Dear Mozilla, Please Don’t Kill HTML5 Video!

March 17th, 2010 by Brian Leave a reply »

Mozilla and I have a long and not-so-storied history together. I first began running what was at the time called the Mozilla App Suite with the "Milestone 10" release in October 1999. I was (I believe) one of the first people outside of the core team to build (as in compile) the browser that would come to be known as Firefox. It was called Phoenix at the time and the team hadn't released any binaries. I remember talking to the core team  on IRC getting instructions as to what build flags to add to build Phoenix rather than the app suite. For a time, I released unofficial nightly versions of Phoenix (then Firebird) compiled with Xft support for anti-aliasing on Linux that were distributed through MozillaZine. Long story short: I've contributed only slightly to the project; but I've supported it as long as anyone and generally my ideals match up nicely with the Mozilla team.

Until now.

I'm a huge supporter of open formats; I always have been. One of the main reasons Microsoft was able to rise to its Monopoly-level dominance was the proliferation of the proprietary MS Office file formats. However, I have reason to believe that Mozilla's decision not to support H.264 encoded video via the HTML5 video tag due to the "patent encumbrance" of the codec, is a wrong decision and one that, unless they change their mind, will kill any hope of ushering a new era of online video distribution that exists without plugins. Mozilla has always been an organization willing to take a stand for what they believe in; and they believe in the open web.

Three of Four

With Microsoft announcing support for H.264 video in IE9, three of the four "big name" browsers will be supporting H.264 video. Truthfully, this move surprised me when it was first announced; I had assumed, like others, that Microsoft would choose only to support their own proprietary format. The success of Office taught the team in Redmond that simply using proprietary formats isn't good enough; you have to completely own the format. However, without support from Mozilla, H.264 can never be the "encode once, deploy anywhere" format that people and businesses need it to be.

Encoding is slow and expensive

Video encoding is a very processor-intensive process; it's time consuming, expensive, and the resulting files are large which lead to bandwidth and storage costs. The current Flash implementations on the web are already H.264 capable, and much of the video content for the web is already encoded in H.264. It's nothing but an expense to create and maintain additional encodings. And even if we as web developers can create a robust fallback system that prevents the user-experience of online video from regressing to the days of "choose your format," the added costs are something most companies simply cannot ignore.

Theora Sucks

I say that harboring no ill-will towards the very talented engineers who have sunk countless hours of their time into Theora. But as numerous comparisons have shown, it simply can't keep up with H.264 in terms of quality; especially at low bitrates. MPEG2 was once considered great; but in the face of the current top-dog codec, it (like Theora) sucks. People and businesses are willing to embrace free software when it provides an equal or better product than the proprietary alternatives (see the success of Linux on the server). However, when free software doesn't keep up with the best non-free products, people stay away (see the lack of success of Linux on the desktop). Simply put, there just aren't that many people who share the same moral imperative as the Free Software Foundation; most of just want it to work.

There's a Precedent Too

Mozilla has a track record of not sharing the stance of "nothing proprietary," which implies that as an organization, Mozilla is willing to pick it's battles. If it wasn't, it wouldn't allow proprietary plugins like Flash. Imagine also if Mozilla had taken the same stance against GIF images in the early 2000's when the format was patent-encumbered just as H.264 is today; the browser barely would have gotten off the ground. In that instance, pragmatism and the need to not break the web won out over a desire to only support free and open formats.

Don't Break the Web

Team Mozilla: I understand your desire to show support for free and open formats and I empathize with your belief that the best way to advance the web is to truly embrace those formats. But I wish this fight was one in which you'd lay down your sword. I disagree that "being idealists" is your reason for being. I believe that your first responsibility as a browser vendor is to make the web a better place; it's certainly what you've strived to do since your inception. But honestly, from the view of a realist, the only thing you're going to accomplish is making the HTML5 <video> tag unusable.

Two Proprietary formats

What's worse, you'll force people to continue to use Flash as the preferred delivery platform for video on the web (which, as covered above, already uses H.264 for video). Instead of one proprietary format, people will now be forced to use two simply because of your refusal to accept that sometimes you have to take a few small steps to get to your goal. I hope you can at least agree that going from two proprietary formats to one is a marked improvement.

Please...

...don't do this to one of the most exciting and promising technologies being delivered in HTML5. You're voluntarily creating another format war and the only result of format wars is people avoid both alternatives because it's too much work to support both. Help us continue to make the Web a better place and move it forward one step at a time; even if those steps aren't quite as long as you'd hoped they'd be.

Update (8:20 am EDT)

I've created a response post that addresses some of the points in the comments titled Mozilla's Not Non-Profit (and Other Thoughts). Thanks to everyone who read this and considered its content and has an opinion to share. Disagreement builds great conversation!

Update (March 22)

I've written a follow-up piece about browsers supporting Theora and my belief that despite the its shortcomings, it has a real place in the future of the Web. Please check out Dear MSFT and AAPL, Embrace Theora!

  

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • DZone
  • HackerNews
Advertisement
  • Gerv
    Any further comments now WebM has arrived? Do you still think Mozilla should have given in and supported H.264?

    Gerv
  • mrlonelylim
    nice blog.. have a view of my blog when free.. http://www.lonelyreload.blogspot.com .. do leave me some comment / guide if can.. if interested can follow my blog...
  • Tiago Sá
    Hi Brian. I don't know if you're gonna read this, but I hope you will, if only in the hope that you might reply and tell me something I don't know or am wrong about (or that you see my point, at least).

    One thing that I'd like to point out, first and foremost, is that H264 can never be the HTML5 video standard, because it doesn't comply with the W3C requirements, since it's not open or royalty free. Even if it'd be free, it'd need to be compatible with the open source development process. Which leads me to my second point.

    Firefox cannot support H264 HTML5 video rendering because Firefox is open source, unlike all the other major browsers out there. As a Firefox supporter, you surely understand how crucial it is that Firefox keeps that status and remains open source. Because, in order for it to support H264 HTML5 video render natively, it would need to stop being open source. Because the decoder isn't open source.

    Thirdly, you'll have to agree with me that Theora HTML5 video is the most widely supported HTML5 video codec. Indeed, it's three of four that support H264, but it's also three of five if you count Opera. And if you count Opera, it's also three of five that support Theora. To put it simply, right now, H264 is supported by about 10% of the browser market, if you put Chrome and Safari together. On the other hand, Theora is supported by 35% to 45% of the market, if you put Chrome, Firefox and Opera together. IE9, the "third" H264 browser, will take a long time to bridge that game, and, in the mean time, Theora will still be the most widely supported format.

    My fourth point is about the cost. Encoding is expensive. Yes. And H264 is encoded a lot. But I should say that encoding H264 NOW is much more expensive than encoding Theora NOW, because you have to pay royalties for H264. And I think that the price those royalties take from web publishers will at least soften the blow that re enconding their libraries will be. In fact, in some cases, reencoding the libraries will be even CHEAPER than keeping encoding in H264. This is, of course, considering web publishers start using their enconding tools, because you have to pay royalties for that. Which, by itself, it's an enormous threat to the free web.

