H.264 is arguably more open than WebM. It has been developed by standards committees over the course of many years, is published and backed by ITU, ISO, IEC and MPEG. A massive number of devices support it, there are loads of independent implementations, it is well documented and understood. It has been blessed as the standard codec in many media formats (BluRay, HD DVD) and for broadcast (ATB, DVB, etc) and is one of the most common video formats on the web today.
WebM was originally a proprietary codec called VP8, developed by a single vendor (On2 Technologies) with a single implementation and no real specification. It was purchased by Google, and an ersatz specification was extracted from the implementation.
I admire Google for what they are trying to achieve. But given both Windows and Mac ship with H.264 decoding support, and it is fast becoming the de facto format for mobile, the decision seems to be a no brainer.
If I have to pay royalty fees to ship an h.264 decoder, that's not open. If I have to pay royalty fees for my startup to distribute videos in h.264, that's not open.
Standardized doesn't mean "open".
[Edit: I think several people in this thread disagree what Open means. Since this is the context of a Mozilla story, I think it is fair to use "Open" in the sense of "Open Source".]
Open != free. H.264 is an open standard, in that the specification is open, and you can implement your own encoder/decoder as you wish. H.264 is not a free standard is due to the fact that you cannot implement anything useful without using some patented technologies.
WebM is free. Good luck implementing your own encoder/decoder.
No, the companies that designed H.264 aren't really trolls. They actually do R&D and sell real products; patent royalties are relatively minor sources of revenue.
That doesn't matter though, even if they aren't today they easily could be tomorrow, whether through a change in their management, being purchased by another, etc.
By many definitions of "open standard" H.264 isn't one, since many groups tried to brand that term in echo of "open source" to mean royalty-free (and therefore open source compatible). That definition seemed to generally be catching on until this web codec spat flared up with both sides wanting the cachet of being "open standards" rather than debating the actual policy implications of being royalty-bearing.
And factually there's several independent WebM implementations now, some would argue that it's easier to be compatible with an open source codebase than a spec, though having (at least) two independant codebases developed before finalizing is better for finding spec bugs.
Most of the Mozilla people, whom I otherwise quite respect, didn't like to admit that you're also almost certain to end up needing to pay royalties to ship any other decoder as well. The difference is that if you use H.264 your startup can know exactly what the costs will be whereas using WebM means you're just going to have to wait until you make enough money for someone to sue you.
The Mozilla people wasted a ton of energy conflating WebM with open-ness rather than directing attention to the actually problem: current patent law. As long as someone else can show up and demand money for independent work the environment will predisposed against complete openness.
Why is this a problem for Mozilla but not a problem for VLC?
I've found the VLC firefox plugin more stable than flash, downsides being it doesn't always get detected by javascript feature tests and UI integration isn't the greatest.
Some people claim the situation of H.264 patents in Europe isn't that clear, though. VLC might be just benefiting from a lack of initiative from patent holders.
VLC have no money, so there's little incentive for H.264 patent holders to pursue them. Given that fact, the game theory suggests it is in the H.264 patent holders ultimate interests to allow VLC to be distributed far and wide. That provides an avenue for further penetration of H.264, which may create additional opportunities where royalties can be sought.
I agree about the openness shortcomings of VP8 but suggest most are to do with it being a last-ditch attempt to get something out to compete with H.264 in time rather than conscious decisions taken by Google to minimize openness and maximise control (though some have portrayed it as such).
I guess the big question is whether H.265(6,7) could be argued to be more open than VP9(10,11). I get the feeling the former will continue down the patent route and the latter will be more likely to be a well-engineered open source success story (hopefully emulating the Opus codec effort, who by the way, opted for the code as specification route too), but you never know.
MPEG has made (I think) the right choice in splitting off a track for royalty-free web video (WebVC/IVC) while continuing their traditional generational codec development (HEVC). The former allows them to utilize expired patents from their long history as well as use their weight to negotiate royalty-free grants for current tech, in order to set an unrestricted baseline. Making this a separate effort rather than enforcing those conditions on the main standardization process allows them to continue evaluating the state of the art for all other use cases.
I think this is as close as we'll get to having our cake and eating it too while patents on algorithms are still recognized.
Yes, openness is multidimensional, and few things are perfectly "open" in every dimension.
But one of the key aspects of the open web is that it is a platform that is open for anyone to access and participate in -- by creating content, or by building software to publish or consume content -- without any gatekeeper who can withhold permission or demand fees. This is why the W3C, for example, requires royalty-free licensing of members' IP that covers its standards.
This is the type of open platform that Mozilla and others were trying (but failing, so far) to create for video on the web.
Comments
H.264 is arguably more open than WebM. It has been developed by standards committees over the course of many years, is published and backed by ITU, ISO, IEC and MPEG. A massive number of devices support it, there are loads of independent implementations, it is well documented and understood. It has been blessed as the standard codec in many media formats (BluRay, HD DVD) and for broadcast (ATB, DVB, etc) and is one of the most common video formats on the web today.
