AfterDawn: Tech news

Google will remove support for H.264 from Chrome

Written by James Delahunty (Google+) @ 11 Jan 2011 23:21 User comments (51)

Google will remove support for H.264 from Chrome After originally pledging to support both H.264 and WebM content, Google has decided it will ditch the H.264 video codec from Chrome and go with its WebM format instead.
H.264 video is widely used, currently being the de facto industry standard for encoding digital video. It is used with Blu-ray disc and is supported by a wide variety of consumer electronics devices. However, H.264 technology is patented and adopters pay royalties to the MPEG-LA group.

Google acquired On2 Technologies in 2009 to gain access to the VP8 codec. It opened op the VP8 codec and created a new royalty-free media format called WebM. WebM gained support in the Firefox, Opera and Chrome browsers, but Apple and Microsoft declined to officially support WebM (although WebM support can technically be added to Internet Explorer).

The growing split on the Internet between H.264 and now it's growing royalty-free competitor WebM is likely to cause problems for content producers looking to use HTML5 to display video content on the Internet.

It is unclear how Google's removal of H.264 from Chrome will affect Google's other web services, particularly YouTube.

Previous Next  

51 user comments

111.1.2011 23:46

Wow, really Google? REALLY?

212.1.2011 0:48
inverse137
Unverified new user

Originally posted by ROMaster2:
Wow, really Google? REALLY?
Umm, you are complaining because Google wouldn't go with something they had to pay royalties for and instead bought another compression algorithm and then made that algorithm open source?

Dude, you're a republican, aren't you?

312.1.2011 0:52
S
Unverified new user

Originally posted by inverse137:
Originally posted by ROMaster2:
Wow, really Google? REALLY?
Umm, you are complaining because Google wouldn't go with something they had to pay royalties for and instead bought another compression algorithm and then made that algorithm open source?

Dude, you're a republican, aren't you?
What does party affiliation have to do with video codecs? Oh right, nothing!

412.1.2011 1:03
G
Unverified new user

I can't help but think it would have been a wise move to support H.264 for another year or so in order to build support for Chrome as quickly as possible. Maybe then, ditch it in favor of a royalty-free codec. I love Chrome, but this might stunt its growth among the masses.

512.1.2011 1:07

Yea, I don't get that party affiliation thing either.

612.1.2011 1:24
jabberwolf
Unverified new user

Originally posted by inverse137:
Originally posted by ROMaster2:
Wow, really Google? REALLY?
Umm, you are complaining because Google wouldn't go with something they had to pay royalties for and instead bought another compression algorithm and then made that algorithm open source?

Dude, you're a republican, aren't you?
Um dude, its a removal of something that gives consumer choice.
This is a small fee, that is negligable, but if avoided - will have google try to force their standard as the only option on their OS.

So in light of facts, availability, cost, and restriction of choice, you must be Democrat.

712.1.2011 1:51

What is next.....Flash ?

IE was the TOP Browser last week:

http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/11/techcrunch-ie/


Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.

812.1.2011 8:24
oappi
Inactive

I bet google wants to get rid of H.264 because of the youtube. If they had to pay h.264 license for each user who uploads videos to youtube it would be a lot of money out of googles pocket (owner of h.264 could force google to buy licenses to h.264).

At the moment i would imagine that majority of users who use html5 version of youtube are linux users since flash is pain in the ass to install on some 64bit distros. Most windows users don't even know html5 option exist and are using "default" flash. So using webM would suite well with the ideology of this (linux) usergroup.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 12 Jan 2011 @ 8:29

912.1.2011 17:35

Originally posted by jabberwolf:
Originally posted by inverse137:
Originally posted by ROMaster2:
Wow, really Google? REALLY?
Umm, you are complaining because Google wouldn't go with something they had to pay royalties for and instead bought another compression algorithm and then made that algorithm open source?