    As for Theora sucks, that's right, but this war isn't really about H264 versus Theora, but rather about patented technology against open and free technology. It could be Theora, it could be Dirac, it could be VP8, I don't know. As long as it's free and open, and as long as it's a W3C standard, the web is ok with it, and, most importantly, the end user and the web publishers are ok with it.

    In the end, no matter how much you or anyone wants it, Firefox is open source, and it can't have H264 support. And H264 isn't open or free, and it can't be the HTML5 standard. You can't really think that we're going to kill HTML5 by NOT supporting something that's not HTML5... That's like saying we're going to kill Windows by not supporting Mac OS X...
  • Bob
    "With Microsoft announcing support for H.264 video in IE9, three of the four 'big name' browsers will be supporting H.264 video."

    This makes the rather big assumption that they don't support any other codecs. IE9 doubtless uses the Media Foundation framework. So IE9, like Safari, would support any installed codec. Therefore, just as you can reach 100% of HTML5 browsers with Ogg Theora today, you will almost certainly be able to reach 100% of HTML5 browsers with Ogg Theora tomorrow.

    The bottom line is that major HTML5 video implementations (like Wikipedia's) will never use closed video formats. Any HTML5 browser worth its salt will support open video.


    "But as numerous comparisons have shown, it simply can't keep up with H.264 in terms of quality; especially at low bitrates. MPEG2 was once considered great; but in the face of the current top-dog codec, it (like Theora) sucks."

    Those comparisons are deeply flawed. In fact, the one linked to in the Ars Technica article didn't even get the *colorspace* conversion right. No one's saying that H.264 with all encoding options turned on isn't good, but it doesn't matter how good H.264 *can* be when in practice that's not how it's deployed. The only meaningful comparison is to compare what a major site like YouTube does with H.264 in the real world versus what they could do with Theora. Here are two such comparisons:

    http://people.xiph.org/~maikmerten/youtube/
    http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/co...

    If you waved a magic wand and replaced H.264 with Ogg Theora on YouTube, no one would notice the difference on the basis of quality or bitrate.


    "Imagine also if Mozilla had taken the same stance against GIF images in the early 2000's when the format was patent-encumbered just as H.264 is today; the browser barely would have gotten off the ground. In that instance, pragmatism and the need to not break the web won out over a desire to only support free and open formats."

    Well, I'm going to have to give up on you at this point. To use the clearest demonstration in the history of the web on the problems with embracing closed formats as a justification for why the web should do it all over again is frankly mind boggling.

    Really, the core idea of your pro-H.264 stance is that H.264 usage is ubiquitous. However, this is the wrong way to see it. H.264 is in fact highly centralised and concentrated. Consider, if the top five video sites didn't have Flash or H.264 as a requirement, what use would the vast majority of web users have for either?

    Change is easy to come by here. Google is likely to move to open video for YouTube (with VP8) and when they do, all other major video sites will follow.
  • Dave murray
    Mozilla's decision not to support H264 due to patents is the right decision. Being idealists IS their reason for being, their mission is to support an open and accessible internet, not an internet where you can only post content if you have paid the MPEG-LA.

    GIF is not a precedent. The GIF format was used in Netscape, Mosaic and other early browsers in the early 90s before anyone realised Unisys' LZW patent applied to it. In '99 Unisys announced that you had to pay a royalty if you used unlicensed software to generate (not view) GIFs. By the time Mozilla was open source everyone was using JPEGs intsead so the issue had all but dissapeared and in 2003 the patents expired.
  • The last patent covering GIF expired in 2006.
  • Stefan
    You're a dumbass for proposing pro the heavily draconian licensed H264 codec. Firefox is helping both our asses by doing what they do, except you don't realize it.
  • Sorry buddy, but this was a *SAD* post. Didn't you learn anything form GIF man ...?

    H.246 == potential lock-in...!
  • Oh yeah...we all got totally screwed by supporting gif...

    *eyeroll*
  • The reason for we didn't get screwed was because the submarine attack failed, ok? What if it wouldn't have failed?
  • mawrya
    Brian, if you are really trying to convince Mozilla and other Theora advocates that H.264 is the winning ticket, do you think subtitles like "Theora Sucks" is going to achieve that? This is not a simple issue and the people who have come to the opposite conclusion as yourself are intelligent and concerned individuals. As someone else once pointed out to me, "people will not listen to you until they first feel that you approve of their existence."
  • fredclown
    Which browsers are you refrring to when you say three out of four, because as I see it there are five major browsers (IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, and Safari). Those that support Theora are Firefox, Opera, and Chrome. Those that Support h264 are IE9, Chome, and Safari. So, really it is a 50/50 split because one of the browsers supports both.
  • I do not count Opera as a major browser. Their market share is exceedingly small and mostly stagnant.
  • Eric P
    Operas' market share is larger than Safari on every region except North America & Oceania (meaning Antarctica :), Europe, Asia, South America and South Africa).
    For an example, in Russia Opera has the largest market share of all browsers.
  • I'm not saying you're wrong; only that I'd love to see some data that backs up those claims.

    That said, I'm less concerned with regional share and more concerned with global share. For my blog at least (which theoretically should have the highest possible share of opera users given the demographics of readers here) Opera is still exceptionally small.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/bcrescimanno/44477...
  • Serhiy
    You just don't get it!
    Open Source project just can't use h264 because you can't release h264 codec under open source license.
    What is the main difference between firefox and other so-called "major" browsers??? It is open source!!!
    So what do you want them to do? To change everything because of a "great" and expensive h264. It's like asking Discovery Chanel to throw everything away and become a music channel.

    Mozilla doesn't not support h264 not because they don't like it or don't want it. They just can't!!!
  • Webkit is an open source project.
    Webkit development is sponsored by corporations (Apple and Google primarily)
    Webkit includes support for h264 video.

    Firefox is an open source project.
    Firefox development is sponsored by corporation (Mozilla Corporation primarily)
    Firefox does not include support for h264 video.

    ...and yes, the webkit you can download from webkit.org includes h264 support.
  • Jack
    Also webkit is just a web browser engine it's not a web browser.

    Webkit, Google Chrome, Apple's Safari and not the same thing!

    Stop spreading lies. Don't live in a culture of mediocrity.
  • In general Jack; your tone is not welcome here. Please remember that you're talking to real people on the other end. I welcome your comments and conversation--but please try to be civil.

    Webkit is an engine--however, there is a browser wrapper you can download from the Webkit project that does support H264 playback.
  • Jack
    Webkit doesn't include support for H264! for the last time...

    Don't use lies to justify your position.
  • I'm not lying.

    Download webkit from webkit.org

    Play an h264 video.
  • Hi Brian.

    Webkit supports h264, only if the h264 codec is available on the system, and it also does depend on how the developers implement webkit on their ports. Due to the patents that h264 has, for example, Qt, which has Qtwebkit integrated into it since 4.4, is supported through the phonon framework (I've made windows builds for arora, and I notice that whenever it encounters the <video> tag, it opens up the ffmpeg codecs I installed on my windows system) - funny thing though, that makes arora crash frequently, forcing me to use flash instead. Chromium, I believe, the open source version of google chrome doesn't support h264, although it has support for the video tag (allowing use of theora), through the use of ffmpeg. Again, this is because of the h264 licensing issues. I'm pretty sure that google chrome has h264 precisely because they pay for it.

