grmbl

Hopefully Dirac will be in a good state when we hit 2016.
Would really want to see that, because it has wavelets.
Could boost quality/bitrate-efficiency drastically.
About the worries about Theora quality, compare it with mpeg and mpeg2 which are used fairly heavily today. The quality of Theora is better compared to these. So it seems Theora is a step forward if you want to have a baseline support. And audio compression format vorbis is superior to MP3 in bitrate-comparison.
Practically for watching video's Theora and h264 are about equal and don't have a large quality gap anymore. Using Theora is perfectly possible.
Now if Google would allow using the original video for streaming if it's in Ogg Theora.
It wouldn't cost them anything in terms of efficiency or other such parameters because they don't have to transcode it.
(Google just has a really big video archive to Transcode if they want to support another codec/format.)
About streaming: OGG container used is build and took into account the notion of STREAMING from the beginning.
Theora (libtheora) is also build to take into account the notion of streaming.

It's a lesser known fact that the MP4-container is not as good for that purposes. We have a better open source container named mkv. (it's goal is to include any codec combination technically possible) Maybe that should be specified as the container format.

The only reason because the MPEG LA extends the deadline is because they saw it wasn't possible yet to go for the money. To be sure and to not having a bad name they extended it.
Come on people, we only need to extend it to 2029 to get rid of it. That's like squeezing another 13 years out of it.

The nice thing about the current HTML standard is that you can get the freely available specs and from them write your own browser from scratch. In doing this you don't have to pay anyone royalties, you don't need to iron out any legal agreements with anyone else. As a result we have web sites that will allow quite sophisticated programs to run on any hardware, any operating system, any environment, any location. It would be wonderful if we could deliver video this way as well. No legal encumbrances at either end. Will work on any hardware. I don't have to worry what codecs, plug-ins or anything else are installed. Perhaps this isn't the most delux video, but for most purposes is just fine. To me this shouldn't be so hard, just need to keep a number of greedy corporations from messing things up.

Open standards? So HTML5 allows for codec browser standardization. Technology changes along with codec algorithms. Do we have to update our browsers to support new and improved open source codec or just the codec? If the codec is built into the browser then we are held hostage to a technology that can only be updated with the browser? We will want to use plugins because intelligent people are always thinking of new ideas to improve the "internet browsing experience".

HTML5 has nothing to do with the codec used, they have removed any reference to any codec so that things can be updated easily. If the OS supports the codec then it will work, otherwise people can download the codec (either through the browser or the OS). That is exactly how it works now so I don't see the problem.

Oh, seeing your username I think I can see the problem, Silverlight is looking like a dead man walking.

Actually, as HTML5 video is implemented now, it's the browser that needs to support playback of the video format, not the OS. If you watch an HTML5 video in, say, Chrome, it will be Chrome doing the decoding and the rendering, not some OS system process/decoder.

Just want to make sure there's no confusion there.

"HTML5 has nothing to do with the codec used, they have removed any reference to any codec so that things can be updated easily."

Which completely negates the entire point of the HTML5 standard.

"If the OS supports the codec then it will work, otherwise people can download the codec (either through the browser or the OS). That is exactly how it works now so I don't see the problem."

Fixing "Exactly how it works now" is the entire point behind the HTML5 spec. How it works now isn't good enough. It requires 3rd party plug-ins, extensions...and cost. There's no logical need or reason for that. HTML5's goal is to provide 100% functionality and be 100% compatible with all browsers that adhere to the standard.

By dropping the codec bit, they've ruled out 100% in-browser compatibility for any FOSS browser that restricts the use of codecs such as H.264, effectively negating the entire reason behind HTML5...making itself a joke of what it was originally intended to be.

"Oh, seeing your username I think I can see the problem, Silverlight is looking like a dead man walking."

Nice troll.

Your correct billybob HTML5 is alive and well. I always admire the coding hacks and poorly formatted scripting garbage on websites. I admire companies like Microsoft and Adobe that bring forth technologies like Silverlight and Flash, with their imperfections, which provide a richer user experience and a consistant manageable programming model. The two factors that will determine success with internet technology is cost and end user experience. Silverlight provides a very compelling alternative.

@Prospero424 - But if I am correct, QuickTime on Mac and DirectShow on Windows are responsible for video playback? The iPhone just dumps the video URL into the QuickTime player so I know that is a feature of the OS not the browser. Couldn't Firefox be written to just launch the video in an external player instead of trying to embed it?

The choice of codec is something that all the major players have to agree on first, that is why the standards writers are not concerned with the codec used. Just as the IMG did not specify that images had to be JPEG or GIF, the HTML5 spec will not specify which codecs a browser can support.

It is likely that there will be a base requirement but that does not really prevent any of the problems you describe, Microsoft can still make IE support WMV and then stream all their videos using it.

On the point of plugins, I do not think they are necessarily bad. Flash is bad because it is closed, slow and insecure. Plugins can be installed on demand so as long as we are not restricted to Flash I do not see the problem. My Linux box could use MPlayer to decode the video using a plugin whereas the iPhone can use QuickTime, the plugin does not have to be slow and closed just to add extra functionality.

@PC_Tool - Is troll a synonym for 'someone you do not agree with'? Nobody had even mentioned Silverlight before I did, that just shows how irrelevant it is WRT online video.

"@Prospero424 - But if I am correct, QuickTime on Mac and DirectShow on Windows are responsible for video playback?"

Incorrect. It's all handled within the browser. Fire up a decent process manager and see for yourself.

"Couldn't Firefox be written to just launch the video in an external player instead of trying to embed it?"

Sure, but again: it would defeat the purpose of having HTML 5 video standard if you needed third-party software to play video. Also, imagine the constellation of browser-OS-codec combinations this would result in and the innumerable bugs that would pop up.

If you're going to implement a video format in the browser through third-party software, it would have to be distributed and maintained by a central authority like Flash Player browser plugins are by Sun. I suggested CoreCodec above because they've proven to be really competent with the AVC format, in dealing with multiple platforms, in supporting a variety of hardware for decoding, and because their software decoder is widely recognized to be the most efficient out there. Only problem is that it's not free. The MPEG LA would have to pay them to develop this theoretical (and necessarily free-of-cost) third-party software as an investment in promoting the adoption of their proprietary format.

