailymotion/etc, which are perhaps the most important (common) uses of flash
Have you even tried lightspark?
Be serious Posted Jan 14, 2011 9:38 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
Generally I don't need Flash *at all* for Youtube or Dailymotion, as I can use HTML video. However, Youtube allows people who put up content to enable RTMP SWF verification - and such videos will not be available via HTML video. TV stations and others often enable this. The other Flash-delivered video I'd watch would be BBC iPlayer - which again requires RTMP SWF verification.
So the only video I'd want Flash for requires SWF verification. A Flash player lacking that will not replace youtube-dl or get_iplayer for me, and I'll continue to use HTML video UI (not Flash) for remaining video. Mostly all it would add would be to make my ads more annoying.
Be serious Posted Jan 14, 2011 11:03 UTC (Fri) by AndreE (subscriber, #60148) [Link]
That's nice for you, but I think you'll find that the majority of content on Youtube is not content protected, that Youtube is still the largest online video distribution site, and that flash is still the primary distribution framework on YouTube.
The fact is that the SWF specification is fine for unencumbered content, and much more free than h264 on html5. Boycotting flash for h264/html5 is just stupidity of the highest order.
The choice to add DRM is left in the hands of the content providers. That cannot be blamed on Flash and doesn't make the SWF specification any less free or useful. In fact, if the lack of DRM support makes a libre flash implementation useless, then HTML5 may as well be considered useless right now because it has no documented DRM scheme either. That means services like Hulu will either boycott HTML5, or add their own proprietary DRM extensions. And on top of that madness MPEG-LA will be hitting up all h264 implementers and decoder providers for license fees.
H264 is not a free solution to media distribution, and Flash, despite it's flaws has a free-to-license and free-to-implement specification for it's most commonly used functionality.
Be serious Posted Jan 14, 2011 11:09 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
Again, why do I need Flash for non-protected content on Youtube, when I can just enable the HTML5 UI on Youtube and view that content without the overhead of my browser having to implement a fairly complex VM?
Again, when I want Flash video, it's cause the video is using SWF verification - which is not part of the open spec! You can argue about whose fault it is, but the practical effect is that non-Adobe Flash is *not useful*.
Be serious Posted Jan 14, 2011 10:22 UTC (Fri) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link]
I'm sorry if you disagree, but as far as this user is concerned, a Flash Player without RTMP SWF Verification is useless, because it won't work with the BBC iPlayer.
Ok, Adobe won't sue for you implementing the SWF spec--but the SWF spec alone is useless if it can't actually play the Flash movies that end users want to watch.
Analogies can be drawn to the patent traps laid by Microsoft in the form of .NET (the core VM and libraries are covered by MS' patent covenant, but not the whole thing) and their OOXML non-specification.
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 11, 2011 22:29 UTC (Tue) by DOT (subscriber, #58786) [Link]
Google, you've blown my mind! The big problem looming over HTML5 is now almost solved.
Not too fast Posted Jan 12, 2011 7:28 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] A bit exaggerated for a browser which commands at best a 15% usage share. Not the part about Google blowing our minds, but the part about "HTML5 problem solved". There is a long way to go, I suspect, but luckily a big chunk of that way lies on Google's turf: youtube.com, Google video.
Not too fast Posted Jan 12, 2011 16:18 UTC (Wed) by bjacob (subscriber, #58566) [Link]
Well, Mozilla is already in the WebGL-only camp.
Mozilla + Google together have about 40% market share globally; and in Europe that figure is above 50%.
s/WebGL/WebM/ Posted Jan 12, 2011 16:19 UTC (Wed) by bjacob (subscriber, #58566) [Link]
Sorry, I meant WebM, of course.
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 11, 2011 23:34 UTC (Tue) by spot (subscriber, #15640) [Link]
I hope that this means Google will be removing their ffmpeg fork from the chromium tree. If so, this could simplify packaging...
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 12, 2011 0:09 UTC (Wed) by endecotp (guest, #36428) [Link]
So, does this change the default answer to the question, "how should I post a video on a website so that most normal people can view it?" ?
I think the current default answers are:
Both of which are pathetic...
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 12, 2011 1:48 UTC (Wed) by nirbheek (subscriber, #54111) [Link]
The answer to that question can be found here:
http://camendesign.com/code/video_for_everybody
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 12, 2011 14:45 UTC (Wed) by endecotp (guest, #36428) [Link]
Thanks for the links, but neither works for me on either Iceweasel/Linux or Android.
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 12, 2011 17:05 UTC (Wed) by cowsandmilk (guest, #55475) [Link]
what version of iceweasel are you using?
https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Using_audio_and_video_in...