    Windows (at least for the starter, basic editions) for example doesn't have h264 codec support by default, you have to download it. I use ffmpeg compiled for h264 support.

    There you have it. What initially went with good intentions of standardizing video through the web, became one that splits it instead - which was why flash was invented in the first place... because it provided a consistent venue for playing video anywhere, as well as animation (write once, play anywhere, like what java was supposed to do).
  • JohnDoey
    I agree with this article but not the headline. It should read "Mozilla, Please Don't Kill Yourself With HTML5 Video."

    Adding audio video tags to HTML makes browsers into video players. A video player that does not support ISO standard H.264/AAC is as useless as a Blu-Ray player that does not support ISO standard H.264/AAC because that is how all the content is stored. Online video is not just getting started; it's only Web video that is just getting started. Most of the world's online video is already in ISO standard H.264/AAC. This already happened over the past decade while Mozilla and much of the Web developer and browser maker community was completely uninvolved with online video. What is not currently in H.264 is in proprietary Adobe FLV or Microsoft WMV, but those are both legacy formats, and the upgrade path from both is H.264/AAC. FlashPlayer already supports H.264 since 2008, some of Microsoft's players play H.264 right now, and Microsoft has already announced that the rest soon will.

    So what Mozilla is doing right now is akin to introducing an optical disc player that can only play "HD-DVD" discs. Users have no use for that and will reject it.

    If Microsoft can't force non-standard video (HD-DVD and WMV) on the world, what makes Mozilla think they can?

    There is a grace period for Mozilla because larger sites will continue to serve H.264 to Firefox in FlashPlayer just as they do today, but over time, Firefox users will see less and less video and will abandon the browser for Chrome or Safari or IE9. The video tag is just so cheap and so easy and only requires a Web developer not a Flash developer, it doesn't require a $599 Flash toolkit, it can be generated easily by back end scripts, it can be easily implemented or even copied and pasted by novice HTML coders and interactivity can be added through standard DOM programming techniques for advanced HTML coders. There's no way to fight it. It's not some newfangled experimental crazy idea; it's a decade overdue at least. It's been a nightmare to graft video onto the Web year after year.

    So by not implementing a practical video player in Firefox, Mozilla is not just saying they'll stay in 2010 where they like it, they're actually going to fall back to 1999 once Flash fades. They're going to be a text+graphics browser forever. They're going to be an HD-DVD player. They're obsoleting themselves, not preventing the Web from advancing. The Web is joining the online video party no matter what. It's too far along to stop.
  • Nigel Parker
    I blogged the history of how H.264 became an industry standard http://j.mp/HTML5H264
  • Thanks for that informative look Nigel; especially your points about consumer choice dictating the market. Consumer choose to support the closed iPhone ecosystem, and they choose to support H264. Why; because unlike the very vocal, very small minority in the tech sector, they simply don't care about implementation issues so long as it works.
  • Jack
    Consumer choice doesn't exist, it's a myth. For people to be able to choose two things are required: real choice and informed decisions.

    Please just prove me that people buying iPhone did have the two.

    Consumer had no choice in the selection of H264, or the MPEG2 before that, the DVD, etc.

    Really why do you have to lie to make your points?
  • Consumers have choice; but they (for the most part) don't care about the level of detail you obviously care about.

    Consumers have chosen to support H264 capable products thus leading to H264 becoming a widely adopted format.

    Nothing I've said is a lie--you can't express a difference of opinion and then tell someone they are lying because you don't agree with them.
  • They have chosen to support video-capable devices. Not H264, they don't care about the technology.
    Same thing with iPhone, unfortunately, it's the only thing that could provide what a lot of people wanted in a phone. Now the only thing that's unique about it is the hype. And the hype seems to be enough for it to stay big, at least for now and a while into the feature.
  • Kai
    I want a GNU internet!
  • JohnDoey
    Just what we need, another totalitarian.
  • Totally free, yes.
  • Jack
    Just what we need another ignorant person, welcome to the culture of mediocrity.
  • azerkoculu
    There may be better codecs than open codecs but we have to support open standards, everytime. Like most of us, Mozilla is sure about that technology is being improved faster when it’s open. We have to support open standards, not capitalists who make slower development of the technology to make more money.
  • Mark Lee Smith
    We have to support open standards, even if their are significantly better alternatives, because the capitalists wont be able to keep up? That is clearly a non-sensical statement. The capitalist pigs have better technology precisely because they managed to move faster than you open source evangelists.

    Actually look at any of the open source re-implementations of proprietary softwares. You might be shocked by what you see.

    Consider for example Apples release of launchd. Apple gives the thing away (under an open source licence) and what do you do? You form several separate groups, all of which try to re-implement it, and you know what? launchd is still the best solution out there.

    Furthermore, if there were any logic to you argument Linux would be the best desktop OS out there. It's not. Could that have something to do with the hundreds of distributions?

    I'm sorry but it's a flawed model; there's to much ego, and way to much wasted effort.

    Open source only succeeds at all because of numbers.

    The capitalists might have 100x less people working on the problem, but they still win, because they have direction. They don't have 10,000 people pulling in different directions.
  • Jack
    Wow, you do not nothing about nothing, do you?

    You primary focus in this conversation has been spreading lies and being insulting, with your partner JohnDoey.

    There's so much wrong with this post, that I can't believe it's serious.
  • azerkoculu
    It's clear that you people supporting capitalist economy know nothing about the history of the development of the societies and the economics science. We know that companies can develop a technology too fast, because in capitalism, companies make money by decreasing cost of the production. But in computing, capitalism CAN'T work. Because, it can't get enough support from it's major supporting devices like military and government. Also, things forming bourgeois class like raw material, production devices and distribution are not under control of the companies. Believe the economics science, capitalism doesn't work in an environment that allow FREEDOM. Today, they can develop a software which is so good. But open source win.

    Regards.
  • This is just the type of attitude that keeps free software from succeeding in many realms. You're simply anti-capitalism.

    The greatest myth of free software is that a proprietary, capitalist model cannot work. There are simply too many counterexamples for this to be correct. Instead, the truth about free software is that a proprietary, capitalist model is not the *only* thing that can work.
  • azerkoculu
    The observations I've written doesn't belong to open source community, they are well known facts by the capitalists calling open source as communism.
  • You're the one who has brought up "societal development," I've never compared open source to communism because (as I've stated numerous times) I *support* open source!
  • azerkoculu
    Steve Ballmer may support "open source", too. I wonder, What kind of relationship is there between comparing open source with communism? Let's compare open source with satanism?!

    Even though you put your source code in github, you still believe in success of the money and power of the bourgeois class instead of freedom, hate the communism word because of the capitalist propaganda, like almost all of the USA citizens. Simply, You are a capitalist supporting an economic system that is full of conflicts and wars.

    Also, capitalism equals technology is a big lie (like all of the USA propaganda). In capitalism, technology is a device to reduce cost of the production for companies. And they may try to stop development by using patients or by stopping to invest, too.

