Codec Capers: Google Drops H.264 Support in Chrome

Im trying to understand this move, so GoogleApps that people pay for needs to use a non-chrome browser to view h264 videos?! Unless they also remove h264 from googleapps too?!!

1) Yes, it does, according to the latest tests.

2) They told us what they used. QNX was developed for embedded computers, NOT those with human interfaces. It’s designed to run a single program (or a few) over and over and over and over, while connected to a reliable power source. RIM seems to have had to build a separate user interface on top of QNX. That probably isn’t as efficient as an integrated system like iOS or Android.

3) Where do you get that a dual core has an “inherent” (not “inherit”) battery improvement versus single core? RIM has essentially said that the Playbook & QNX HAS to use a dual-core CPU–that’s why they can’t put QNX on the phones. It’s likely that one core is kept busy running the OS and user interface.

Your last remark is puzzling. Why does having an USB charger “everywhere” make poor battery life acceptable on a device that’s supposed to be used WITHOUT being connected to a power source? (FWIW,the iPad can use USB chargers, too, as long as they have sufficient power. All you need is the iPod/iPhone/iPad USB charge/sync cable. Those are very light, easy to get, and cheap. I have several retractable models.)

Sorry about the nonsensical post. Disqus on All Things D has a MAJOR bug that causes it to preload a comment I posted several weeks ago. (It doesn’t do this on other sites that use Disqus.) I tried to delete it, but it got posted, instead. Now, it won’t let me edit the message. I shows an edit box that’s empty and which won’t accept any typing.

Awesome post.

The headline is not exactly right. H.264 is still supported in Chrome via its integrated FlashPlayer. What has really happened over the past little while is H.264 support in Chrome has moved from HTML to FlashPlayer. All versions of Chrome still support H.264 under all circumstances.

There are many universal video player solutions for Web publishers that play H.264 everywhere, via HTML where available, and falling back to FlashPlayer where not. Even Adobe ships a player like that, since about 6 months ago. So Chrome dropping HTML/H.264 doesn’t really have a practical effect on Web publishers. The same workaround we are already using for Firefox (play H.264 in FlashPlayer if HTML support is not available) works in Chrome. Basically, Chrome has joined Firefox in being a legacy/desktop/HTML4 browser.

The important thing to notice is that HTML/H.264 video as standardized by W3C and ISO/IEC is currently supported out-of-the-box on every mobile device, plus every Mac and Windows 7 PC, both in their browsers and their graphics hardware. The “video codec contretemps” is taking place in alternative browsers and browser plug-ins. The user has to do some I-T work to break their device’s standardized video support. If they install Firefox they also install FlashPlayer. If they are installing Chrome they get FlashPlayer integrated. So everyone has H.264 support.

So in spite of what Google did today, there is still no reason at all for publishers to invest in supporting a non-standard codec such as WebM or Theora, especially when those codecs expose the publisher to liability because they have no patent pool.

The main thing we see from Google today is that they are to the 2000′s what Microsoft was to the 1990′s. They are desperately trying to defend their monopoly positions by defining their own pretend “standards” (Microsoft DirectX, Google WebM) instead of supporting actual vendor neutral standards (OpenGL, HTML, MPEG-4) that enable users and publishers to make their own technology choices. Next, Google will offer us GHTML, a “more open HTML” from Google. All they are doing is wasting time that should be spent on making better products that users actually want. An open video format that plays everywhere was solved 20 years ago, and updated for online 10 years ago. That’s why you can shoot video on your Canon camera, edit it on your Mac, and play it on your Roku or BlackBerry.

“I’m left with two choices: Gulp and double my costs on an unknown tech, or return to Flash as primary solution. Ugh. Thanks, Google.”

Third option: Stay the course and watch Chrome lose market share to other browsers that actually SURF THE WEB! Only Chrome is dropping the tech.

People need to step back from the ledge and take a deep breath. Google isn’t blocking h.264 videos in chrome, they’re just not going to support it. Everyone will be able to install somebody else’s h.264 player. It’s not that big of a deal.

I don’t feel enough attention is being given to the real reason for Google’s decision – the attempt by MPEG-LA, the licensing consortium for h.264 (and other codecs) to become this decade’s version of Rambus. Their goal is to get their standard widely adopted, and then start chargign companies licensing fees on the server side. Sure, they’ll let consumers install players, but not the content creators or h.264 servers – those folks will be held hostage to MPEG-LA’s fre now/pay later strategy. This is what Google is trying to prevent, and everyone should be happy for it.

For those who don’t know the history of Rambus, they are a technology company that doesn’t make anything, who proposed interface standards for DRAM back in the 90s to JEDEC (an electronics standards organization), and after they were accepted and implemented by every major DRAM and uP manufacturer, they announced they had patents and started charging royalties and suing everyone. Expect the same from MPEG-LA with h.264.

Google is for sure attempting to blow out the licensing cost, because that’s what they do. But not because they want a fairer world, they try to take away any cost sensitivity between them and an advertising dollar spent. If the OS is in your way, give away an OS, if the browser is problematic, give one away, Office suite in your face? Make some apps. The codec is just one more cost to clear out of the way. And by donating an “open” codec they own, they know how to do search optimization on the video and how to insert appropriate metadata for, wait for it…advertising.

btw: H.264 licensing fees have already come down, not up. The shift away from charging devices greatly limits the revenue from H.264. It was a $1 or so per device, and now is server side only and capped at a million I believe. In short, it would cost Google waaay less to just pay the fee than to buy a proprietary codec, sit on it for a year while they instrument SEO on it and do this.

The next move imho? -No “HD” support for YouTube videos in H.264. They can use YouTube and our own narcissim to drive installation of Chrome browser.

Does MPEG-LA have a history of jacking the price UP once a standard is in place? I don’t recall them doing so, and the codecs and transports covered by MPEG-LA are used by the entire broadcast industry.

Patent trolls and patent pools are not the same thing….equating MPEG-LA and its member companies with the actions of a private company such as Rambus is a flawed idea.

BTW: What is the legal exposure, exactly? That someone NOT in MPEG-LA will claim IPR and start suing? How would VP8 hold up to such a lawsuit? Has that analysis happened by an impartial 3rd party yet?

Remember that “Open Source” does not guarantee “IPR free”. The liability could be higher with VP8 as it has not been vetted, nor a patent pool created. Is Google indemnifying content producers and service providers if they use VP8? I didn’t see that guarantee issued, but I haven’t been following closely.