The number of comments trashing the FOSS position towards video codecs is strange given that it's equally popular to trash the proprietary flash player. Maybe this thread is a statistical anomaly or people are just inconsistent.
The exact same people are trashing both, and it is in no way inconsistent.
Mozilla's obstinate asshattery around <video> is the biggest present obstacle to getting rid of Flash Video. It's entirely possible that the next IE will ship with full support, and then Mozilla will be the very last obstacle.
The vast majority of people I know in FOSS, both users and developers, could care less about patents. The apparent "FOSS position" comes from a vocal minority, not the majority of FOSS users and developers.
They should care because the H264 patent expires in 2025. If we were looking at a few years then you might be right not to worry. It's odd that MPEG LA supporters are coming out of the woodwork on this issue, seemingly to prevent HTML5 from starting out on the right foot.
"The" H.264 patent? I have, sadly enough, the MPEG-LA agreement here, and there have got to be 25 pages at least simply listing patent numbers, with expiry dates ranging from very soon to a long time from now.
MPEG LA supporters
So everyone who is against Mozilla's attempt to force crappy software on us using the excuse of patents is an "MPEG LA supporter"? Some of us simply don't care about patents, as hard as it might be to believe for some.
I understand. But you could have a replay of the Unisys GIF situation except that it will last a very long time. Most developers and web services (vimeo, youtube, etc) are only thinking about how to improve their product in the short term. The best short term move is to choose H264. They're free to do what they want. So is Mozilla. Those same web services will screw themselves if they make Mozilla irrelevant. But again, short term thinking.
How will they screw themselves by making Mozilla irrelevant?
It's not like Mozilla in any way had any influence on their websites becoming popular, nor will they be affected at all if browser user agents change from Firefox -> Chrome.
Right now: Firefox is the only platform-neutral web browser. Firefox on Linux and Firefox on Windows are supposed to be the same browser.
Using OS codecs changes that, which means a Windows shop can test Windows browsers, but no (reasonable) way to test Linux browsers.
So long as there is a platform-neutral browser, browsers have to work similarly.
If you remember: Microsoft IE for mac and for windows operate so differently that they must be developed for as separate browsers, and yet banks regularly told people to use IE (despite the fact that IE on the mac didn't work either- and the bank programmers had no way to test it).
Content producers earn on eyeballs, and if 10-50% of their users aren't seeing what they want them to see, they'll adapt: browser sniff, flash fallback, or whatever it takes.
As a result, video will remain complicated. Maybe Apple and Microsoft can be pressured into supporting OGG, or maybe their users can be prompted to get higher quality video by downloading some codec or plugin. Maybe a technology like ChromeFrame will become popular.
Or maybe those two stances are in alignment? Consider:
The submission is a reaction to a reaction to YouTube and Vimeo now supporting HTML5 <video>, which enables users of Safari and Chrome to use those sites without Flash. Today, right now.
Firefox users, on the other hand, must continue to use Flash, due to Mozilla's decision to ask the world to revolve around them.
Comments
The number of comments trashing the FOSS position towards video codecs is strange given that it's equally popular to trash the proprietary flash player. Maybe this thread is a statistical anomaly or people are just inconsistent.
The exact same people are trashing both, and it is in no way inconsistent.
Mozilla's obstinate asshattery around <video> is the biggest present obstacle to getting rid of Flash Video. It's entirely possible that the next IE will ship with full support, and then Mozilla will be the very last obstacle.
What "FOSS position"?
The vast majority of people I know in FOSS, both users and developers, could care less about patents. The apparent "FOSS position" comes from a vocal minority, not the majority of FOSS users and developers.
They should care because the H264 patent expires in 2025. If we were looking at a few years then you might be right not to worry. It's odd that MPEG LA supporters are coming out of the woodwork on this issue, seemingly to prevent HTML5 from starting out on the right foot.
the H264 patent
"The" H.264 patent? I have, sadly enough, the MPEG-LA agreement here, and there have got to be 25 pages at least simply listing patent numbers, with expiry dates ranging from very soon to a long time from now.
MPEG LA supporters
So everyone who is against Mozilla's attempt to force crappy software on us using the excuse of patents is an "MPEG LA supporter"? Some of us simply don't care about patents, as hard as it might be to believe for some.
I understand. But you could have a replay of the Unisys GIF situation except that it will last a very long time. Most developers and web services (vimeo, youtube, etc) are only thinking about how to improve their product in the short term. The best short term move is to choose H264. They're free to do what they want. So is Mozilla. Those same web services will screw themselves if they make Mozilla irrelevant. But again, short term thinking.
How will they screw themselves by making Mozilla irrelevant?
It's not like Mozilla in any way had any influence on their websites becoming popular, nor will they be affected at all if browser user agents change from Firefox -> Chrome.
Interesting leap of logic.
Well they do actually.
Right now: Firefox is the only platform-neutral web browser. Firefox on Linux and Firefox on Windows are supposed to be the same browser.
Using OS codecs changes that, which means a Windows shop can test Windows browsers, but no (reasonable) way to test Linux browsers.
So long as there is a platform-neutral browser, browsers have to work similarly.
If you remember: Microsoft IE for mac and for windows operate so differently that they must be developed for as separate browsers, and yet banks regularly told people to use IE (despite the fact that IE on the mac didn't work either- and the bank programmers had no way to test it).
Content producers earn on eyeballs, and if 10-50% of their users aren't seeing what they want them to see, they'll adapt: browser sniff, flash fallback, or whatever it takes.
As a result, video will remain complicated. Maybe Apple and Microsoft can be pressured into supporting OGG, or maybe their users can be prompted to get higher quality video by downloading some codec or plugin. Maybe a technology like ChromeFrame will become popular.
Or maybe those two stances are in alignment? Consider:
The submission is a reaction to a reaction to YouTube and Vimeo now supporting HTML5 <video>, which enables users of Safari and Chrome to use those sites without Flash. Today, right now.
Firefox users, on the other hand, must continue to use Flash, due to Mozilla's decision to ask the world to revolve around them.