Slashdot Mirror
Examining the HTML 5 Video Codec Debate
Ars Technica has a great breakdown of the codec debate for the HTML 5 video element. Support for the new video element seems to be split into two main camps, Ogg Theora and H.264, and the inability to find a solution has HTML 5 spec editor Ian Hickson throwing in the towel. "Hickson outlined the positions of each major browser vendor and explained how the present impasse will influence the HTML 5 standard. Apple and Google favor H.264 while Mozilla and Opera favor Ogg Theora. Google intends to ship its browser with support for both codecs, which means that Apple is the only vendor that will not be supporting Ogg. 'After an inordinate amount of discussions, both in public and privately, on the situation regarding codecs for and in HTML5, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that there is no suitable codec that all vendors are willing to implement and ship,' Hickson wrote. 'I have therefore removed the two subsections in the HTML5 spec in which codecs would have been required, and have instead left the matter undefined.'"
Do we use an inferior standard or a closed standard?
Maybe "implementation dependent" is the term we're after.
Ars Technica has a great breakdown
Oh, I totally agree. The best articles always insert two lolcats into their page so that we get a better idea of what's going on.
Did I miss something or is it still 2006?
and let the content providers decide.
The Internet Book Database
It seems like Apple has something against implementing any Xiph codec... FLAC and Vorbis support in iTunes is nonexistent, and even with the QuickTime plugin, iTunes still doesn't have proper tagging support. And now refusing to add Theora support in Safari?
Perhaps someone on the Xiph board did something to one of Apple's Media guys when they were kids or something?
-Pope Peter Porker, S.O.W., K.M.K.R., U.G.O.A., F.S.G.S.D.
"Apple is the only vendor that will not be supporting Ogg"
Except IE, which doesn't support, and has not announced plans to support, anything. Until they decide what they're going to do, it really doesn't matter what everyone else is doing.
Apple and Google favor H.264 while Mozilla and Opera favor Ogg Theora.
Right, while convenient, that doesn't strike me as a very comprehensive list of "major browser vendors".
sic transit gloria mundi
They could have simply specified that a browser must support ONE of the two options, h.264 or Theora. This would have at least provided a reference to websites, such that they can guarantee that they need support no more than two codecs. Without a standard, they can't necessarily guarantee that a browser will support either. A third party browser may come by and decide to implement nothing but MJPEG since it isn't specified.
I mean, there are legitimate concerns in both camps. Theora's hardware support is non-existent, and h.264 has expensive licensing fees. So why not allow browser manufactuerers to pick the one that best suits their position, rather than leaving it undefined entirely?
A guarantee of at least one of two being supported is better than no guarantee at all.
The best reason I have seen so far as to why Apple/Google favor H.264 is because their current products have H.264 hardware encoders in them. Switching to ogg/theora would hit battery life hard in these devices since it would have to be done in software. While I agree that its a selfish reason, its a reason better then "cause we want it". I would really like to see Theora succeed though, an open standard for web would be a beautiful thing
So put that in your pipe and grep it
Really? Why does the HTML5 spec care what codecs are used? Why doesn't it just provide a way to specify which codec the author used to encode the media file, and let the browser prompt the user to get it if needed?
Edith Keeler Must Die
http://xiph.org/quicktime/
Adds support for Ogg Vorbis and Ogg Theora to QuickTime (which is used for nearly all media playback on OSX). Easy to install (but could be made easier easily - such as making into a .pkg), and makes Safari 4 work with <video> and Theora.
Also, can we please stop whining about this in relation to the HTML5 spec? HTML has never specified file formats for media/objects (<img>, <object>) and it should *not* start now.
Apple has been a leader at finding innovative ways of pounding you in the ass for a long time...
apple, go fuck yourself.
</flamebait>
weinersmith
It would be nice if Apple would go ahead and support OGG Vorbis and OGG Theora. Can any lawyerly folk give an idea of the worst possible scenario here? Someone steps forward claiming to have patented something in OGG, and Apple is forced to either strip support or pay a licensing fee?
On the other hand, their method of supporting the video tag seems somewhat reasonable. It looks like any format that Quicktime supports, Safari will support in the "video" tag. It's not hard to go download the OGG Theora codec online, and then Quicktime will support it. Same with DivX and Xvid and anything else.
No, it doesn't really solve the problem of having a single video format that you can assume everyone can play, but it's sort of a reasonable way of approaching the problem IMO. Too bad the government can't just take patents as eminent domain with some kind of pre-set compensation for the inventors. I kind of feel like we'd all be better off if the issues surrounding H264 could just be settled once and for all, without waiting for the patents to run out.
They need to implement one codec and one alone because that leaves no room for varying support for codecs. If they define multiple, Microsoft will implement whichever codec they want, Google will do the same, Mozilla will do the same, et cetera, and content providers will have to make that content available in all of those different formats just so that they can guarantee that people will have access to it.
