›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Google Removing H.264 from Chrome

AprecheApreche
edited January 2011 in Technology
FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK YOU BITCHES

Yeah, ok, so they want to try to force people to use WebM instead of H.264 for online video. They can probably win since Chrome and Firefox are the kings right now, and it's not like Safari/IE/Opera can beat that.

However, this is just more anti-user behaviour that I can't stand. How come web browsers can't just be like mplayer? Include support for every codec in the god damn universe. Just do it. If I want to make a web page with flac, it should work. If I include a Quake demo video, it should work. If I use a GIMP XCF image file, it should work. Just include every fucking codec. Not less codecs, MORE codecs!

It's outside my area of expertise, but I'm thinking that we should make a fork of Chromium, regardless of legality, and include every fucking codec we can. ffmpeg up in that shit.

Comments

  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    edited January 2011
    While we're at it, can we add embedded torrent content via libtorrent? Blog article rough-drafting the idea.
    Yeah, I realise that would be a project in and of itself.
    This brings up the point of: "At what point do we abandon getting law to move in-step with technology and just work around it and wait for law to catch up/lag behind?".
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • ColdguyColdguy
    edited January 2011
    FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK YOU BITCHES
    As someone who creates online video and audio I 2nd this as well, now I need to convert to mp4, flv, ogg, and now webm? The good news is that I hope the community will have a plugin to "restore" this functionality to my system however for those not as smart it just made my life a lot harder.
    It's outside my area of expertise, but I'm thinking that we should make a fork of Chromium, regardless of legality, and include every fucking codec we can. ffmpeg up in that shit
    I support this so much that it is not even funny.
    Post edited by Coldguy on
  • trogdor9trogdor9
    Blog article rough-drafting the idea
    This links to http://null.
  • Victor FrostVictor Frost
    What the fuck. This is like if IE dropped support for Flash because they wanted people to use silverlight.
  • ninjarabbininjarabbi
    Blog article rough-drafting the idea
    This links to http://null.
    Its a very rough draft
  • ChurbaChurba
    Let me fix that for you all.
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    The Linux Chrome beta (Not Chromium but official Chrome.) is very buggy about copying and pasting.
  • trogdor9trogdor9
    The Linux Chrome beta (Not Chromium but official Chrome.) is very buggy about copying and pasting.
    Why not just use Chromium?
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    edited January 2011
    Why not just use Chromium?
    Even buggier. Clicking links in other programs wouldn't work, neither would some extensions (That might have been an unrelated cause though.).

    Also, somewhat ironically, not having to install a separate package to get H.264 video and MP3 to play.
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • zehaevazehaeva
    Not sure how valid this is but apparently Opera is agreeing with Google.

    Opera Supports Google

    Stolen from the /.
  • AndrewAndrew
    However, this is just more anti-user behaviour that I can't stand. How come web browsers can't just be like mplayer?
    Because that would mean having to pay for the computational power to encode, store, and serve multiple copies of every video. Websites will just stick with serving a H.264 in a flash container. The reason why Chrome dropped H.264 is because H.264 requires royalty fees.
    What H.264 isn't, however, is royalty-free. ISO and ITU do not require the members working on their various standards and specifications to give up any specific patent claims that may cover the technology that they define. As such, while H.264 is an open standard, there are several hundred different patents that cover the various techniques that it uses to achieve high quality compression—for example, estimating motion from frame to frame, removal of the block artifacts that result from the compression, and the final stage of lossless compression applied to the encoded video.

    The result is that anyone wanting to distribute an implementation of H.264 must obtain licenses for all of the different patented techniques that they use, and these licenses typically come at some cost. To ease this burden, licenses for the full set of patents are available from the company MPEG-LA. MPEG-LA redistributes the income it makes from licenses to the various patent holders.

    MPEG-LA's license terms for H.264 set out a range of fee schedules depending on the exact nature of the H.264 implementation. Importantly to web users, video that is distributed over the web and which is, importantly, not behind any kind of a paywall, is royalty-free. This means that uploading a video to a site such as YouTube and then rebroadcasting that video to all and sundry is free. For browser developers, the situation is not quite so happy: browsers include H.264 decoders, and these are subject to royalties. The size of the necessary payment depends on the number of units shipped—browsers with fewer than 100,000 users would likely not need to pay a royalty at all—but in any case is capped at $6.5 million (equivalent to about 65 million users), annually, until 2015.

