| |||||||||||||
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog)More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog)Posted Jan 15, 2011 2:48 UTC (Sat) by elanthis (guest, #6227)Parent article: More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog)
Wow, there's a lot of vitriolic people posting comments on that page.
My favorite argument is how people think removing .h264 in Chrome actually means anything significant in the web video standards scene. Firefox and Opera already lack .h264 support, and Firefox is more widely used than all the other non-IE browsers combined.
Silly whiners.
(Log in to post comments)
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) Posted Jan 15, 2011 3:27 UTC (Sat) by Kit (guest, #55925) [Link]
Firefox likely has more market share than all H264 enabled browsers _combined_ (Chrome likely being at least half of all H264 browsers, since Safari has about half the market share, and only IE9 beta in the IE family supports it).
IIRC, wasn't the original draft leaning towards/specifying Theora, but Apple and Nokia (possibly others as well) didn't like that plan due to claims of "possible patents"?
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) Posted Jan 15, 2011 3:33 UTC (Sat) by wblew (subscriber, #39088) [Link]
However, Apple also cited a lack of hardware decoder support for Theora.
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) Posted Jan 15, 2011 16:33 UTC (Sat) by hitmark (guest, #34609) [Link]
a claim that is basically wrong as long as one go for a programmable DSP or GPU based acceleration.
Still, Apple actually managed to talk Youtube/Google into reencoding all the videos for H264 back in the day for use via mobile app. Also, Apple is a member of the MPEG-LA group (i think they provided some container format patents).
Nokia was the real surprise, and their letter looked like it was written by someone with a poor grasp of english.
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) Posted Jan 16, 2011 22:06 UTC (Sun) by elanthis (guest, #6227) [Link]
It's not "basically wrong" unless you want to argue meaningless semantics.
If you're going to argue that a DSP or GPU based acceleration counts as hardware decoding, then why doesn't CPU based acceleration count as hardware decoding? They're all high-speed general-ish purpose processors with programmable behavior, after all.
The hardware decoding that Apple and others referred to literally means dedicated circuits that decode the video with very, very high efficiency. Significantly higher efficiency than the CPU, DSP, GPU, or any other general-purpose programmable circuitry can do. Multiple streams in 1080p at 30-60 hz with power draw in the mW range for some of the better devices, for instance.
Google has released completely free hardware designs for VP8 decoding, which will be found in some chips this quarter. It's likely that the batch of Android phones coming out by this summer or at least by next Christmas will all feature hardware-accelerated VP8 decoding. Without this support, VP8 is a no-go for serious use on mobile devices. With this support, Apple's and others' arguments go out the window.
Also keep in mind that Apple and other phone manufacturers desire hardware encoding too. Think of Apple's FaceTime (and any other video chatting feature, or video capture support in phone cameras). That requires a high-speed, high-quality, energy-efficient encoder to transmit the "Retina Display" quality video at acceptable framerates without draining the battery dry in 10 minutes. Video encoding is significantly more expensive than decoding.
Google is still working on its hardware encoding design, but it will be published royalty-free as well once done (probably very soon). We may see that in device by the end of this year.
For all the political maneuvering arguments the .h264 proponents make, the real question will be whether Apple incorporates that VP8 hardware into its next batch of A4 chipsets. The Android and even Windows 7 Phone handsets are all using off the shelf chipsets from companies like Qualcomm, but Apple got into the in-house chip design business. They may stonewall VP8 support in iOS devices. The question then will be how much people care given what will likely be overwhelming popularity of the VP8-enabled mobile devices running Android, WP7, etc. (based on the existing sales figures of Android devices vs iOS devices).
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) Posted Jan 18, 2011 22:29 UTC (Tue) by daniel (subscriber, #3181) [Link]
"Google has released completely free hardware designs for VP8 decoding, which will be found in some chips this quarter."
Wow and in contrast to my comments about ChromeOS I find the whole VP8 effort brilliantly conceived and executed from beginning to end. I just want to give a big shoutout here about that.
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) Posted Jan 17, 2011 9:24 UTC (Mon) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
> Also, Apple is a member of the MPEG-LA group
More precisely, they are a licensor in the AVC/H.264 patent pool, see
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensors.aspx
> (i think they provided some container format patents).
Incorrect, see
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/PatentList....
Contrary to a statement that often gets repeated around here there are no meaningful patents on container formats.
mostly iOS users misdirecting their anger Posted Jan 15, 2011 11:53 UTC (Sat) by alex (subscriber, #1355) [Link]
It seems to be mainly iOS users complaining that no-one is going to want to encode for multiple formats. That is a problem with the lack of flexibility of those platforms. I'm sure I'll be able to play the full range of codecs on my open source based systems (putting aside the licensing issue).
Their anger is misdirected at Google when it should be at the lack support their platform has for other codecs.
