I would love it if Ogg Theora became as ubiquitous as PK Zip (r.i.p. Phil) but it seems there's a dearth of hardware support for it from a gadget perspective. Playback - yes. But not recording. Is it just that it's a inferior codec?
On 5/5/10, Tony Cooke <[email protected]> wrote: > 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! > > :-)
