Google wants WebM not H.264 for HTML5 movie talk
Google wants its WebM/VP8 codec to be made a mandatory standard for real-time communications on the web, and has recommended against the use of the H.264 codec. While this is fine in theory, H.264 is already entrenched, and Google itself supports it
Google wants its WebM/VP8 codec to be made a mandatory standard for real-time communications on the web, and has recommended against the use of the H.264 codec. At the moment, the W3C’s draft specification dated twelve July two thousand twelve says: "User agents negotiate the codec resolution, bitrate, and other media parameters." In other words: whatever works.
In a post headed Google statement on codecs, aimed at influencing the WebRTC standard, the company says: "Given the capability to produce a royalty-free platform with no compromises on quality, we see no reason to include mandatory royalty-bearing codecs."
WebRTC (Real Time Communications) is the attempt to build a standard system for web-based audio and movie conferencing using HTML5 in the browser, without any plug-ins.
Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Opera. Microsoft’s Internet Explorer and Skype are all expected to support WebRTC. The only doubt concerns support in Apple’s Safari, since Apple is following a proprietary route with its own FaceTime system, using H.264. However, WebRTC could presumably be enabled on Apple devices via third-party plug-ins.
Neither Firefox nor Opera supports H.264 directly because it is patented and requires a licence, but these browsers can rely on H.264 codecs shipped as part of Microsoft Windows seven and Apple’s Mac OS X. Where H.264 is not available, Adobe Flash usually provides a fallback. (Apple iPad users evidently don’t mind gaping fuckholes in their web pages.)
Albeit Google has made noises about not supporting H.264 in its Chrome browser, it wouldn’t make much difference because Chrome already comes bundled with an integrated Flash plug-in.
The H.264 codec is also the preferred system for movie on mobile devices because most if not all modern chipsets include built-in decoding. This is more battery-efficient than decoding highly-compressed H.264 movie in software.
Mozilla’s chief technology officer Brendan Eich has pointed out in a blog post, Movie, Mobile, and the Open Web, that "Android stock browsers (all Android versions), and Chrome on Android Four, all support H.264 from <movie>". He adds:
"Google is in my opinion not going to ship mobile browsers this year or next that fail to play H.264 content that Apple plays ideally. Whatever happens in the very long run, Mozilla can’t wait for such an event. Don’t ask Google why they bought On2 but failed to thrust WebM to the exclusion of H.264 on Android. The question answers itself."
Mozilla lobbied against H.264, even tho’ it is an open, multi-vendor standard (MPEG4 Part Ten), and a mandatory standard for Blu-ray movie playback (AVC).
Eich, like most of us, would choose a web unencumbered by patents. However, Eich says: "What I do know for certain is this: H.264 is absolutely required right now to contest on mobile. I do not believe that we can reject H.264 content in Firefox on Android or in B2G [Boot2Gecko] and sustain the shift to mobile."
Google is strongly involved in WebRTC development, having bought GrandCentral (now Google Voice) for $95 million, Gizmo5 (formerly SIPphone) for $30 million, and Global IP Solutions (GIPS) for $68.Two million. GIPS suggested VoiceEngine and VideoEngine (including its own movie codec) and suggested web-based conferencing services to corporations in competition with Skype and similar VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) services.
Google acquired the VP8 codec by buying On Technologies for $124.6 million, and then made it open source as WebM. It did this in preference to backing the open source Theora, which is actually based on VP3, a 12-year-old On2 codec.
Presumably Google sees making WebM/VP8 support compulsory in WebRTC movie talk as a roundabout way of making it more popular for streaming movie.
Google has also permitted its Motorola Mobility subsidiary, bought for $12.Five billion, to proceed suing both Apple and Microsoft over their use of its standards-essential patents. These are supposed to be licensed on " fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" (FRAND) terms . However, Motorola is requiring what look like unreasonable fees, and attempting to block the sale of products that use H.264, such as the Xbox three hundred sixty games console.
Anti-trust figures may put a stop to this. The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) "has opened a formal probe into whether Google Inc’s Motorola Mobility unit is honoring pledges it made to license industry-standard technology for mobile and other devices on fair terms," according to Bloomberg, while the "European Commission [is investigating] Motorola Mobility’s suspected manhandle of standard-essential patents against Apple and Microsoft," according to FOSSpatents.
Competition authorities only permitted Google to buy Motorola Mobility on the basis that it would not manhandle its power. We must hope the presumption that Google wouldn’t be evil was not misplaced.
