Chrome dropping h.264 support
- Started
- Last post
- 42 Responses
- Boz
Specifically, we are supporting the WebM (VP8) and Theora video codecs, and will consider adding support for other high-quality open codecs in the future. Though H.264 plays an important role in video, as our goal is to enable open innovation, support for the codec will be removed and our resources directed towards completely open codec technologies.
- jamesomega0
No one's really going to settle though, so I'm just going to keep proofing H.264's.
- abettertomorrow0
Kind of a bitch move from Google. More the kind of thing you expect from Microsoft.
- google = evil bitch.akrokdesign
- or a bitch more from Appleatomholc
- Boz0
nothing bitching about it.. it's a good move for everyone.. h.264 is the best codec but VP8 is almost as good but with one huge difference.. one is proprietary the other one is completely open...Apple will hate this.. John Gruber is already shitting all over this as his usual Steve Jobs' blowing douche.
- it's a bitch move, a lot of people actually implemented h264 why remove it now if the browser supported it?ernexbcn
- the same reason Apple did with Flash for HTML5? See how that goes?Boz
- Apple never supported Flash and then removed it from anywhere, what a shitty comparisonernexbcn
- eh? Apple devices and software supported Flash until iOS wtf are you talking about..Boz
- I'm with BozNaygon
- Boz is right.
Apple devices are capable of running flash, but he chooses not to.Hombre_Lobo
- abettertomorrow0
I just don't see the value in browsers NOT supporting things. Why not support all of them and let people decide what they prefer?
Its exactly the kind of behavior Microsoft pulls - you can only use our format, and we won't give you a choice.
- where does microsoft do this?SteveJobs
- Really SteveJobs?:)abettertomorrow
- That is bullshit about Microsoft only using one format.DrBombay
- How many video codecs does MSFT support in IE guys?abettertomorrow
- i was genuinely asking. i really don't know.SteveJobs
- Download a codec pack and it will show all of them.DrBombay
- For HTML5 video I meanabettertomorrow
- akrokdesign0
ehh. almost as good as the gap logo.
- jamesomega0
VP8 - that's still an FLV wrapper, isn't it?
I hate working with FLVs.
- I support the .FAP codecmanonthestreet
- hhaahhahahaAncillary
- ernexbcn0
Truly a bitch move considering H264 was the best way at the moment to serve video, WebM only works on Android at the moment although there'll be Flash Player support for it soon as far as I know.
Apple has hardware decoding of H264 on their mobile devices which helps for battery life when playing that content... this move right now is too soon and unnecessary.
- ArmandoEstrada0
Open my ass. Why not drop Flash, Windows player, and every other non open format that chrome can play. I saw bullshit, they just want to use their muscle and use a format that they themselves have a vested interest in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web…
The project's development is sponsored by Google.
- Open your ass? Not that kind of a thread, sir.stoplying
- ha.ArmandoEstrada
- ernexbcn0
I hope everyone keeps serving H264 and do it using Flash to Chrome users, too bad Google owns YouTube and they have that covered...
- ernexbcn0
- hahahaakrokdesign
- LOLjamesomega
- That's what Apple does baby.. I'm glad you are seeing the light now.Boz
- Hahaha
that is the apple way!Hombre_Lobo - What did Apple remove? Well OK the disc drive but that made sense.abettertomorrow
- Boz is still mad about the removal of the floppy drive. lol.akrokdesign
- Boz0
Armando.. you don't drop Flash because it's the best tool out there.. simple as that.. there's no replacement.
This is the reason why HTML5 will not get anywhere.. especially video.. Too many cooks in the kitchen and everyone wants it their way.. With this being said, WebM is the way..
Flash will support VP8 along with it's support for VP6, Sorenson and H.264 in addition to all the DRM capabilities..
It's so hilarious and hypocritical when I see all these anti-Flash people shitting on Flash as proprietary now defending proprietary h.264 over open source WebM..
Mind bottling.
- haha bottling.DrBombay
- I saw Blades of Glory last night.. I cracked up for 5 minutes when Ferrell says it.Boz
- I dont hate flash, i actually love it. BUT I feel the move is strictly political. They trying to do a Apple move....ArmandoEstrada
- CyBrainX0
Amen, Boz.
- abettertomorrow0
Well, at least be consistent.
Do you support technologies because they are "open" alternatives or do you support them because they are "the best tool out there?"
Also, the idea that HTML5 won't go anywhere is just silly and uninformed. We will all be coding HTML5 webpages in a couple years.
- Those of us who code, anyway:)abettertomorrow
- true... but as it stands the video tag is practically unusableJulesvm
- abettertomorrow0
I thought Gruber is dead on in his appraisal of what will actually happen (and he didn't seem to be shitting nor fellating anyone Boz:).
http://daringfireball.net/linked…
A bold move, to be sure. H.264 is widely used. WebM and Theora aren’t. Perhaps this move will push more publishers toward serving video encoded with WebM. The big problem WebM has versus H.264 is that there are hardware decoders for H.264. This is key for mobile devices. It’s the hardware video decoding that allows mobile devices to get such long battery life and smooth performance for video playback. There’s no way publishers can drop H.264. To support Chrome, they’d have to add WebM-encoded versions of each video.