    Never mind. Your prejudices may be broken by an Albert Einstein article:
    http://monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php
  • I actually have no idea what you're on about--or how it even remotely relates to the content of either my article or any of my responses.
  • azerkoculu
    I'm trying to support my first comment. Let me remind it:

    "There may be better codecs than open codecs but we have to support open standards, everytime. Like most of us, Mozilla is sure about that technology is being improved faster when it’s open. We have to support open standards, not capitalists who make slower development of the technology to make more money."

    Now read the comments I've written, again.
  • Jack
    Yes, and you have no problem with people being simply pro-capitalism and seeing nothing else, but you have a problem with a the opposite view.

    Nothing biased here of course.

    But capitalism or anti-capitalism has nothing to do with Mozilla's position or with Free Software/Open Source in general.

    And Free Software/Open Source has succeeded in many areas and continues to succeed despite the bias and prejudice of people like you. And without sacrificing principles in the search of illusory shot terms goals.

    Thank you very much!
  • Jack,

    You clearly haven't read most of what I've written because if you had you'd know I'm a big proponent of open source (and even distribute my own work via GitHub). I also pointed out areas (like Linux on the server and Firefox itself) where open source software has been very successful.

    All I've said is that Free Software has never, and will never, succeed on the fact that it's free. It's success depends on providing at the very least a competitive product; just like any other product. As I've also said, my biggest problem with the free software zealots of the world is that they harbor a belief that proprietary software development doesn't work. There are dozens of counterexamples--so many as to make the belief absurd. The truth of free software is that it ALSO works, and is capable of producing equal or better results (though it does not always).
  • Name
    Mozilla's stance is right IMHO. Free standards are best for all in the LONG RUN.
  • Wayne S.
    Firefox must remain patent free. The pressure on Mozilla to adopt a path that will hurt the future of the internet is to further drive Flash out of video, but at what cost?

    The net-net is that we replace one closed technology for another. I support Mozilla in doing the right thing, even when it is the hard thing.
  • Wow, what a flash from the past, I actually remember (and used) your Firebird nightly builds.

    Other than that, great post!
  • saurabhk
    What would a upcoming browser that has great ideas about how web browsing should be done, implementing great performance, etc do? Small players would get wiped out because it would take time until they are able to pay the 5 million. The Internet should be open and should not just be in control of the three major IT corporations Microsoft,Apple and Google. Smaller players who have great ideas for the web should be allowed to present their ideas for consumption.
  • Mark Lee Smith
    Mozilla make millions every year just through search engine sponsorship.
  • Jack
    So what? You keep referring to this. What does this have to do with anything. It's just a question of money but of licensing. They can't extend their license (if they one) downstream. This means that every redistributor will need to get one too. This mean every linux distro and every person/company that uses Mozilla's products and code.

    We would still be in the same situation.

    Please STOP spreading lies!
  • saurabhk
    Read the damn comment before replying. When did I talk about Mozilla at all? I talked about a new innovative browser that may come up in the future. People have every right to build innovative browsers and a web that is receptive to their ideas will develop more. The web shouldn't just be restricted to 4 browsers and their lack of innovation. Such a huge fee will prevent new browsers, arguably better than the current crop, from coming up at all.
  • completely and utterly disagree with this post. (and as a semi-successful filmmaker and transmedia architect I know probably a little more on what people "want" with video... they don't want or need controlled proprietary licensingthat costs them extra over a VERY small degradation in quality that is being worked on) except in a very few instances. You can talk about Ogg Theora sucking..and it needs work but I can tell you the VAST amount of film content creators want the freedom of tools to deliver their product well over BEST for and additional expense or being controlled. ...and I have a very long history in this world. This is about audience experience and choice in more content. and although some say the quick fix ..."give me the candy now" is best. Mozilla imho is fighting the right fight with this. Your post sounds a little like people who say buy into the auto dealers argument.." don't disrupt my 1930's commute and expense in LA/Hollywood to build a public transportation system" or "don't take public land to make a parks system" ...and let me remind you...HTML5 and codec standards would not most likely even be such a discussion if Mozilla hadn't taken this stance. period. ...and, no, I do not work for them.
  • JohnDoey
    What video producers want more than anything is for viewers to be able to see their content. All viewers, everywhere, no matter what hardware they have, no matter what manufacturer. MPEG has made this happen for 20 years. Ogg has not contributed to this at all.

    You can publish in MPEG-4 H.264/AAC right now and it plays on all of the pocket media players, all of the set-top boxes, in QuickTime Player and FlashPlayer, in iTunes and YouTube. You can edit your MPEG-4 in Final Cut or Avid, you can encode it with your choice of various encoders from any manufacturers. The point of MPEG is to create and standardize a single universal *consumer* video format that can be included in every consumer device. Consumers are not willing to juggle formats, they're not willing to work with video that plays only on some of their devices, it absolutely kills the whole deal. We've seen it many, many times. The most recent example is Blu-Ray/HD-DVD.

    You're also simplifying the technical issues very, very much. At the container level, the reason that video tools and players were able to support MPEG-4 so easily is that it's the standardization of the QuickTime file format they already supported before that. Similar to how HTML5 favors what developers and users are already doing over what may be academically more correct. So it took minimal time and expense to make a QuickTime-ready player/editor into an MPEG-4-ready player/editor. Content that was stored in QuickTime format could easily be moved to MPEG-4 because it's essentially the same. Moving to Ogg presents many, many more issues.

    At the codec level, the quality and low bandwidth of H.264 is exponentially better than Ogg, not just a little better. Google did a study of moving YouTube to Ogg and found that today's Internet does not have enough bandwidth for it, even if YouTube were the one and only Web site.

    > HTML5 and codec standards would not most likely even be such
    > a discussion if Mozilla hadn't taken this stance.

    This is the one thing I agree with you about. The discussion of online video codec standards started in 1998 and ended in 2002. The discussion of HTML5 video markup standards started in 2005 or so and ended in 2008 or so. The fact that we are talking about both of these settled issues right now is totally Mozilla's fault.
  • "At the codec level, the quality and low bandwidth of H.264 is exponentially better than Ogg, not just a little better. Google did a study of moving YouTube to Ogg and found that today's Internet does not have enough bandwidth for it, even if YouTube were the one and only Web site."

    I want to see numbers. As far as I can tell, that is all lies. Theora beats H264 in all the low-bandwidth tests that I have seen.

    "The discussion of HTML5 video markup standards started in 2005 or so and ended in 2008 or so. The fact that we are talking about both of these settled issues right now is totally Mozilla's fault. "

    No, it's Apple's fault for refusing to touch Theora. If they would have accepted it, then we would have had a free codec to use everywhere. Even MS would probably have accepted it then. Anyway, WebM is out and free now. Let's hope it can do the job.
  • Brian as someone who has been down the road with indie film, netwrok television, studios, vloggers etc etc etc. You are wrong sorry. It is no longer time for the "needle in a haystack approach to "video producers just want people to view their content" simplified. They can do that in the basics right now. What they are learning is by supporting things like Ogg and On2 (new format coming by my guess this fall) you will see an open codec that is free be released into the wild. Indie filmmakers wants quality yes...they want people to see their videos yes...but long form independent content creators need options and freedom in license processes that a big corporation controls. If Mozilla had not stepped up and fought a difficult fight we would not have that. and no ...trust me I am not simplifying the technology. I have been on these discussions since 2003.
  • FredV
    Are you completely unaware that H264 though great technology is patent-encumbered, meaning a non-profit company like Mozilla could never afford to license the technology for its users. Better point the finger at the owners of these patents. To compare, MP3 had a free decoding/pay for encoding scheme, therefore the technology spread very quickly and widely.
  • Mark Lee Smith
    How exactly are Mozilla non-profit? They get paid millions every year through things like search-engine sponsorship. Clearly they're making a shit load of profits.
  • masklinn
    > Three of Four

    Yes, because who cares about Opera eh? Or Chromium builds?