Basically, if h.264 can't be included in free, open-source browsers for licensing reasons, I see that as the best remaining solution.

"Nobody had even mentioned Silverlight before I did, that just shows how irrelevant it is WRT online video."

If it is so irrelevant, why the need to bring it up?

Oh, right...you wanted to, so you could bash it again and use it to insult the previous poster. It has nothing to do with whether or not anyone agrees with you.

I was pointing out the bias of the poster.

@Prospero424 - "Sure, but again: it would defeat the purpose of having HTML 5 video standard if you needed third-party software to play video."

Not at all, the standard as it is says explicitly that this can happen.

http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/video.html#video

"User agents that cannot render the video may instead make the element represent a link to an external video playback utility or to the video data itself."

"I was pointing out the bias of the poster."

Because if someone actually likes Silverlight, their opinion is obviously worthless, right?

"I think I can see the problem"...

Yeah, I think I can. Can you?

"Not at all, the standard as it is says explicitly that this can happen."

Only because they couldn't reach an agreement. They couldn't well leave the entire video portion of the spec out, could they? Again, the intent was to make it so such was *not* required if *any* browser.

No the intention is that if the browser cannot play video (or does not want to) then it can hand it off to another program. Show me anything which says the intention of HTML5 video is to make sure browsers do not need plugins.

The removal of the codecs from the spec was because they could not agree. The sentence I quoted is nothing to do with codecs.

"Again, the intent was to make it so such was *not* required if *any* browser"

You need to try again.

It still has the tag which is useful for determining the place where the video is supposed to be shown.
Native or with plugins, this is still a (very small I admit) net win.
Wtf!?! Silverlight, slay that Microsoftie and improson him in hell!
(min a 1000 years for silvers*** alone)

That's because mobile phones need hardware-acceleration for decoding.

I second PC-Tool!

I don't know, maybe the tags?

Hell, if the MPEG LA is truly interested in allowing free use of h.264 on the web, they should just contract CoreCodec (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoreAVC) to create FREE browser plugins/extensions for Firefox and other browsers allowing h.264 playback through HTML5 video. That's (third-party plugins) basically how Flash video is implemented. I doubt Mozilla would lift a finger to stop that, and it avoids the issue of fragmentation; anyone could just get the plugin straight from the source for free.

Then Google and others should adopt Theora in the HTML5 standard as an unencumbered fallback. Everyone's happy!

Unless there's some technical hurdle to this I'm not seeing...

I don't care how they work out the terms as long as the internet finally has a Real and viable alternative to awful Flash. I think HTML 5 rocks. I wish all videos on YouTube and Vimeo were 100% compatible with it.

No, Mozilla wouldn't lift a finger to stop that, but you're missing the point of HTML5 by suggesting that.

HTML5 is trying to avoid using plug-ins *AT ALL* for video on the web.
They're hoping to settle on a decoder that is free from patents/royalties/etc that is included *native* in the browser.

Having it as an extension or plugin would render it just as useless as Flash in that it depends on people downloading the codec themselves rather than it being already present.

Theora, going by what the H.264 licensing body have just said, is likely to be the only option now. However, there is still a grey area surrounding that as has been touched on in the comments below. Nobody's completely sure if Google have fully acquired Theora or whatever the hell is going on there yet.

"HTML 5 rocks" "and viable alternative to awful Flash"

In concept, yes, but what codec have you used that makes you think it is better? The base codec is going to be the crux of the issue and as long as we continue down the road of using H.264 and bowing to the MPEG licensing nightmare.

Microsoft even finds the MPEG4 licensing insane, and is why they abandoned it years ago, and that is saying something. Apple and Google can 'afford' the licensing and are using it to corner content distribution. Let alone H.264 isn't even the 'best' solution out there with things like VC1 qnd even several full OSS solutions having more features and better quality.

Even Google can't make a Linux Chrome browser that supports H.264 with their 'idea' of HTML5 because of the licesning.

BTW Flash has moved to H.264 and is at the heart of the movement to H.264 because of its native support for it and the older Flash codec that is related. If it weren't for the YouTube and other Flash 'video' movement, we wouldn't be held up on HTML5 and hostage to the H.264 codec that Google and Apple want to be the standard for HTML5.

I suggest that HTML5 slightly fragments to allow for 2 or 3 standard codecs, with both VC1 and a good OSS solution offered as viable options. This would bring the web and HTML5 in line with the HD standards of BluRay as well. Also when users can't view content because of the H.264 restrictions, people will get POed and demand it not be used because they can't access the content.

People need to speak with their usage and voices to get this halted.

" Even Google can't make a Linux Chrome browser that supports H.264 with their 'idea' of HTML5 because of the licesning."

That is really strange because I have Google Chrome running here on Linux and I can use the HTML5 in YouTube without a problem. In fact it runs much better than the Flash player.

H.264 is only a stopgap until Google can release their free codec.

Thank you, Paul.

At least I know I'm not the only one here who gets it. :)

"...but you're missing the point of HTML5 by suggesting that.

HTML5 is trying to avoid using plug-ins *AT ALL* for video on the web.
They're hoping to settle on a decoder that is free from patents/royalties/etc that is included *native* in the browser."

No, I get that. But that's clearly not going to be h.264. Mozilla basically CAN'T implement h.264 in their browser without sabotaging their entire FOSS-based community and nobody else can implement it in FOSS browsers for Posix-like operating systems. So the only way for the MPEG LA to get their codec being used on all platforms is to do as I described above: release browser support under a third-party entity.

As I see it, there are two concrete problems:

1. h.264/AVC will only gain popularity among video delivery services in the near future, and it is, technically, the best solution for video delivery right now. Every major browser will eventually need to support direct playback of the format. It's not going away no matter how many FOSS zealots would like it to.

2. The need for an unencumbered format that can be freely implemented in FOSS software and be part of a TRULY open HTML standard isn't going away, either. Every major browser project (including Chrome and Chromium) that intends to support Linux and BSD will need to support this format as well. And even if that format isn't Theora (as others here have suggested), it simply cannot be h.264.

