HTML5 vs Flash: War on the Horizon

[admin]

A new surprising development, or maybe not so surprising. Google is dropping H.264 support for Chrome browsers, as it fully embraces its own VP8/WebM format for HTML5. Google cites the need for an open format, like WebM, but experts are still undecided whether WebM will also suffer patent issues or not. In fact, the MPEG-LA, which oversees licensing for H.264, may even sue Google for breach of patent.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/by-dropping-h264-is-google-avoiding-a-trap-or-walking-into-one/2867

[dr_ml422]

I'm a little confused here. You mean to tell me that H.264 and VP8/WebM are 2 totally different things than HTML5? Or is it that HTML5 will eventually use one of these as the main format for encoding video etc...? Isn't HTML5 it's own encoder etc...? Been so long I'm lost here.

[admin]

HTML5 is the latest version of the HTML standard for web programming (so when you do a "view source" on this page, the code there, that's what makes up HTML, and 5 is the new version of these codes). As part of the HTML5 standard, it includes new code that allows you to embed web video without having to resort to Flash (since HTML4 does not natively support video, a third party solution like Flash is required right now). The debate right now is about which video codec, H.264, WebM or Theora, that HTML5's video embed will actually use. Think of HTML5 as a standard like the Blu-ray standard, and right now, it's about choosing which video codecs will be part of the standard. Unlike Blu-ray though, some the main players are open source based, and so they can't/won't accept a commercial solution like H.264.

[dr_ml422]

HTML5 is the latest version of the HTML standard for web programming (so when you do a "view source" on this page, the code there, that's what makes up HTML, and 5 is the new version of these codes). As part of the HTML5 standard, it includes new code that allows you to embed web video without having to resort to Flash (since HTML4 does not natively support video, a third party solution like Flash is required right now). The debate right now is about which video codec, H.264, WebM or Theora, that HTML5's video embed will actually use. Think of HTML5 as a standard like the Blu-ray standard, and right now, it's about choosing which video codecs will be part of the standard. Unlike Blu-ray though, some the main players are open source based, and so they can't/won't accept a commercial solution like H.264.

I got it now. I figured as much just been a while so I was thrown off by all the fuss these big boys are making w/this. I mean if it's better and H.264 is also slightly better than I really don't see any issues, other than the free open source as you mentioned. That's all nonsense anyway as Google can afford anything under the sun and still provide open source etc...

[admin]

Google say it's not about cost (which they admit they can easily afford), but about the spirit of openness. The problem is that Google is the only browser to actually bundle Adobe Flash, a proprietary (ie. not open) third party tool, with the browser, and it also continues to use H.264 for YouTube. So this is more about trying to screw Apple and Microsoft, than about openness, in my opinion.

[dr_ml422]

They bundle Adobe Flash? You mean if I had 1st gone to Google when I started using Windows 7, and searched for something that needed Flash in order to open, I wouldn't of had to install it like always when using IE? That seems odd.

Google's sounding a lil like Jobbs here. They're using all the stuff supposedly not wanted/needed with HTML5, yet say they won't support H.264 in the new HTML5? Like Jobbs belonging to the Blu-ray commission and not wanting anything part of Blu-ray. This is all business-oriented maneuvers with some insecurities imo.

The day will never prolly come, though stranger things have happened, and they best hope that Apple and Microsoft don't get together on this sole turn of events. They won't survive both big boys at them. On this issue anyhow imo.

[admin]

They bundle Adobe Flash? You mean if I had 1st gone to Google when I started using Windows 7, and searched for something that needed Flash in order to open, I wouldn't of had to install it like always when using IE? That seems odd.

Google's sounding a lil like Jobbs here. They're using all the stuff supposedly not wanted/needed with HTML5, yet say they won't support H.264 in the new HTML5? Like Jobbs belonging to the Blu-ray commission and not wanting anything part of Blu-ray. This is all business-oriented maneuvers with some insecurities imo.

The day will never prolly come, though stranger things have happened, and they best hope that Apple and Microsoft don't get together on this sole turn of events. They won't survive both big boys at them. On this issue anyhow imo.

Yep, it comes with native Flash support, so you don't need to separately install the plug-in (however, this was only added in June 2010). So Google is perfectly happy to let proprietary, closed tech into Chrome, just not the industry standard H.264, which "coincidentally" also just puts the screws to Apple and Microsoft if these two companies don't adopt Google's very own WebM for HTML5. Nicely done, Google.

[dr_ml422]

Yep, it comes with native Flash support, so you don't need to separately install the plug-in (however, this was only added in June 2010). So Google is perfectly happy to let proprietary, closed tech into Chrome, just not the industry standard H.264, which "coincidentally" also just puts the screws to Apple and Microsoft if these two companies don't adopt Google's very own WebM for HTML5. Nicely done, Google.

Now why does Apple and Microsoft have to adopt WebM? So what if Google uses Flash for Chrome as native support. How does this have anything to do with the HTML5 debate and H.264? H.264 is also proprietary. I don't get the reasoning you're making out of this admin. Apple and Microsoft aren't going to let a "We did this so you guys should do this or look bad approach" be the deciding factor in such a business ordeal. Please elaborate. Thanks.

[admin]

They don't have to adopt WebM yet, but if Chrome + Firefox + Opera all use it, and Adobe have said they will support it via Flash as well, then IE and Safari will be the only browsers that don't support it, and if they want to compete or to offer users the ability to view HTML5/WebM videos, then they too have to add in support for WebM at some stage.

At least IE will be able to support Flash, which then allows for WebM support without Microsoft building in native decoding support. But Apple is the real loser in this scenario, because they don't support Flash for the iPhone/iPad version of Safari, and so they're the only browsers in the end that won't be able to play WebM videos.

If all browsers support WebM except Safari, which has limited market share (less than 6% at last count), Google could then say that YouTube will now only serve WebM videos since 94% of browsers already support it, making YouTube unusable on the iPhone/iPad (and perfectly usable on Google's own Android phones). Apple will be forced to implement WebM or Flash, which goes against their own interests since they own patents on H.264 (as do Microsoft).

The real problem is that H.264 has industry, hardware support, WebM does not. Even Google's own Android phones didn't support WebM until the most recent version of the OS. H.264 is royalty free, but not patent free, but neither is WebM, the only difference is that Google holds the patents and have promised no royalties (as opposed to Apple/Microsoft holding H.264 patents, selected uses do require royalty). Theora is the only one that doesn't have any patents, although it's like that both WebM and Theora infringe on existing patents, the same patents H.264 uses, and so a court case may be needed to determine if this is the case.

For another perspective on why Google's move is bad for the Internet, read this article:

http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2011/01/googles-dropping-h264-from-chrome-a-step-backward-for-openness.ars

[dr_ml422]

I understand this way better now that I read the 1st page of that article. I have no idea however where that $6.5 million came from and how it equates to 65 million users? Everything else makes sense. Google must be up to something to have missed the boat on this, if in fact they did.