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 12, 2011 3:47 UTC (Wed) by paravoid (subscriber, #32869) [Link]
LWN had an article a few days back about ripping OOXML support in LibreOffice. People should get reminded of that and be consistent :-)
(personally, I'm more on the "freedom is about choice" side for both cases)
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 12, 2011 4:33 UTC (Wed) by tao (subscriber, #17563) [Link]
These cases are not equivalent though. Getting rid of h.264 helps remove a clear patent threat, while getting rid of ooxml is mostly about not supporting a really f'ed up format. Sure, there are most likely patent issues with ooxml too, but I don't believe that Microsoft would dare to pull the patent card, since it'd be detrimental to their position in negotiations for US government contracts.
Microsoft prefers the current situation where the free implementations always have to play catchup and never have a change to actually do, since Office doesn't really implement the standardised ooxml, but something different that they call ooxml.
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 12, 2011 13:02 UTC (Wed) by njwhite (subscriber, #51848) [Link]
Largely true, though it is worth remembering that projects (even as flourishing as LibreOffice is shaping up to be) have limited manpower, and focusing "our resources directed towards completely open codec technologies" (in the words of the blog post) is wise.
Not that I think dropping support for OOXML would be wise, or that people who devote 10 hours to improving OOXML support would necessarily redirect their energies to improving other areas of LibreOffice. But it does underscore the importance of keeping a project's focus on innovating and improving in areas where they can move forward and lead, rather than just catch up.
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 12, 2011 15:21 UTC (Wed) by hein.zelle (guest, #33324) [Link]
> Not that I think dropping support for OOXML would be wise, or that people
> who devote 10 hours to improving OOXML support would necessarily redirect > their energies to improving other areas of LibreOffice. But it does > underscore the importance of keeping a project's focus on innovating and > improving in areas where they can move forward and lead, rather than just > catch up.
Although I agree 100% with the sentiment, I think a more important point is that libreoffice probably can't afford to drop microsoft file format compatibility. If they do, the software becomes mostly useless for a VERY large group of people. Granted, as long as the older microsoft formats are common this is not much of a problem, but that will gradually change.
I don't think being portable is a bad thing, so as long as it can be done with a modest effort, I think staying compatible with ooxml is a very good thing for libreoffice.
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 12, 2011 16:56 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] I'd no longer be to use OpenOffice.org/LibreOffice at work if OOXML were ripped out, and I'm sure that the same is true of many others.
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 12, 2011 6:14 UTC (Wed) by jamesh (guest, #1159) [Link]
The two cases are not that similar. In the H.264 case, the licensing body is actively collecting royalties on decoders and has reserved the right to collect royalties from people publishing in the format over the web.
In the OOXML case, Microsoft has promised not to assert its patents against implementations of the format. Most of the arguments against OOXML seem to be rooted in objections to it being portrayed as a standard rather than concerns over whether free implementations can be distributed.
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 12, 2011 15:19 UTC (Wed) by Simetrical (guest, #53439) [Link] MPEG LA has explicitly waived the right to collect royalties from web distribution of H.264. It will not charge anything for "Internet Video that is free to end users" for the life of the relevant patents. It does still reserve the right to charge royalties (and in some cases does actively charge royalties) for encoding, decoding, non-Internet distribution, and paid Internet distribution, and possibly other stuff.
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 12, 2011 15:50 UTC (Wed) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
it's not in perpetuity (at least, I've not seen it said anywhere that it's in perpetuity) so the press release isn't worth the paper it's printed on. They can change their minds at any future time, when the threats have been hammered down.
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 12, 2011 16:05 UTC (Wed) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
http://www.0xdeadbeef.com/weblog/2010/01/html5-video-and-...
(is before that press release, but describes how it went down with mp3)
Estoppel Posted Jan 12, 2011 16:23 UTC (Wed) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
Estoppel gives you some protection. I wouldn't go starting something like Youtube (but as we see, Youtube isn't exempt anyway) but if you have an H264 video available for free download on your web site as a result of this document you can feel very safe. In court your argument would be that you relied upon this document, and the MPEG LA would have to either persuade the court that the document doesn't say what it plainly does say, or else that you were wrong to rely upon it for some specific reason.
Estoppel doesn't save you forever. But we're talking Internet time here. How long is fair warning? A company might need to re-encode all its videos, deploy new software to users around the world - I'm sure a good lawyer could buy you several years. Obviously new users would be in trouble because as soon as the MPEG LA publishes a new policy with fees the principle of estoppel only applies to those who can show they were relying on the old policy.
Estoppel Posted Jan 12, 2011 17:06 UTC (Wed) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
> In court your argument would be that you relied upon this document, and the MPEG LA would have to either persuade the court that the document doesn't say what it plainly does say, or else that you were wrong to rely upon it for some specific reason.
