Mozilla takes on YouTube video choice

[mehmet22]

Wanted to share this article with you guys

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-10440430-264.html

I did not know that H.264 codec from MPEG-LA has a $5 million licensing fee.

[Frets]

Google wants to own the internet. Then it will turn into aol from the 90's where you don't have the rights to certain portions of your computer.

[gerbick]

Google wants to own the internet. Then it will turn into aol from the 90's where you don't have the rights to certain portions of your computer.

Your statement and the article goes together... how!?

The whole video tag in HTML5 is disputed, h.264 is patented software that costs. Apple & Microsoft, as well as Google already pay into it. Mozilla Foundation is behind Ogg Theora. To be honest, it's all stupid and can be worked around since other video codecs do exist and newer ones might replace the current ones.

I'm not even gonna join the debate. Just rather see options instead of idiocy.

[mehmet22]

I just get the feeling the user will end up paying in the long run.

[ihoss.com]

As the article stated, web browsers support jpeg, gif and png images, so why should they not support h.264, mpeg and ogg/Theora?

No browser maker is ever going to charge their users, or intentionally punish them. The only ones getting punished are the developers who have to figure out what format to serve to each user.

[jAQUAN]

What is the REAL crux of this "issue"? Flash isn't going anywhere. The codec writers can fk with the browser developers all they want. The slightest unfairness just means sticking with flash based video. You're pron viewing experience wont change a single bit... except for in one scenario, iPhone. And as providing a quicktime alternative to video becomes more prevalent, I highly doubt apple is going to charge content providers who are beneficial to THEIR platform. I think there is an over-hyped apparition in the room that suggests the entire web should bend over for the sake of being viewable on one device.

Currently, no one from the browser maker to the content developer has to spend a dime to support, compress and publish an .swf and stream an .flv (bandwidth costs excluded).

The real danger here is Adobe getting into the licensing game in order to recoup losses from their waning software profits.

Whats funny is we can't even point to the Grand Alliance and their ATSC standard as far as a licensing model since not of they have figured it out.

[Frets]

Gerbick

Google has it's foot in every door they can. Google is defining the standard for HTML5 not the W3C (of which I often loathe) Granted if given the opportunity MS would try to kill flash for Siverlight. Whence any serious contender is given the chance to dominate a field by stacking the deck they are less likely to maintain a higher standard. And are less concerned about individual privacy rights. Something that they have had little regard for in the past and have less regard for now. Google writes the standard and builds the browser. In the past Microsoft was known for providing false information to netscape and trying to sabotage netscape to the point of users computers having serious problems with their computers. Once Google is in a position of total control over the browsing experience by shaping the standards at which content is displayed it will garner more control over the market. Assume for a minute Youtube drops flash all together for mpeg4. The users choices become browsing youtube with chrome or browsing it with IE

[gerbick]

Google is a company that makes their money from indexing the web. Makes sense they would be involved in all things web - it'll make them money.