Adding browser support for direct h.264 playback through third-party software while adopting an open format for HTML5 video is really the only solution that makes any sense if you accept these two realities.

"HTML5 is trying to avoid using plug-ins *AT ALL* for video on the web."

I think you are confusing the standard from the people behind the major browsers (who are the people behind the standard). The standard is neutral when it comes to how things are actually rendered.

What the standard does do is provide a common tag to identify a video (over just using the generic object tag) and provide an API to control it. It does not say anything about whether a plugin should actually do the nuts-and-bolts rendering and decoding.

"Adding browser support for direct h.264 playback through third-party software while adopting an open format for HTML5 video is really the only solution that makes any sense if you accept these two realities."

I agree 100%.

"The standard is neutral when it comes to how things are actually rendered."

Only because the standards body couldn't agree and wasted *months* trying to come to an agreement on it. Google it. Hell, even search BN...there were several articles on this specifically.

The intent was to name a specific, free, unencumbered codec to guarantee a level playing-field for all players.

The standard is neutral, it allows any format that the server and client agree on. If it specified that only VP8 could be used then we would have a hard time moving to something better.

As it stands the standard allows any codec that the server and client can agree on. Just because we want one that everyone can agree on, it does not mean that it is the intention of the standard.

I think this is the intention of the standard authors, lots of other tags leave it to the implementers to deal with the actual rendering. The standard may give guidance but it is never marked with a MUST.

The IMG tag has never specified which format the browser MUST render.

"This specification does not specify which image types are to be supported."

http://www.w3.org/TR/htm...cs.html#the-img-element

"Just because we want one that everyone can agree on, it does not mean that it is the intention of the standard."

*laughing*

Ok. Wow. Logic and reason...who needs 'em?

Just because the standards body wanted it that way...doesn't mean they wanted it that way. Cute. Really. Buh-bye. Have fun.

We being people, the standard being a collection of words hosted on a web page at w3.org.

Can't you understand that difference?

The standards body has nothing to do with it, it is mostly a collection of people from each browser vendor, with someone from Google having the final say.

There are certainly people both inside and outside that group that want to get rid of Flash and maybe plugins altogether, but nothing like that is codified in the standard.

Unless you can point to something which proves me wrong rather than making lame insults and laughing like a schoolboy when you don't understand?

"Unless you can point to something which proves me wrong"

I had hoped you would either have already known this, or would at least have the initiative to look it up. I can't believe I have to do this, as anyone who has even remotely followed the development of HTML5, regardless of their slant towards or away from OSS, has been aware of this from the beginning. It's amazing to me that you are here arguing about it and apparently aren't even aware of the basic concepts underlying *why* the spec is being written.

The argument, and Google's unwillingness to give in, led HTML 5 principal author Ian Hickson late last month to suspend work on the element. "I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that there is no suitable codec that all vendors are willing to implement and ship," Hickson wrote. "I have therefore removed the two subsections in the HTML 5 spec in which codecs would have been required, and have instead left the matter undefined."

Hickson would be willing to pick up the project again, he went on, if one of two situations were to play out: 1) if Ogg Theora support were to be embedded in more graphics firmware, enough for Google's position on the standard to thaw and thus support Ogg as an alternative for YouTube (although if not enough players have declared Ogg's foundation obsolete already, there certainly would be plenty by then); 2) the patent license holders for the H.264 codec were to let their claims lapse, enabling it to be supported without license fee requirements.

This is directly from a Betanews Story 6 months ago, a quote directly from principle author. It shows he is unhappy about the inability for them to reach an agreement and, what is more, clearly shows the intent was to include a specific codec to ensure future web content delivery through formats that were not restrictive.

http://www.betanews.com/...ra-in-HTML-5/1248451248

From the Wikipedia entry on HTML5:

HTML5 is the proposed next standard for HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.0 and DOM Level 2 HTML. It aims to reduce the need for proprietary plug-in-based rich internet application (RIA) technologies such as Adobe Flash, Microsoft Silverlight, and Sun JavaFX.

Pretty clear about the intent, there, don't you think? Wouldn't the wiki be one of the first places anyone looking to have some knowledge regarding the spec might look? I'm amazed I had to point it out to you....

Need more? Fire up the Google Search. It's all there. Best of luck.

"The standards body has nothing to do with it"...

Indeed... That's got to be one of the most ridiculous statements I've seen in a while.

Citing Wikipedia - I guess that means you have given up.

The place I would look is at the actual spec rather than the Wikipedia page, Wikipedia is well known for being inaccurate while the specification is definitive.

The first quotation is all about codecs, nothing else to do with the video tag, nor does it say anything about the point of HTML5 being to get rid of plugins.

The standards body is the W3C, can you tell me exactly what influence they have over the final standard?

The entire spec is here. Read it and tell me where it says that the reason for it existing is to rid the world of plugins.

http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/

The abstract says nothing about avoiding using plugins at all.

"This specification defines the 5th major revision of the core language of the World Wide Web: the Hypertext Markup Language (HTML). In this version, new features are introduced to help Web application authors, new elements are introduced based on research into prevailing authoring practices, and special attention has been given to defining clear conformance criteria for user agents in an effort to improve interoperability."

Step 1: Ask for citation.

Step 2: Ignore citation.

Step 3: ...

Well, at least you didn't start name-calling.

"Citing Wikipedia - I guess that means you have given up."

Ahh...but I have now. Why bother continuing this if any and all evidence that might convince a person is summarily ignored without even the slightest rationale?

Discussions and arguments are only fun and rewarding if the people one is having them with are at least somewhat open-minded and receptive. The above summary dismissal and admittance that only one document (obviously not containing the contention) is good enough indicates this is not such a discussion. One cannot possibly hope to advance any such argument...

Good day to you, sir.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but section 1.3 states; "The scope of this specification does not include providing mechanisms for media-specific customization of presentation (although default rendering rules for Web browsers are included at the end of this specification, and several mechanisms for hooking into CSS are provided as part of the language).".

Now, my inference of that is simply that HTML5's scope is to not have to specify or provide mechanisms for rendering media content. In my mind, that basically spells out getting rid of plug-in dependence.