    > You're voluntarily creating another format war and the only result of format wars is people avoid both alternatives because it's too much work to support both. Help us continue to make the Web a better place and move it forward one step at a time; even if those steps aren't quite as long as you'd hoped they'd be.

    Hey, I have an idea: pay for the licenses*, and I'm sure Mozilla will be A-OK with having h.264 in the browser

    * licenses, because not only does Mozilla need a license for the browsers you get straight from mozilla.org, every single linux distribution shipping firefox needs a license as well as they would *not* be covered by mozilla's own. I hope you're loaded, because the MPEG-LA note is going to be steep.
  • JohnDoey
    Linux can play H.264 now without Firefox. Linux has absolutely nothing to do with this.
  • Jack
    No, they cannot. H264 is patent encumbered. That means no distro is including it by default. You need to pay a license fee, just like Google payed.

    Do you have any proof that any distro pay such a license fee?

    You JohnDoey and Mark Something above are spreading lies for what purpose?

    Please tell us?
  • srsly?
    > Yes, because who cares about Opera eh? Or Chromium builds?

    IE6 still has 10x as many users as Opera. The number of people using Chromium is too small to measure.

    > Hey, I have an idea: pay for the licenses*, and I'm sure Mozilla will be A-OK with having h.264 in the browser

    Mozilla has rejected offloading HTML5 video to OS codecs, which it could do without licensing fees. It isn't about the money.
  • Daniel Einspanjer
    Thank you for being a Mozilla supporter. Thank you for your comments and for expressing your desires.
    Please consider lobbying the MPEG LA to provide a license for H.264 which Mozilla could accept and not open the possibility of you or any of the many projects and companies using Gecko engine being subject to a lawsuit as a downstream user at some point in the future.
  • Kwame Darko
    +1 Daniel. The root cause of Mozilla not implementing H.264 support is licensing so Brian, if you truly love Mozilla and keeping the future of browsers open, I suggest you take heed to Daniel's comments by starting a group to convince the MPEG LA to switch their license to a more open format.
  • Mark Lee Smith
    > convince the MPEG LA to switch their license to a more open format

    What does that even mean? We're not talking about a software licence here. H.264 is an ISO standard that anyone can implement. What you're paying are royalties.

    More open format. wtf.
  • cosku
    mozilla is doing the right thing.
    btw it's not an optimal solution but html5 allows you to link 2 different versions of the same video.
  • JohnDoey
    Firefox already plays H.264 in the FlashPlayer plug-in. So you're not going to see many video tags with both an H.264 and an Ogg in there, those are basically an academic exercise. What you are going to see is video tags with H.264 and a script that detects Firefox and replaces the video tag with a FlashPlayer that plays the same exact H.264 file.

    Keep in mind that there are often multiple video files for multiple bandwidths. So why you recommend 2 video formats, you're not talking about going from 1 to 2 files, you're talking about going from 3 to 6. Also, the authoring tools don't support Ogg. We generate H.264 with scripts, it happens automatically. To also create Ogg, we need to do a bunch of manual labor, so going from H.264 to H.264/Ogg is not double the work, it's like 10 times the work. Much less work to make a script that detects Firefox and puts in FlashPlayer.

    > mozilla is doing the right thing.

    It's an epic mistake and an embarrassment for Mozilla that it will take a long time for them to live down.
  • Guest
    Although Opera has a minority share, they're supporting Theora too.

    Mozilla are right to stick to their guns on this one.
    Replacing Flash video with another proprietary format is a totally pointless affair as you are still yielding control to the owner with commercial interests.

    I'd rather HTML5 video fell on its face over this issue than be stuck with H.264 for the next decade and the potential legal quagmire that is almost an inevitability after 2016.
  • JohnDoey
    > Replacing Flash video

    ... happened in 2008. Adobe replaced their proprietary FLV codec with ISO standard H.264 in FlashPlayer. You've already watched a lot of H.264 video on the Web via FlashPlayer. H.264 is already the Web-standard codec before HTML5, which as others have noted, is a markup standard which has nothing at all to do with video standards.

    > with another proprietary format

    H.264 is not proprietary in any sense of the word. It's a vendor neutral ISO standard. The patents involved are held by a vendor neutral patent pool, just like the 3G that you probably have in your mobile phone. That is why even though there is only one video player from one company (Adobe) in all the world that can play FLV, there are hundreds (or maybe thousands) of video players from hundreds (or maybe thousands) of manufacturers that can play H.264. Same as there are hundreds (or maybe thousands) of phones with 3G.

    > potential legal quagmire that is almost an inevitability after 2016.

    It is not "almost an inevitability" (which does not even make grammatical sense) it is "extremely unlikely unless MPEG-LA is feeling suicidal". The reason we have the current license terms which were just extended to 2016 was because Apple filibustered the original license in 2001. They will move away from H.264 along with YouTube and Blu-Ray if the license terms change, and MPEG-LA will forgo the fees they would have collected through 2028. It is not in anyone's interest to change the license terms.
  • Gman
    Theora is important because we need a decent free (as in speech) video codec. Plain and simple. Secondly, the #6 most popular website in the world, Wikipedia, uses Theora exclusively as its video codec.
  • Simon
    That's why my out of the box linux computer has never been able to play any wikipedia video !
    Youtube works fine, by the way !
    Peoples don't care about the file format : if it is not H264+HTML5, flash will be here for a long time !
  • A Boog
  • Darryl R.
    H.264 is better, but not really noticably so, as anyone who has compared recently encoded video would attest. Much existing video already on the web is in formats inferior to theora like H.263.

    H.264 is neither Free nor (as I understand) free. Mike Shaver mentioned an annual fee of 5 million dollars - is that a good use of Mozilla's very limited resources? I'd rather they spent 5 million annually on developer salaries or other priorities.

    GIF was already well entrenched on the web when unisys launched their submarine patent attack in late '99, moreover the patents expired in 2003/04. Flash is implemented as an external plugin, as is silverlight, air, java, etc. It would be wrong to disallow an kind of plugin functionality.

    Mozilla is absolutely right. Moreover if only html5 open codecs were served by wikipedia (tick) and youtube (cross), this question would already be settled in favour of open formats.
  • JohnDoey
    > H.264 is better, but not really noticably so, as anyone who has compared
    > recently encoded video would attest.

