Mission Accomplished: Online video standard format war is over

Mission Accomplished: Online video standard format war is over
MacDailyNews - Mission Accomplished: Online video standard format war is over

In short, it's not even close to over. This table demonstrates the varied support and although H.264 is now royalty free, it's still not free. I'm sure that will stop browser makers from providing support because whose to say that MPEG-LA won't change it's mind later. From what I've read, Mozilla won't be supporting H.264, Apple isn't going to budge from H.264, Microsoft is committed to support for H.264 (with WebM support if the codec is installed), Google seems to want to support them all and I'm speculating that Opera won't provide built-in support for H.264.

In my opinion, this isn't going to end until either H.264 is made so that there is no patent worries or WebM reaches H.264 quality. I honestly think that WebM stands the best chance here - Firefox, Chrome, Opera and IE will support it (IE won't have it built-in but if the WebM codec is installed, it will use it). That's 4 out of 5 major browsers while H.264 only has support from 3 of the 5 (IE, Safari and Chrome) and Mozilla doesn't appear to be budging on a lack of H.264 support anytime soon.

The whole idea of html5 was to get away from having to install various codecs like you must do for flash or shockwave or silverlight. And then some of them will support one or the other only after installing a codec. That kind of defeat's the no extra codec approach html 5 is trying to have.

Sure you need browser support for this to happen. And I think H.264 has the best chance. Better quality currently. Has support from MS and Apple. 2 of thw biggest players in the industry. And Google will support both simply to ensure they are up to speed on who ever wins the war. So that leaves only Modzilla and Opera who currently do not support H.264. Yes Modzilla's Firefox has a large market share but I think they will be left behind if H.624 wins.

Sure WebM has more players supporting it. But the 3 biggest players (Apple, MS, Google) are supporting H.264. And really I don't think no matter what WebM is like. You can't win amy battle if all 3 of the big players are on the other side. (or on the fence as Google is now). The only way for WebM to win is for MS and Google to make WebM native to their browsers and remove the H.264 support. Pretty much screw Apple over as we all know H.264 is Apple's baby and they've been promoting that standard for ages now.

So with Google on the fence and MS pretty much saying We like one but our browser with an add on can handle the other, the web professionals who would want an equal standard over all 3 big browsers. And cause of the big 3 Apple is the only one who is not on the fence, I think their vote for H.264 will be the winning one. And a lot of the media types who work with online video do this on Apple computers. Is easier to work with one video format then have to convert between different types. And it's well known no matter how good the conversion is you always lose even a little picture/sound quality when you convert from one type to another.

So in short. 2 major players on the fence and the 3rd in the H.264 camp. And the little players just trying to pick a winner. My prediction is H.264 to come out on top.

The problem still lies in patent issues/royalties. This is why there is a lack of developer support around H.264. It doesn't matter how much better it is technically if there is constantly this looming threat that it will cause legal problems down the road.

the8thark said:

Sure you need browser support for this to happen. And I think H.264 has the best chance. Better quality currently. Has support from MS and Apple. 2 of thw biggest players in the industry. And Google will support both simply to ensure they are up to speed on who ever wins the war. So that leaves only Modzilla and Opera who currently do not support H.264. Yes Modzilla's Firefox has a large market share but I think they will be left behind if H.624 wins.

Click to expand...

Apple is by no means one of the two largest players in the browser market. According to NetMarketShare, Firefox has a market share 4.5 times that of Safari and Chrome's market share is almost 1.5 times that of Safari. If we use StatCounter's info, Firefox's market share is more than 7 times that of Safari while Chrome's market share is more than 2.5 times that of Safari. The point I'm trying to get at with that info is that in terms of clout in the browser market, Apple doesn't have the same influence that Google and Mozilla do. Mozilla won't be supporting H.264 and Google is the one that introduced WebM so it would be unthinkable for them to drop WebM support. In fact, I'm sure it has precedence (if both a WebM and H.264 version are available, WebM would be used). I just tested this with a YouTube video (here) - Chrome used the WebM version while Safari did not. Since both are available and Chrome gave precedence to the WebM version, it does in fact appear that Google is going to give precedence to WebM unless a web developer specifically codes their page so that H.264 takes precedence.

the8thark said:

Sure WebM has more players supporting it. But the 3 biggest players (Apple, MS, Google) are supporting H.264. And really I don't think no matter what WebM is like. You can't win amy battle if all 3 of the big players are on the other side. (or on the fence as Google is now). The only way for WebM to win is for MS and Google to make WebM native to their browsers and remove the H.264 support. Pretty much screw Apple over as we all know H.264 is Apple's baby and they've been promoting that standard for ages now.

Click to expand...

Again, WebM is native to Chrome much like it is to Firefox and Opera. Yes, Chrome and IE support H.264 but they also support WebM and thus, WebM has broader support than H.264. At this point, I'm pretty sure Apple is the only browser maker that doesn't support WebM in some fashion and with such a small market share, they don't really occupy a position with which they can push others into supporting H.264 exclusively.

the8thark said:

So with Google on the fence and MS pretty much saying We like one but our browser with an add on can handle the other, the web professionals who would want an equal standard over all 3 big browsers. And cause of the big 3 Apple is the only one who is not on the fence, I think their vote for H.264 will be the winning one.

Click to expand...