Dude, you're a republican, aren't you?
Um dude, its a removal of something that gives consumer choice.
This is a small fee, that is negligable, but if avoided - will have google try to force their standard as the only option on their OS.

So in light of facts, availability, cost, and restriction of choice, you must be Democrat.

if you're talking consumer choice then google is the consumer and it was their choice not to pay royalties and instead adapted and implement a new standard pushing more people into using open source software. same way sony pushed its own format by using blu-ray in ps3's google is pushing its own format on its own platform what a surprise. except google saves face a bit by choosing a non-proprietary open source format.

1012.1.2011 18:12

I'm good with their decision. There is no guarantee whatsoever that H.264 will continue to be a fluffy, rainbow-colored codec of goodness that we're all free to use once the next few years go by.

Video on the web is at a critical juncture right now, where what's 'standard' is being redefined (or really just defined, since Flash was only a de facto standard). And this move tips the scale in the favor of an open standard that's not going to line some patent holders' pocket books a few years down the line.

The only thing that this really affects is web sites that only provide H.264 video in via HTML5. (IE, web sites that do not use Flash.) Since HTML5 video is still in its infancy of adoption, this is a far better time to make a move like this than several years down the line when Flash-less H.264 has become deeply intrenched in the web (and potentially our wallets).

Those who want to use a non-standard codec (H.264) will still be free to do so with a non-standard player (Flash), which seems pretty appropriate to me.


1112.1.2011 23:52

...So does this mean that it is being removed from Chrome OS as well? I knew it didn't have BluRay support, but at least it could play bluray rips (AFAIK).



1213.1.2011 0:34

There is Hope for Chrome and his HTML5. Like this native Tablet App use on this Startup:

http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/12/onswipe/

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 13 Jan 2011 @ 0:43

Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.

1313.1.2011 8:40

Er...... why can most free apps make and play H.264?

Its not like chrome is for sell or anything..... so why can;t they use the GNU license?


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

1413.1.2011 10:13
lissenup2
Inactive

Royalties my ass for H.264

I say Google should use and NOT pay royalties. Screw that and screw those for charging for a mere means of encoding.

I gotch'yo algorithm right here.............!

1513.1.2011 10:14
lissenup2
Inactive

Originally posted by jhgsz8i7:
spam edited by ddp
Spammers can simply.........in 3 words..........GO F THEMSELVES!!!!!!!!!!!!! Leeches!
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 14 Jan 2011 @ 0:30

1613.1.2011 11:04

Originally posted by xnmalletx:
Yea, I don't get that party affiliation thing either.

FYI, Republicans think all should be enslaved to BIG corporations, however when it comes time for corporations to pay taxes... they want complete exemption!
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 13 Jan 2011 @ 11:05

1713.1.2011 14:26

Originally posted by jabberwolf:
Originally posted by inverse137:
Originally posted by ROMaster2:
Wow, really Google? REALLY?
Umm, you are complaining because Google wouldn't go with something they had to pay royalties for and instead bought another compression algorithm and then made that algorithm open source?

Dude, you're a republican, aren't you?
Um dude, its a removal of something that gives consumer choice.
This is a small fee, that is negligable, but if avoided - will have google try to force their standard as the only option on their OS.

So in light of facts, availability, cost, and restriction of choice, you must be Democrat.

This is more correct, great point!

Google is going to shoot themselves in the foot here making their product more proprietary and less industry standard. Competition is a good thing but their limiting to only one format is a mistake I think.

Chrome really isnít a good browser Iíve used it and it is a dangerous browser, too open to the internet and Google. Plus Google keeps changing their standards of how their browser structure is and they arenít always good changes, but are radical changes.

1813.1.2011 15:31
Totalogic
Unverified new user

Originally posted by inverse137:


Umm, you are complaining because Google wouldn't go with something they had to pay royalties for and instead bought another compression algorithm and then made that algorithm open source?

Dude, you're a republican, aren't you?
Ummmmmmmm, he wasn't complaining, he was satirising. And with your ignorance, Democrats the world over cringe at your defence of them...