@DotNet_Coder - No, it means that rendering media-specific customization is not part of HTML5 (outside its scope), not that the scope is not to have anything [external] rendering the content.

@PC_Tool - I was not ignoring your citation, I was diminishing its relevance. The claim was that the aim of HTML5 was to avoid using plugins at all, nobody can find anything which backs up that claim.

The Wikipedia only says that it aims to reduce the use not avoid them altogether, and that cannot be verified in the actual spec. The quote from Ian Huckson only related to specifying codecs, not anything to do with plugins.

In layman's terms:

H.264 is video compression and encoding STANDARD. As such, it is not proprietary, although it is patent-encumbered by a IP pool of a dozen companies. The algorithms can be had from the patent office.

Now, to licence the H.264 technology, the guys who invented it chose to impose royalties on the implementations (OMG, people want to be compensated!). The implementations can be done by ANYONE - that is actually how the royalties work. The guys who invented H.264 have no reason to limit its adoption, and to preclude anyone from implementing it. On the opposite - more adoption => more royalties.

Not only that, people in China, or other countries that have lenient interpretation of US patent laws, can just go ahead and have their own H.264 implementation without getting fined for not paying royalties, even though their software will probably be banned/otherwise limited in the US.

I just really hope this clarifies the gross misunderstanding about patents.

Okay, I'll put it this way as a last-ditch attempt to clarify my point:

ANY implementation of h.264 must be done on the terms of the patent holders. Royalties are PART of those terms. Right now, their terms as far as usage rights for h.264 are fairly lax under certain circumstances, but that does NOT make h.264 "public domain":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

which implies that a technology is unencumbered by restrictions of any sort. A technology enters the public domain ONCE THE PATENTS EXPIRE.

But this is really elementary stuff, and I'm not going to get dragged into a lengthy debate over the definitions of such basic terms.

I can't believe the low level of common knowledge here. Patented things are not proprietary, by definition. H.264 algorithms are public domain, and countries that don't acknowledge US patents technically do not even have to pay when implementing H.264.

Again, read the Wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/...cts_and_Implementations

I'm challenging Scott Fulton to name the "owner" of H.264.

The same thing is true of MPEG2, but do you remember the nightmare of getting licenses to play MPEG2 content on computers?

Sure MPEG4 has a better start, but the licensing IS STILL THERE.

As you state no body 'owns' the codecs; however, they have governing body over the 'standard', JUST LIKE MPEG2 and can and will charge licenses for usage JUST LIKE MPEG2.

The MPEG2 cost was larger than people remember and hurt the DVD adoption rates more than people realize. The MPEG2 licenses are why you had to buy DVD player software.

MPEG4 is just only collecting on the 'compressing/server' side of the technology (for now). But this doesn't make it CHEAP or FREE or OPEN, it isn't even the best quality.

MPEG4 was dying until Apple jumped in because they needed something to keep Quicktime from dying. The fees also help Apple, as it keeps small providers and 'non-corporate' people from using the technology to produce content.

Microsoft has tried to protect users somewhat by absorbing some of the licensing fees for Windows7 users that give applications some 'usage' rights to the standard, but this will not help other OSes and as Linux stands today, companys like Google can't even shove a HTML5 version of Chrome on Linux. (Because of the fees and licensing strictly conflict, even if Google wanted to pay the $$.)

"Google can't even shove a HTML5 version of Chrome on Linux"

Either prove it or stop spreading lies. HTML5 video and H.264 work fine on the Linux version of Google Chrome.

Chrome, yes. Chromium, no.

And as far as licensing is concerned, Chromium is a closer match to Firefox than Chrome is.

"One of the key objections Mozilla and its supporters have had to the use of H.264 codecs for HTML5 video -- the built-in decoding system being developed for the next edition of HTML -- is that it's proprietary technology."

Please Scott, don't post something so grotesquely misleading. It is a shame in this day and age tech reporters do not know the difference between "proprietary" and "patent-encumbered".

For the record - MPEG-4 is NOT a proprietary technology. It is an OPEN STANDARD, protected by a pool of patents between a dozen or so companies. An example of a proprietary technology is ironically Flash Video, that Mozilla had no problems supporting via Adobe-made plug-in.

Mozilla's objection is that free-software corporations cannot advance their cause if they are expected to pay for the technologies they use, even if the technologies are open standards.

I think you're confusing the .mp4 container or MPEG4-based codec technology with the h.264 codec.

h.264 is a proprietary codec.

"Mozilla's objection is that free-software corporations cannot advance their cause if they are expected to pay for the technologies they use, even if the technologies are open standards."

Not really. Their main objection is that it is, in the long term, dangerous to the concept of an "open internet" to allow a proprietary format to become a standard regardless of cost simply because it would give the owners of the rights to that format too much leverage.

Cost is actually a secondary concern.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264

"In countries where patents on software algorithms are upheld, the vendors of products which make use of H.264/AVC are expected to pay patent licensing royalties for the patented technology[6] that their products use. This applies to the Baseline Profile as well.[7] A private organization known as MPEG LA, which is not affiliated in any way with the MPEG standardization organization, administers the licenses for patents applying to this standard, as well as the patent pools for MPEG-2 Part 1 Systems, MPEG-2 Part 2 Video, MPEG-4 Part 2 Video, and other technologies. The last US MPEG LA patents for H.264 will not expire until 2028[8]."

So, why are you people so uneducated? Patented things cannot be proprietary - they are public domain by definition. Get it?

"Their main objection is that it is, in the long term, dangerous to the concept of an "open internet" to allow a proprietary format to become a standard regardless of cost simply because it would give the owners of the rights to that format too much leverage."

Here you are again. Mozilla had NO problems with supporting Flash Video via a plug-in, which enabled the said PROPRIETARY technology become a de-facto standard of the web.

It is about money and costs for Mozilla - the Flash plug-in was free, but H.264 - an open standard - is not. So, Mozilla is voicing an objection, because they (and free software) can't pay.

Look, this is a really stupid argument, because anyone who even scans the accepted definitions of the word "proprietary" will understand that anything that is protected by a patent is, by definition, proprietary.