Find out more about WebRTC:
Google wants WebM not for HTML5 movie talk, ZDNet
Google wants WebM not H.264 for HTML5 movie talk
Google wants its WebM/VP8 codec to be made a mandatory standard for real-time communications on the web, and has recommended against the use of the H.264 codec. While this is fine in theory, H.264 is already entrenched, and Google itself supports it
Google wants its WebM/VP8 codec to be made a mandatory standard for real-time communications on the web, and has recommended against the use of the H.264 codec. At the moment, the W3C’s draft specification dated twelve July two thousand twelve says: "User agents negotiate the codec resolution, bitrate, and other media parameters." In other words: whatever works.
In a post headed Google statement on codecs, aimed at influencing the WebRTC standard, the company says: "Given the capability to produce a royalty-free platform with no compromises on quality, we see no reason to include mandatory royalty-bearing codecs."
WebRTC (Real Time Communications) is the attempt to build a standard system for web-based audio and movie conferencing using HTML5 in the browser, without any plug-ins.
Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Opera. Microsoft’s Internet Explorer and Skype are all expected to support WebRTC. The only doubt concerns support in Apple’s Safari, since Apple is following a proprietary route with its own FaceTime system, using H.264. However, WebRTC could presumably be enabled on Apple devices via third-party plug-ins.
Neither Firefox nor Opera supports H.264 directly because it is patented and requires a licence, but these browsers can rely on H.264 codecs shipped as part of Microsoft Windows seven and Apple’s Mac OS X. Where H.264 is not available, Adobe Flash usually provides a fallback. (Apple iPad users evidently don’t mind gaping crevices in their web pages.)
Albeit Google has made noises about not supporting H.264 in its Chrome browser, it wouldn’t make much difference because Chrome already comes bundled with an integrated Flash plug-in.
The H.264 codec is also the preferred system for movie on mobile devices because most if not all modern chipsets include built-in decoding. This is more battery-efficient than decoding highly-compressed H.264 movie in software.
Mozilla’s chief technology officer Brendan Eich has pointed out in a blog post, Movie, Mobile, and the Open Web, that "Android stock browsers (all Android versions), and Chrome on Android Four, all support H.264 from <movie>". He adds:
"Google is in my opinion not going to ship mobile browsers this year or next that fail to play H.264 content that Apple plays ideally. Whatever happens in the very long run, Mozilla can’t wait for such an event. Don’t ask Google why they bought On2 but failed to shove WebM to the exclusion of H.264 on Android. The question answers itself."
Mozilla lobbied against H.264, even however it is an open, multi-vendor standard (MPEG4 Part Ten), and a mandatory standard for Blu-ray movie playback (AVC).
Eich, like most of us, would choose a web unencumbered by patents. However, Eich says: "What I do know for certain is this: H.264 is absolutely required right now to challenge on mobile. I do not believe that we can reject H.264 content in Firefox on Android or in B2G [Boot2Gecko] and get through the shift to mobile."
Google is powerfully involved in WebRTC development, having bought GrandCentral (now Google Voice) for $95 million, Gizmo5 (formerly SIPphone) for $30 million, and Global IP Solutions (GIPS) for $68.Two million. GIPS suggested VoiceEngine and VideoEngine (including its own movie codec) and suggested web-based conferencing services to corporations in competition with Skype and similar VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) services.
Google acquired the VP8 codec by buying On Technologies for $124.6 million, and then made it open source as WebM. It did this in preference to backing the open source Theora, which is actually based on VP3, a 12-year-old On2 codec.
Presumably Google sees making WebM/VP8 support compulsory in WebRTC movie talk as a roundabout way of making it more popular for streaming movie.
Google has also permitted its Motorola Mobility subsidiary, bought for $12.Five billion, to proceed suing both Apple and Microsoft over their use of its standards-essential patents. These are supposed to be licensed on " fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" (FRAND) terms . However, Motorola is requesting what look like unreasonable fees, and attempting to block the sale of products that use H.264, such as the Xbox three hundred sixty games console.
Anti-trust figures may put a stop to this. The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) "has opened a formal probe into whether Google Inc’s Motorola Mobility unit is honoring pledges it made to license industry-standard technology for mobile and other devices on fair terms," according to Bloomberg, while the "European Commission [is investigating] Motorola Mobility’s suspected manhandle of standard-essential patents against Apple and Microsoft," according to FOSSpatents.
Competition authorities only permitted Google to buy Motorola Mobility on the basis that it would not manhandle its power. We must hope the presumption that Google wouldn’t be evil was not misplaced.