    No. H.264 is much, much better. I recently worked on a project moving all of a large Web site's video from proprietary Adobe FLV to ISO MPEG-4 H.264/AAC. This was done to get compatibility with mobiles. After the switch, on the desktop you still saw the video in FlashPlayer as before, but on mobiles, you saw the H.264 directly without Flash and the video became universal. We were supposed to keep the perceived quality the same; mobile support was the whole point. We were able to use H.264 files that were 1/5th of the bandwidth of FLV, and even then, user feedback was "wow, the video looks so much better!" and "I can't believe the quality of the video!" Even though the video was now 1/5th of the bandwidth, it had rich color instead of faded color, it had no blockiness instead of very obvious blockiness.

    Further, once we had made the switch, we could scale to HD quality, which FLV cannot do, and H.264 can. So we did a really important video in HD and filled the browser with video even though we were serving a file that was the same bandwidth as the FLV version which was 320x240. So in that case we kept the bandwidth the same but gained a huge amount of quality.

    > GIF was already well entrenched on the web when unisys launched
    > their submarine patent attack

    H.264 is much more entrenched right now than GIF at that time. This may not seem obvious to you because you're only thinking of native Web browser playback, and you're seeing a lot of H.264 in FlashPlayer and thinking it's the obsolete FLV. Every video sold from iTunes Store is H.264, and every video on YouTube is H.264. If that is not Web video, then what is? Every set-top box and Blu-Ray player is H.264. Every iPod and other music players are H.264, as well as every smartphone. NVIDIA GPU's have hardware H.264 decoders so your CPU doesn't have to decode the video. Every Flip camcorder and iPod nano and iPhone creates H.264 video.

    GIF support was all software. It could be replaced with PNG with a software update overnight. H.264 support is in many cases hardware. It can only be replaced on a hardware life cycle.

    > Moreover if only html5 open codecs were served by wikipedia (tick)
    > and youtube (cross), this question would already be settled in favour
    > of open formats.

    YouTube has already stated that is not technically possible because of Internet bandwidth limitations: Ogg is too fat. But even if that were not the case, changing YouTube to Ogg would cause it to stop playing on set-top boxes, smartphones, iPods and other media players. It would mean that video from a Flip camcorder could not show up on YouTube until it is transcoded from H.264 to Ogg. Audio video is BIGGER THAN THE WEB. It's bigger than HTML5, which is a markup standard, not a video standard. It's not about what YouTube or Wikipedia or Mozilla will do now, it's about what Apple and Sony and Panasonic and others did 10 years ago.

    W3C defines markup standards. MPEG defines video standards. In the same way that MPEG has nothing to teach W3C about markup, W3C has nothing to teach MPEG about video. We're talking about how the whole world views video, how the MPEG-2 DVD was replaced with an online version called MPEG-4 H.264, not just how browser makers play video. They are literally a decade late on online video. The H.264 video devices and video content is all already out there. The video editors all can both edit it and output it. iTunes and YouTube are made out of H.264.

    > Mike Shaver mentioned an annual fee of 5 million dollars - is that a good
    > use of Mozilla's very limited resources? I'd rather they spent 5 million
    > annually on developer salaries or other priorities.

    Assuming that number is correct, where do you think the 5 million dollars goes if they pay it to MPEG-LA for H.264? IT GOES TO DEVELOPER SALARIES. It pays the designers, engineers, and inventors who created H.264. It pays the people who made it possible for hundreds of devices from hundreds of manufacturers to all play or create the same video file. That is why the MPEG-4 patent pool exists: to pay the people who created MPEG-4 for their work.

    If Mozilla is getting 50 million a year from Google because of the search box in Firefox, I don't think that 5 million per year to add the equivalent of a CD/DVD player to Firefox is much to ask at all. Especially when you consider that a Firefox that can't play the world's video library will dwindle in popularity and so will the searches and the search money. So, a year from now, a Firefox with H.264 may be making 45 million from searches but a Firefox without H.264 may be making 35 million from searches because so many users have switched to Chrome.

    In mid-2009, one estimate says that Firefox had 270 million users. That means if they made 50 million in Google Searches, each user contributed 18 cents. Paying 5 million to MPEG-4 would cost each user 1.8 cents. The extra AC power, battery life, and lack of security that the FlashPlayer plug-in requires costs users much more than that. So it is an economic win to go from H.264 in FlashPlayer to H.264 native in Firefox.

    Again, video is bigger than the Web. You have to broaden your view from just this little Web and open source ghetto to the entire world. Mozilla has to fit into the existing online audio video community in the same way Microsoft has to fit into the existing Web markup community.
  • masklinn
    > Mike Shaver mentioned an annual fee of 5 million dollars - is that a good use of Mozilla's very limited resources?

    And let's not forget that this license would *not* cover downstream: the firefox bundled and distributed by your linux distribution of choice would *not* be covered, only Firefox downloaded straight from Mozilla's website (and potentially pre-compiled only) would be covered by Mozilla's h.264 license.
  • IMO, the reasoning behind Microsoft's adoption of H.264 is fairly clear; it aims directly at the heart of their fiercest competitor in terms of market share. Mozilla, being seen as putting "principles before pragmatism," now sits as the lone holdout with its firm support behind *.ogg.

    Coupled with the announcement of H.264 remaining royalty-free through 2015, this puts immense pressure on Mozilla to cave and bring all major browser engines in line. In short, there's no possible way Mozilla can continue waving their flag without endangering the market share they've worked over half a decade to nurture and grow.

    This is going to be an interesting year ahead for HTML5 support.
  • JohnDoey
    Microsoft adopted H.264 because that is how consumer video is stored. It had nothing to do with Firefox.
  • budapi
    Not only Mozilla, but Opera can't pay for the licenses too.
  • Mark Lee Smith
    Then Mozilla and Opera should be put out of there misery. Am I the only person who thinks that companies that can't afford to compete shouldn't be supported artificially?

    If it were any other browser no one would care
  • Jack
    We are talking about standards!

    You should informed yourself first. You continue to spread lies, for what purpose?

    Do you know what the purpose of a standard is?
  • masklinn
    > IMO, the reasoning behind Microsoft's adoption of H.264 is fairly clear; it aims directly at the heart of their fiercest competitor in terms of market share.

    The reason behind MS's adoption of h.264 is because they are h.264 licensees and already have a suitable codec in the core OS. Just as Apple, they have no reason *not* to use h.264. On the other hand, and again just as Apple, they have no Theora codec integrated in their native OS services, so they have no reason to support Theora either (it's not like they give a fig about freedom after all)
  • Quxxy
    “For Mozilla, H.264 is not currently a suitable technology choice. In many countries, it is a patented technology, meaning that it is illegal to use without paying license fees to the MPEG-LA. Without such a license, it is not legal to use or distribute software that produces or consumes H.264-encoded content. Indeed, even distributing H.264 content over the internet or broadcasting it over the airwaves requires the consent of the MPEG-LA, and the current fee exemption for free-to-the-viewer internet delivery is only in effect until the end of 2010.

    These license fees affect not only browser developers and distributors, but also represent a toll booth on anyone who wishes to produce video content.

    ...

    People have raised questions about using existing support for H.264 (or other formats) that may already be installed on the user’s computer. There are issues there related ... to effectiveness (about 60% of our users are on Windows XP, which provides no H.264 codec), ..."

    http://shaver.off.net/diary/2010/01/23/html5-vi...

