On 05/05/2010 10:42, ldouglas wrote: > > > I'm veklempt. Talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic. How > about the concern over H.264 licensing wrt the future of HTML5 as the > streaming method of choice for mobile devices.
Interestingly enough we have just had that discussion on the Team Amiga Mailing List (remember the Amiga anyone?). Dave Haynie (one of the Amiga design engineers) who is `into` video and smartphones - (just jumped ship from Palm to Droid) posted the following on the subject:- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> > >>> "Software firm joins Apple in dumping the Adobe standard" >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> http://www.v3.co.uk/v3/news/2262351/microsoft-announces-ie9-support >>> > >> Sorry, it sounded like MS would stop Flash from even running on >>> > >> IE9. But seems the article is a bit off mark. Dave Haynie wrote They both have ulterior motives. Obviously, Microsoft is a direct competitor of Adobe. If they really felt that open standards were THE solution... (well, H.264 is open but proprietary, HTML itself of course the truly open piece), they'd dump Silverlight. But I don't see that happening in IE9. So why toss out Flash and include Silverlight? >> > > I. Do. Not. Want. H.264 NFW > > Me neither. Hopefully Google will open-source the superior VP8 codec, > > and use in on YouTube to pressure other browser makers to use it too. Here's the real reason Apple, and probably Microsoft, are jumping on the H.264 + HTML5 bandwagon... devices. Apple's got a slew of handhelds: iPad, iPhone, iPod. They all play H.264 via at least somewhat dedicated hardware. It's quite likely that older CODECs, like Ogg Theora and On2 VP6 will actually play slower and/or use more power on these devices. And the new one, VP8... that could be difficult at best. It's worse for Android. Apple has two or three different sets of video acceleration to support. Android devices are supporting dozens, with more all the time. You'd have to individually optimize each CODEC for the targeted hardware. On some, it may not even be possible. The curious thing is that, despite Flash not being just about video, Apple's been able to entirely frame the conversation. They're talking about video, calling Flash "closed, proprietary" and claiming just how open H.264 is, despite it's not actually being what most people think of as open (it is open... there's a spec, you can go build your own H.264 encoder or decoder, it'll work. But you still have to pay MPEG-LA). Microsoft is currently also pushing for devices. But I think both have another motive, and it's sadly one that the FOSS people are helping them on: hurting FOSS. Right now, the iPhone and iPad offer a second-class web browsing experience. If Apple's successful at getting Flash tossed off the Web (they're only addressing video right now, that's very much the low-hanging fruit. They'll need a tool to do web authoring, that's the big reason people use Flash), this will change. The iPhone and iPad will get their first-class existence on the web. But the FOSS people, not so much. FOSS folks like Mozilla, and small company web browser provider Opera, are the main guys in favor of Ogg Theora.. and like Apple and MS, they're promoting this as the ONLY flavor of video they want to support. Which will render them second-class browsing experiences, if Apple and Microsoft are successful at removing much of Flash from the web. A battle like this has the user crushed in the middle. I want Flash or no-Flash to be my choice. Same with H.264 or Theora or VP8... my web browser should be supporting all of these. Or, actually, none of them. It has no more business decoding video than it has implementing graphics drivers or a filesystem. That's the OS's job. Both sides, if they had any concern for the actual user rather than their political moves, would support any file forma in a <VIDEO> tag that I've got installed on my system. Then, let the market decide. I don't have any personal problems with H.264's quality or ubiquity. If VP8 is better for web video, why not offer it up. Google would save all kinds of money streaming in VP8, assuming the tales are true. And they could pull a cool poltiical move of their own. First, Open Source VP8... though that's really only useful if there are no patents covering it, aside from On2's patents. Next, do all the HD video on YouTube in VP8. Bundle the VP8 CODEC with Google Chrome, as a normal Windows video CODEC on Windows, a gstreamer CODEC on Linux, etc. So, after the very next Chrome update, all Chrome users get a better HD video experience, and automatically have the tools to start using it in any other video tool they own. All of a sudden, other PC browsers are crippled on YouTube. Phone browsers still get H.264 for high-quality (640x320 or whatever), so they're still pretty happy. The FOSS guys can keep up, and will if the code is Open Sourced. Apple and Microsoft get with over the head with their H.264-only policies. The big danger is the unprecendented licensing terms of H.264. H.264 is covered by a pool of patents, which relate to all kinds of details on how it works, how it's stored in a streaming file, etc. A patent doesn't of course cover an idea, and in fact, it has to cover a thing or process, something material. This is in fact why software patents were rejected until the early 1980s.. software isn't a process, it's a publication. A publication can't violate a patent. And if you read early 1980s patents, they all refer to the actual hardware executing software as being the thing the patent violated. This is why IBM sued Commodore and Dell, not Microsoft or Phoenix. The loophole that allowed software patents didn't say that software was patentable, not even slightly. It said that a normally patentable thing doesn't automatically become unpatentable just because there's software involved as part of the hardware process. But the H.264 licenses go even further, and I really can't figure out their legal basis. The patents obviously must be licensed for encoders and decoders.. those are the machines, the practical and useful thing covered by the patent. But the MPEG-LA is claiming that you have to pay for using content encoded by these encoders.. that's the big thing they postponed to 2015. And the reason that H.264 camcorders, even obvious professional ones, say things like "video for home use only", despite the fact no one believes this. This is kind of like Intel or AMD charging you a royalty on anything you produce with your computer. I don't believe that software produced by a patented process is itself covered by that patent. It is simply a document. And it has absolutely no value by itself.. one must use a decoder, presumably covered by the same patents, in order to view this video again. >> > > And. I. Do. Not. Want. IE 9 Nope. Chrome is good, Firefox is good, that's what I use. I will probably use less Firefox if they don't support H.264, as long as H.264 matters on the desktop. Apple and Jobs' rants also ignore one significant factor: <VIDEO> works just like <IMG>, deliveing the specified object. But there's no protection for it... you can easily copy the video. No DRM either. So companies that want these protections are still going to use Flash for video. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Which gives you all a good jumping off platform for the discussion! :-) -- Tony Cooke www.tonycooke.co.uk contactable at tony.j.cookeATgooglemailDOTcom Happiness is seeing your mother-in-law's face on the back of a milk carton.