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) Posted Jan 15, 2011 13:30 UTC (Sat) by GhePeU (subscriber, #56133) [Link]
The numbers of "I'm going back to Safari" tells all about who's complaining. Apple fanbois should be forced to use a tag everywhere, so we could easily filter them out and improve the general SNR.
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) Posted Jan 15, 2011 16:37 UTC (Sat) by hitmark (guest, #34609) [Link]
Not just fanbois, media workers as well. Outside of USA, the major use of Apple hardware is in the media professions. This is partially why Apple products show up in various movies, ads and tv shows, because that is what they have on hand in the studio at the time.
And digital broadcasting have basically hitched their wagon on H264.
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) Posted Jan 15, 2011 17:51 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
> And digital broadcasting have basically hitched their wagon on H264.
Well that's the point of MPEG right?
MPEG = "Moving Picture Experts Group". They are the standards group for helping to ensure interoperability in media processing and delivery technologies. Unfortunately they are also a front group for a corporate cabal designed to use USA government laws and enforcement to protect their control of the industry and extract licensing fees from anybody that matters.
If it wasn't for the patents then groups like MPEG-LA would be entirely good things as they would provide a important service. The standardization around H.264 would reap tremendous benefits for everybody, big and small.
It's one of the challenges with this sort of thing. People in the industry may have a hard time understanding why something that should be so good is so bad.
So they automatically assume that it has something to do with some sort of irrational 'Open Source Ideology'. From our point of view it's seems self-evident that a encumbered media codec is a bad thing as we have been running into issues with other formats for so long and bumping against the legal limitations is nothing new.
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) Posted Jan 15, 2011 21:03 UTC (Sat) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link]
MPEG-LA has nothing to do with the standardization itself, it is ONLY there to extract licensing fees.
MPEG-LA is a set of patent pools (and not limited to video anymore, it is more or less every field). Without the patents, it would not exist.
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) Posted Jan 16, 2011 7:41 UTC (Sun) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Sorry. I guess I got MPEG-LA and MPEG mixed up.
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) Posted Jan 17, 2011 1:51 UTC (Mon) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
Even better, nothing should make you believe that MPEG-LA has rights for all the patents you need. It is entirely possible that you could implement whatever codec, having purchased a suitable license from the MPEG LA and then some lawyer you've never heard of sends you a letter insisting you immediately pay back royalties on every unit shipped to his firm, or else they'll see you in court.
This isn't just a fairy tale, it happens, and it will probably continue to happen so long as software patents (and perhaps patents generally) exist. When it trips up the Microsofts of this world they just pay up and move on, but if you're a start up you will probably go out of business.
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) Posted Jan 17, 2011 14:26 UTC (Mon) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link]
Exactly. There's much misinformation being spread about unencumbered codecs along the lines of "Well, just because we can't find patent infringement doesn't mean there isn't any."
The same argument is true of encumbered codecs after you've 'licensed' them.
Apple appears in movies because it is what the professionals have at hand? Posted Jan 17, 2011 0:51 UTC (Mon) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Oh, come on. To get your product/logo to show up in a movie/TV show/book does cost real money, it's not that they use as prop the first thing they have on hand. If you are spending a few million dollars on your cast, you won't skimp on random props...
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) Posted Jan 17, 2011 16:55 UTC (Mon) by jmm82 (guest, #59425) [Link]
"Not just fanbois, media workers as well. Outside of USA, the major use of Apple hardware is in the media professions. This is partially why Apple products show up in various movies, ads and tv shows, because that is what they have on hand in the studio at the time."
Or maybe they just have aesthetically more pleasing case designs;)
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) Posted Jan 17, 2011 23:12 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
No.
Apple literally sends hardware to TV studios and movies so that it gets used. It's easier for the studios to use Apple products since they don't actually have to go to the store and buy it, as well as they are happy to get free stuff.
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) Posted Jan 17, 2011 23:45 UTC (Mon) by jmm82 (guest, #59425) [Link]
OK... I know Apple is not buddies on the patent front and their App Store is not GPL friendly, but I am sure movie studios can get any computer for free if they say it will be featured in the movie.
Apple does some stuff good and their products are nicely designed from a visual prospective. The HP Envy is one of the few computers not made by Apple which has a nice design and I sometimes see that computer in ads and movies, also.
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) Posted Jan 16, 2011 11:57 UTC (Sun) by cesarb (subscriber, #6266) [Link]
Firefox also lacks WebM support (a beta release does not count).
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) Posted Jan 16, 2011 23:00 UTC (Sun) by oblio (guest, #33465) [Link]
It's incredibly funny that 99% of the comments complaining against this decision are something like this:
"I will switch to Safari." "Drags Chrome to Trash. Empties trash." "Back to Safari."
Basically, only Mac users :))
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) Posted Jan 17, 2011 19:02 UTC (Mon) by hitmark (guest, #34609) [Link]
checking out movie trailers on the apple trailers page most likely...
|
|||||||||||||