You must be ignorantican. (An IGNORANT American)

1913.1.2011 16:58

Originally posted by Totalogic:
Originally posted by inverse137:


Umm, you are complaining because Google wouldn't go with something they had to pay royalties for and instead bought another compression algorithm and then made that algorithm open source?

Dude, you're a republican, aren't you?
Ummmmmmmm, he wasn't complaining, he was satirising. And with your ignorance, Democrats the world over cringe at your defence of them...

You must be ignorantican. (An IGNORANT American)
He could be an IGNORANT European, ingnorance isn't unique to the US by far.

2013.1.2011 17:32

Originally posted by lissenup2:
Spammers can simply.........in 3 words..........GO F THEMSELVES!!!!!!!!!!!!! Leeches!

I hate spammers too, but you do realize you're helping them by copying what they say in a quote box, yes?

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
Originally posted by jabberwolf:
Originally posted by inverse137:
Originally posted by ROMaster2:
Wow, really Google? REALLY?
Umm, you are complaining because Google wouldn't go with something they had to pay royalties for and instead bought another compression algorithm and then made that algorithm open source?

Dude, you're a republican, aren't you?
Um dude, its a removal of something that gives consumer choice.
This is a small fee, that is negligable, but if avoided - will have google try to force their standard as the only option on their OS.

So in light of facts, availability, cost, and restriction of choice, you must be Democrat.

This is more correct, great point!

Google is going to shoot themselves in the foot here making their product more proprietary and less industry standard. Competition is a good thing but their limiting to only one format is a mistake I think.

Chrome really isnít a good browser Iíve used it and it is a dangerous browser, too open to the internet and Google. Plus Google keeps changing their standards of how their browser structure is and they arenít always good changes, but are radical changes.

H.264 is the proprietary standard. Google is only including open codecs in their web browser. If you want to see H.264 included in Chrome, you should really be hounding MPEG-LA to permanently make it a royalty-free codec. Regardless of their motives, Google is taking a step towards a more open web by discouraging the entrenchment of potentially dangerous codecs.

Of course, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it...

2114.1.2011 2:54

Well. I am not use Chrome much....But Google is working on their HTML5 and are doing a good job upgrading Chrome every 6 weeks:

http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/11/google-chrome-release-cycle-slideshow/

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 16 Jan 2011 @ 2:57

Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.

2214.1.2011 4:36

Doing a good job, that is laughable when this is their platform;

"Instead of a traditional software development cycle where features are crammed into each release or delay the release, Chrome puts out a new release no matter what every six weeks."

This supports my arguments that the platform structure is poor and radically changing but to make a release just to make a release is plain out right lame! So nothing changes but da*mit we are putting out a release, doesn't even begin to make sense unless you are a marketing fool possibly.

2314.1.2011 9:45

Originally posted by nonoitall:
I'm good with their decision. There is no guarantee whatsoever that H.264 will continue to be a fluffy, rainbow-colored codec of goodness that we're all free to use once the next few years go by.

Video on the web is at a critical juncture right now, where what's 'standard' is being redefined (or really just defined, since Flash was only a de facto standard). And this move tips the scale in the favor of an open standard that's not going to line some patent holders' pocket books a few years down the line.

The only thing that this really affects is web sites that only provide H.264 video in via HTML5. (IE, web sites that do not use Flash.) Since HTML5 video is still in its infancy of adoption, this is a far better time to make a move like this than several years down the line when Flash-less H.264 has become deeply intrenched in the web (and potentially our wallets).

Those who want to use a non-standard codec (H.264) will still be free to do so with a non-standard player (Flash), which seems pretty appropriate to me.

Ah, but H.264 is the de-facto standard, that's the entire point here. Concurrently, Flash is the current de-facto standard for online video playback. It really doesn't matter what YOU (or Google, Apple) thinks about it at all, sorry.