Find out more about WebRTC:
Google wants WebM not for HTML5 movie talk, ZDNet
Google wants WebM not H.264 for HTML5 movie talk
Google wants its WebM/VP8 codec to be made a mandatory standard for real-time communications on the web, and has recommended against the use of the H.264 codec. While this is fine in theory, H.264 is already entrenched, and Google itself supports it
Google wants its WebM/VP8 codec to be made a mandatory standard for real-time communications on the web, and has recommended against the use of the H.264 codec. At the moment, the W3C’s draft specification dated twelve July two thousand twelve says: "User agents negotiate the codec resolution, bitrate, and other media parameters." In other words: whatever works.
In a post headed Google statement on codecs, aimed at influencing the WebRTC standard, the company says: "Given the capability to supply a royalty-free platform with no compromises on quality, we see no reason to include mandatory royalty-bearing codecs."
WebRTC (Real Time Communications) is the attempt to build a standard system for web-based audio and movie conferencing using HTML5 in the browser, without any plug-ins.
Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Opera. Microsoft’s Internet Explorer and Skype are all expected to support WebRTC. The only doubt concerns support in Apple’s Safari, since Apple is following a proprietary route with its own FaceTime system, using H.264. However, WebRTC could presumably be enabled on Apple devices via third-party plug-ins.
Neither Firefox nor Opera supports H.264 directly because it is patented and requires a licence, but these browsers can rely on H.264 codecs shipped as part of Microsoft Windows seven and Apple’s Mac OS X. Where H.264 is not available, Adobe Flash usually provides a fallback. (Apple iPad users evidently don’t mind gaping slots in their web pages.)
Albeit Google has made noises about not supporting H.264 in its Chrome browser, it wouldn’t make much difference because Chrome already comes bundled with an integrated Flash plug-in.
The H.264 codec is also the preferred system for movie on mobile devices because most if not all modern chipsets include built-in decoding. This is more battery-efficient than decoding highly-compressed H.264 movie in software.
Mozilla’s chief technology officer Brendan Eich has pointed out in a blog post, Movie, Mobile, and the Open Web, that "Android stock browsers (all Android versions), and Chrome on Android Four, all support H.264 from <movie>". He adds:
"Google is in my opinion not going to ship mobile browsers this year or next that fail to play H.264 content that Apple plays flawlessly. Whatever happens in the very long run, Mozilla can’t wait for such an event. Don’t ask Google why they bought On2 but failed to shove WebM to the exclusion of H.264 on Android. The question answers itself."
Mozilla lobbied against H.264, even tho’ it is an open, multi-vendor standard (MPEG4 Part Ten), and a mandatory standard for Blu-ray movie playback (AVC).
Eich, like most of us, would choose a web unencumbered by patents. However, Eich says: "What I do know for certain is this: H.264 is absolutely required right now to challenge on mobile. I do not believe that we can reject H.264 content in Firefox on Android or in B2G [Boot2Gecko] and get through the shift to mobile."
Google is intensely involved in WebRTC development, having bought GrandCentral (now Google Voice) for $95 million, Gizmo5 (formerly SIPphone) for $30 million, and Global IP Solutions (GIPS) for $68.Two million. GIPS suggested VoiceEngine and VideoEngine (including its own movie codec) and suggested web-based conferencing services to corporations in competition with Skype and similar VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) services.
Google acquired the VP8 codec by buying On Technologies for $124.6 million, and then made it open source as WebM. It did this in preference to backing the open source Theora, which is actually based on VP3, a 12-year-old On2 codec.
Presumably Google sees making WebM/VP8 support compulsory in WebRTC movie talk as a roundabout way of making it more popular for streaming movie.
Google has also permitted its Motorola Mobility subsidiary, bought for $12.Five billion, to proceed suing both Apple and Microsoft over their use of its standards-essential patents. These are supposed to be licensed on " fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" (FRAND) terms . However, Motorola is requesting what look like unreasonable fees, and attempting to block the sale of products that use H.264, such as the Xbox three hundred sixty games console.
Anti-trust bods may put a stop to this. The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) "has opened a formal probe into whether Google Inc’s Motorola Mobility unit is honoring pledges it made to license industry-standard technology for mobile and other devices on fair terms," according to Bloomberg, while the "European Commission [is investigating] Motorola Mobility’s suspected manhandle of standard-essential patents against Apple and Microsoft," according to FOSSpatents.
Competition authorities only permitted Google to buy Motorola Mobility on the basis that it would not manhandle its power. We must hope the presumption that Google wouldn’t be evil was not misplaced.
