<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><title>Alex's Adventures on the Infobahn - video</title><link href="https://www.bennee.com/~alex/" rel="alternate"></link><link href="https://www.bennee.com/~alex/blog/tag/video/feed" rel="self"></link><id>https://www.bennee.com/~alex/</id><updated>2011-01-17T13:15:00+00:00</updated><subtitle>the wanderings of a supposed digital native</subtitle><entry><title>Baseline Codecs for web video</title><link href="https://www.bennee.com/~alex/blog/2011/01/17/baseline-codecs-for-web-video/" rel="alternate"></link><published>2011-01-17T13:15:00+00:00</published><updated>2011-01-17T13:15:00+00:00</updated><author><name>alex</name></author><id>tag:www.bennee.com,2011-01-17:/~alex/blog/2011/01/17/baseline-codecs-for-web-video/</id><summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;A lot of 'net comment has been generated in the last few days following &lt;a class="reference external" href="http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/html-video-codec-support-in-chrome.html"&gt;Google's announcement&lt;/a&gt; that they will be dropping support for &lt;a class="reference external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC"&gt;H.264&lt;/a&gt; in future versions of their Chromium browser. They expound on their decision &lt;a class="reference external" href="http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/more-about-chrome-html-video-codec.html"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In making this move they &lt;a class="reference external" href="http://blog.mozilla.com/blog/2009/01/26/in-support-of-open-video/"&gt;join the ranks of Mozilla&lt;/a&gt; in supporting …&lt;/p&gt;</summary><content type="html">&lt;p&gt;A lot of 'net comment has been generated in the last few days following &lt;a class="reference external" href="http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/html-video-codec-support-in-chrome.html"&gt;Google's announcement&lt;/a&gt; that they will be dropping support for &lt;a class="reference external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC"&gt;H.264&lt;/a&gt; in future versions of their Chromium browser. They expound on their decision &lt;a class="reference external" href="http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/more-about-chrome-html-video-codec.html"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In making this move they &lt;a class="reference external" href="http://blog.mozilla.com/blog/2009/01/26/in-support-of-open-video/"&gt;join the ranks of Mozilla&lt;/a&gt; in supporting Open Video in web-pages. The trouble with H.264 is that while it is a documented standard it's not a free one. To implement a H.264 &lt;a class="reference external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codec"&gt;codec&lt;/a&gt; you have to use patented techniques that are controlled by the &lt;a class="reference external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_LA"&gt;MPEG-LA&lt;/a&gt;. Despite claims that licenses will be given away freely for decoding non-commercial video it doesn't meet the requirements of Free Software which needs to be able to distribute implementations freely and without additional restrictions. It's a problem the Open Source world has been talking about for years and it's good that Google are bringing these concerns to a wider audience.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For all practical purposes the change will have little effect for my day to day browsing. I can already view pretty much any video format on my Linux Desktop and if Chromium has to pass decoding to a plugin instead of doing it within the browser I probably won't even notice. This will have more of an effect on Apple's &lt;a class="reference external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_(Apple)"&gt;iOS&lt;/a&gt; devices (iPhones and iPads) when places like YouTube switch to using either &lt;a class="reference external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebM"&gt;WebM&lt;/a&gt; or fall back to a Flash based player. Even today you can't browse a large amount of media on Wikipedia which favours &lt;a class="reference external" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:File_types"&gt;free software compatible audio and video formats&lt;/a&gt;. That is because Apple refuse to add support for these alternative codecs to their mobile OS. Not surprisingly they also have a vested interest in H.264 becoming the de facto format for video on the web being one of the many licensees represented by the MPEG-LA.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It's noticeable that the majority of the comments on Google's blog involve people throwing their Chrome shaped toys out of the pram and returning to Safari. Windows users will I assume have the same ability as me to handle formats via plugins instead of native browser support. It does lead me to think that their anger is somewhat misdirected when aimed at Google.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A number of people have pointed out there is a degree of hypocrisy in Google's stated support for open web standards while their browser (in non-free software form) still supports Flash and MP3s which have similar issues. I'm willing to concede this isn't ideal from a software freedom perspective. However I'm happy to accept their pragmatic point about this being a statement on support for open codecs for the emerging &amp;lt;video&amp;gt; tag without wanting to cripple the browser for the amount existing content out there. Now is very much the time to make stand over video lest we repeat the mistakes of MP3's and GIF's in the rush of companies to stake out their own little revenue generating area of what should be the free and open standards that underpin the web.&lt;/p&gt;