It's also amusing that Google is choosing their OWN proprietary format, without any promises at all for future open licensing, and Google apologists somehow think that's any better. I'm glad Chrome stinks so badly, or this could actually have been a big deal.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 14 Jan 2011 @ 9:46

2414.1.2011 16:59

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
Doing a good job, that is laughable when this is their platform;

"Instead of a traditional software development cycle where features are crammed into each release or delay the release, Chrome puts out a new release no matter what every six weeks."

This supports my arguments that the platform structure is poor and radically changing but to make a release just to make a release is plain out right lame! So nothing changes but da*mit we are putting out a release, doesn't even begin to make sense unless you are a marketing fool possibly.

This is a Good News and Facts:

http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2011/01/13/openness

Lattest News: (1-14-11)

http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/more-about-chrome-html-video-codec.html
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 16 Jan 2011 @ 3:19

Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.

2514.1.2011 17:36

SO question why can I encode and decode H264 videos distribute and sell said videos , I mean dose MS pay royalties to the H264 patent holders to allow it to run on PC hardware I am trying to understand the process here, why dose chrome have to pay to use it?


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

2614.1.2011 17:59

Does this mean I will no longer be able to play H.264 videos in Chrome?

...support across the ecosystem for WebM is growing rapidly.

To use and distribute H.264, browser and OS vendors, hardware manufacturers, and publishers who charge for content must pay significant royaltiesówith no guarantee the fees wonít increase in the future.

H.264 plays an important role in video and the vast majority of the H.264 videos on the web today are viewed in plug-ins such as Flash and Silverlight. These plug-ins are and will continue to be supported in Chrome. Our announcement was only related to the <video> tag, which is part of the emerging HTML platform. While the HTML video platform offers great promise, few sites use it today and therefore few users will be immediately impacted by this change.

Firefox and Opera have never supported H.264 due to its licensing requirements, they both support WebM and Ogg Theora.

WebM Project team will soon release plugins that enable WebM support in Safari and IE9

http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/more-about-chrome-html-video-codec.html


Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.

2714.1.2011 18:04

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
SO question why can I encode and decode H264 videos distribute and sell said videos , I mean dose MS pay royalties to the H264 patent holders to allow it to run on PC hardware I am trying to understand the process here, why dose chrome have to pay to use it?
Absolutely they do or anyone that sells a product with that standard implemented, like MS. But it does depend on the licensing, some things are open to the consumer for free use but the manufactures that will use it to sell their product would have to pay royalties. I'm not fully up on the H264 standard licensing but my best guess is that it falls into that realm, maybe someone else who is better versed can help out here.

2814.1.2011 18:28

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
SO question why can I encode and decode H264 videos distribute and sell said videos , I mean dose MS pay royalties to the H264 patent holders to allow it to run on PC hardware I am trying to understand the process here, why dose chrome have to pay to use it?
Absolutely they do or anyone that sells a product with that standard implemented, like MS. But it does depend on the licensing, some things are open to the consumer for free use but the manufactures that will use it to sell their product would have to pay royalties. I'm not fully up on the H264 standard licensing but my best guess is that it falls into that realm, maybe someone else who is better versed can help out here.
SO MS has to pay for it even if windows comes without it?


I understand if its hardware based than ya , but if chrome ran on open hardware and any user can easily install a plug in to play the codec why dose google have to pay a royalty in this process?

Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

2914.1.2011 18:43

No if they don't offer it as a feature Codec in their MP or MC then no they don't have to pay royalties and if a Codec is offered that is free use for the end users then again no royalties if it is in fact that type of license. So you are right MS doesn't provide that in there OS or DL package and like DVD-IFO in the past MS didn't have to pay royalties there either. My point was that if MS provides that capability then they pay. Knowing MS if they were to consider that they would buy out the company that holds the standard because that is how they typically operate. Or they partner with the company, steal everything they need and dissolve the partnership, again usual operation for them. Sorry for the confusion.