Hell, Merriam-Webster even includes patent in the definition, explicitly: "something that is used, produced, or marketed under exclusive legal right of the inventor or maker; specifically : a drug (as a patent medicine) that is protected by secrecy, PATENT, or copyright against free competition as to name, product, composition, or process of manufacture"

Admit it: you got confused, and you're just trying to blame the rest of us for your mistake. Next time, you ought to be a bit more sure of your case before you go throwing insults and misinformation around.

Flash isn't BUILT INTO THE BROWSER and Flash is not part of an HTML standard. It is not a valid comparison. Period.

I suggest you stop digging this hole you're got yourself in.

Listen Prospero424, the word "patent" implies that something belongs to the public domain. Pertaining to H.264 the algorithms are PUBLIC DOMAIN. Get it? They are out in the open - just go to the patent office.

Mozilla's beef is they have to pay a licence fee. Mozilla never had a problem with the trully proprietary (closed, unknown to outsiders) technology called Flash Video.

How do you reconcile these gaping holes in your logic?

"Flash isn't BUILT INTO THE BROWSER and Flash is not part of an HTML standard. It is not a valid comparison. Period."

Exactly - Mozilla never had to worry about paying for Flash development - Adobe provided the plug-in. Mozilla never made a peep when Flash became the de-facto standard of the Web.

Look, you simply don't know what you're talking about. Your conception of what the words "patent", "public domain", and "proprietary" mean are simply too erroneous for me to correct in a brief thread post. And it's become clear that you're not going to admit it when you're clearly wrong even if you do realize it.

So I'm done with this.

You don't want to distinguish between a proprietary technology, and technology subjected to royalty fees due to patents. Mozilla's problem is the royalty fees, that are incompatible with the free software, not the proprietary nature.

I will challenge you to present one negative comment from the Mozilla Corp regarding Flash Video. I'm not talking about Flash being supported on FF - just ANYTHING negative on Flash. I'm making it easy for you.

I've already explained why Flash isn't a valid comparison twice. You've just ignored it both times.

But I do have something for you. Here's Chris Blizzard of Mozilla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Blizzard) discussing HTML5 and h.264:

http://www.0xdeadbeef.co...e-standing-with-the-web/

"The players from Google and Vimeo do present a pretty serious problem, though. Each of these require a PROPRIETARY H.264 codec to be able to view them."

"If you think that this isn’t an issue that’s worth worrying about you need to read the rest of this post. In particular the history of GIF shows us what happens when PATENTED TECHNOLOGIES are used on the web..."

(Emphasis mine, of course)

You can read the rest of it if you like. But I see where maybe some confusion entered this argument: Mozilla is indeed concerned about the cost of h.264 licensing, I never meant to imply otherwise. It's just that this is not THEIR primary concern. That is, they can more than afford to license h.264 for use in their browser. What they are concerned about as far as cost is the open internet itself: basically all of the little guys and the innovators and the small businesses that make the internet such a dynamic (and cheap) medium who may not be able to afford the royalties or may not be able to deal with any other restrictions the license distributor(s) may choose to impose in the future.

In short: it's not that they can't afford to license h.264, it's that they don't want it to become part of the HTML5 standard because they believe doing so opens up the possibility of the license administrator(s) crippling innovation and competition on the internet in the future, like what almost occurred with GIF.

Here's another one from Mozilla's Mike Shaver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Shaver):

"Mozilla believes that reliance on PATENT-ENCUMBERED formats is a problem on the web."

"Mozilla has decided differently, in part because there is no apparent means for us to license H.264 under terms that would cover other users of our technology, such as Linux distributors, or people in affiliated projects like Wikimedia or the Participatory Culture Foundation. Even if we were to pay the $5,000,000 annual licensing cost for H.264, and we were to not care about the spectre of license fees for internet distribution of encoded content, or about content and tool creators, downstream projects would be no better off.

We want to make sure that the Web experience is good for all users, present and future. I want to make sure that when a child in India or Brazil or Kenya discovers the internet, there isn’t a big piece of it (video) that they can’t afford to participate in. I want to make sure that there are no toll-booth barriers to entry for someone building a whole new browser, or bringing a browser to a whole new device or OS, or making and using tools for creating standard web content. And I want that not only altruistically, but also because I want the crazy awesome video (animation, peer-to-peer, security, etc.) ideas that will come from having more people, with more perspectives, fully participating in the internet. The web is undeniably better for Mozilla having entered the browser market, and it would have been impossible for us to do so if there had been a multi-million-dollar licensing fee required for handling HTML, CSS, JavaScript or the like."

I would also point out that Adobe authors and administers the Flash Firefox plugin, NOT Mozilla. But you'll probably simply ignore this crucial point just like the others...

Prospero424,

H.264 is a widely-adopted, peer-reviewed standard of video compression. Inexact definitions, like "proprietary", and "closed" do not apply here. Many people on this thread seriously think that H.264 are actually closed and unknown, (see PC_Tool's comment below). These misconceptions are the result of loose play with words.

There are hundreds of H.264 implementations as is, now. From guys big and small. Who and how will ever prevent anyone from doing anyting, except paying royalties?

Again, can you present ONE argument from Mozilla against the trully proprietary, closed, unknown to anyone but Adobe - Flash Video? Did Mozilla ever said anything the proprietary de-facto standard of the rich web?

Do you see a correlation between the cost to Mozilla and its opposition to a technology?

"The players from Google and Vimeo do present a pretty serious problem, though. Each of these require a PROPRIETARY H.264 codec to be able to view them."

There are tons of "proprietary" H.264 decoders. Each decoder vendor says "proprietary" to tell themselves apart from the competition - e.g. "our proprietary H.264 decoder is better than our competitor's H.264 decoder". I think Blizzard meant there are no open-source/FOSS H.264 decoders - which would be correct. I fail to see how this reflects on the subject at hand here - gross misunderstanding of IP laws and workings.

"Inexact definitions, like "proprietary", and "closed" do not apply here."

If you hadn't misused them to begin with, I would have had no problem. If you have an issue with how other posters here used those terms, fine. But that doesn't address your own misuse, which you're still trying to avoid responsibility for.

But in the interest of expediency, let's put that behind us.

