Jump to content



Photo

Mozilla reconsiders its stance on h.264 video codec

firefox h.264 mozilla

  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#31 +_Alexander

_Alexander

    Neowinian

  • 1,006 posts
  • Joined: 21-January 13
  • Location: USA
  • OS: W8.1 u1
  • Phone: Nokia 521

Posted 01 May 2013 - 01:04

You obviously don't get it.. everyone who makes videos (encodes them) and distributes them will have to pay the license.. In this case browsers will have to pay the licenses, those who encode the videos will have to pay the licenses and that's not just the super rich movie studios or Google.. that's going to be EVERYONE who wants to encode anything and your price of license will be determined how big your viewing audience is.. similar to how royalty licensing works for photos and how you use them.

This will come back and will have HUGE impact on all content authored/encoded with h.264.

The reason they offered h.264 royalty free at first is like a drug.. so people would start using it and then they can milk and rip off everyone. Wake up.

That's why Mozilla didn't want it, but now has to use it due to mobile and it will come back to bite them. They simply didn't have a choice. That's why Google bought and open-sourced VP8. So everyone would have a no-commitment, completely free video codec for the web that performs on par with h.264.

I don't understand anyone supporting h.264 and MPEG-LA. Yes, h.264 is present everywhere and performs great because devices have hardware decoders, but that's completely irrelevant. It only takes one generation of devices to put in hardware decoder support for WebM into devices and into browsers. It would be a simple thing to do and since they don't have to pay any license, it wouldn't cost anything.

Supporting MPEG-LA and h.264 is the worst thing people can do...and it will become obvious in 2016 when gloves are off.


There are two types of users: Those that pay for things and those that do not.
Those that prefer Linux and those that prefer forking money for Windows.
Those that prefer LibreOffice and those that prefer forking over money for Microsoft Office.
Most people chose paid applications for their elegance, ease of use, support and power.
The argument "It is not free, therefore bad" simply holds no ground.

This is what the argument comes down to.
Linux or Windows.
LibreOffice or Microsoft Office.
Dumpster or a 250000 USD house?
3Ds Max or Blender?
Gimp or Photoshop?
Mud or Gold?
VP8 or H264?
Etc.

Additionally, any Windows, Mac, BD player, Tablet, or Smartphone user already have h264.
Oh, pretty much no one encodes video, most people consume from Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, Vimeo, etc.
The only reason Mozilla Firefox does (or did?) not support h264 was stubbornness - it is there to use for any application that wants it, consequence free.

I am a consumer.
I prefer the immense advantages of paid software.
I want best video quality possible.
I want DXVA2.
Therefore I fully support h264.



#32 The_Decryptor

The_Decryptor

    STEAL THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

  • 19,293 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 02
  • Location: Sol System
  • OS: iSymbian 9.2 SP24.8 Mars Bar

Posted 01 May 2013 - 01:17

No it doesn't. If we (Firefox users) lived without proper h.264 support so far, we don't need Mozzila to waste time on it instead of a head start on h.265 and providing it as fast as possible with good end results.


Mozilla isn't "supporting" H.264 directly, they're using the underlying OS software to provide playback support. So when H.265 or whatever comes around to replace H.264, the basically only change Mozilla need to do is change their mime-type code to allow those video files through.

Edit: And while Firefox 21 or so will support H.264, it'll only support it on Windows, the OS X and Linux builds don't have any support (They'll both use GStreamer eventually)

#33 Boz

Boz

    Neowinian Senior

  • 7,383 posts
  • Joined: 21-October 03

Posted 01 May 2013 - 01:17

No, youtube, Vimeo and so on will pay the encoding license. the user will only pay the license if he encodes h.264 content on his computer, and GUESS WHAT, if he can do that, he has already paid the license, by buying the software that can do it.

Seem you don't know how this stuff works. that or you're spreading FUD to spread the glory that is anything made by google again. You know, most companies pay evangelists very well, you shouldn't do it for free.


You are not getting how this stuff works.. EVERYONE who encodes to publish content will pay a license based on the size of the audience.. it works the EXACT same way when you buy royalty licensed photos and you want to use them in magazines, on the web or whatever..