There are TIA/EIA and even MIL standards that I can use without paying royalties on, but I do have to pay to get the spec. Normally the price isn't bad and if you are dealing in high volume products it really means little or no expense in the long run.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 14 Jan 2011 @ 18:47

3014.1.2011 19:25

Originally posted by Bozobub:
Ah, but H.264 is the de-facto standard, that's the entire point here. Concurrently, Flash is the current de-facto standard for online video playback. It really doesn't matter what YOU (or Google, Apple) thinks about it at all, sorry.

You do realize Chrome will still be perfectly capable of playing video using the de facto method you just described (H.264 in Flash), don't you?

And it's hardly wise to perpetuate de facto standards simply because they're de facto standards, especially when those standards are patent-encumbered.

Quote:
It's also amusing that Google is choosing their OWN proprietary format, without any promises at all for future open licensing, and Google apologists somehow think that's any better. I'm glad Chrome stinks so badly, or this could actually have been a big deal.

WebM is not a proprietary format and it doesn't belong to Google. (They bought VP8 to release it.) It is an open, royalty-free format developed and sponsored by Google.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 14 Jan 2011 @ 19:30

3114.1.2011 19:54

@Nonoitall
I wasn't aware of that. I too thought Google was going to pull an Apple and use their standard only, but you are right it would be suicide if they did in this situation, although it doesn't mean they wouldn't either as companies attemp suicide all the time.

If they are going to use both why buy VP8? That doesn't really make sense to me but there must be some good reason for them to do that if it isn't to avoid using the H.264 standard. Maybe by owning VP8 they can manipulate as they need without restrictions, that's the only other reason I can think of.

3214.1.2011 20:54

They bought VP8 so that they could release it royalty-free and use it in conjunction with Vorbis audio to create WebM. Up until that point the only real (open) contender for a video codec on the web was Theora, which has some issues that make it less than ideal.

There are two methods of playing video on the web that are relevant here: Flash and HTML5. Flash is a distinct piece of software that has its own set of codecs that it supports, among which is H.264 (and they're working on WebM support). HTML5 is an official web standard, and as such it's the browser's job to implement it. However, HTML5 does not define which codecs are to be supported - that's up to the implementation.

Chrome will still work fine with Flash, and since Flash supports H.264, Chrome will continue to play H.264 that is played inside a Flash player, which is the de facto standard right now. For HTML5 (whose codecs have to be supplied through the browser), Google has chosen not to include H.264 among the codecs that they themselves will provide - and for good reason; H.264 is patent-encumbered. Since MPEG-LA could potentially force H.264 implementers to pay licensing fees in the future, it's a dangerous codec to use inside of an emerging open standard like HTML5.

So, the 'old way' (Flash + H.264) to play video will continue to work just fine in Chrome. They're just encouraging the use of open codecs with the emerging open standard (HTML5).


3314.1.2011 21:22

Flash sucks and using VP8 and Vorbis is one alternative of many possibilities. I personally donít think Vorbis or FLAC are anything great. Seems like a lot of effort for why? Again royalties probably arenít that much so this must be about proprietary rights on Googles behalf.

Also the title of this thread must be wrong then, "Google will remove support for H.264 from Chrome". Which is what I've heard for some time now as this isn't new to the news seen.

3414.1.2011 22:41

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
Again royalties probably arenít that much...

That's up to MPEG-LA. Therein lies the problem. ;-)

3515.1.2011 7:45

Originally posted by nonoitall:
Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
Again royalties probably arenít that much...

That's up to MPEG-LA. Therein lies the problem. ;-)
Isn't chrome's main feature the plugin engine? Supposedly, plugins can run like they were made by google, but there is still security? If this is the case, it seems like there should be a free plugin for H.264. Better yet, there should be a plugin that lets you use all the codecs that media players have access to.


