Mozilla Debates Supporting H.264 In Firefox Via System Codecs

An anonymous reader writes "Adoption of the HTML5 video element has been hampered by the lack of a universal video format that is supported in all browsers. Mozilla previously rejected the popular H.264 video codec because it is patent-encumbered and would require implementors to pay royalty fees. The organization is now rethinking its position and is preparing to add support for H.264 video decoding in mobile Firefox via codecs that are provided by the underlying operating system or hardware. The controversial proposal has attracted a lot of criticism from Firefox contributors, including some employed by Mozilla."

Comments

What???

[lennier1]

A last remnant of sanity over at Mozilla? Guess there's something to those Armageddon rumors after all.

Defining the purpose of Mozilla

[Tumbleweed]

If the purpose of Mozilla is to provide high-quality, standards-compliant products, then this is the smart move. If the purpose is to advocate for all things open source, then this is a bad move. The project is made up of people from both those camps, so there is going to be much gnashing of teeth over this, and the mandate from on high without discussing it isn't going to make it any more pleasant.

Nevertheless, Google's lack of commitment to removing h.264 from Chrome doesn't help. Maybe Google could buy MPEG-LA and end this nonsense once and for all?

Re:Defining the purpose of Mozilla

[BZ]

No, the purpose is a free and open web and has been all along. Which is why Mozilla is doing various non-browser things (opposition to SOPA/PIPA, the Do-Not-Track header, B2G, BrowserID, etc, etc).

It just happened that while there was a browser monopoly the most important thing standing in the way of an open web was the existence of the browser monopoly, and the best way to fight it was to create a better browser.

Re:Defining the purpose of Mozilla

[rjstanford]

If the purpose is to advocate for all things open source, then this is a bad move.

This is almost as silly as saying that, to advocate for open source, Linux kernels should refuse to run closed-source software.

More reasonably, consider that all modern operating systems provide a codec library. Firefox is one of the very few products that provides its own, out-of-sync one. Its a throwback to the times when every program used to include its own graphics, sound, and printer drivers. We moved away from those times for a very good reason.

If the Mozilla Foundation wants to make sure that all Firefox users can view at least the same subset of videos, they could always include and install a variety of freely licensed video codecs into the O/S store, and have that as a default part of the Firefox installation scripts. Of course, then the users' experience might be better in non-Firefox products also...

Re:Defining the purpose of Mozilla

[shutdown -p now]

Mozilla using system codes would increase crash reports 100 fold overnight

It will if they use any random codec that is requested and happens to be installed. An alternative model is to do what IE9+ does with respect to WebM - it does not use third-party codecs in general, but Google's WebM implementation is specifically whitelisted and will be used if installed. Firefox can similarly whitelist Microsoft's H.264 implementation on Win7 and Apple's one on OS X (and whatever else is out there on mobile platforms).

Re:Wasn't Chrome supposed to drop H264 support!?

[Billly Gates]

Or pay $$$ for proprietary tools for developing websites.

One of the reasons I hated flash was the web was no longer open. 10 years ago you could use Linux to develop web pages because it had cool xml, php, database and other tools. Then flash and Adobe came around and turned it into a win32 and to a much lesser extent mac platform.

All the good candidates with the right skills had these $2,000 tools as HR check listed flash, flex, dreamweaver, illustrator, etc.

I view h.264 as another tie in to expensive tools that force you to pirate and not update your own pc just be job competitive. That is against the spirit of the web. No free tool can exist because h.264 is licensed and proprietary.

ANY native-supplied codec should be usable

[msobkow]

It only stands to reason that if you're using standard system APIs to access codecs that have been purchased or installed by the user/owner, then ALL of those codecs should be usable, not just the free ones.

What's the point of having a general purpose browser if you let it get polluted by political arguments about which codecs the USER installs? Using system codecs is not "polluting the code" -- it's letting the user decide.

Re:The patent fees will expire soon.

[tlhIngan]

Still it is copyrighted and the requirements to use mean your os and browser must support DRM. The issue mentioned on Ars Technica, is that XP does not support h.264 because its GDI does not support DRM like Vista/7 due with HDMI.

XP supports h.264 just fine. You can get lots of h.264 decoders and encoders for XP. It's just that Microsoft hasn't extended licensing of h.264 to XP (it costs money).

