From: Petter Reinholdtsen Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:04:53 +0000 (+0000) Subject: Ny post. X-Git-Url: https://pere.pagekite.me/gitweb/homepage.git/commitdiff_plain/84863ccc5c7e1a2db55a2df463e526e1ea7dfd06 Ny post. --- diff --git a/blog/data/2011-01-12-video-standard.txt b/blog/data/2011-01-12-video-standard.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..985eea7cd9 --- /dev/null +++ b/blog/data/2011-01-12-video-standard.txt @@ -0,0 +1,74 @@ +Title: Chrome plan to drop H.264 support for HTML5 <video> +Tags: english, standard, video +Date: 2011-01-12 22:10 + +

Today I discovered +via +digi.no that the Chrome developers, in a surprising announcement, +yesterday +announced plans to drop H.264 support for HTML5 <video> in +the browser. The argument used is that H.264 is not a "completely +open" codec technology. If you believe H.264 was free for everyone +to use, I recommend having a look at the essay +"H.264 – Not The Kind Of +Free That Matters". It is not free of cost for creators of video +tools, nor those of us that want to publish on the Internet, and the +terms provided by MPEG-LA excludes free software projects from +licensing the patents needed for H.264. Some background information +on the Google announcement is available from +OSnews. +A good read. :)

+ +

Personally, I believe it is great that Google is taking a stand to +promote equal terms for everyone when it comes to video publishing on +the Internet. This can only be done by publishing using free and open +standards, which is only possible if the web browsers provide support +for these free and open standards. At the moment there seem to be two +camps in the web browser world when it come to video support. Some +browsers support H.264, and others support +Ogg Theora and +WebM +(Dirac is not really an option +yet), forcing those of us that want to publish video on the Internet +and which can not accept the terms of use presented by MPEG-LA for +H.264 to not reach all potential viewers. +Wikipedia keep an +updated summary of the current browser support.

+ +

Not surprising, several people would prefer Google to keep +promoting H.264, and John Gruber +presents +the mind set of these people quite well. His rhetorical questions +provoked a reply from Thom Holwerda with another set of questions +presenting +the issues with H.264. Both are worth a read.

+ +

Some argue that if Google is dropping H.264 because it isn't free, +they should also drop support for the Adobe Flash plugin. This +argument was covered by Simon Phipps in +todays +blog post, which I find to put the issue in context. To me it +make perfect sense to drop native H.264 support for HTML5 in the +browser while still allowing plugins.

+ +

I suspect the reason this announcement make so many people protest, +is that all the users and promoters of H.264 suddenly get an uneasy +feeling that they might be backing the wrong horse. A lot of TV +broadcasters have been moving to H.264 the last few years, and a lot +of money has been invested in hardware based on the belief that they +could use the same video format for both broadcasting and web +publishing. Suddenly this belief is shaken.

+ +

An interesting question is why Google is doing this. While the +presented argument might be true enough, I believe Google would only +present the argument if the change make sense from a business +perspective. One reason might be that they are currently negotiating +with MPEG-LA over royalties or usage terms, and giving MPEG-LA the +feeling that dropping H.264 completely from Chroome, Youtube and +Google Video would improve the negotiation position of Google. +Another reason might be that Google want to save money by not having +to pay the video tax to MPEG-LA at all, and thus want to move to a +video format not requiring royalties at all. A third reason might be +that the Chrome development team simply want to avoid the +Chrome/Chromium split to get more help with the development of Chrome. +I guess time will tell.