Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
well this is great news. There is no question apple won this war after what they learned with firewire free is the way to fly. This is going to hurt googles own project and solidly kill flash. There is now no reason not to do html5 and h.264 encoding of all online content

Flash is not a codec. In fact, many Flash movies are encoded with h.264. Plus, Flash is not only used for playing movies. It's also used for creating casual games. This news will have very little impact on Flash. Maybe more sites will use html5 for video, but that's it.
 
Dear Microsoft, Firefox and Opera,

you can now add direct support of H.264 for the HTML5 video tag in your respective browsers.

Thanks. :cool:
 
MacRumors, please do the right thing and update your post clarifying that this doesn't change anything for Mozilla/Opera. It's royalty-free only for end users. Mozilla/Opera still need to pay $5 million every year, right?
 
Nope. This does not change the licensing fees that Firefox would have to pay. (I think I read that it would be in the $5 million range.) It only applies to video distribution that is free to end users, which has always been free.

Right, but I thought FF wasn't complaining about their own costs but rather they wanted to protect users from nasty surprises in the future. This news effectively means that there won't be any surprises...whatever it costs them now they can plan on it costing the same in the future.

Was that not their fear? Was it really just the $5 million they were afraid of? I didn't think that was it.

this actually hasnt changed anything as far as mozilla/opera are concerned...

Is there somewhere they've publicly commented on this? I'd like to figure out what their position actually was.
 
This means sites like Hulu that charge for content still have to pay. If they provide content free they don't have to pay the license.

Mozilla can provide the h.264 codec in it's firefox brand for free and not have to pay a license fee.
 
If you charge money for your content you will still have to pay royalties. I don't know if that counts content with advertising or not - because you would be making money off of h264 content that way.

Nah, I don't think banners matter. If they stated that you can't use it for commercial purposes, or something, it would be different. Watching a video with an ad is still a free video.

Sites like Digital Tutors, lynda.com, etc, if they provide a downloadable version in h264, they would be obligated to pay royalties or get the crap sued out of them. All my classes from FXPHD.com are h264 encoded. I'm sure they'll switch to something else when the royalties kick in.

They'll either switch, or stick with it and the customer pay the bill.
 
Dear Microsoft, Firefox and Opera,

you can now add direct support of H.264 for the HTML5 video tag in your respective browsers.

Thanks. :cool:

Better update that letter.

Microsoft already said it is including support for HTML5 and h.264 codec.

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/ne...n-internet-explorer-9-h264-and-h264-alone.ars

Microsoft has put its stake in the ground and committed to supporting H.264 in Internet Explorer 9. That the next browser version would support H.264 HTML5 video was no surprise (though the current Platform Preview doesn't include it, it was shown off at MIX10), but this is the first time that Microsoft has provided a rationale for its decision. More significantly, this is the first time the company has confirmed that H.264 will be the only video codec supported.

The press release says it is free to the end users. Mozilla and Opera still have to pay.
 
Apple,

you can add direct support of WebM for HTML5 video tag in Safari!
:cool:
--
A lot of blind Apple fanboys in this thread, who don't understand the problem of H.264.
 
Take a closer look:



If you charge money for your content you will still have to pay royalties. I don't know if that counts content with advertising or not (like hulu or youtube) - because you would be making money off of h264 content that way.

Sites like Digital Tutors, lynda.com, etc, if they provide a downloadable version in h264, they would be obligated to pay. All my classes from FXPHD.com are h264 encoded. I'm sure they'll switch to something else now.

Perhaps Lynda.com can provide FREE stuff instead of charging ?. Almost all of their stuff NEEDS to be free to begin with.

If the provider gives the content for free they are NOT charged. If they so choose to charge for the content they will pay a fee.

If that isn't "open" I don't know what is.
 
Right, but I thought FF wasn't complaining about their own costs but rather they wanted to protect users from nasty surprises in the future. This news effectively means that there won't be any surprises...whatever it costs them now they can plan on it costing the same in the future.

Was that not their fear? Was it really just the $5 million they were afraid of? I didn't think that was it.

That's $5 million per year. Which I'm pretty sure can increase.

Here's Mozilla's position:
http://shaver.off.net/diary/2010/01/23/html5-video-and-codecs/

It seems like they are just fundamentally against paying at all.
 
I am ignorant I'll admit that first but would Mozilla still be charged even tho they're not profiting directly from H.264 video?
 
Any info on how this would affect a site like vimeo?

Nothing would change. This just guarantees that there will not be additional charges per download for free content after 2015.