"There are hundreds of H.264 implementations as is, now. From guys big and small. Who and how will ever prevent anyone from doing anyting, except paying royalties?"

As I said above: royalties are only PART of the license terms. Even though they have committed to rather lax restrictions through 2016, that does no preclude them from altering those terms in the future. Hell, they could simply refuse to issue or renew licenses to entities who don't benefit any alterations they may choose to make to their business plan.

They control the license, they control who gets to use it and how. I honestly don't understand how you can misunderstand that fact.

"Again, can you present ONE argument from Mozilla against the trully proprietary, closed, unknown to anyone but Adobe - Flash Video? Did Mozilla ever said anything the proprietary de-facto standard of the rich web?"

For the third time: Flash is NOT part of the Mozilla browser. Flash integration into Firefox is due to a plugin that Adobe releases and controls. HTML5 implementation is part of the browser itself and is part of the HTML standard. This is yet another fact that I simply don't understand how you could misinterpret so badly, and I suspect it's deliberate with the purpose of refusal to admit obvious error.

"Do you see a correlation between the cost to Mozilla and its opposition to a technology?"

I see a correlation between the cost to the community that Mozilla serves and relies upon and Mozilla's opposition to adopting h.264 as part of the HTML5 standard. And I feel that Mozilla has been perfectly clear about that.

/Facepalm pic

ffmpeg is a free, open-source decoder for h.264. Blizzard meant "proprietary codec" because h.264 is a PROPRIETARY CODEC!

But I know, I know, the guy in charge of handling this issue with the community at Mozilla is the one who made the mistake, not you.

Jesus Christ...

"For the third time: Flash is NOT part of the Mozilla browser."

No, please, begging you, don't weasel your way out of this one - the fact Flash is not a part of the browser is immaterial to the ideals of the free web, as Mozilla puts it. Agree? I'm asking - did Mozilla Corporation, who advocates the free software, EVER voiced objections agains Adobe Flash - a proprietary technology, completely controlled by the shareholders of Adobe?

Yes or no!

The answer is of course no - at least not to the extent Mozilla voices its opposition to H.264. Continuing - why does not Mozilla voice opposition to Flash? Because Flash is not Mozilla's problem, and does not interfere with the FOSS agenda, as long as Adobe does not charge Flash users.

So, all in all, I find the position very amuzing - an open standard, adopted on thousands of products, but that dings Mozilla's pocket gets a big "Boo". A closed, proprietary product that is at a mercy of one company does not.

"No, please, begging you, don't weasel your way out of this one - the fact Flash is not a part of the browser is immaterial to the ideals of the free web, as Mozilla puts it. Agree?"

No! Flash has nothing to do with defining the HTML5 standard. That's the ENTIRE point!

From the Wikipedia HTML5 page: "HTML5 is the proposed next standard for HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.0 and DOM Level 2 HTML. It aims to reduce the need for proprietary plug-in-based rich internet application (RIA) technologies such as Adobe Flash, Microsoft Silverlight, and Sun JavaFX."

Get it, now? Mozilla isn't opposing the integration of Flash with Firefox for the same reason they wouldn't oppose a third-party plugin that enables h.264 playback with Firefox: it's not part of THEIR browser and it's not part of an OPEN standard that's still being defined.

"If you hadn't misused them to begin with, I would have had no problem. If you have an issue with how other posters here used those terms, fine."

I'm not having problems with the posters, I'm having problems with the journalists who do not have exhibit any critical thinking, and plant simply wrong ideas into other people's heads as the result.

BTW, do you know that the ubiquiuos MP3 by your definition would also be classified as "proprietary"? Facepalm indeed.

"No! Flash has nothing to do with defining the HTML5 standard."

What does anything have to do with HTML5 who nobody saw, and nobody knows when to? How did you hijack the thread into an HTML5 discussion? Please, let's back-off from it.

The true point of defending free software, and free web, is to have the web using open, reproducible technologies. Adobe Flash is not such a technology, at least not yet. If I was a corporating advocating free web, I would most definitely voice my opposition to Adobe Flash, regardless if it was supported by my particular browser or not. It is just a stance on values - you are either think they are good for the web, or they're not. Mozilla did not explicitly condemn Adobe Flash, which puts in question why do they voice opposition to H.264 when the H.264 intellectual property is open and shared by many companies, even though a subject to royalties?

Yes! MP3 is a proprietary format because it is encumbered by patents! Ogg Vorbis is an open format because it is unencumbered by patents; same with FLAC.

This is why free, open "MP3"-encoding projects (like LAME) exist in a legal grey area.

This is why LAME stands for "LAME Ain't an MP3 Encoder".

From Wikipedia: "Like all MP3 encoders, LAME implements some technology covered by patents owned by the Fraunhofer Society and other entities.[1] The developers of LAME do not themselves license the technology described by these patents. Distributing compiled binaries of LAME, its libraries, or programs which are derivative works of LAME in countries which recognize those patents, may be considered infringing on the relevant patents.

The LAME developers state that since their code is only released in source code form, it should only be considered as an educational description of an MP3 encoder, and thus does not infringe any patent by itself when released as source code only."

And this is why adopting proprietary formats on open platforms is bad.

You're just never going to admit you were wrong no matter what evidence is presented.

"What does anything have to do with HTML5 who nobody saw, and nobody knows when to? How did you hijack the thread into an HTML5 discussion? Please, let's back-off from it."

/bangs head against desk repeatedly.

Read. The title. Of the article...

Screw it. This is like arguing with an RSS feed.

"Ogg Vorbis is an open format because it is unencumbered by patents; same with FLAC."

Nobody knows if Ogg Vorbis is free from any IP violations, so I would be careful here. OTOH, we know in all likelyhood H.264 does not violate any known IP, it has been peer-reviewed, and the patents have been out in the open for long enought for anyone to claim violations.

"You're just never going to admit you were wrong no matter what evidence is presented."

Please read the following:

http://www.vcodex.com/videocodingpatents.html

"After months of discussion, the authors of the W3C's new specification for the web, HTML5, were unable to agree on a recommended video codec for the new standard. H.264/AVC was considered the best option from a technical standpoint, in terms of compression performance. However, the requirement for license fees was considered unacceptable by Opera and Mozilla."