I don't know enough about the estoppel argument. Your argument, however, falls flat on one important point:
You have to be able to afford the lawyers for the necessary length of time and of sufficient quality to use your argument. I don't know about you, but I sure don't.
Estoppel Posted Jan 12, 2011 18:45 UTC (Wed) by Simetrical (guest, #53439) [Link]
That's orthogonal to the discussion. MPEG LA or its members could sue you for any reason or no reason at all, and if you don't have money for lawyers, they win by default. They could sue you for infringing their patents even if you've never used a computer before in your life, or the patents in question didn't actually exist, or anything -- and they'd win. Common-law courts are adversarial, and judges mostly only get to see the arguments presented by the parties. If one party presents no arguments, they lose no matter how frivolous the other party's arguments are.
Fortunately for you, if you don't have enough money to hire lawyers, you probably don't have enough money that anyone will bother suing you frivolously, because they won't be able to recoup their legal costs. At most, they'll threaten to sue and settle for a few thousand bucks, RIAA-style. In which case it never gets to court, so again, the law doesn't matter.
Any way you slice it, if you can't afford lawyers, the law makes no difference to you either way: you lose. We're only talking about big players who would plausibly be sued, and who could pay for lawyers. That's when the law matters.
Estoppel Posted Jan 12, 2011 18:59 UTC (Wed) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
Fair 'nuff, but that doesn't mean I want to rely on it if I have other options. I would still rather just stream in Theora or WebM personally, then I don't have to worry about whether or not I'm extra screwed.
Estoppel Posted Jan 12, 2011 19:01 UTC (Wed) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
the point is, even if you stream in Theora or WebM, the same people could sue you for infringing on your patents.
it could be argued that if they feel threatened by the formats, they are more likely to sue you if you use the open formats than if you use their format.
Estoppel Posted Jan 12, 2011 19:08 UTC (Wed) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
Of course. If I'm doing nothing video-related they could still sue me. Hooray courts!
You could argue that they're going to target Theora/WebM users. It could be argued that they're more likely to sue if you're using their formats.
Me, I'm trying to push for a Free web, so I'm trying to push for the Free formats. I'm no worse off and I could very well be better off.
Estoppel Posted Jan 12, 2011 19:31 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
If they were going to sue Theora or WebM they would be doing it now or very shortly.
If they don't do it very soon then it goes to show they are all bark and no bite.
With software it's relatively easy to avoid patents you know about. Everything the MPEG group owns and sells licensing to you they publish. Google has the money and lawyers so that they can just go and hold the patents up against WebM and checkmark 'infringe YES/NO?' off one at a time.
When you get into weird territory is when people start to optimize WebM and such. Its' hard to tell, unless Google releases more documentation, what hoops they had to jump through with WebM's code in order to avoid MPEG's patents.
The real threat is unknown patents and your just about as liable if your using MPEG vs WebM. People use the excuse that since MPEG is widely used then that major manufacturers do 'due diligence' to avoid unknown patents. But that argument falls flat on it's face in many different respects.
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 12, 2011 18:39 UTC (Wed) by Simetrical (guest, #53439) [Link] Given the press release, common law protects you via promissory estoppel and laches. These aren't as sound as an actual license, but the press release is legally meaningful for sure. Clearly, if you were big enough to risk a lawsuit you'd want to consult your lawyers (and of course IANAL), but the MPEG LA cannot freely change its mind now as you suggest.
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 12, 2011 19:02 UTC (Wed) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
Reading up on it, it seems so.
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 12, 2011 12:37 UTC (Wed) by sylware (guest, #35259) [Link]
That does concern chrome and not chromium, doesn't it?
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 12, 2011 13:41 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Chromium never had H.264 support to begin with.
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 17, 2011 14:21 UTC (Mon) by sylware (guest, #35259) [Link]
Well, I have been using chromium with h264 for months. So, chromium delegates its codec detection cleanly to ffmpeg?
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 17, 2011 16:35 UTC (Mon) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Chromium upstream bundles ffmpeg with h.264 support stripped although distributions might be patching it to use a system wide ffmpeg instead.
Chrome losing H.264 support Posted Jan 12, 2011 23:17 UTC (Wed) by kenmoffat (subscriber, #4807) [Link]
If this were slashdot, I would say "I , for one, welcome our libre overlords". But it isn't, so I'll just say that it's good to see google doing the right thing (unlike the more general case where they include their own forks of everything).
One day, perhaps, we (perhaps excluding Linus ;) will all be rid of proprietary aberrations.
ken
|
|||||||||||||