Why can't they (mozilla) just get people to install a plug in, that's what linux did with MP3's for years to avoid royalties.

They do, with Quicktime or Flash or many alternatives. Then the plugin developer would have to pay. What you described with Linux would just be a case of Linux passing the buck.
 
I am ignorant I'll admit that first but would Mozilla still be charged even tho they're not profiting directly from H.264 video?

I think the 1st case might apply to Mozilla and Opera.

In page 2 of The AVC Licensing terms (http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf)

Quote:
In the case of the (a) encoder and decoder manufacturer sublicenses:

For (a) (1) branded encoder and decoder products sold both to end users and on an OEM
basis for incorporation into personal computers but not part of an operating system (a
decoder, encoder, or product consisting of one decoder and one encoder = “unit”),
royalties (beginning January 1, 2005) per legal entity are 0 - 100,000 units per year = no
royalty (this threshold is available to one legal entity in an affiliated group); US $0.20 per
unit after first 100,000 units each year; above 5 million units per year, royalty = US $0.10
per unit. The maximum annual royalty (“cap”) for an enterprise (commonly controlled
legal entities) is $3.5 million per year 2005-2006, $4.25 million per year 2007-08, $5
million per year 2009-10.8


For (a) (2) branded encoder and decoder products sold on an OEM basis for incorporation
into personal computers as part of a computer operating system, a legal entity may pay
for its customers as follows (beginning January 1, 2005): 0 - 100,000 units/year = no
royalty (available to one legal entity in an affiliated group); US $0.20 per unit after first
100,000 units/year; above 5 million units/year, royalty = US $0.10 per unit. The
maximum annual royalty (“cap”) for an enterprise (commonly controlled legal entities) is
$3.5 million per year in 2005-2006, $4.25 million per year in 2007-08 and $5 million per
year in 2009-10.9
 
I am ignorant I'll admit that first but would Mozilla still be charged even tho they're not profiting directly from H.264 video?

First, they would be profiting from it. Second, yes, they would still have to pay even if they did not profit from it.
 
I am ignorant I'll admit that first but would Mozilla still be charged even tho they're not profiting directly from H.264 video?

Here's how Mozilla would be charged.

If ANY PC maker has Firefox brand pre-installed on a PC that is purchased. Dell,HP etc. In effect Mozilla is getting money for product placement on the Windows desktop.

That is a commercial gain. They will pay the fees.
 
Apple,

you can add direct support of WebM for HTML5 video tag in Safari!
:cool:
--
A lot of blind Apple fanboys in this thread, who don't understand the problem of H.264.

Is WebM hardware accelerated by almost every GPU on the market like h.264 is?

Or do we all need to buy new computers, phones, television settop boxes, etc?
 
That's $5 million per year. Which I'm pretty sure can increase.

Here's Mozilla's position:
http://shaver.off.net/diary/2010/01/23/html5-video-and-codecs/

It seems like they are just fundamentally against paying at all.

It doesn't seem like they're against paying. They're against paying with no promise that the end user won't be held up for more later.

It seems that if the big companies paid for it and there was a promise that no one else would ever have to pay then Mozilla would be on board. But that's not the case.

That's what I'm getting at...how much closer to that concept does today's announcement get us? I'm not sure. Probably not nearly close enough. But I don't think Mozilla is opposed to paying anything at all, ever.
 
Perhaps Lynda.com can provide FREE stuff instead of charging ?. Almost all of their stuff NEEDS to be free to begin with.

What possible motivation is there to start giving away their product now?

If the provider gives the content for free they are NOT charged. If they so choose to charge for the content they will pay a fee.

I understand that. But if you are a business you have two choices: pass the cost onto the customer or eat the license fee. Either way, someone ends up paying more tomorrow then they were today for the same product.

If that isn't "open" I don't know what is.

Open or not, it still sucks monster balls.
 
Some people are misunderstanding the problem Mozilla said they had with the way the license was set up. They clearly outlined what they had a problem with. MPEG LA has now clearly rectified that part of the problem. There should be nothing holding Mozilla back now unless they originally lied about why.
 
OS Support

What is keeping Mozilla / Opera from using the native facilities of OS X / Windows for H.264 Playback? Leave it as a plug-in for the Open Source OSes and be done with it.
 
What is keeping Mozilla / Opera from using the native facilities of OS X / Windows for H.264 Playback? Leave it as a plug-in for the Open Source OSes and be done with it.

Nothing. That is how it is currently done (with plugins). The point is to get Mozilla/Opera to support H.264 natively through the HTML5 video tag.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.