It is about the fees, get it?

"Read. The title. Of the article..."

Mozilla's denounciation of H.264 on Youtube had NO MENTION of HTML5. The article here states H.264 will be royalty-free for HTML5 - irrelevant to the discussion between me and you, yet you try to link these two things.

I don't see such a link, and I think you simply do not want to admit it is all about the fees.

I've been over this already. Read the section of my post above beginning "Mozilla is indeed concerned about the cost of h.264 licensing..." and get back to me.

So you:

1. Believe that implementing h.264 for Firefox would cost nothing because the MPEG LA dropped the licensing fee

2. Insist that Mozilla won't license h.264 'cause they don't want to pay this fee

I love it when people argue themselves into their own corner ;)

"What does anything have to do with HTML5 who nobody saw, and nobody knows when to? How did you hijack the thread into an HTML5 discussion? Please, let's back-off from it."

Ah....Here's the crutch.

You see, this is *all* about HTML5. It's the entire point of it. An open web, based on open, royalty-free standards, and content that does not require licensing-fees to access; where all browsers are equal and support all parts of the standard without the need for plugins, so as to be completely, 100% cross-platform, accessible to all.

...and again, regardless of HTML5, Mozilla simply cannot include the necessary code to implement H.264 in their browser. Their own licensing forbids them from including such code in the browser-code. Meaning? If it wasn't for the simple fact that HTML5 requires the browser support it OOB (without plugins), they *could* distribute a plug-in...and likely would if it became a well-used standard. But again, this defeats the entire purpose of HTML5.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ffdshow

ffdshow and any codec pack based on it support h.264 and ffdshow is FOSS

i use http://shark007.net codec pack(found it here infact) it uses ffdshow and other FOSS codecs/filters/splitters to create a pack that can decode just about anything you run across on a daily basis in both 32 and 64bit windows.

"ffdshow and any codec pack based on it support h.264 and ffdshow is FOSS"

Their license either allows them to, or they are not including it in the source. Regardless, Mozilla's license does not allow them to include it. It really is as simple as that.

never said they could include it as part of the browser, just that there are opensource h264/avc decoders the guy above said there wherent any FOSS/OSS avc decoders...and there are(there are others, but they are less mature and tend to have alot more bugs/holes/limmits then ffdshows offerings)

I would take use of system codecs(any codecs installed on the system) over no support personally...

"Here you are again. Mozilla had NO problems with supporting Flash Video via a plug-in, which enabled the said PROPRIETARY technology become a de-facto standard of the web."

Mozilla had no choice but to allow Flash as a plug-in otherwise their browser share would have been reduced to nothing. There were grumblings about allowing 3rd party, proprietary plug-ins early in the development of Firefox. However, in their goal to topple the big 2 browsers of the day, they had to open up the plug-ins architecture to allow for what the public was deeming as "must haves" for any modern web browser.

mozilla is really good about sticking to their guns about how the world should be open and blah blah blah, as long as it dosnt cost them market share then they fall in line and just complain about it.

I personally feel they should either admit they just care about market share and stoking their own ego's, or go full on and stick to their guns, not allow anything thats not oss/foss into their browser, not this "if it wont cost us market share its ok" crap.

the whole FOSS community(ok the community as a whole) piss me off with that crap, they hate silverlight because its made by MS, despite the fact that ms opened the code to the stuff they own(they licence the h264 decoder so they couldnt give source for that out), they complain about flash and the like not being FOSS/OSS but they dont do anything to replace it themselves.

FOSS is a sad joke in most markets, the few places they have a decent app like openoffice(its decent, not great but decent) and AbiWord(nice little word proc) help hide the fact that 98+% of FOSS software SUCKS MONKY BALLS and dosnt function neerly as well as retail/commercial options, hell in some cases even free versions of commercial software are better(serif software is a good example google them, they make some nice stuff, and basic older versions are FREE)

theora 1.1 looks much better thann H.264 at similar bitrate. This is getting absurd and people should be aware of this and let google, etc know that h.264 is NOT the way to go.
http://www.techcrunch.co.../2009/07/comparison.jpg

No, it really, really doesn't. That screenshot comparison conspicuously omits most of the relevant data like compressor settings, source quality, etc. and just lists the format as "YouTube". For all we know, that's a Flash video, not h.264.

At the same bitrate and with a competent encoder, h.264 will look better every single time. Anyone whose done even a bit of manual transcoding over the years can attest to that.

Believe me: I wish this were NOT the case. I would love for the open format to offer superior quality. But it doesn't, and people who deliberately fudge the facts and the numbers to make it look otherwise aren't helping Theora's case.

Just to be clear: I'm not accusing you of this, just the source of that ridiculous comparison.

@ Prospero424: if you really have any more curiosity, its absurdly easy for you to read the techcrunch link which provide link to the original post with EVERY single detail settings you want.

rather than asserting the H.264 superiority with no evidence, you maybe better off to encode a DVD to h.264 and theora 1.1 by yourself first.

Theora has been developed extremely fast, 1.1 was released last year and has superior quality. Its about time to update your information.

Actually, reading that Techcrunch post is the first thing I did. And it provided none of the specifics I listed above.

Here's the link if you don't believe me: http://www.techcrunch.co...or-a-web-video-standard/

It actually says NOTHING about how that comparison was created. Unless there's another story on TechCrunch using the same screenshot that I'm missing... Let me know if that's the case.

The thing is that I HAVE encoded DVDs and other sources using Theora, Xvid, x264, etc literally hundreds of times. I've been doing this for the better part of a decade.

And the reason I don't feel the need to do a lengthy writeup or blog post about it is that h.264's superiority (as far as quality) is an accepted fact in the video production community. This is not even something that's undergoing serious debate. ANYONE who knows what they're talking about knows and accepts that the quality offered (at bitrate parity) by h.264 is superior because they see it every single day.

The bottom line: if you don't believe me, I really don't care. I don't need to convince anyone of this just like I don't need to convince anyone that the Earth isn't flat because anyone who matters already knows the truth.

If you did the encodes yourself and you compared the two, you would see for yourself. I promise you that. I've already done my own comparisons, and the difference is fairly stark, especially at low bitrates.