And when everyone needs to pay, how do you think this will affect content on the web? Think for christ sake and read a bit more about it.

Can you imagine what would happen if JPG or PNG was licensed and everyone encoding stuff and embedding those images could not do it freely, it would have been disastrous for progress.. That's why all these web formats are open and free for use.

MPEG-LA played their card extremely well.. they got everyone hooked, gave away limited royalty free license until a specific date and in a couple of more years they'll start raping everyone and getting their money worth because people like you blindly and without thinking supported them.

Once they get their codec entrenched on the web and mobile, which they have successfully done, it will be super hard to use something else and they are going to rip everyone off.. That was the plan for the beginning and why Mozilla and everyone who values openness and choice were against them.

#34 +_Alexander

_Alexander

    Neowinian

  • 1,006 posts
  • Joined: 21-January 13
  • Location: USA
  • OS: W8.1 u1
  • Phone: Nokia 521

Posted 01 May 2013 - 01:22

You are not getting how this stuff works.. EVERYONE who encodes to publish content will pay a license based on the size of the audience.. it works the EXACT same way when you buy royalty licensed photos and you want to use them in magazines, on the web or whatever..

And when everyone needs to pay, how do you think this will affect content on the web? Think for christ sake and read a bit more about it.

Can you imagine what would happen if JPG or PNG was licensed and everyone encoding stuff and embedding those images could not do it freely.. That's why all these web formats are open and free for use.

YouTube, Vimeo, Netflix, et all are already paying royalties.
There has not been any problem in as so far.

:/

#35 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • 21,372 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 01 May 2013 - 01:25

You are not getting how this stuff works.. EVERYONE who encodes to publish content will pay a license based on the size of the audience.. it works the EXACT same way when you buy royalty licensed photos and you want to use them in magazines, on the web or whatever..

And when everyone needs to pay, how do you think this will affect content on the web? Think for christ sake and read a bit more about it.

Can you imagine what would happen if JPG or PNG was licensed and everyone encoding stuff and embedding those images could not do it freely, it would have been disastrous for progress.. That's why all these web formats are open and free for use.

MPEG-LA played their card extremely well.. they got everyone hooked, gave away limited royalty free license until a specific date and in a couple of more years they'll start raping everyone and getting their money worth because people like you blindly and without thinking supported them.

Once they get their codec entrenched on the web and mobile, which they have successfully done, it will be super hard to use something else and they are going to rip everyone off.. That was the plan for the beginning and why Mozilla and everyone who values openness and choice were against them.


Seems like you're the one who don't understand how it works. whatever format the user encodes the video to is rather irrelevant, if he does encode to a h.264, he already has a license for his use. when he uploads it to a video site however, that site re-encodes it, and they are the ones responsible for paying the license for that encode and distribution.

I know that you don't actually believe they will go around charging individual users for the use of h.264 videos served via youtube, you're not that stupid, you're merely spreading FUD in order to evangelize another inferior Google technology.

#36 Boz

Boz

    Neowinian Senior

  • 7,383 posts
  • Joined: 21-October 03

Posted 01 May 2013 - 01:31

Seems like you're the one who don't understand how it works. whatever format the user encodes the video to is rather irrelevant, if he does encode to a h.264, he already has a license for his use. when he uploads it to a video site however, that site re-encodes it, and they are the ones responsible for paying the license for that encode and distribution.


A very simple explanation that shows that I don't know what you are arguing..

MPEG-LA actually offers two licenses: one for codec developers (who make and sell the patented H.264 technology) and one for video content and service providers (who use it to distribute H.264 encoded content). The rates vary significantly; the yearly royalties for distributing an encoder range from free to $5m, while the royalties for distributing for-pay content are subject to complex rules about distribution but also range from free to $5m. In any event, MPEG-LA has said to us that only the parties at the top and bottom of the H.264 tool chain are generally required to pay royalties; that is, the party who makes the encoder, and the party who distributes the encoded file to the end users. You can think of that as the first and last transaction, if you like -- the person who sells the encoder and the person who sells the content are the ones who have to pay.

