Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MPEG LA Declares H.264 Standard Permanently Royalty-Free
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In case you didn't know. MPEG4/H.264 will be the _only_ format that Microsoft will support in HTML5 in Internet Explorer 9.
They have said that WebM will work if someone else builds a plugin.
For Apple's part.. they support everything QuickTime X supports so OGG/Vorbis, MKV/H.264, FLV, AVI/DivX, WMV is supported in HTML5 in Safari with Perian and Flip4Mac _right_now_.
As far as I know. No one will be able to build a MPEG4/H.264-plugin for Opera or Firefox. Or any other format/codec either.. That's open for you.
Wht's pretty strange is that Mozilla is using the APIs for accelerating stuff like 3D (hardware accelerated WebGL) in Windows, OSX and Linux, but they refuse to use the media frameworks that these operating systems makes available. If they had, this would be a non issue. Apple isn't charging anything for the use of QTKit, nor is MS charging anyone for the use of whatever their media framework is called. The codec-fee is already paid by these companies for developers on their platforms. USE THEM!
No, they said you'd just have to manually install the codec, not a plugin. IE9 will support playback using the system's installed codecs, support will still be native in IE9 for playback of any video supported by the system.
Basically, if it plays back in WMP, it will in IE9.
As for this news : Status quo remains. They've just extended it indefinitely. This doesn't actually change anything. Anyone screaming at the "death of WebM" (and why would you be happy about that anyhow ? Makes no sense) is premature. Royalty free, for anyone, not just end users, is an important part of the Web. Let's not give in to the MPEG-LA and have yet another GIF fiasco on our hands.
I agree this is *good* news (not great). The main comment I have (and I'm sure many have said same) is that it does nothing for content creators. What this means is that although it's great for consumers to consume content, it's still a proprietary format and producers/creators of content wanting to use this format still have to pay royalty to the patent trolls, right?
What other issues still exist irrespective of this announcement?
And how exactly does this kill Flash. Flash has used H264 video for over 3 years now. Sure maybe it still uses some FLV video here and there but every major company I know of has switched to H264 video a long time ago. The same is true of Microsoft's Silverlight. They have also supported standard H264 video for a very long time. In fact I cannot remember for sure but I am pretty sure Flash was the first and only method for web H264 video for a long time. As much as many of you want to think so H264 on the web was not an invention of Apple or the W3c.
Free H264 helps Adobe just as much as it helps everybody else. Adobe has been fighting for and pushing H264 as a standard for a long time. H264 is now the web standard for video regardless if it runs in HTML5, Flash, Silverlight, hardware media players, cameras or any computer.
Has it occurred to you that perhaps Mozilla is in bed with Adobe and PC makers ?
Not to mention boxee etc.
Am I the only one who's more concerned about H.264 still being a proprietary standard than being royalty-free? As long as it's not an open standard I'll still be somewhat opposed to it (even if it is technically the better codec).
It's also still not royalty-free. It was already free to end users until 2016. They've just extended this indefinitely. This changes nothing for those that had to pay licenses : Implementors and content creators.
In fact, this doesn't even change anything at all. We've just removed the 2016 date from the equation.
Status quo, nothing has changed at all.
Laughing. So true
Too bad the title on the macrumors article is only partially true.
*LTD* said:
And consumers will still pay the bill. Yippee!
shartypants said:
How's that? This hasn't changed anything except for people who do not charge for content. Anyone selling video still has to pay the h264 license*. That will get passed onto us, the customer. h264 is still bad news for us.
*note - this word used to be "tax" but some people found that too confusing
Which translate for everyone else is it will play with no problem in IE9. Most of the big codex packages out their that people will use will include WebM in theirs. Hell I am willing to bet MS will even have it downloadable in one of their codex because fresh out of the box windows does not play Xvid, or Dvix but first time you try to play them MS will download it from their site and low and behold it is in their. I am willing to bet they will do the same for WebM.
Right now only one person is not going to support WebM and that player is a minor player at best in the browsers wars and you guess it. It is Apple.
For the mobile browsers yet again Safari will become a minor player as Android is going ot support. Safe to bet that RIM will support it and of the 3rd party browser makers they will more than likely all support it.
So from all this Google is going to push WebM. Mozzila which is the largest player not support h.256 is going to be the one putting the breaks on it. So less see less than 5% of the browsers market share will not support h.256 compared to near 30% not support h.256. On top of that that 5% most of them have or do use one of the other browser often so that stings even worse.
As opposed to who?
Way to spread the FUD. How is charging to license a component a tax? And we are talking about 2 cents or less per video for videos longer than 12 minutes.
Since I've not busied myself with this wrangle, could some person out there, in this righteous forum explain to me why this matters? I comprehend that H.264 is used by Apple and the costless continuity is beneficial, but is this format any better than the others? If so, how so?
Wow that's impressive. Take that cheap FUDsters.
Note if you are charging for content, why shouldn't you pay, if you are saving bandwidth and providing better quality product?
Note if you are charging for content, why shouldn't you pay, if you are saving bandwidth and providing better quality product?
As opposed to who?
As opposed to nobody with an actual free, open standard. Do try to keep up.
Oh, please. I used the word "tax" like when people say "Apple tax." Of course it isn't an actual tax or a talking head on TV would find a way to blame Obama for it.
There is still money to be paid, call it what you want, I don't care. If you like I can go back and change the word "tax" to "license" just to relieve your fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
Hey, if you like being nickle and dimed to death by all of this BS, then more power to you.
Mozilla doesn't "sell" their browser - so I'm not sure that a royalty paid on "units sold" would apply to them.
Also, that didn't seem to be Mozilla's objection anyway - so they very well may continue to object to h.264 on philosophical grounds.
Also, that didn't seem to be Mozilla's objection anyway - so they very well may continue to object to h.264 on philosophical grounds.
Mozilla is not displaying the video on the web. They are playing the video so they are not exempt from having to pay for it.
Right now it is 5 mil per year for Mozilla and that is going to increase a fair amount for next year.