Well, there's several issues here.

On one hand, this is great news, but not exactly unexpected. If they started charging now, at the crucial stage where h.264 is becoming entrenched as a de facto standard, they'd probably be sabotaging their own interests.

On the other hand, there is NO assurance that they won't just stick it to everyone and their dog come 2017.

Still, I see this as a good thing. h.264 is the best technology currently available for these applications, and it's nice that it's at least free to use for those providing free services, for now.

My hope is that this will give the open format movement/community time to come to parity. By late 2016, I would at least HOPE that the Dirac codec would finally be ready for widespread adoption. So if the MPEG group decided to start charging, we could just switch over to Dirac and tell them where they can stick their license fees.

Of course, by then there will almost certainly be h.265 to deal with...

I think Google will resolve this soon by releasing their own video codec which is free from patent restrictions.

It makes sense for them, they are the biggest video provider on the web and if they wanted to use a more efficient codec, it is unlikely that they could convince everyone to install it unless it was built into the browser as HTML5 video.

Hope your right I think that could prove to be a very good thing.

Why releasing something that already exists - e.g. Ogg?

All the existing codecs have problems. I think the problems with Ogg/Vorbis are that it is not very efficient (Google does not like that) and Apple are not happy with the licensing/patents on Ogg so they are not going to implement it.

Ogg Theora is based upon VP3, which is "old" technology even though it's still fairly good. Google owns the company that developed the original VP3 and its modern successors: VP7 and VP8.

Actually, I'm not 100% sure what the status on that is. Last I heard, Google was in the PROCESS of acquiring On2. Does anyone know if that process is complete, or are they still going through the approval process and all of the other red tape involved?

Anyway, I doubt this is coming any time soon, if at all, simply because Google has thrown its considerable weight behind h.264 in this particular format battle. They've committed to it on YouTube and in their browser, and I don't see them increasing their infrastructure costs by doubling up on the codecs - offering and storing content in both h.264 and, say, VP8 formats at the same time.

Sure would be nice if they opened up VP8, though...

When Google announced the aquisition they said

"we think that video compression technology should be a part of the web platform"

This can only mean that they will open the codec for everyone to use freely. The say the deal is expected to be completed in their Q4.

As far as commitment goes, from what I understand they are not internally committed to anything and they could switch very easily. The videos are all stored in their original format and I would not be surprised if Google has enough power to reencode on the fly if they want.

Actually, that last part I'm somewhat wrong about. They (YouTube) already store content in VP8 format for Flash video support, so that's not as big an issue as I first thought it might be.

This is utterly useless... Unless they OPEN the source, I don't believe Mozilla can distribute it, as per *Mozilla's* own licensing. If they cannot distribute it, it cannot be included with their browser...

The only work-around I can think of off-hand is to distribute it (separately) as a plug-in/extension, but I don't know if their licensing even allows that...

...so much for OSS licensing being non-restrictive, eh? ;)

Mozilla doesn't have the redistribute the codec itself. All they have to do is have support for it if it's already installed.

@gregf: thats wrong, many systems dont have the codec by default, including windows xp and windows vista.

furthermore, the whole thing about HTML5 video tag is to let browsers to handle the video such that the cross-platform hassles can be resolved. otherwise, whats the point of getting rid of plugins?

PC_Tool: MPEG-4 is an open standard, its algorithms are not proprietary. Do you know what "patents" are?

You are confusing "proprietary" (thank for nothing, Scott Fulton, you idiot) and "patent-encumbered".

exactly! the whole point of the video tag in html5 is to skip the need for plugins (flash) for video playback.

OnetoOne;

Your point? That really has nothing to do with the issue. The licensing of H.264 is restrictive, as such, Mozilla cannot include it with their browser under *their* current licensing.

It's not really "open" if you cannot use it without agreeing to restrictive licensing. You can argue semantics all you want, but the fact remains...they cannot use it.

but mozilla really isnt as open as they claim to be, try submitting a bug fix, even for fairly serious bugs, 99% of the time, your helps going to be ignored, that last 1% you have a 50/50 chance of them blocking you from submitting fixes or accepting the fix and taking credit themselves for the work.

after my experiance with the FF dev's and the community, I dropped FF, getting banned because i found a bug and posted it on their forums(asking if it was a known issue) was enought, I was polite, but was told i was "bashing firefox" by reporting bugs(pretty bad rendering bug with a website) I didnt have a fix, but I do know a few people who have submitted fixes for bugs for FF and their experiance with the dev team has been like mine trying to get support.......

On the other hand, if i report a bug in opera on the opera forums, they are happy I reported it and even thank me for trying to help out!!!!

What in the hell does bug-reporting have to do with being open (Source, licensing, patent, etc...)???

so, will this allow Opera for example to support html5 h.264 video without paying an insain licence fee(they cant afford)?

no, opera doesn't support H.264, precisely because they have to pay.

Well that's useless. It's basically unusable for HTML5 if that's how they're going to go about it.
Ogg Vorbis/Theora ahoy!

I'd agree. It just seems foolish to pollute the www standard with a proprietary closed component essential for multimedia. So in 2016 when everything is saturated with HTML5 the free license runs out and they can hold the online world hostage? With codecs it's typically cheap or even free for the player codec (however see his licensing comments) but the encoder is particularly expensive. A web standard that prevents legal publishing without incurring significant cost seems pointless. How would the web look like today if HTML couldn't be created with a simple text editor from the get go?

ogg vorbis is great, infact its a requierment for any audio player i buy, but theora is not up to snuff for this stuff yet, and may never be, due to patant system we have to deal with, companies can patant ideas and vauge ones at that, So stuff like bfraims(that could boost quility drastically) are patanted and cant be used in theora.

Theora currently cant compete with h.264 on a per-bitrate basis, and it also lacks hardware decoder support that h264 has.

most currentl lower end smartphones will choke trying to play theora videos....tho some of them have an h264 decoder built in so they could deal with decoding h264 at a playable rate.

Really, I couldnt care less, I would be happy if opera would just support use of system codecs, it would make it so no matter what format somebody decided to use for their html5 streaming i could play it(http://shark007.net codec packs rocks)