That ultimately means products that come with an H.264 codec don't also come with a license to use the codec commercially -- in order to distribute H.264 content in a way that makes money, the distributor has to pay for a separate license. So products like Windows 7, Mac OS X, Final Cut Pro, Avid, and modern video cameras aren't licensed to distribute video for commercial use


A breakdown how licensing will/is be working

from them directly

Posted Image


This is a good article to read so you can familiarize yourself with the actual problems before you defend something you clearly don't understand

http://www.osnews.co..._by_the_MPEG-LA


This is also a solid article on how H.264 will in fact affect the web and content you watch encoded in their format

http://www.webmonkey...ad_for_the_web/


In any case, H.264 is bad for everyone.. performance and integration aside. WebM (VP9) is a codec that Google gave to the web exactly for these same reasons.

MPEG-LA is desperately fighting to put a grasp on the web and mobile video and when you have people like you who blindly support them without understanding what they are doing is clearly bad for everyone.

If MPEG-LA wants H.264 to be a true standard and show themselves as proponent of open they should just open source or make H.264 royalty free permanently for the web and mobile. But of course, that's not the goal.. the goal is for the companies involved (most of all Microsoft, to make money off it and hold everyone hostage).

#37 +_Alexander

_Alexander

    Neowinian

  • 1,006 posts
  • Joined: 21-January 13
  • Location: USA
  • OS: W8.1 u1
  • Phone: Nokia 521

Posted 01 May 2013 - 01:35

Again, why is this a problem?

#38 Boz

Boz

    Neowinian Senior

  • 7,383 posts
  • Joined: 21-October 03

Posted 01 May 2013 - 01:45

YouTube, Vimeo, Netflix, et all are already paying royalties.
There has not been any problem in as so far.

:/


No they are not.. not yet.. that's the whole point.. Google bought and open sourced VP9 so content from big sources and small would not succumb to licensing fees of MPEG-LA.

Since some of you can't really even see how this is bad I'll give you an example.

You are looking at big companies which have billions.. so this is not a huge issue.. But imagine if you started a website like YouTube yourself. And you start growing and you start getting hundreds of thousands or even millions of viewers. Paying H.264 licenses for showing content would destroy your company/sites to the tune of millions of dollars and sites like YouTube would never exist.

Try to think in broader sense and not just from the side of huge corporations.

#39 Boz

Boz

    Neowinian Senior

  • 7,383 posts
  • Joined: 21-October 03

Posted 01 May 2013 - 01:50

And yes.. Mozilla did do a smart thing.. they are just hooking into the underlying H.264 decoding capability of the OS.. so this gets them off the hook when it comes to licensing. So they solved their problem.

#40 +_Alexander

_Alexander

    Neowinian

  • 1,006 posts
  • Joined: 21-January 13
  • Location: USA
  • OS: W8.1 u1
  • Phone: Nokia 521

Posted 01 May 2013 - 01:52

No they are not.. not yet.. that's the whole point.. Google bought and open sourced VP8 so content from big sources would not succumb to licensing fees of MPEG-LA.

Since some of you can't really even see how this is bad I'll give you an example.

You are looking at big companies which have billions.. so this is not a huge issue.. But imagine if you started a website like YouTube yourself. And you start growing and you start getting millions of viewers. Paying H.264 licenses would destroy you and sites like YouTube would never exist.

Some thinking would do you good.

I would start a YouTube channel first.

This is a developer problem though, as a consumer all I care about is super high quality high bitrate video that is very easy on resources and can be played on all my portable devices, computers, and such.

Sites likes YouTube and other big video content providers will continue being h264 - imagine the insane profit drop if they were "well we will just stop supporting all software and hardware media players"...

I apologize, but I really cannot comprehend your argument.

#41 Boz

Boz

    Neowinian Senior

  • 7,383 posts
  • Joined: 21-October 03

Posted 01 May 2013 - 01:57

I would start a YouTube channel first.

This is a developer problem though, as a consumer all I care about is super high quality high bitrate video that is very easy on resources and can be played on all my portable devices, computers, and such.


