Google Removes H.264 Codec From Chrome
- 1-13-2011
This is an excerpt from my commentary, "Welcome to the Two-Codec World," which you can read at StreamingMedia.com.
Back when Google closed on the On2 acquisition, I wrote a blog post entitled Google Closes On2 Acquisition - Better check your Wallet. The wallet reference related to the fact that Google donating VP8 to the open source cause could boost the encoding-related costs of all serious streaming producers. Well, Google has open sourced VP8 and just announced that they will remove H.264 playback from future versions of Chrome, so we're well on the way towards that two codec world.
Here's the relevant quote from the Google blog.
Specifically, we are supporting the WebM (VP8) and Theora video codecs, and will consider adding support for other high-quality open codecs in the future. Though H.264 plays an important role in video, as our goal is to enable open innovation, support for the codec will be removed and our resources directed towards completely open codec technologies.
For the rest of the article, click here to jump over to StreamingMedia.com. The article concludes.
I also know that whatever leverage Google uses, they still haven't created any positive reason to distribute video in WebM format. They haven't created any new revenue opportunities, opened any new markets or increased the size of the pie. They've just made it more expensive to get your share, all in the highly ethereal pursuit of "open codec technologies." So, if you do check your wallet, sometime soon, you'll start to see less money in it, courtesy of Google.
Yeah, I think WebM is a bad idea. Click here to read the rest of the article.
"Yeah, I think WebM is a bad idea."
That's nothing to be embarrassed about. You're wrong, that's all.
"They've just made it more expensive to get your share, all in the highly ethereal pursuit of 'open codec technologies.'"
The irony, of course, that you use open, royalty-free technologies on the Web all the time. This very webpage is written in open, royalty-free markup and style formats (HTML, CSS), uses open, royaly-free image formats (JPEG, PNG), is served via open, royalty-free protocols (IP, TCP, HTTP) by an open source web server (Apache).
It all works and it works so well that you don't even notice it or think about it. There's nothing at all ethereal about open formats. Open formats are what the Web is built on and are what drive innovation forward. For a Web company like Google the pursuit of open formats is nothing less than relentlessly pragmatic.
Jan
" the pursuit of open formats is nothing less than relentlessly pragmatic."
Advertisers who want to reach iOS devices will continue to use HTML5 H.264. Advertisers who wan to reach all browsers they will use Flash H.264.
There is NO business reason to pay more for encoding to two codecs, pay more for server capacity to hold twice as many files. Even the small cost of licensing in the cases where that's paid for by browser devs is not enough of an economic incentive to switch.
I doubt there's much economic incentive for GPU makers to invest in supporting WebM hardware acceleration either.
There is nothing "pragmatic" about WebM. In fact Google Chrome dropping support basically concedes one area where they could have gained market share against FireFox.
Well, at least you don't feel strongly about it!
:-)
Good to see your comment! Have a great new year.
Jan
Just looking at the economic side of things. If there were a business advantage to WebM it would make sense as an endeavor. At best it's a "holding pen" idea just in case MPEG-LA does something dumb. I don't think that's likely though.
It would actually be bigger news if Android dropped H.264 support because that could very well create problems for advertisers reaching both iOS and Android.
My buddy Tim Siglin thinks Google dropping H.264 in Android is inevitable.
http://www.streamingmedia.com/Comments/Default.asp...
He says:
Google's stance is that it is phasing out native support for H.264 in the Chrome, but is giving developers time to make adjustments to their <video> tags within content.
This means that we can expect to see—if Google goes ahead with the plan to push non-native-WebM browsers back into the world of plugins—that Google will also phase H.264 out on the Android browser.
His conclusion? "This also means that Android devices will be heavily beholden to Adobe Flash Player, setting up an interesting alliance of open source (WebM) and proprietary (Flash Player). Or at least that's my take on the subject."
At the end of the day, it looks like Flash is the way to go, and Google accomplished nothing except fracturing HTML5 even further. Just IMHO.
Jan
WebM on Android would make things interesting because there genuinely would be a demand to use both codecs at that point.
Forcing WebM on Android could be a major backfire for Google though. Given the fractured OS versions on Android. Since carriers have customized the OS they'd have to push the update out and, as is already apparent, that's just not happening for a large number o Android phones. There's also be the potential issue of hardware support for improved decode. Given the life of a smartphone, my guess it would take Google a good two plus years as old phones are retired.
If Google were to push WebM only for new Android OS and hardware, advertisers and other eyeball seekers it would take some time for the new OS to have enough market share to justify the expense of supporting two codecs. Hence why it may backfire for Google. I don't this kind of mistake (I think it's a mistake) is beyond Google though since I think they've dug themselves into a difficult position with fragmentation on Android OS.
There's data that shows the ubiquity of iOS update penetration compared to Android updates that, such a move, may further push both developers and advertisers aways from seeking Android eyeballs. It'll be far more expensive with lower returns to support.
Of course if Google actually solved the fractured OS situation it could be a different story. In any case, my guess if they dropped H.264 support in Android today it would still take two plus years for that to "resolve."
Not really sure how Google can resolve anything with WebM. Apple is absolutely intransigent with H.264. Mozilla/Opera the same on not using H.264. Had WebM never happened, Mozilla may have been pressured to license H.264, they certainly have the cash. Don't know about Opera.
Now that there's a viable alternative, Mozilla can stand firm with Chrome. It's going to be a two codec world with absolutely no benefit to producers.
Jan
Sorry if I wasn't clear but Google supporting WebM only on Android is actually going to create problems for them because of the fractured OS. Personally I think Google is in a weak position on this precisely because they have no viable economic avenue to entice advertisers. When they resolve their own fractured Android OS (and they have claimed they will), at that point, this will become a bigger economic problem. My own prediction is that should take about two years.
That makes more sense. I guess we'll see.
Thanks again for your contributions.
Jan