Find out more about WebRTC:
Google wants WebM not for HTML5 movie talk, ZDNet
Google wants WebM not H.264 for HTML5 movie talk
Google wants its WebM/VP8 codec to be made a mandatory standard for real-time communications on the web, and has recommended against the use of the H.264 codec. While this is fine in theory, H.264 is already entrenched, and Google itself supports it
Google wants its WebM/VP8 codec to be made a mandatory standard for real-time communications on the web, and has recommended against the use of the H.264 codec. At the moment, the W3C’s draft specification dated twelve July two thousand twelve says: "User agents negotiate the codec resolution, bitrate, and other media parameters." In other words: whatever works.
In a post headed Google statement on codecs, aimed at influencing the WebRTC standard, the company says: "Given the capability to supply a royalty-free platform with no compromises on quality, we see no reason to include mandatory royalty-bearing codecs."
WebRTC (Real Time Communications) is the attempt to build a standard system for web-based audio and movie conferencing using HTML5 in the browser, without any plug-ins.
Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Opera. Microsoft’s Internet Explorer and Skype are all expected to support WebRTC. The only doubt concerns support in Apple’s Safari, since Apple is following a proprietary route with its own FaceTime system, using H.264. However, WebRTC could presumably be enabled on Apple devices via third-party plug-ins.
Neither Firefox nor Opera supports H.264 directly because it is patented and requires a licence, but these browsers can rely on H.264 codecs shipped as part of Microsoft Windows seven and Apple’s Mac OS X. Where H.264 is not available, Adobe Flash usually provides a fallback. (Apple iPad users evidently don’t mind gaping slots in their web pages.)
Albeit Google has made noises about not supporting H.264 in its Chrome browser, it wouldn’t make much difference because Chrome already comes bundled with an integrated Flash plug-in.
The H.264 codec is also the preferred system for movie on mobile devices because most if not all modern chipsets include built-in decoding. This is more battery-efficient than decoding highly-compressed H.264 movie in software.
Mozilla’s chief technology officer Brendan Eich has pointed out in a blog post, Movie, Mobile, and the Open Web, that "Android stock browsers (all Android versions), and Chrome on Android Four, all support H.264 from <movie>". He adds:
"Google is in my opinion not going to ship mobile browsers this year or next that fail to play H.264 content that Apple plays flawlessly. Whatever happens in the very long run, Mozilla can’t wait for such an event. Don’t ask Google why they bought On2 but failed to thrust WebM to the exclusion of H.264 on Android. The question answers itself."
Mozilla lobbied against H.264, even however it is an open, multi-vendor standard (MPEG4 Part Ten), and a mandatory standard for Blu-ray movie playback (AVC).
Eich, like most of us, would choose a web unencumbered by patents. However, Eich says: "What I do know for certain is this: H.264 is absolutely required right now to rival on mobile. I do not believe that we can reject H.264 content in Firefox on Android or in B2G [Boot2Gecko] and sustain the shift to mobile."
Google is intensely involved in WebRTC development, having bought GrandCentral (now Google Voice) for $95 million, Gizmo5 (formerly SIPphone) for $30 million, and Global IP Solutions (GIPS) for $68.Two million. GIPS suggested VoiceEngine and VideoEngine (including its own movie codec) and suggested web-based conferencing services to corporations in competition with Skype and similar VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) services.
Google acquired the VP8 codec by buying On Technologies for $124.6 million, and then made it open source as WebM. It did this in preference to backing the open source Theora, which is actually based on VP3, a 12-year-old On2 codec.
Presumably Google sees making WebM/VP8 support compulsory in WebRTC movie talk as a roundabout way of making it more popular for streaming movie.
Google has also permitted its Motorola Mobility subsidiary, bought for $12.Five billion, to proceed suing both Apple and Microsoft over their use of its standards-essential patents. These are supposed to be licensed on " fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" (FRAND) terms . However, Motorola is requiring what look like unreasonable fees, and attempting to block the sale of products that use H.264, such as the Xbox three hundred sixty games console.
Anti-trust bods may put a stop to this. The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) "has opened a formal probe into whether Google Inc’s Motorola Mobility unit is honoring pledges it made to license industry-standard technology for mobile and other devices on fair terms," according to Bloomberg, while the "European Commission [is investigating] Motorola Mobility’s suspected manhandle of standard-essential patents against Apple and Microsoft," according to FOSSpatents.
Competition authorities only permitted Google to buy Motorola Mobility on the basis that it would not manhandle its power. We must hope the presumption that Google wouldn’t be evil was not misplaced.
Find out more about WebRTC: