01-13-2011, 10:26 AM

The Apple-Google Blood Feud Worsens
The Apple-Google Blood Feud Worsens | John C. Dvorak | PCMag.com

01-13-2011, 12:33 PM

You know, it's been a while since I've read anything worthwhile from Dvorak. But it's good to see he's back in form again. I always love reading his conspiracy theories although he may just be on target with this one.

Can you imagine? Apple teaming up with Microsoft and promoting Bing?

01-13-2011, 01:36 PM

So Google is going to remove the H.264 standard from it's browser? That deos seem a bit childish. Safari will support Flash just fine and Apple never pretended to want Flash on it's iDevices at all. Frankly, Google looks a bit childish on this one. Then again, I don't use Chrome so I don't really care.

Could Apple and MS team up? Sure and it wouldn't necessarilly be a bad thing either.

01-13-2011, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by baggss

So Google is going to remove the H.264 standard from it's browser? That deos seem a bit childish. Safari will support Flash just fine and Apple never pretended to want Flash on it's iDevices at all. Frankly, Google looks a bit childish on this one. Then again, I don't use Chrome so I don't really care.

Could Apple and MS team up? Sure and it wouldn't necessarilly be a bad thing either.

I'm not against MS and Apple teaming up. Hopefully there won't be any contamination. >_>"

I just started using Chrome and I actually kind of like it. It's a nice change from flash hogging all my system resources and making my fans sound like a jet engine. >_<"

01-13-2011, 02:26 PM

Apple and their licensed MS technology makes my life easier by getting Outlook email and events out to iPhones at work. Personally, I have no issues with the two of them collaborating to add value. Google makes a great mobile OS, but I really don't respect them as a company on a personal level.

01-13-2011, 02:41 PM

I think the following link gives a fuller summary of the situation:

Google axes Jobsian codec in name of 'open' ? The Register

Patrick

01-13-2011, 05:38 PM

I may be in the minority here but Google did the right thing here and ultimately, with the role that Google plays in the delivery of video on the web, they are going to be able to exert quite a bit of influence on video delivery. The very fact that they control YouTube which must provide at least half of the video on the web is something worth considering when you think about how Google can manage to push WebM. The very fact that the web was built on collaboration and openness should make support of an open spec no surprise as well. Add to this the fact that the group that controls the H.264 standard is widely known as a patent troll and you begin to see why support for an open source and patent free spec and format is needed. Let's also not forget that WebM will be more widely supported across the browsers so regardless of how pervasive H.264 is, if it won't play in the browser, it's utterly useless as a standard for web video. The browser makers have total control here and if the majority aren't going to support H.264 while they support WebM, H.264 will cease to be the standard at some point in the future.

As a reminder, all browsers expect Safari will be able to support WebM (IE won't have support built in - it will require you to install the codec). Given that Adobe is adding WebM support to Flash, it becomes more apparent that WebM will have much greater reach and support.

Just because something is the standard now doesn't mean that it has to be that way forever. It's beliefs like this that allow terrible technology like Flash to continue it's dominance on the web.

Let's also not forget that Firefox has never supported H.264 (and they never will) and no one seemed to care despite the fact that they have a considerably larger user base than every browser expect for IE. Add to this the idea that the HTML5 spec doesn't specify a format that should be the standard and the very notion that H.264 support is required is ludicrous. Yes, it quite widely used but if Google can manage converting videos on YouTube to WebM on a large scale, so can everyone else.

And honestly, what does this news have to do with the "Flash feud" as he put it. He's making it sounds as if it's H.264 or Flash. In fact, he's making it sounds as if H.264 is synonymous with the HTYML5 spec which is just ridiculous.

Sorry, this post is poorly organized - I got going and didn't stop.

EDIT: This is worth reading.

01-13-2011, 10:07 PM

This bad because it will fragment the userbase. People will then choose the browser they want based on the video formats it supports and not what is the best browser there. And those tied into a certain video format would be limited to what browser they can use.

So have fun making your web site with video so that all of your users can use it. Some websites might be forced to have multiple codecs of the same video just so all of their users can video the website properly. Sure this might be good for Apple or Google. But it's just annoying for the end user and terrible for the web and video developers out there.

Just have one standard that works so no matter what. Then you could feel free to make websites all can use. And you can swap to the browser of your choice.

