Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

google dropping h264

J Davis

J Davis

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
1,267
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NYC
codec wars hotting up ...

We expect even more rapid innovation in the web media platform in the coming year and are focusing our investments in those technologies that are developed and licensed based on open web principles. To that end, we are changing Chrome’s HTML5 <video> support to make it consistent with the codecs already supported by the open Chromium project. Specifically, we are supporting the WebM (VP8) and Theora video codecs, and will consider adding support for other high-quality open codecs in the future.
Though H.264 plays an important role in video, as our goal is to enable open innovation, support for the codec will be removed and our resources directed towards completely open codec technologies.
Click to expand...

http://blog.chromium.org/
 
It was only announced today so the ramifications are unknown. If you are involved with video and you are interested in the
transition of TV to internet and mobile web then its worth noting when stuff like this happens.

The immediate effect of this will be felt by developers and websites who must provide browser / user agent detection and
supply multiple codecs (h264, webM, theora and .flv) for each video if they intend to have their streaming video reach all browsers and mobile devices.

For google to remove a feature this huge from a new product – Chrome browser and Chrome Operating System (link)
suggests that they know something that we don't or are planning something else soon.

As you have probably gathered I have a huge interest in the development of online video so I thought I'd share this news here.
 
Yes... They know Chrome OS will be a hit. That's where their chips are.

Considering their investment in broadband internet in the US, I'm sure it will all work out for them.
 
J Davis said:
The immediate effect of this will be felt by developers and websites who must provide browser / user agent detection and
supply multiple codecs (h264, webM, theora and .flv) for each video if they intend to have their streaming video reach all browsers and mobile devices
Click to expand...

Like you didn't have to do that before? Mozilla Firefox has never supported proprietary codecs (like H.264) so you always had to do this to deliver video over HTML5.
 
seems like a short term foolish move and a long term success move,

Just seems like a terrible move cause H.264 is more widely used and its royalty free now isn't it? So web M would have a long way to climb up before its a standard standing side by side H.264 and Flash (hopefully flash will be replaced with Web M)
 
Hummm. Seems familiar… Navigator tried many tricks like this one…
Poor decision
 
http://google-chrome-browser.com/

Why Two OS's, Google?
Much has already been said about Google's decision to develop, simulatenously, two different computer operating systems, Chrome OS and Android. Originally, Chrome OS was meant for netbook/notebook computers while Android was designed for smartphones and other mobile devices.

However, as tablet computing - thanks to the iPad - took off, the line between a mobile computer and a desktop computer is beginning to blur. Windows 7 is appearing on new tablets at CES this week, Android is already running on tablets and Chrome OS, courtesy of another Hexxeh port, made it to the iPad.

This had led some to speculate that the two operating systems will merge or that, perhaps, Chrome OS will even fail. Most notably, former Googler/Gmail creator/FriendFeed founder turned Facebook engineer/Y Combinator partner Paul Bucheit recently tweeted a predication that "Chrome OS will be killed next year (or 'merged' with Android)." He later explained via FriendFeed that he felt "ChromeOS has no purpose that isn’t better served by Android." It was a sentiment that struck a cord, as you can see by the discussion that followed.

In the meantime, we hope Hexxeh will release the details of this latest Android to Cr-48 hack so developers can do a little "merging" of their own.
 
I think the biggest short term problem here is hardware acceleration, or rather lack of it.
Hardware assist for H264 exists practically everywhere, while it is non-existant for VP8 (which is also an inferior codec quality wise, IMHO).
That means once again video decoding will be handled by the CPU, which of course means laptop battery life is going to be significantly shortened for those who watch a lot of videos while traveling.

I also think this means youtube is likely to drop H264 at some point, in order to force the issue even further, seeing as it's a google company.
That in turn would render useless millions of youtube capable set-top boxes, tvs and blu-ray players. Not sure what the fallout from this will be, but it could be interesting to watch.

As much as I like open standards, I also think it's pretty arrogant of Google to assume their Chrome browser, which currently has about 10% market share, or their unreleased Chrome OS, is in a position to dictate formats.
 
I don't get why they want to push the format right now, as the codec has much lower quality than H264, there is no hardware encoding or decoding, and the software encoder is sloooow. They really should have enhanced the codec, and apply for ISO/ITU adoption with a decent spec, then push the format.

Seems like the "patent free" is the catch-phrase here, people seems to disregard the state of the codecs.

Exactly similar, the WebP image format is currently inferior to a normal JPEG image....why bother?

I really don't mind to pay licensing fees if I can obtain, ease of use and vastly better quality.
 
Interesting.

As a developer, it has been interesting to me that Firefox and Opera didn't include H.264, but that Chrome did.

IE9 is supposed to support it Web<, as soon as WebM delivers the plugin is developed and released. Same with Safari.

So for web video - at least for the moment, it looks like H.264 is out as a cross-browser solution, and WebM is in.

If anything, this has been a move that pushes WebM and/or Theora to the fore.
 
H.264 is a standard that is encumbered by patents owned by at least 27 different companies.. It is about as far from 'open' as you can get.

I have always thought that the decision to use H.264 in commercial products was a foolish one simply because of this patent minefield. Did you know, for instance, that the H.264 used in Canon DSLRs is only licensed for non-commercial use? All of those folks shooting movies and commercials on Canons should be paying royalties to MPEG LA.

I imagine one reason Red developed Redcode was so they could use a codec that they fully own and control.

The patent system is killing innovation in the technology world and Google is doing the right thing by moving towards open standards.
 
Last edited:
Just because it's not patent free doesn't mean the codec isn't open. You can go to the ITU website and download the specification. It'll tell you exactly what you need to write a compliant byte stream.

This war is going to be so stupid and fruitless. This is HD DVD and Blu-ray all over again in its own little way.
 
Brent J. Craig said:
I imagine one reason Red developed Redcode was so they could use a codec that they fully own and control.

The patent system is killing innovation in the technology world and Google is doing the right thing by moving towards open standards.
Click to expand...
We don't know if REDCODE is patent encumbered because they keep the spec under wraps.
 
I don't really think this is going to be a big problem. Google already have five versions (240p, 360p, 480p, 720p and 1080p) of the H.264 videos on Youtube, and then more for other formats.

So it doesn't kill me to have to provide two video files and a tiny piece of javascript to switch between them. You already had to when Firefox only supported Theora...

Chuck Z said:
We don't know if REDCODE is patent encumbered because they keep the spec under wraps.
Click to expand...

Although there's no spec, you can get a pretty good idea of how REDCODE works by reading the patent...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top