    Both VP8 and Theora are, however, royalty-free. Both were designed to avoid existing video patents. Theora was designed to use no patented techniques at all. VP8 does include patented techniques, but these techniques were developed and patented by On2. Google, as present owner of those patents, is permitting their use, in any application, without payment of any royalty.

    At least to a point: the threat with both of those codecs is that they may, in fact, infringe on one or more patents, in spite of efforts to the contrary. If this turns out to be the case, one or both of the codecs might end up in a very similar position to H.264, as far as royalties are concerned.
    The good news is that I hope the community will have a plugin to "restore" this functionality to my system however for those not as smart it just made my life a lot harder.
    The whole point of the <video></video> tag is to eliminate the plugin environment. This would just be a step backwards.
  • SabixxSabixx
    edited January 2011
    Hate to burst your bubble, but MPEG-LA made H.264 royalty free months ago.
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • AndrewAndrew
    hate to burst your bubble, But MPEG-LA made H.264 Royalty free months ago.
    Maybe you should learn to read what I posted before replying...
    For browser developers, the situation is not quite so happy: browsers include H.264 decoders, and these are subject to royalties.
  • NeitoNeito
    On August 26, 2010 MPEG LA announced that H.264 encoded internet video that is free to end users will never be charged for royalties.[11] All other royalties will remain in place such as the royalties for products that decode and encode H.264 video.[12] The license terms are updated in 5-year blocks.[13]
    Emphasis mine.
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    Anti-trust possibilities? What Google says goes as far as online video is concerned.
  • SabixxSabixx
    its royalty-free as long as it's freely distributed,I dont see how that wouldn't apply to Chrome.
  • AndrewAndrew
    its royalty-free as long as it's freely distributed,I dont see how that wouldn't apply to Chrome.
    Do not discuss matters of which you do not comprehend.
  • SabixxSabixx
    whatever man,I asked something because I dont understand the difference you're trying to point out. I didn't know you had a huge giant wooden stick up your ass. ill leave you to dwell in your smugness.
  • AndrewAndrew
    You asked a question? This is why grammar matters.
  • SabixxSabixx
    Engadget is the one who said that Google won't be charged for using it, and thus isn't why they're dropping it. you got a beef with that go talk to them.
  • ProfPanglossProfPangloss
    you got a beef with that go talk to them.
    You cite someone's opinion, know how to back it up yourself.
  • NeitoNeito
    its royalty-free as long as it's freely distributed,I dont see how that wouldn't apply to Chrome.
    Except for the whole part where it specifically states that "encoding and decoding" (i.e. exactly what Chrome would be doing) are the parts they're charging royalties for.
  • AprecheApreche
    VLC and Mplayer can both play H.264, and they don't pay royalties.
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    edited January 2011
    Neither are big enough to be worth suing. Plus the kneckbeard backlash would be more than you'd gain by doing so.

    It's a theory, I suppose.
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • AprecheApreche
    edited January 2011
    Neither are big enough to be worth suing. Plus the kneckbeard backlash would be more than you'd gain by doing so.

    It's a theory, I suppose.
    My point is that whether there is law or not, I am saying that we should just break that law and give two big middle fingers to anyone who doesn't like it. Just make an open source fork of Firefox/Chromium that natively supports as many image, audio, and video formats as possible. It won't be any more illegal than VLC or Mplayer. I mean, VLC was in the iTunes store and only got kicked out because it was GPL, not because of any codecs it wasn't paying royalties for.

    We can also do the same thing Ubuntu and Windows Media Player do to handle codecs. Whenever a user encounters something they can't decode, then let them click a few times to install an appropriate codec.

    EDIT: I mean, heck. Boxee includes ffmpeg and they're selling hardware.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    edited January 2011
    I think the second is the better idea. I just needed to grab a torrent on my laptop and transmission popped up a message when I first started it up saying, essentially "On your own head be it.".
    If people start getting sued because of laws they don't understand, maybe we can start to raise public opinion to fix these legal problems, though I doubt it.

    Do people on this forum actually want to do this? Some kind of K-Lite codec pack for Chrome.
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • ColdguyColdguy
    edited February 2011
    It appears that Microsoft came to the rescue

    Chome can play H264 again

    Yay Microsoft! That doesn't sound right...
    Post edited by Coldguy on
  • Victor FrostVictor Frost
    Yay Microsoft! That doesn't sound right...
    Hah, says you. Sounds perfect to me!

    YAY Microsoft! I've been loyal to you my whole life. ^_^
Sign In or Register to comment.