    "In other words, if you're an end user in a country where software patents (or method patents) are enforceable, and you're using software that encodes or decodes H.264 and the vendor is not on the list of licensees, the MPEG LA reserves the right to sue you, the end user, as well as the software vendor or distributor."

    http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/69312.html

    Yeah; supporting an option which cannot, by definition, be supported on free operating systems and which Mozilla cannot possibly distribute sounds like a really fantastic idea.

    Hey, let's just put a bullet between the eyes of "Linux as a Desktop Operating System" right now and save ourselves the trouble later!

    For reference, here's the list of everyone licensed to use H.264; guess who isn't on the list: http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/L...
  • Robin of Sween
    No, you're completely wrong. The license of MPEG-4/AVC is _NEVER_ imposed on end-users, no matter if they create material in the H.264 video format, or if they are decoding H.264 video, in commercial or non-commercial context. Anyone saying this is either misinformed, spreading lies and FUD, or both.

    What the license does impose, however, is distributing H.264 encoded video material in a commercial context - f.e. charging users for downloading or streaming H.264 video, or selling lectures to students, encoded as H.264 - or selling software that encodes or decodes H.264, and this license burden lies always on the SUPPLIER of the material, NOT the end-user.

    A completely free video encoder, such as Handbrake of FFMPEG, both using the x264 encoder for producing H.264 material, are not concerned with the license. A completely free browser delivered in an entirely non-commercial context, capable of decoding H.264 video, such as the WebKit browser, is not concerned with the license. Mozilla is concerned with the license because their browser lies in a commercial context - one of these contexts is their search engine sponsoring, which is one of the things bringing in loads of money to the Mozilla Foundation. THIS REASON, their high income, is why they don't want to touch H.264 for HTML5 video; they just don't want to earn less money.
  • Jack
    You're confusing free (gratis) with free licensing like the one Mozilla uses for its code.

    "A completely free browser delivered in an entirely non-commercial context, capable of decoding H.264 video, such as the WebKit browser, is not concerned with the license."

    This is wrong. Talk about lying. Webkit doesn't include any codec. IT DOES NOT INCLUDE H264!

    These products are open source NOT freeware. They're not charities.

    Their code can and will be used in commercial settings. Webkit is used Google's Chrome and Apple's Safari.

    Apple's Safari is used inside one the best known commercial products MacOS X.

    "THIS REASON, their high income, is why they don't want to touch H.264 for HTML5 video; they just don't want to earn less money."

    This not only a blatant lie is also extremely insulting. You're really pathetic!
  • walesmd
    You forgot "running AdSense on your site" (and therefore, 90% of the web) in your list of encoded video material in a commercial context examples.
  • I don't have time to reply in full as it's 1:00 am here; but I will take a moment to point out that the free use for H.264 on the web (for the viewer) was extended through 2015

    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/03/1528242/...
  • Brian,

    This is "free" (as in beer) for WEBMASTERS who distribute "free [as in beer] to end users" video, not to software developers.

    So many people here miss the god damn point this is utterly annoying. The point is that Firefox simply *cannot* ship H264 codecs, period.

    At best it could link to OS libraries that implement it, but this has serious problems:

    - Stability issues due to version incompatibilities.

    - Different platforms would have different Firefox with varying capabilities.
  • JohnDoey
    > The point is that Firefox simply *cannot* ship H264 codecs, period.

    Sorry, that is ridiculous.

    A few years ago, Mozilla simply *could not* receive commercial funding. Now Mozilla gets 50 million plus dollars from Google every year. Not just a commercial entity but also a competing browser maker.

    A few years before that, Firefox was AOL and before that it was Netscape and before that, pieces of it were Mosaic. It can change with the times.

    H.264 does not even have to go into Firefox directly, it can be an external library. It can be excluded from GPL licensed versions. Whatever needs to happen with the paperwork has to happen because life does not follow the paperwork, it's the other way around.

    The Web has changed from text+images to text+images+graphics+audio+video. Microsoft has changed from proprietary Windows Media to ISO standard MPEG-4 due to this change. If Mozilla has to change, then they have to change. Better get on it, because the Web right now is passing Mozilla by, same as it's passing Adobe by.
  • Jack
    "A few years ago, Mozilla simply *could not* receive commercial funding. "

    So, now you're just making things up! Do you feel better for a being a liar?

    "H.264 does not even have to go into Firefox directly, it can be an external library. It can be excluded from GPL licensed versions. Whatever needs to happen with the paperwork has to happen because life does not follow the paperwork, it's the other way around."

    So what would be the point of being Open Source?
    Do you think they choose free software licensing because it was a fad?

    Really, why are so many people bent on forcing Mozilla abandoning their principles so that you can feel better?

    Since when being egoist and egotistical a virtue?

    As long you are satisfied everything is fine, who cares for others, isn't that right?

    The web was built on open specifications and standards. H264 is not open!
  • Deluxe
    To set the record straight, H.264 -is- open, it's not free (libre).

    IMO, Yes, Firefox can't distribute H.264 due to license incompatibilities. But they should support it if available in the underlying OS.
    Theora sucks (for this time at least, problably for a long time due to patent dodging), Dirac is far from ready. So H.264.
  • Mark Lee Smith
    You do know that Mozilla make millions just from having Google as the default search engine right? You would have thought with all that income they could just pay the damn licensing fee (which isn't even that expensive).
  • Nicholas Knight
    Mozilla's code is available under three licenses, two of which are the GPL and LGPL. These licenses have patent licensing requirements. Under them, Mozilla has two choices: Get licenses that effectively mean everyone receiving a copy of Firefox with H.264 support now has a patent license (which they can then distribute to still more people), or stop distributing under the GPL/LGPL.

    I don't see the former as financially possible for any entity, and the latter is highly unlikely (if not impossible at this point without rewriting all the code from existing contributors who aren't willing to change the licensing on their code).
  • Mark Lee Smith
    Webkit, which is the engine at the heart of Safari, Chrome, and several other browsers is also distributed under a few different open-source licences, including the LGPL, and apparently neither Apple nor Google etc. have any licensing problems integrating H.264

    Maybe I'm missing something?

    In the end if Mozilla's lack of foresight is causing them problems then it's there own fault; it's not fair grounds for holding up the HTML5 standard. They chose the licences Firefox is distributed under and they'll have to live with them. They'll clearly have to find a solution.

    As far as I'm concerned if Firefox can't support HTML5 then I'll use a browser that does. I'm getting mighty fed up with all the special treatment Mozilla gets on a daily basis. If they can't compete, they should drop out.
  • Jack
    Maybe I'm missing something?

    Yes, you're! Ignorance is the plate of the day in today's society.

    Safari (Apple) isn't open source.
    Chromiun (Google's open source browser) doesn't include any codecs.
    Webkit (the core) doesn't include any codecs

    They don't include ANY H264 code!

    Mozilla' isn't holding anything. HTML5 doesn't mandate any codec!

    If anyone is holding anything back is Apple. That refuse to accept Ogg Theora as base codec for HTML5.

    Ogg Theora is free to anyone to implement. H264 is not!
  • Go download Webkit from http://webkit.org.