</content><category term="geek"></category><category term="codecs"></category><category term="google"></category><category term="h264"></category><category term="open"></category><category term="standards"></category><category term="video"></category><category term="web"></category></entry><entry><title>Thoughts on Steve</title><link href="https://www.bennee.com/~alex/blog/2010/05/04/thoughts-on-steve/" rel="alternate"></link><published>2010-05-04T10:21:00+01:00</published><updated>2010-05-04T10:21:00+01:00</updated><author><name>alex</name></author><id>tag:www.bennee.com,2010-05-04:/~alex/blog/2010/05/04/thoughts-on-steve/</id><summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;The current spat between &lt;a class="reference external" href="http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/"&gt;Apple's Steve Jobs&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a class="reference external" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/10093314.stm"&gt;Adobe&lt;/a&gt; has been amusing to watch from the sidelines. There is an irony in Apple having a go at Adobe for supporting a closed proprietary de-facto standard like Flash. Much as it pains me to say it on most of the points …&lt;/p&gt;</summary><content type="html">&lt;p&gt;The current spat between &lt;a class="reference external" href="http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/"&gt;Apple's Steve Jobs&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a class="reference external" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/10093314.stm"&gt;Adobe&lt;/a&gt; has been amusing to watch from the sidelines. There is an irony in Apple having a go at Adobe for supporting a closed proprietary de-facto standard like Flash. Much as it pains me to say it on most of the points Steve makes I find myself agreeing. The web will be a better place when video is delivered over standard HTML5 tags instead of being wrapped up in some closed plugin. There are also better standards based solutions for &lt;a class="reference external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalable_Vector_Graphics"&gt;vector graphics&lt;/a&gt; which together with JavaScript and &lt;a class="reference external" href="http://raphaeljs.com/"&gt;libraries&lt;/a&gt; can render the other major use of Flash obsolete.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;My advice to Adobe would be to concentrate on the authoring tools and output to a common supported standard for the final rendering.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Of course the &lt;a class="reference external" href="http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/04/pot-meet-kettle-a-response-to-steve-jobs-letter-on-flash.ars"&gt;FSF have joined in&lt;/a&gt; to comment. Apart from the major flaw that Job's walled garden locks out all sorts of competitors that aren't Flash there is the small elephant in the room around video &lt;a class="reference external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codec"&gt;codec&lt;/a&gt; patents. Apple would love the de-facto embedded video standard to be &lt;a class="reference external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC"&gt;H.264&lt;/a&gt; which is already available from &lt;a class="reference external" href="http://www.youtube.com/html5"&gt;YouTube&lt;/a&gt;. The free software community also has one of the best video codec implementations in the &lt;a class="reference external" href="http://www.ffmpeg.org/"&gt;FFmpeg project&lt;/a&gt;. Actually playing video is already a well solved problem. Unfortunately the uncertainty around patents means the distributions are incredibly hesitant to distribute binaries supporting such encumbered codecs. Luckily for Apple they hold a significant number of patents related to the technology.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is of course &lt;a class="reference external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theora"&gt;Ogg Theora&lt;/a&gt; which is on the surface patent free and the &lt;a class="reference external" href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Videos"&gt;default codec used by Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;. Google's recent acquisition of On2 &lt;a class="reference external" href="http://newteevee.com/2010/04/12/google-to-open-source-vp8-for-html5-video/"&gt;hold out hope for a more modern video codec&lt;/a&gt; becoming fully open. It's clear that the next few years will see some shake up in the delivery of video over the web.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So while I will happily cheer the demise of the bloated security nightmare that is Flash beware of gifts brought by turtlenecked geeks.&lt;/p&gt;
</content><category term="geek"></category><category term="codecs"></category><category term="flash"></category><category term="h264"></category><category term="ogg"></category><category term="patents"></category><category term="theora"></category><category term="video"></category></entry></feed>