3615.1.2011 10:02

An interesting Ars Technica view of the issue

No, this is no step forward for "openness", sorry, As the above linked article mentions, Google would need to nix both Flash and the AAC/MP3 audio plugins. GUess what? None of those is "open" at all, and the 2 audio codecs are also royalty-driven, in a manner quite similar to H.264. Google's reasons just don't wash.

VP8 is also completely proprietary still. In addition, it was developed by a single company as closed-source from the beginning of its development. H.264 is an open standard, in that it was developed via industry-wide effort and the entire source code *is* available. Not so for VP8, at least not yet. In fact, Google has NOT promised to make it a true open standard, but rather to make it freely usable. In a true open standard, anyone can legally make changes to the code, then distribute the changed version at will, where it can compete against the original. That is NOT (yet) legal at all with VP8.

It's not like I hate Google, but this decision seems about as shaky as Apple's lack of Flash support.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 15 Jan 2011 @ 10:03

3715.1.2011 11:06

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
No if they don't offer it as a feature Codec in their MP or MC then no they don't have to pay royalties and if a Codec is offered that is free use for the end users then again no royalties if it is in fact that type of license. So you are right MS doesn't provide that in there OS or DL package and like DVD-IFO in the past MS didn't have to pay royalties there either. My point was that if MS provides that capability then they pay. Knowing MS if they were to consider that they would buy out the company that holds the standard because that is how they typically operate. Or they partner with the company, steal everything they need and dissolve the partnership, again usual operation for them. Sorry for the confusion.

There are TIA/EIA and even MIL standards that I can use without paying royalties on, but I do have to pay to get the spec. Normally the price isn't bad and if you are dealing in high volume products it really means little or no expense in the long run.
AH ok I get it now if its part of the software rather than the software being able to use widely available codecs.... but it seems to me they could have skipped all this if they just made a plugin setup....

Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

3815.1.2011 15:57

Quote:
VP8 is also completely proprietary still.

No, it's not. Click here.

Quote:
In addition, it was developed by a single company as closed-source from the beginning of its development.

You leave out the part where the underlying patents were released and its reference implementation was made open source.

Quote:
H.264 is an open standard, in that it was developed via industry-wide effort and the entire source code *is* available.

The fact that there are presently open-source implementations of the codec does not mean that its specifications are openly developed or royalty-free. Nor does it guarantee that people will be free to continue releasing implementations of that specification in the future.

Quote:
Not so for VP8, at least not yet. In fact, Google has NOT promised to make it a true open standard, but rather to make it freely usable. In a true open standard, anyone can legally make changes to the code, then distribute the changed version at will, where it can compete against the original. That is NOT (yet) legal at all with VP8.

The reference implementation of VP8 is available as open source under a BSD license. FFmpeg developers have created their own decoder for VP8, which performs even better than the reference implementation. (The competition seems pretty healthy...)
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 15 Jan 2011 @ 15:58

3915.1.2011 16:36

Actually Wiki has it as a "Creative Commons licenses" which can include many other licensing methods under it.

So if you need the Codec just look for "libvpx".

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 15 Jan 2011 @ 16:37

4016.1.2011 1:27

is everyone forgetting that plugins can be maden




MGR (Micro Gaming Rig) .|. Intel Q6600 @ 3.45GHz .|. Asus P35 P5K-E/WiFi .|. 4GB 1066MHz Geil Black Dragon RAM .|. Samsung F60 SSD .|. Corsair H50-1 Cooler .|. Sapphire 4870 512MB .|. Lian Li PC-A70B .|. Be Queit P7 Dark Power Pro 850W PSU .|. 24" 1920x1200 DGM (MVA Panel) .|. 24" 1920x1080 Dell (TN Panel) .|.

4116.1.2011 1:29

Originally posted by shaffaaf:
is everyone forgetting that plugins can be maden
What loud and obnoxious?
*giggles*

======
All in all I think google just wants a simple all in one secured packaged(like the Ios and the droid OS)package no one has to fluff with, I think looking at the long term they want to start with a multi hardware OS type of thing. Making native H264 support difficult at this time due to licensing issues.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 16 Jan 2011 @ 2:18

Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.