    H264 video plays back fine. That is the open source webkit project.
  • If they don't pay about $5 million/year, they can be sued by MPEG LA for that.
    And what OS does it play H264 on/what extra software do you have? It might just be using something like ffmpeg or gstreamer to do it.
  • 2016 is just around the corner and in internet terms its tomorrow. Mozilla is doing the right thing. I can think of several codecs in recent history in which critical mass was obtained and next thing you know the patent owners were going after companies for royalties. dont think it wont happen again.

    No one needs h.264. sure its fast and pretty but it is by no means the best.

    Lets just hope Mozilla's market share puts pressure on the other 3 "big name" vendors to see whats best for the open web.
  • JohnDoey
    > 2016 is just around the corner and in internet terms its tomorrow.

    No, you have it backwards. Internet time is faster that real time, same as dog years are faster than human years. So 6 years from now is 60 years in Internet time (or more) and 42 years in dog years. It's very, very hard to predict that far out. Consider if I asked you in 2006 to tell me about the future of online video, you would not be able to tell me about the rise of HTML5/H.264 mobiles with no FlashPlayers. As recently as 2008, the CEO of Adobe was laughing out loud at HTML5 and predicting it would not be supported in all major browsers before 2020. Today we have an IE9 preview with a video tag that plays H.264.

    In 2016, the current terms will be extended again, because it's in MPEG-LA's best interest to do so. For one, Apple has not only promised to abandon H.264 if the terms change, it is Apple that got these terms implemented in the first place by filibustering for 6 months, refusing to support H.264 until the current terms were implemented. Secondly, user generated content is incompatible with a Web content tax. Users whose video cameras create H.264 (Flip, Kodak, others) are going to upload that content all over the place and they're not going to be doing licensing deals with MPEG-LA in order to do so.

    H.264 is everywhere. It's in your iPod, it's in your Flip camera, it's in your YouTube and iTunes, your QuickTime Player and FlashPlayer, your set-top box and your Blu-Ray player. It's not going away anytime soon. Gripe all you want about your politics, but Mozilla is way, way late to this party. They are showing up at 2 AM and complaining that people are drinking alcohol.
  • In my eyes, Mozilla ARE the cool guys, and if they go to ANOTHER party, I'll follow them there. I'll rather be a little less cool in the eyes of strangers then to accept terms that can change at any time.
  • me
    "2016 is just around the corner"

    Well, last year, 2010 was "just around the corner" and then the period was extended another five years.
  • Markus
    No one needs H.264? Where ever did that come from? What makes you say that? And, "the best" is defined by you how? That it will be free for the browser developers, regardless of how ugly and computationally consuming it will be for the end-user? What an awkward, close-minded perspective...

    End-users never pay for consuming MPEG technology in any way. Mozilla is welcoming H.264 (and other commercially licensed video codecs) in the Flash plugin, with open arms, but they cry about including H.264 playback INSIDE the browser, just because that will lower their earnings. How's that for good morals? Go read the MPEG licenses before you talk about what's open and free in what context, and what isn't.
  • Clearly, you are the one who needs to "Go read" licenses and look at RECENT history in this field.

    After you are done actually reading and paying attention you will realize that the license fee will be passed to the end user in some form or another. Please think outside of your little box. In this day and age if "computationally consuming" is seriously an issue you may want to hit up best buy and invest in a PC made in the past 5 years,
  • JohnDoey
    The license fee being passed to the end user is not the issue, because what is also passed to the user is a way to make really high quality online video with really small file sizes and a way to share that with the world. The user is happy to pay $150 for a Flip camcorder that can create universal video that plays on all of their devices and all of their friend's devices rather than $148 for a Flip camcorder that can create Ogg that nobody can see.

    The licensing issue is if users are themselves charged for each item of content they create and serve. If they upload a video they shot of their cat and get a bill from MPEG-LA is the issue. That has not happened, and never will happen. Apple refused to support that in the beginning which is why it was removed in the first place, and since then we have user-generated content all over the Web, which is completely incompatible with end users paying MPEG-LA for what they publish.

    > After you are done actually reading and paying attention

    You should consider adding some humility to your tone because reading the license is maybe 1% of the information you need to understand the practical reality. It's in MPEG-LA's best interest to keep enjoying the incredible, unimaginable success that H.264 currently enjoys just as it is. Getting dropped from iTunes and YouTube is not going to make MPEG-LA any more successful.

    The whole point of MPEG is to create a common, standardized, universal codec to burn into hardware in consumer electronics. MPEG-4 is working out very, very well, same as MPEG-2 before it and the original MPEG before that. The only reason MP3 has license problems is it was made for DVD, not online. MPEG-4 was made for online. MPEG-4 is something that Mozilla can take advantage of, or not, as they choose. But they certainly can't arbitrarily replace it with something else. That is ridiculous.

    And, if Mozilla is worried about what will happen in 2016, they can join MPEG, implement H.264, and let it be known that they, along with Apple and Google, will remove themselves from the H.264 party if MPEG-LA goes after users. That now protects the users even more, while still providing them with the universal video THEY DEMAND. Then, if Mozilla has a better idea for how to implement the next universal video codec, I'm sure we'll all be happy to hear it.
  • This actually sounds like trolling in my ears.

    The license violate the spirit of free software. The license actually cost money (what I've heard, 50 SEK or ~$5 per user) that the end user will have to pay. Even though it may seem little, it adds up when Mozilla would add it. They would have to pay $5 000 000 (actual number, this is confirmed) per year to distribute Firefox with it.

    And here's the biggest catch: They wouldn't be able to ship the code with the codec (just like with Chrome and Chromium), and whoever else that want to distribute Firefox with the codec would have to pay.

    Too bad for the developers. But who cares, I guess they don't need any freedom, right? Isn't that what you said? They'll just have to pay up if if they want to help Firefox with adding cool features to the video playback functionality, unpaid too. That's what you wanted, right?

    Everybody has to pay at some point. And depending on what they do, they might end up having to pay thousands of dollars some day in the future. You should know that promises are not legally binding.

    Who cares about "how likely" it is that MPEG LA will sue people. People have thought all kinds of things were unlikely, and yet they got sued. Just think of GIF.
    Remember that the the reason for it being implemented today is that the GIF submarine patent attack failed (they didn't get much money, probably nothing) and that the patents also has expired, and that some people still use it for animations.

    I hope that WebM really can replace h264 soon.
  • Oh, wow...I was so optimistic about everything. IE9 was looking on the up and up. Microsoft was "getting it." HTML5 was making our jobs easier. Until I read this...

    It was just too good to be true, I guess haha

    This is a great write-up, thanks for breaking it to us so gently...
  • Brian, this is a fantastic post! This seems to be the opposite battle facing Apple and the iPad. If Apple gives in and allows Flash, then Flash continues to thrive. By not allowing it, they are greatly influencing new users to abandon flash and at least look at other ways of doing things.

    However, in the case of Firefox, they stand a much better chance of introducing complexity and keeping Flash alive as your point was well made. I have nothing against Adobe, but I really prefer native browser code + JS to add interaction. I love the direction the web is heading, if we can just get over some of these obstacles.

    Thanks for taking the time to write this! Hope to see you again at one of the upcoming conferences. Cheers!
blog comments powered by Disqus