Clearly you can't comprehend.. Saying you would start a YouTube channel first shows that you don't understand the implications.

What good is a super high quality bitrate when due to licensing a ton of new content coming from sources that are not Microsoft or Google you won't get because they will cost an arm and a leg to distribute and new sites, services and others who are starting out, just like YouTube once did, will not be able to pay it and thus will kill them before they get a chance to become another YouTube.

Not sure how you can't see the problem. It's not a developer problem. It's your problem as a user/consumer as well. It stifles innovation and competition.

WebM was given to everyone by Google to directly fight this monopolistic behavior so anyone can create, encode and distribute content without paying licenses and this gives you more content both in quantity and quality.

And allows new sites and services to be created that otherwise would need to pay through the nose to MPEG-LA with every new user using their service and would be too costly.

#42 +_Alexander

_Alexander

    Neowinian

  • 1,006 posts
  • Joined: 21-January 13
  • Location: USA
  • OS: W8.1 u1
  • Phone: Nokia 521

Posted 01 May 2013 - 02:08

Clearly you can't comprehend.. Saying you would start a YouTube channel first shows that you don't understand the implications.

What good is a super high quality bitrate when due to licensing a ton of new content coming from sources that are not Microsoft or Google you won't get because they will cost an arm and a leg to distribute and new sites, services and others who are starting out, just like YouTube once did, will not be able to pay it and thus will kill them in the very beginning.

Not sure how you can't see the problem. It's not a developer problem. It's your problem as a user/consumer as well. It stifles innovation and competition.

WebM was given to everyone by Google to directly fight this monopolistic behavior so anyone can create, encode and distribute content without paying licenses and this gives you more content both in quantity and quality.


YouTube is a platform that many people use to make profit from. I don't see the problem using it for small business. It is clearly very successful.

What is "content" - cat videos? Well that belongs on YT or Vimeo or some site like that. Movies? Movies and shows are encoded in HD and either streamed to us end users or we buy them - either case H264.
People who want to publish content independently can start off by not delivering h264 and using some plugin to play some other video format - there are plenty of alternative video formats XVID, Real, VP6/8, WebM, .. - they just suck more and are less
supported.

WebM is not an alternative to h264 / h265. You can't propose something worse in quality, performance, and support without being laughed at.

#43 ViperAFK

ViperAFK

    Neowinian Senior

  • 10,813 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 06
  • Location: Vermont

Posted 01 May 2013 - 02:20

There are two types of users: Those that pay for things and those that do not.
Those that prefer Linux and those that prefer forking money for Windows.
Those that prefer LibreOffice and those that prefer forking over money for Microsoft Office.
Most people chose paid applications for their elegance, ease of use, support and power.
The argument "It is not free, therefore bad" simply holds no ground.

This is what the argument comes down to.
Linux or Windows.
LibreOffice or Microsoft Office.
Dumpster or a 250000 USD house?
3Ds Max or Blender?
Gimp or Photoshop?
Mud or Gold?
VP8 or H264?
Etc.

Additionally, any Windows, Mac, BD player, Tablet, or Smartphone user already have h264.
Oh, pretty much no one encodes video, most people consume from Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, Vimeo, etc.
The only reason Mozilla Firefox does (or did?) not support h264 was stubbornness - it is there to use for any application that wants it, consequence free.

I am a consumer.
I prefer the immense advantages of paid software.
I want best video quality possible.
I want DXVA2.
Therefore I fully support h264.


There is so much FUD in this post its not even funny. Please don't make ridiculous assumptions and stereotypes like that. For example I happen to be a linux user, but also pay for some software. Your post is insulting to say the least, get over yourself.

And stop looking at things so "black and white". Yes, sometimes paid software is better. But on the other hand sometimes free software is better. making the assumption that all paid software is superior is completely ridiculous. I agree that h264 is a superior format, but I do also believe those that believe a patent encumbered format should not be a "web standard" have a good point. Of course since h.264 has become so ubiquitous the practical solution is indeed to suck it up and adopt it, but some of the things you said in that post are beyond absurd /rant.



Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!