Google announced Tuesday that its Chrome browser will stop supporting the H.264 codec in a couple of months and will support its own WebM and Ogg Theora technologies instead. The announcement set off a firestorm. Some contended the move is a step backward for openness; others speculated that it might create a roadblock for adoption of the HTML5 standard; a few questioned whether or not the move would adversely impact adoption of the Chrome browser. A Microsoft evangelist posted a blog entry criticizing Google’s move, but Mozilla and Opera expressed their support.
Google has granted the public an irrevocable patent licence for WebM/VP8:
http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/
So to say:
"On the other hand, Google holds the patents to WebM.
"The question is, who are you going to trust to not hold standards licensees to ransom? Little MPEG or giant Google?" Howe asked. "At this point, I don't think we know who is the bigger bandit""
is misleading to say the least.
You don't have to "trust" Google, it is right there in the patent grant. MPEG LA, on the other hand, only has an economic interest to try to maximise its patent rents and yet people are prepared to "trust" it to be nice for the foreseeable future.
Google did an incredibly charitable thing by buying up On2 and giving away its IP for the good of the web. I think it is very sad that people haven't been more grateful.
I like how this draws attention to software patents. I don't think software running on a PC can violate a patent (if it did, I think this would make the Patent Act unconstitutional for abridging free speech and stifling progress), but enough patent supporters do think so, and Google is certainly a target. In any case, might as well go with what has a lower patent risk if it performs acceptably.
I've got to say, I definitely support google's decision because I'm all for open standards. However, this statement made me laugh because it is completely wrong:
"Furether, "Microsoft doesn't let anyone sell Windows without Internet Explorer," the Yankee Group's Howe pointed out. "So consumers always have a fallback position. If their Chrome browser doesn't work, they can always launch IE." "
Number 1: In europe, they have forced windows to allow a choice of browsers. So you may not have IE there with Windows.(I live in the USA, so I may have this slightly wrong, but this is how i've come to understand things are)
Number 2: Windows is not the only OS (I find it sad that I need to say this in 2011) Linux and Mac both exist too and, guess what, they don't use IE!
Basically, no, "consumers" do not always have a fallback. Windows users do. I'm a Linux user, and I'm a consumer too, and I believe just about anyone would laugh if someone said that Apple users weren't consumers.
(Of course, Apple users have safari which may/may not support H.264? I don't really know. So maybe they have a fallback too)
Loading ...
WebM vs. H.264: Google Bets Big on Itself
Posted by: Richard Adhikari January 14, 2011 05:00 AMGoogle announced Tuesday that its Chrome browser will stop supporting the H.264 codec in a couple of months and will support its own WebM and Ogg Theora technologies instead. The announcement set off a firestorm. Some contended the move is a step backward for openness; others speculated that it might create a roadblock for adoption of the HTML5 standard; a few questioned whether or not the move would adversely impact adoption of the Chrome browser. A Microsoft evangelist posted a blog entry criticizing Google’s move, but Mozilla and Opera expressed their support.
http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/
So to say:
"On the other hand, Google holds the patents to WebM.
"The question is, who are you going to trust to not hold standards licensees to ransom? Little MPEG or giant Google?" Howe asked. "At this point, I don't think we know who is the bigger bandit""
is misleading to say the least.
You don't have to "trust" Google, it is right there in the patent grant. MPEG LA, on the other hand, only has an economic interest to try to maximise its patent rents and yet people are prepared to "trust" it to be nice for the foreseeable future.
Google did an incredibly charitable thing by buying up On2 and giving away its IP for the good of the web. I think it is very sad that people haven't been more grateful.
"Furether, "Microsoft doesn't let anyone sell Windows without Internet Explorer," the Yankee Group's Howe pointed out. "So consumers always have a fallback position. If their Chrome browser doesn't work, they can always launch IE." "
Number 1: In europe, they have forced windows to allow a choice of browsers. So you may not have IE there with Windows.(I live in the USA, so I may have this slightly wrong, but this is how i've come to understand things are)
Number 2: Windows is not the only OS (I find it sad that I need to say this in 2011) Linux and Mac both exist too and, guess what, they don't use IE!
Basically, no, "consumers" do not always have a fallback. Windows users do. I'm a Linux user, and I'm a consumer too, and I believe just about anyone would laugh if someone said that Apple users weren't consumers.
(Of course, Apple users have safari which may/may not support H.264? I don't really know. So maybe they have a fallback too)