WebM was originally a proprietary codec called VP8, developed by a single vendor (On2 Technologies) with a single implementation and no real specification. It was purchased by Google, and an ersatz specification was extracted from the implementation.
I admire Google for what they are trying to achieve. But given both Windows and Mac ship with H.264 decoding support, and it is fast becoming the de facto format for mobile, the decision seems to be a no brainer.
I don't buy this argument at all.
If I have to pay royalty fees to ship an h.264 decoder, that's not open. If I have to pay royalty fees for my startup to distribute videos in h.264, that's not open.
Standardized doesn't mean "open".
[Edit: I think several people in this thread disagree what Open means. Since this is the context of a Mozilla story, I think it is fair to use "Open" in the sense of "Open Source".]
Open != free. H.264 is an open standard, in that the specification is open, and you can implement your own encoder/decoder as you wish. H.264 is not a free standard is due to the fact that you cannot implement anything useful without using some patented technologies.
WebM is free. Good luck implementing your own encoder/decoder.
People tend to define open however it benefits them. It's not really worth feeding the trolls.
Trolls - patent trolls - are sort of the central concern here, aren't they?
No, the companies that designed H.264 aren't really trolls. They actually do R&D and sell real products; patent royalties are relatively minor sources of revenue.
The CEO of MPEG LA is also the CEO of a patent troll company called MobileMedia.
MPEG LA had no hand in designing h.264, it's solely a patent pool manager.
That doesn't matter though, even if they aren't today they easily could be tomorrow, whether through a change in their management, being purchased by another, etc.
By many definitions of "open standard" H.264 isn't one, since many groups tried to brand that term in echo of "open source" to mean royalty-free (and therefore open source compatible). That definition seemed to generally be catching on until this web codec spat flared up with both sides wanting the cachet of being "open standards" rather than debating the actual policy implications of being royalty-bearing.
And factually there's several independent WebM implementations now, some would argue that it's easier to be compatible with an open source codebase than a spec, though having (at least) two independant codebases developed before finalizing is better for finding spec bugs.
> Standardized doesn't mean "open".
Nor does "open" mean "free".
Most of the Mozilla people, whom I otherwise quite respect, didn't like to admit that you're also almost certain to end up needing to pay royalties to ship any other decoder as well. The difference is that if you use H.264 your startup can know exactly what the costs will be whereas using WebM means you're just going to have to wait until you make enough money for someone to sue you.
The Mozilla people wasted a ton of energy conflating WebM with open-ness rather than directing attention to the actually problem: current patent law. As long as someone else can show up and demand money for independent work the environment will predisposed against complete openness.
Why is this a problem for Mozilla but not a problem for VLC?
I've found the VLC firefox plugin more stable than flash, downsides being it doesn't always get detected by javascript feature tests and UI integration isn't the greatest.
VideoLan does not have a presence in the USA, Mozilla does
it boils down to software patents.
Some people claim the situation of H.264 patents in Europe isn't that clear, though. VLC might be just benefiting from a lack of initiative from patent holders.
VLC have no money, so there's little incentive for H.264 patent holders to pursue them. Given that fact, the game theory suggests it is in the H.264 patent holders ultimate interests to allow VLC to be distributed far and wide. That provides an avenue for further penetration of H.264, which may create additional opportunities where royalties can be sought.
I agree about the openness shortcomings of VP8 but suggest most are to do with it being a last-ditch attempt to get something out to compete with H.264 in time rather than conscious decisions taken by Google to minimize openness and maximise control (though some have portrayed it as such).
I guess the big question is whether H.265(6,7) could be argued to be more open than VP9(10,11). I get the feeling the former will continue down the patent route and the latter will be more likely to be a well-engineered open source success story (hopefully emulating the Opus codec effort, who by the way, opted for the code as specification route too), but you never know.
MPEG has made (I think) the right choice in splitting off a track for royalty-free web video (WebVC/IVC) while continuing their traditional generational codec development (HEVC). The former allows them to utilize expired patents from their long history as well as use their weight to negotiate royalty-free grants for current tech, in order to set an unrestricted baseline. Making this a separate effort rather than enforcing those conditions on the main standardization process allows them to continue evaluating the state of the art for all other use cases.
I think this is as close as we'll get to having our cake and eating it too while patents on algorithms are still recognized.
Yes, openness is multidimensional, and few things are perfectly "open" in every dimension.
But one of the key aspects of the open web is that it is a platform that is open for anyone to access and participate in -- by creating content, or by building software to publish or consume content -- without any gatekeeper who can withhold permission or demand fees. This is why the W3C, for example, requires royalty-free licensing of members' IP that covers its standards.
This is the type of open platform that Mozilla and others were trying (but failing, so far) to create for video on the web.
H.264 costs tons of money to use. That is not open. Best solution is to get rid of software patents.