---
Check out my crappy creations
http://zippydsmlee.deviantart.com/

4216.1.2011 2:16

H.264 Vs WebM " Timeline and Future ":

http://syntensity.blogspot.com/2011/01/completely-speculative-history-future.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+hackernewsyc+%28Hacker+News+YC%29&utm_content=Twitter

Latest News: (1-16-11)

http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/16/google-defends-h-264-removal-from-chrome-says-webm-plug-ins-com/

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 16 Jan 2011 @ 3:10

Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.

4316.1.2011 2:27

I still don't like what they have done with Chrome but after reading about Googles approach and how MPEG-LA snuffed them I say go Google and WebM. But I must say I still like MPEG4 H.264 MKV formats, competition is good!

4416.1.2011 15:37

Good move Google and down with the evil empires (apple & Microsoft).
Hay! how about making a O.S. for my PC. I really want to dump Window some day... soon perhaps.

4518.1.2011 9:03

Originally posted by xnmalletx:
Yea, I don't get that party affiliation thing either.
Republicans do not like anything open source. I guess it precludes under the table payments for all the government acquisitions !
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 18 Jan 2011 @ 9:03

4618.1.2011 11:31

Originally posted by jabberwolf:
Originally posted by inverse137:
Originally posted by ROMaster2:
Wow, really Google? REALLY?
Umm, you are complaining because Google wouldn't go with something they had to pay royalties for and instead bought another compression algorithm and then made that algorithm open source?

Dude, you're a republican, aren't you?
Um dude, its a removal of something that gives consumer choice.
This is a small fee, that is negligable, but if avoided - will have google try to force their standard as the only option on their OS.

So in light of facts, availability, cost, and restriction of choice, you must be Democrat.

4718.1.2011 11:36

I love how people take politics so personally. I mean people reading this actually made an account so they could defend their political affiliations. I think the order of importance goes:

1. Politics
2. Sports (don't fuck with my team!)
3. Religion

Why are people are always up in arms about shit that doesn't matter?

But to stay on topic... Yeah google chrome should have waited for this little move.

4818.1.2011 17:29

Originally posted by dab0ne:
But to stay on topic... Yeah google chrome should have waited for this little move.

Right now H.264 in HTML5 is practically non-existent on the web. What better time is there to remove support for it? When it's become thoroughly engrained in every video site and MPEG-LA decides they want to up their royalties?

Why aren't people raising such a big stink about Firefox? It doesn't provide a built-in H.264 codec either.

4918.1.2011 18:14

Originally posted by nonoitall:
Originally posted by dab0ne:
But to stay on topic... Yeah google chrome should have waited for this little move.

Right now H.264 in HTML5 is practically non-existent on the web. What better time is there to remove support for it? When it's become thoroughly engrained in every video site and MPEG-LA decides they want to up their royalties?

Why aren't people raising such a big stink about Firefox? It doesn't provide a built-in H.264 codec either.
FireFox groupies are like iCrap followers, it doesn't matter what issues they have as they only recognize other products problems. I use most browsers on the market and none of them are perfect even my favorite AvantBrowser.

As to audio formats although I like AC3 Dolby Digital and think it was implemented better on DVD's I'm really glad that DTS picked up their game as I feel they are better mastered on Blu-Ray than DD. Competition is great and we need more of it rather than less like when we were imposed by Macromedia's cruddy Flash format.

Now lefts get back to the political nonsense, ya right! LOL

5019.1.2011 7:17
freelee
Inactive

howdy!
someone would had forgotten a saying,the peace would make money for all.
or google could leave the right to the users,to choose the H.264 or not.


Spywareremovaltoolkit AVG AVIRA

515.2.2011 20:50
TechGil
Unverified new user

I totally agree. Google made a premature move.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive