Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla's VP of Engineering On H.264
We recently discussed news that YouTube and Vimeo are each testing their own HTML5 video players using the H.264 format. Firefox does not support H.264, and Mozilla's vice president of engineering, Mike Shaver, has now made a post explaining why. Quoting: "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." Mozilla developer Robert O'Callahan has written a blog post on the same subject, following a talk he gave on Friday about the importance of open video on the web.
Mozilla has money too. A lot of money.
They've had no problem using patented technology in the past (such as GIF) so clearly the arguement is not against patented technology, but instead against licensing fee's.
Well fuck you, Mr PleaseSendUsMoneySoThatWeCanMakeFirefoxBetterWhileIGiveMyselfABigFatBonus. H.264 support would, by definition, make FireFox better.
"His name was James Damore."
- Opera is a commercial product and they do a lot of business in embedded devices, mobile phones, wii and tv's and so on. They probably want to get a tech to play video for devices without new Flash versions (especially since it's 100% Adobe's responsibility to update Flash on those devices and Opera can't do much about it)
They do, but an open one. I'd say Opera has been even more vocal about their distaste for MPEG4's patents than Firefox has, likely because, being the little guy in most of the world, they're painfully aware as to how such mandatory licenses increase the barrier to entry and exclude anybody who's not already a large corporation from entering the market.
Since Firefox already has it's Gecko engine and wide range of plugins, why don't they make themself more reasons to forget about Flash and start using open standards?
Sure, as soon as MPEG-4 is an open standard and all patents covering it are released into the Public Domain.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
Regarding software patents, I've gathered some info already about H.264 and the standards problem:
It's a public wiki, help welcome.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
H.264 is as open as Microsoft Shared Source or OOXML. Forgive me, then, if I don't really consider it "open".
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
But nevertheless, linux zealots coming in 3.. 2.. 1...
I'd start the countdown for MS zealots incoming, but it seems you've already arrived.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
Hint: Just because people disagree with you, does not mean there is a conspiracy of astroturfers working against you.
Sometimes, people just don't agree with you.
Step #1 : Buy youtube.
.... (Shakes Fist)
Step #2 : Switch the video format on youtube to H.264, a proprietary format that free browsers can't afford the licenses it needs to distribute a reader for it.
Step #3 : Push H.264 part of the open standard HTML 5, even though it's not open at all, thus further shoving free browsers downward the spiral.
Step #4 : Win the browser War, pwn the internet, make profit with ur browser built in search engine.
..... F***ers,
We were paying attention....
Nothing you said contradicts a single word of what I said. In fact, you just made my point.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
You're a fool and a slave. Why don't you just get on about sucking the cocks of your corporate overlords while they pound you in your ass. You're so stupid, you don't even realize you are not "Free". It has nothing to do with "Free" as in price. Everything to do with "Free" as in Freedom. You don't even own your phone or the data on it you douche-bag. Your masters do. But, you won't believe it, because you are too goddamn stupid. All you know is it tastes sweet, looks shiny, and smells like flowers. If they coat their cock in sugar, scent it with jasmine, and polish it with chrome, you will drink their spooge like a good little slave. Jack-Ass!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
"I've go mine, get yours" is your only talking point.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
How do you know what problems I have or don't have? How do you know I get worked up about this because I actually give a shit about other people's right to communicate? You assume much and offer little. You like to dismiss people who "get worked up" because you never bother to "get worked up" for anything you don't think immediately affects you. So, I'm going to invoke Godwin: First, they came for the right to produce video communication, and I said nothing; Then, they came for the right to consume video communication, and I said nothing; Then, they came for the right to produce written communications, and I said nothing; Then, they came for the right to read written communications and I said nothing; Then, they came for the right to speak communication, and I said nothing (because they had cut out my tongue).
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
That accusation is absolutely irrelevant. The great thing about the scientific process is that no one is forced to blindly swallow any claim. claims such as those made in the xiph.org article can be peer reviewed by anyone who is remotely interested in doing so. That is why everyone who happens to watch the samples provided in that article can easily conclude by themselves that Theora is in fact on par with what h.264 offers, both in file size and image quality.
But if people like you have any gripe with that then there's also absolutely no problem at all. Instead of throwing vague and baseless accusations which amount to nothing more than personal attacks you can simply inspect how the comparison between Theora and h.264 was made and, from there, find any flaw in it. Any flaw at all will do. If you cannot do that then you still have alternatives available. You can simply perform your own comparison and see for yourself how Theora fairs against h.264. Heck, if you find the results on par with your beliefs you can even release it to the public on some blog which you can easily put up in 2 minutes.
So, to sum things up, if the comparison presented in that site is remotely as bogus as you claim to be then you should have absolutely no problem whatsoever debunking it by presenting any semblance of objective, measurable proof, either by pointing flaws in Xiph.org's comparison (which, oddly enough, you failed to provide) or even by providing your own comparison to back up your allegations. But oddly enough you failed to do any of that.
Yet, the odd thing was that instead, the best thing you could come up to try to disprove the article's validity was a regrettable ad hominem attack to try to smear Xiph.org's reputation while avoiding any technical aspect whatsoever. Is that the best you can do to FUD Theora's performance?
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
... Installing quicktime puts some stupid icon in the systray that annoys you every now and then. ...
Found your problem there. You're obviously using windows.
- tristan
First off, H.264 is a superior codec to Theora, so what you're wanting is for technology to regress just to match some ideal.
Second, Flash videos already play H.264, and Firefox doesn't seem to have a problem with that, so I don't understand why they wouldn't just use a plug-in as usual.