The DRM thing is a non-issue. "Protected Path" is a DRM technology for use in specific use cases - e.g., playing back Blu-Ray movies, where a software playback app MUST use measures to protect the stream. So if you want to play back Blu-Ray, you need Vista or Win7.

Heck, XP plays h.264 just fine - if you ever view YouTube videos in 720p or 1080p (and sometimes 480p) YouTube is sending you an h.264 stream.

h.264 has nothing to do with copyrights - it's just that the algorithm uses a lot of patented technologies and it's the patents that require paying royalties to use (you can make agreements with every patent holder, or just pay a flat fee to the MPEG-LA). The mateiral encoded in h.264 is copyrighted.

So an XP user has at least three ways to play back an h.264 video without spending a dime. First would be Flash player which includes h.264 support for videos. Second is iTunes/QuickTime which provides its own h.264 decoder for free. Third is to install VLC.

Re:WebM

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Those companies didn't have to implement WebM because they already had implemented H.264. In format wars Johnny-come-lately = also-ran. Plus why use a competitors' format, WebM, when you can use your own ? People are quick to call "patent trap" when Microsoft releases something "open", but when it's Google everyone has to trust blindly ?

Hypocrits!

[pesc]

Mozilla already plays H264 video embedded in flash contents through an external flash plugin. Today.

So why would it be controversial to allow another plugin to do the same?

Re:webm

[nightfell]

Webm is just as good as h.264 imho.

Except it's not. In every way, other than the meta aspect of patents, H.264 is superior to WebM. And there are a multitude of other meta aspects which H.264 is superior. Specifically, it's *far* more widely supported, both in existing video (which Mozilla has, in their infinite wisdom, decided their users do not ever need to view), and in existing hardware. H.264 is what has allowed Apple to support 1080p HD video from the iTunes Store while keeping file sizes down to damned close to their current 720p sizes while still maintaining respectable image quality.

Your choice: an iPad with 10 hours of video playback using the built-in H.264 hardware, or a "freedom" iPad which gets 1.5 hours of video playback using a software decoder.

That said, I see no reason why the browsers shouldn't use the decoding abilities of the OS they reside on. This just makes common sense?

Yes, it makes common sense, which is why Mozilla has decided against it so far. And even though it's an inscrutable fact that Mozilla could have done this from day one, there was no shortage of Slashdot nerds trying to claim that Mozilla could not legally support H.264.

Which is a load of bullshit.

If I already have a license/ability to decode for h.264, why shouldn't I be able to use it in my browser?

Because that would make you eeevillll. Somehow. I don't fucking know, just ask one of these freetards to explain it. I'm sure somehow they will be able to concoct an elaborate logical framework why using H.264 is no different from living in Soviet Russia multiplied by being an indentured servant to the power of Orwell, or some such nonsense.

Don't make it about H.264

[Sloppy]

They shouldn't "support H.264" but rather, they should support any unknown (to the browser) codec by trying the OS.

There are two different issues going on here, and the Mozilla team got one of them right and one of them wrong.

1. The don't want to implement something that is illegal to implement (or even use!), e.g. patented codecs without permission. Mozilla made the right call on this, all along. Free Software can't implement H.264 without "going underground" (which is itself a loss of freedom, romantic though it be).
2. They want all Mozilla users to have the same experience, so they define it as "intolerably bad" if one Mozilla user can play codec x and another Mozilla user can't. Mozilla got this wrong; it's not "intolerably bad" ; it's "regrettably bad." It's something to be angry about, but the decision is out of your hands. There isn't anything Mozilla can do that will cause it to be, that all users can play all codecs. That battle is over until we have patent reform (or until patents expire in a decade or two). Until then, a balkanized web is something we simply must live with. That's the political world you live in.

Let VDPAU/VA-API/whatever deal with it. All of it, and Mozilla won't have to maintain Theora or WebM code, either. Then they can get back to hunting for memory leaks. ;-)

how will Web developers know when they can and cannot count on system codecs?

They won't, just like they don't know that now. Stuff will fail. And if when does, maybe the browser can tell the user to get off their ass and go vote for a change.

Re:Wasn't Chrome supposed to drop H264 support!?

[TD-Linux]

I view h.264 as another tie in to expensive tools that force you to pirate and not update your own pc just be job competitive. That is against the spirit of the web. No free tool can exist because h.264 is licensed and proprietary.

The hell kind of reasoning is that? Have you ever actually tried creating a webpage? H.264 is not proprietary. The only thing that even touches H.264 is your video encoder. You probably already have one, and if not, there are plenty of good ones out there that you can use.