01-13-2011, 10:58 PM

Originally Posted by the8thark

This bad because it will fragment the userbase. People will then choose the browser they want based on the video formats it supports and not what is the best browser there. And those tied into a certain video format would be limited to what browser they can use.

So have fun making your web site with video so that all of your users can use it. Some websites might be forced to have multiple codecs of the same video just so all of their users can video the website properly. Sure this might be good for Apple or Google. But it's just annoying for the end user and terrible for the web and video developers out there.

Just have one standard that works so no matter what. Then you could feel free to make websites all can use. And you can swap to the browser of your choice.

Except some people don't really care what web browser is the best. Most people I know just use whatever web browser icon there is on the desktop and get on with their life.

01-13-2011, 11:41 PM

Originally Posted by the8thark

This bad because it will fragment the userbase. People will then choose the browser they want based on the video formats it supports and not what is the best browser there. And those tied into a certain video format would be limited to what browser they can use.

Google dropping H.264 doesn't fragment the already diverse support. It's not as if they are adding a new codec. In fact, it could be argued that by supporting only one spec, Google is actually helping the effort to work towards one standard (supporting multiple formats doesn't help).

Originally Posted by the8thark

So have fun making your web site with video so that all of your users can use it. Some websites might be forced to have multiple codecs of the same video just so all of their users can video the website properly. Sure this might be good for Apple or Google. But it's just annoying for the end user and terrible for the web and video developers out there.

True, it is a pain for the end user but as long as their is browser support, very few end users will care.

Originally Posted by the8thark

Just have one standard that works so no matter what. Then you could feel free to make websites all can use. And you can swap to the browser of your choice.

That's the beauty of WebM - it's patent and royalty free and is thus much easier to build in support. Why not collectively support a free spec when it's available and will do the job?

This is all quite interesting when you consider the details. As Haavard notes here, H.264, "is incompatible with the W3C patent policy for an open web." Seeing as how they are the group that sets the standards for the web, it would be important to try and follow their guidelines. Otherwise, you risk "pulling an IE" and contributing to the de-standardizing of the web.

01-13-2011, 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by vansmith

Google dropping H.264 doesn't fragment the already diverse support. It's not as if they are adding a new codec. In fact, it could be argued that by supporting only one spec, Google is actually helping the effort to work towards one standard (supporting multiple formats doesn't help).

Yes but when each browser supports only one codec. It's own. So each browser supports a different codec. That makes things hard. It's just like each group trying to say "hey the codec we use is the best and it should become the standard".

01-13-2011, 11:50 PM

Chrome, Firefox and Opera all support WebM (and IE will with v9). The only browser that doesn't is Safari. So, they don't each support their own codec - they all support the same one (expect for Safari). And seeing as how Safari only has about 5-6% of the browser market, they are largely outnumbered.

01-13-2011, 11:56 PM

I read a nice, thoughtful piece about the whole matter on Daring Fireball.
Daring Fireball: The Practical vs. Idealistic Scenarios for the Near-Term Future of Online Video

I think his end conclusions are spot on:

Thus, dropping native H.264 playback from Chrome while still allowing H.264 playback via Flash Player isn’t going to drive adoption of WebM. It just means that Chrome users will get H.264 via Flash.

This whole "open is good, closed is bad" nonsense that Google and the cyberhippies are always bleating about lately is really wearing me thin. The whole use of the term "open" is so abused by Google alone, the meaning is lost to me now.

01-14-2011, 12:01 AM

One other good read here from Ars Technica, a blog that I've developed a very healthy respect for:
Google's dropping H.264 from Chrome a step backward for openness

01-14-2011, 05:24 AM

I must agree Ars Technica write some very good blogs.
And yes it seems Apple is the only one who does not want to support WebM. I'm not for or against them using WebM. But dropping codecs sounds to me the exact opposite of openness. And that's something Google prides itself on, being open. So they say they are open but not acting like it.

Thus, dropping native H.264 playback from Chrome while still allowing H.264 playback via Flash Player isn’t going to drive adoption of WebM. It just means that Chrome users will get H.264 via Flash.

Well that means a chrome browser for iOS will not work. As iOS does not not support flash. That's Google kicking themselves in the goonies. It's well known how popular iOS is. And not having a browser is limited totally to WebM only on iOS (if they chose to enter the iOS market) is very closed indeed.