You can use a single block of HTML below to provide video for everyone using the new tag:
Video For Everybody
It works on older browsers too, falling back on built in players or even flash if it has to. You simply provide it one .mp4, and one .ogg file and it uses which is best.
Don't let this bickering stop everyone from moving to the video tag as soon as possible, which may then see further solution on a final standard.
I have to say though, the hardware support aspect to me makes h.264 support a must. I also think Apple should support ogg too, but Mozilla really needs to support this de-facto standard for video (it's not just Apple using this in hardware).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The market has already decided. But it wasn't decided because of software, it was decided on hardware. Theora does not have a dedicated hardware decoder that hardware makers can pull off the shelf and incorporate into their devices. h.264 does. And, when you take into consideration the sheer number of devices that have that chip installed (virtually every 5th generation iPod and forward from Apple) it becomes very easy to tell that h.264 was going to be the winner.
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
All I can say is "Fuck Apple".
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Well, with a "submarine" patent, the patent holder will typically wait until the "invention" is in common use, THEN sue for retroactive damages. Those sorts of awards can get very expensive.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
If HTML5 had required Theora support, there'd be two or three months delay and then all the ASICs you could shake a stick at would be there.
Apple use H.264 and so their iPod/iPhone/et al demand an ASIC for it. But until Apple wanted one, there wasn't one.
For full systems (notepad/tablet/laptop/PC) there would be a mod to the graphics card driver and there would be hardware accellerated Theora. Two weeks tops.
But there WILL NOT be a patent free H.264 for another 17+ years.
Odd you forgot about that beam in the path of the Free Market when it comes to the bloody PATENT. Very free market, that is...
I could swear I already saw this a few days ago here, on Slashdot. And indeed:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/02/184251/Browser-Vendors-Force-W3C-To-Scrap-HTML-5-Codecs?from=rss
More importantly are these factors:
- Ogg requires ZERO licensing costs, which is very important to the Open Source community who want to create free products that do not produce revenue for the creator.
- Ogg is not currently hardware accelerated by any mainstream hardware (encode or decode) and therefore is not ideal for current generation netbooks or other low powered devices.
- Ogg does not produce quite the same quality as the patent encumbered options at low bitrates
These are the core arguments for and against ogg, the only royalty free option. If ogg produced very similar quality at the same bit rates and there was hardware on the market that encoded and decoded it then it would be the spec without contention.
If it were up to me, I would say write it in the spec as the standard and prey that demand encourages manufacturers to add hardware acceleration to their products. At the same time, start an OGG quality improvement campaign and try and get some massive attention paid to the development of Ogg Vorbis over then next few months while HTML 5 spec browsers are being developed and tested.
I believe that making it the standard would ensure that it gets the attention it needs to achive quality/feature parity with some of h264 and other competitiors.
Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
If the H.264 folk were smart they'd encourage browser vendors to support H.264 and license it to them for free. Why? Because that would ensure that H.264 becomes the dominate standard, and open the floodgates to users creating and uploading and playing H.264 video.
In the meantime, the H.264 group makes its money off the hardware guys, as now every computer, notebook, phone, and media device will need low-power dedicated H.264 hardware decoders.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Can there not just be support for both?
If a browser vendor doesn't implement them both then it's their market share that will suffer, so browser vendors really would have no choice.
So... Why not implement both standards?
This same argument has been made for more than 15 years about every piece of opensource software. In the end, Microsoft gets to decide, if they even implement at all. That's what I've been referring to by saying we've been down that road before. And guess what, Microsoft will probably go over to h.264, not Ogg Theora. And guess what, Firefox will have h.264 support when all is said and done.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
and a poster child against software patents. It's *very* expensive for small players, it's incompatible with free media, the terms are almost impossible to comprehend (or at least you need several "IP" lawyers on staff), plus you aren't even assured that you won't be sued in Texas by some scum sucking, syphillitic pus-drinking, rotting corpse-devouring and worm-infested defecation-eating patent troll.
Microsoft's blessing was a must when they had 95% market share. Right now they have no more than 70% and it is steadily declining - by the time HTML5 is available, they might not matter any more. Moreover the majority of their market share is just uninformed. All it takes now is one really big "killer site" like Youtube not supporting IE, and their share will plummet into the low 20s.
Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
They're not content with having hardware makers pay, they charge for encoding, decoding and software, if they can get away with it.
Even Linux users can "legitimately" use WMV if they want.
How?
Pirate Party UK
Interestingly, sites implementing H.264 will not really find a big market. (At least, initially). According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers and it's sources, 1 out of 10 users actually run a browser that will support the video-tag with h.264 in the near future. The Theora combo on the other hand will soon be supported by for 1 in 4 viewers.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. My guess is a combo. It should not be difficult to figure using Javascript what type of device you're running on, and deliver full-resolution Theora content for desktops (where Firefox is king of the HTML5-gang), and lower-resolution H.264 for handhelds. (I assume content-site will still would probably want different bitrates and resolutions for handhelds.)