My bet is that this is just going to push publishers toward forcing Chrome users to use Flash for video playback — and that the video that gets sent to Flash Player will be encoded as H.264. Google can fix this for YouTube on its own, and admittedly, that covers an awful lot of web video. But I think everywhere else, H.264 will continue to dominate, and instead of getting native playback, Chrome users will get playback through Flash. This should be great for Chrome OS laptop battery life.
- ernexbcn0
^^^
"Update: Here’s a thought. If Google is dropping support for H.264 because their “goal is to enable open innovation”, why don’t they also drop support for closed plugins like Flash Player? As it stands now, Chrome not only supports Flash, it ships with its own embedded copy of Flash. I don’t see how Google keeps Flash but drops H.264 in the name of “openness” without being seen as utter hypocrites."
- Boz0
^ because.. there is no replacement for flash.. flash doesn't just play video.. it does a hell of a lot more, some of which even google uses..
Such stupidity from Gruber is what I expect.. he's a walking talking point for Apple.. what a fucking douche.. I can't stand that clueless prick.
Funny he doesn't raise the point the other-way around.. if you support h.264 why are you all up against Flash?
- You are the John Gruber of Flash, what are you complaining about?ernexbcn
- Boz0
@abettertomorrow.. I would actually ask the Flash haters the same thing..
I am very clear.. I am not against proprietary.. but let's look at the situation.. I am not against HTML5 as well.. I've said it numerous times..
I would like to see common video format everywhere.. this format is to be used by people, be supported by all browsers and it would be completely free. Flash will support all of these formats anyways, but for those who just need to slap a page with a single video, having WebM as standard will make sure that video works everywhere..
The reason why I support is Flash is because it's software that is ubiquitous on the web and gives us incredible flexibility while being cross platform compatible.. it's simply best tool for the job for any commercial usage and there's really no other tool to help you achieve certain things easy or at all.
When I build stuff in Flash/AS3 for example.. I don't have to pay Adobe license.. see where I'm going? My swf is not licensed, it's freely distributable.. even though the swf is proprietary format but with open specification, I can do whatever I want, publish wherever I want and not pay Adobe a license.. and I'm talking commercially..
Adobe makes money from making software tools to publish in that format.
Now let's look at the video situation and h.264. While the h.264 codec is great technologically, it lives off of licensing.. this means that any commercial application or distribution you have to pay the license to MPEG-LA.. this is a big issue really. Even though MPEG-LA allows free non-commercial use for h.264 we really don't know what will happen in 2016 when they can do whatever.
This allows one company to really blackmail how the content is being distributed based on licensing fees which they can raise or lower however they please.
When it comes to HTML5.. the major thing about it was video tag.. and this, just like I've said many times, proves that HTML5 as a specification has a LONG way to go and there will always be issues with different browsers and support.. Video is especially a big issue..
This is why having an open source video codec is super important.. it has to be open source and free and not proprietary because the nature of HTML5 is about accessibility.. It's the best thing for community if you really want HTML5 video to take off and be supported by everyone. Without it you will always have guys like Mozilla and others not supporting h.264 and licensed out formats because they don't want to pay licenses.
- You need to pay Adobe money so they give you a compiler to compile your code into SWF filesernexbcn
- jamesomega0
Let me get this straight - they're dropping H.264 support, but their whatever VP8 video files (that can't be played on a machine through normal video player apps) are still going to need to be played through a flash player?
- abettertomorrow0
Boz, you make one good point and another I completely disagree with.
It is true that h.264 has kept the door open to some kind of licensing fee after 2016. And to be honest, that is what I would say this is REALLY about. Not open source - Google has shown itself to be more than willing to accept non-open solutions (like Flash) where practical. Nope, this is really just about good old fashioned money:)
It's doubtful that the MPEG-LA organization is going to try to charge every small business out there fees. It would be incredibly time-consuming, and probably not cost-productive for them to do so for every user running video on a site with a few ads. My feeling is these charges will really only come into play for huge sites like YouTube - and there, Google does have a legitimate concern.
Now, when you say video is the major thing about HTML5 I almost spit out my coffee...after all the ink we've wasted on this issue, how can you really say that? The video tag is just one tiny part of HTML5, and not even the most consequential IMO. I don't think this move by Google comes anything close to "killing" HTML5 video, and I'm even skeptical it will help Web M all that much. As Gruber says, it will most likely result in:
HTML5 video for everyone else w/ h.264 > Flash fallback for Chrome and older devices w/ h.264
Congratulations, Google