# The H.264 vs Google Discussion thread



## pauldmps (Jan 17, 2011)

The internet is stirred up with Google's recent decision to drop h.264 codec out of Chrome & support open-source WebM format.

Most reporters are arguing for & against this decision. Let us know what you all think:

1. Is the step taken, correct ?

2. Is it a conspiracy between Google & Adobe to target Apple ?

3. Will it reduce the market share of the Chrome browser or will people really move to the WebM format since YouTube will support only it in the future ?

4. Will this force Apple to accept defeat against Adobe and\or Google or will they lock their customers out of YouTube ?

Feel free to discuss anything about this matter in this thread.

Arguments for the decision :
Haavard - Is the removal of H.264 from Chrome a step backward for openness?
Chromium Blog: More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change
Google Chrome to abandon H.264

Arguments against the decision :
Google's dropping H.264 from Chrome a step backward for openness
Google Drops H.264 in Chrome. What does it mean?


----------



## ico (Jan 18, 2011)

Firstly, H.264 is patented. And dropping it is a STEP FORWARD for openness.

We need a format for the <video> element. We had only two options - *OGG Theora* and H.264. OGG Theora was open-source, free and offered much worse quality per bit compared to H.264.

Now what Google did, they acquired the company which developed some *VP8* format and released it with BSD license. (VP8 + Vorbis = WebM)

Chrome supports both H.264 and WebM. Opera and Firefox support WebM (thanks to Google). Apple Safari and IE support H.264.

This explains and answers everything.



> *Is the removal of H.264 from Chrome a step backward for openness?*
> 
> In a lengthy article at Ars Technica, Peter Bright argues that removing support for a closed standard from Chrome is a step backward for openness.
> 
> ...


*my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2011/01/13/openness



pauldmps said:


> 1. Is the step taken, correct ?


110% correct. Keep H.264 via Flash and that is it. You should use it everywhere, but keep it away from <video>.



pauldmps said:


> 2. Is it a conspiracy between Google & Adobe to target Apple ?


How can it be a conspiracy? Google is doing the right thing i.e. taking us forward. No comments on Adobe Flash.



pauldmps said:


> 4. Will this force Apple to accept defeat against Adobe and\or Google or will they lock their customers out of YouTube ?


They'll have to support WebM.


----------



## gagan007 (Jan 18, 2011)

nice post ico...nice finding


----------



## pauldmps (Jan 19, 2011)

Quoting Opera's response doesn't prove anything. They're on the Google's side. I want to know everyone's personal opinion. 

And I also did post the link to Opera's response in my first post.


----------



## Liverpool_fan (Jan 19, 2011)

Well the problem with H.264 is that it is patent encumbered and making it deployment "free" for limited period of time doesn't help in any way.
H.264 is a superior codec, no doubt with currently widespread support in hardware, however if it becomes widespread it will be liking playing into the hands of the MPEG-LA, who are well known for their patent trolls and their big boy bully attitude. Note while the H.264 has an exceptional open source encoder - x264 it still comes under the MPEG-LA's patent set and they can demand royalty for any implementation. The implication of H264 becoming a web standard is highly dangerous as it will let the world being played under the MPEG-LA hands and every vendor will have to shed huge licensing fees to them. With that Firefox, Opera will find it hard to cough up such huge money and open projects won't be able to bundle these codecs, see the case of MP3s and Linux distros.
The VP8 codec under the WebM has been made Royalty Free and there will be open source decoders and encoders employed. Google has invited developers to freely contribute in their spec and their implementation of the encoders and decoders. For that reason, Opera and Mozilla are supporting this.
Remember the <video> tag is still in its infancy, now it is the best time to set its standard codec, even Flash will have WebM support too, so any concerns to end users having problems will be limited. And hence it's a best time for embracing and developing WebM. Also VP8 is as good as H.264 baseline and hence is very much so suitable to streaming media.



> 1. Is the step taken, correct ?


Yes. See above.



> 2. Is it a conspiracy between Google & Adobe to target Apple ?


No. Apple may be an expert as playing the victim every time but the fact is that they are free to bundle WebM in their browser and devices.
3





> . Will it reduce the market share of the Chrome browser or will people really move to the WebM format since YouTube will support only it in the future ?


Most people use Flash for videos. Flash uses its own codecs for H.264 for decoding the videos. Now Flash will support WebM, and with one update pushed the process will be transparent to most users except perhaps owners of the Apple devices.



> 4. Will this force Apple to accept defeat against Adobe and\or Google or will they lock their customers out of YouTube ?


Currently, it looks more like a win for Adobe, at least for the sort term. However if Apple embrace WebM, then all is well.


----------



## ico (Jan 20, 2011)

pauldmps said:


> Quoting Opera's response doesn't prove anything. They're on the Google's side. I want to know everyone's personal opinion.
> 
> And I also did post the link to Opera's response in my first post.


Opera is NOT on Google's side. They are on the web's side - the correct side. And actually the Opera employee's response is perfect.

yup, I copied it from your  post itself. 

In a nutshell, it is a huge win for the web. A huge loss for Apple. A small win for Adobe because it's a huge loss for Apple.

For <video> element, it has to be WebM. I'm not concerned with Flash anyways.

Good article: The Ambiguity of “Open” and VP8 vs. H.264 – Blog


----------



## pauldmps (Jan 20, 2011)

I did find some sites indulged in "Googlebashing". Techcrunch.com & Techtree.com are both their best to prove that Google is doing something horribly wrong.


----------



## coderunknown (Jan 20, 2011)

^^ let them talk nonsense. their mentality is like that. i hope they knows what they are publishing about & what changes it'll bring.


----------



## graemepaul (Jan 20, 2011)

Hello i also want to know the complete details on this topic...


----------



## coderunknown (Jan 20, 2011)

^ read the 2nd post.


----------



## Joker (Jan 21, 2011)

the html5 video element should only be WebM. u want to use h.264, use it but keep it away from web plz.

go Opera. first browser to get WebM implemented.


----------