Another interesting aspect is what the numerous smaller streaming-sites will go with. They may not want to pay a H.264 license. Maybe we're going to start seeing the "Site works best with browser X"-stamps again, and there is really only one browser that is platform-neutral and will work equally well for the 10% Mac-users, as for the 88% Windows-users, and the 2% others. Interesting times, it was almost 10 years since we really saw a full-out browser war.
Since it is under a BSD style license it doesn't require either the GPL of the LGPL code so your whole argument disappears into a void of stupidity.
And yes they published the spec of the format and yes it is up to date. And yes it isn't a standard from whatever standards body you like this week which in practice means you don't have to pay for it.
Not only is it license encumbered, but next year they could change the licensing so that websites hosting h264 video will be charged broadcast fees.
Again you fail at the simplest of things. Where would one expect to find a specification for a free format? Probably under "Documentation", right? And what would you know it is in fact there: http://www.theora.org/doc/. But even if there weren't that wouldn't even matter, since there is a BSD licensed reference implementation of the decoder which would do well enough as a specification.
Now as for that hardware thing -- no, Theora does not and probably will never have hardware decoding support and that is a reasonable reason for excluding it from being a requirement for the HTML5 standard. As are the bandwidth issues; Youtube is bleeding enough money already.
But what I do not get is why you suddenly get all defensive. Did Xiph.org kick your dog or what?
I am not affiliated with Xiph.org in any way what so ever. I just happen to be able to read what it says on their webpage loud and clear. Something that you seem to fail at.
________
Entranced by anime since late summer 2001 and loving it ^_^
Pretty much every new video-playing device these days does h.264. iPods, iPhones, Zunes, Xboxes, PS3s, PSPs, Nokias, Palms, every Blu-ray player...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_devices_that_support_H.264/MPEG-4_AVC
To think h.264 is somehow limited to Apple is kind of nutty.
..isn't that Apple is holding things up. It's that they're holding things up because of lack of decoding hardware for a tiny device. Wait a minute, who the fucks watches video on a tiny screen?
Developers, don't answer that. Yes, I know your handheld device can play the video. I'm sure you're very proud.
I'm asking the users. Are there any? I know many iPods have shipped, but what are you people doing with them? You're watching video on them? Really?
No, really: who the fuck is watching movies on a 3 inch screen? And if that's you, are you actually happy with it? When you want to watch some video, your first instinct is to reach for your battery-powered thingie?
This obscure corner case is what is going to hold video back for everyone (including the desktop users and PVR users) for 20 years, until the patents expire?!
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Unless there is a miracle and Software Patents are deemed illegal, Firefox will never support H.264. Being tri-licensed at least the GPL/LGPL would prevent Mozilla from licensing H.264.
How can free software have a strategy for hardware at all? It's free software, not free hardware.
Again, this isn't just free software that licensing this will damage. End users will pay the price for licensing. It's not free; not even freeware.
And no, "free software" as a collective is not going in one direction. When the hell has any one type of software ever done that? Is "propietary software" going in one direction, too? Sure, parts have objectives - Gnome is going their pretty nifty Gnome Shell (which has no "me too" in it, I can assure you) and KDE is simply interested in polishing what they've got so far. The Linux kernel is working out filesystems and making things faster, all the while adding drivers. As a collective, these projects are making progress, but not in any distinct fashion. But then again, are all of the programs installed on the average Windows box also cohesively working as a team? I dare say not. You have a double standard for free software because you lump them together as if they should be a team, which is ludicrous at best.
The key here is that pretty much everyone else is either going to be neutral on the codecs or is going to be seeking the least encumbered. If Apple wants to cripple its products, then I say "Fuck them". Apple is rapidly taking Microsoft's place as being the most pernicious abuser of vendor lock-in ploys. I could care less whether those poor little iPhone and Safari fanbois can't watch online videos because Steve Jobs and his pack of well-trained corporate trolls somehow think that trying to ignore open standards is a worthwhile pursuit. There is enough penetration by players like Google and Mozilla now that I think giving a bunch of worthless assholes like Steve Jobs and Co. the one-fingered salute can probably fly. It ain't 1985 any more, and those retards at Apple will either wake up to it, or find, once more, they're taking good hardware and marginalizing it.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"Both codecs are free"
No, they're not. H.264 is patented and you have to pay royalties: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC#Patent_licensing
Dilbert RSS feed
What interests me is the fact that in these discussions about Theora being an old and antiquated codec, nobody seems to know about Dirac, which is a modern video codec quite comparable to H.264 developed by the BBC.
Dirac is specifically designed to be free in the sense we love, and they have specifically checked to make sure it doesn't violate any patents, etc.
It is supported in recent versions of FFMPEG, and since VLC 0.9.2. Support for it is maturing quite fast, and I don't understand why Mozilla didn't include support for it in their HTML5 video implementation.
Since Opera implements <video> with GStreamer, it should already support Dirac if you have the support installed.
I see no problem. Apple doesn't want to support OGG, I couldn't care less. They'll come around eventually if it becomes popular.