What is H.264 forcing you to pirate, exactly? How is H.264 preventing you from updating your PC? Why can no free tools exist? Have you read the actual license on MPEG-LA's website?

Re:WebM

[EyelessFade]

Companies that won't support H.264: Mozilla

And Opera

Companies that won't support WebM: Many...

Which? Microsoft and Apple? So to on each side then.. And guess what; Microsoft don't support h264 in IE, they just support plugins. Blah blah everybody blah blah.

zero devices and a microscopic share of the whole video format ecosystem but think the whole world will bend to their will for WebM.

Yeh google should remove all support for h264 in android. Oh thats 60% of smart phones. woops. And remove flash and h264 from youtube. Should make webM relevant then. How many sites do you use which have videos?

Re:WebM

[Goaway]

Except that PNG is objectively better than GIF, while WebM is objectively worse than h.264.

Re:WebM

[Goaway]

These changes will occur in the next couple months

Posted over a year ago, and guess what, h.264 is still there.

Re:WebM

[icebraining]

No. WebM is technically worse than h.264. How much does that count is subjective.

Re:WebM

[smash]

Being technically worse, when trying to win customers from a competitor which is already entrenched counts for everything. Really, other than pie in the sky idealism, there is zero reason to use WebM/VP8 - the content generation tools aren't there, inbuilt operating system/device support isn't there, and the CODEC itself is inferior. Other than for political reasons - which the average user has ZERO care for, it is lose-lose-lose. Thus, the average user won't use it.

If you want to win customers over, build something BETTER, not some half-assed attempt that has no hardware or commercial software support and due to inferior performance, never will do.

Re:WebM

[smash]

Cute twist you're trying to pull -- make a realistic statement mixed with falsehood. WebM is Open Source, h.264 is proprietary. Both are 'free' to use but there's much, much more likelihood that at any point in the future h.264 could implement 'fees'. Or maybe you're just naive and inadvertently mixing 'open' with 'free'.

Actually, h.264 is "openly" patent encumbered, with a well known licensing policy. WebM/VP8 is on shaky legal ground; there is only google claiming it is "open" and "free". It has yet to be tested in court, and an analysis of the code/algorithm shows siginificant similarities.

Re:WebM

[marcosdumay]

So I guess after you paid the h264 racket nobody else can come and sue you because of some unknown paten, rightt? Tought not.

I'm glad we don't have this kind of idiocy around here.

Re:WebM

[unrtst]

Thus, the average user won't use it.

BS. The "average" user will use whatever youtube, hulu, netflix, funnyordie, xtube, pornhub, etc etc spit out at them.

The past has had real player, quicktime, wmv, mpeg*, flash (with multiple video codecs), silverlight (multiple codecs), etc etc etc etc. Neither WebM nor h.264 is going to be the format to end all formats.

We're down to only two formats now in this spec. This should be easily fixed with a combo of:

a) let the browser support both via plugins of some sort (or OS media layer calls)
b) let the site detect and send the supported format.

Maybe that's not ideal, but your average user won't give a rats ass. h.264 has the technical/performance edge, and WebM has the open edge... there is no clear winner (you may define one, but others obviously do not). There's no point in wasting any more time arguing about it until h.264 clears the patent roadblocks or WebM catches up in hardware and software support.... just plan to support both, and ALL your users will be happy.

Re:WebM

[smash]

Sounds like FUD to me.

Well that sounds like "head in the sand" to me. From someone qualified who has analyzed the code in detail:

Finally, the problem of patents appears to be rearing its ugly head again. VP8 is simply way too similar to H.264: a pithy, if slightly inaccurate, description of VP8 would be “H.264 Baseline Profile with a better entropy coder”. Even VC-1 differed more from H.264 than VP8 does, and even VC-1 didn’t manage to escape the clutches of software patents. It’s quite possible that VP8 has no patent issues, but until we get some hard evidence that VP8 is safe, I would be cautious. Since Google is not indemnifying users of VP8 from patent lawsuits, this is even more of a potential problem. Most importantly, Google has not released any justifications for why the various parts of VP8 do not violate patents, as Sun did with their OMS standard: such information would certainly cut down on speculation and make it more clear what their position actually is.

If google was confident they were in the clear, they wouldn't be stuffing clauses in the license to the effect of "if this code infringes, you're on your own!".