They may prefer H.264 right now but money speaks and to use H.264, you have to pay royalties (see here). My argument is that the quality of WebM will likely reach that of H.264 well before any patent/royalty issues with H.264 go away. This means a lot for web developers - do you choose the absolutely free WebM or do you take the chance that MPEG-LA holds up their end of the bargain?

Market Share and Video Support (for reference):

• Internet Explorer - H.264, WebM (with codec installed; exclusive to IE9)
• Mozilla Firefox - Ogg, WebM (version 4.0)
• Chrome - Ogg, H.264, WebM (with version 6)
• Safari - H.264
• Opera - Ogg, WebM. H.264 (only on Linux and FreeBSD builds)

WebM - support in 4 of the 5
H.264 - support in 3 of the 5 (Opera does but not in their Mac builds)

72.99% of the market could theoretically support H.264 while 93.26% of the market could theoretically support H.264 using NetMarketShare's numbers.

EDIT: It appears that only commercial use of H.264 requires royalties. This doesn't detract from my point though - there are still royalty issues.

I think you misunderstood my point a little. My 3 biggest players I meant on a holistic sense. Sure Firefox has more market share then Safari. But you need to edit/create those videos before you put them on the web right? And if the big 3 (A possible Google OS included there) make it easier to create H.264 content then that's the way to go. Having their browsers run with it is very nice too.

Firefox though big is just a web broswer. You need OS X or Windows or something to create the content. I think you get my point there.

I agree H.264 has the royalty issue. But I'm still believe in H.264. Sure you pay a little more for it. Like owning an Apple computer. You want the best, you gotta pay for it. And in the end I'm sure the extra revenue generated for businesses that use the superior (at the moment) codec will cover the cost of using H.264.

And a lack of developer support for H.264? Funny that. I'm not in the web media industry but to me I've heard to much talk about H.264 for a long time now. And only recently heard that WebM even existed. Sure people might to "oohhh free" and choose WebM. But to me if WebM is to succeed it needs to be advertised more basically. People need to know the options. And the WebM crowd need to push it some more.

Last I read, there were some deep suspicions and evidence that WebM (VP8) was infringing on some patents. Even if it got traction, there's a good chance it'd get sued out of existence.
Diary Of An x264 Developer The first in-depth technical analysis of VP8

the8thark it ain't near over, or as Winston Churchill would say 'We have yet to begin to fight'".

the8thark said:

Sure people might to "oohhh free" and choose WebM. But to me if WebM is to succeed it needs to be advertised more basically. People need to know the options. And the WebM crowd need to push it some more.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure people need to be familiar with WebM. How many average internet users have heard of H.264? I would venture that not many have because they probably don't care. As long as the browser works, people are happy. This is why it doesn't need to be advertised - support is the responsibility of the browser maker, not the end user (except for WebM support in IE9). People aren't going to care what format is supported by their browser as long as it works. This is why Flash has succeeded - it works in all browsers. Media creators will likely know their options as that is their responsibility. Don't get me wrong though - I do agree that Google will have to push WebM. That said, they have to "advertise" it to content creators and browser makers, not the average internet user. This may be what you implied as the target of WebM advertising though.

lifeisabeach said:

Last I read, there were some deep suspicions and evidence that WebM (VP8) was infringing on some patents. Even if it got traction, there's a good chance it'd get sued out of existence.
Diary Of An x264 Developer The first in-depth technical analysis of VP8

Click to expand...

Video formats - the one thing in the technology community that always seems to be complicated by patents.

vansmith said:

Apple is by no means one of the two largest players in the browser market. According to NetMarketShare, Firefox has a market share 4.5 times that of Safari and Chrome's market share is almost 1.5 times that of Safari. If we use StatCounter's info, Firefox's market share is more than 7 times that of Safari while Chrome's market share is more than 2.5 times that of Safari. The point I'm trying to get at with that info is that in terms of clout in the browser market, Apple doesn't have the same influence that Google and Mozilla do. Mozilla won't be supporting H.264 and Google is the one that introduced WebM so it would be unthinkable for them to drop WebM support. In fact, I'm sure it has precedence (if both a WebM and H.264 version are available, WebM would be used). I just tested this with a YouTube video (here) - Chrome used the WebM version while Safari did not. Since both are available and Chrome gave precedence to the WebM version, it does in fact appear that Google is going to give precedence to WebM unless a web developer specifically codes their page so that H.264 takes precedence.

Click to expand...

You're not looking at the big picture here when examining marketshare clout. Sure on the desktop Chrome and Firefox are bigger than Safari and all that stuff you said is true.

But...

Mark my words, this battle will not be decided on the desktop adoption rates. It's the mobile web that will drive this to an eventual standard. So if iOS, Android, and Windows Mobile 7 all support H.264, what's the long-term incentive for content providers to use anything else?

Good point and it is something that I overlooked. That said, the mobile market will be just as competitive in terms of video format adoption. There is little doubt that Android will support WebM and last I heard was growing faster than any other mobile OS. iOS will no doubt support only H.264 as will Windows Phone. RIM - your guess is as good as mine. The one that matters right now is Symbian which controls half the mobile OS market. Since Symbian has been open sourced, I would imagine that the likelihood is that they will adopt WebM before H.264 for licensing reasons.

This is all speculation though. I have little to no evidence to back up my claims but I do believe that there is some truth to what I have asserted.