Suspected PayPal Hackers Seek Deal To Stay Out Of Prison
Did A Google Earth Mistake Cause A Couple's Brutal Murder?
Google defends its dropping of H.264, announces WebM plug-ins for IE and Safari
After Google's announcement last week that it would be dropping H.264 HTML5 video support, the tech world exploded. As the dust settled -- as the fragments of brainless bile drifted slowly back to the tech blog morass -- it became clear that there were two evenly-split sides. Half of the tech world, spearheaded by TechCrunch's slavering Siegler, felt that Google had figuratively defecated on its own so-called open "standards". The other half, led by a vanguard of slightly more intelligent and beardy bloggers, fully supported Google's decision. Anyway, that aside, if you were worried about not being able to watch YouTube in your IE or Safari browsers, don't worry: Google will release WebM plug-ins for browsers that don't natively support it. The same blog post goes into more detail about why Google decided to drop H.264 support, and how this isn't a power-grabbing move by the big G.
The truth is Google is only ever going to look out for Google; it's utter lunacy that Google would ever do something that scuppered its own chances of survival. Google needs an open Web to thrive, and that's exactly what WebM provides over H.264. Imagine standing in Google's shoes for a moment: you run YouTube, the third biggest site on the Internet. One day, out of the blue, the H.264 consortium decides to increase its licensing fees, instantly making the operation of YouTube untenable. What do you do now? Switching to an open and free codec simply makes sense.
Google's entire lifeblood is indexing content created by you and me -- and while open standards empower the end-user to produce almost limitless amounts of delicious content, closed, proprietary standards put power in the hands of publishers. Don't ever forget that the democratization of information brought to us by the Web has only been possible due to the open standards like TCP/IP and HTML.
At the end of the day, you have to choose whether you want Google to index your entire life story, or whether you want to be spoon fed vertically-integrated media from just a handful of multinational mega publishers. On the one hand, you retain a few important freedoms -- like the ability to speak your mind on an open forum -- and on the other, corporations decide everything for you. It's not a tough choice.
Comments
20
Subscribe to commentsMyriaJan 17th 2011 8:52AM
Having a bias is one thing, but... Damn. Frothing at the mouth doesn't even come close to covering it.
Convenient that the only "open" standard Google gives a rat's arse about is one they happen to own, no?
In the end it really doesn't matter. Chrome is an also-ran at best, and will continue to remain so for some time to come -- if not forever. Hardware H264 being imbeded in, well, everything, and Google's pet standard being flat out inferior will see to the rest. In short, yet another tech tempest in a teapot that no one would give a rat's arse about if Google's claims for why they're doing this weren't so lol.
I never will understand why Google, given their often nasty history and continued contempt for even the most fundamental forms of privacy, gets a pass on things that would have the entire web getting out pitchforks if it was MS or even Apple. And to read someone actually suggest Google wouldn't be doing this if it wasn't good for us...
Well, thanks for the best laugh I'll have all day, anyway.
SilverWaveJan 17th 2011 5:45PM
@Myria
Well this is an easy one :-)
Google are the good guys... so ppl like them.
MS and Apple are Big Evil and Small Evil so ppl don't.
MS is also boring and Apple is cool.
So Apple also has a lot of fanboi's who are prepared to put up with a little Evil for a lot of Cool.
jeffehobbsJan 17th 2011 8:53AM
This is in fact a power grabbing move by the big G. They know in 2011 the key, and perhaps the only, differentiator to their Android tablets over the market-leading iPad will be the ability to play Flash-wrapped media (primarily video). So they have taken steps to make sure that key differentiator will remain relevant and in place for the foreseeable future, thus insuring at least one bullet point that will allow their tablet platform to compete and potentially gain market acceptance for the all-important first year to market.
SilverWaveJan 17th 2011 5:48PM
@jeffehobbs
you said "market-leading iPad" :/
are you human or a marketing droid?
Saleh AlsanadJan 17th 2011 10:44AM
I like the way Google do things!
Juliana PeñaJan 17th 2011 10:27AM
The whole point of HTML5 video is being able to use video WITHOUT plugins. If users will have to install a plugin for every codec on the web, it's much easier to just stick to Flash. All Google dropping H.264 support does is help extend Flash's life.
SilverWaveJan 17th 2011 5:49PM
@Juliana Pe�a
H.264 is so bad it makes flash look good.
HarshJan 17th 2011 12:34PM
The plugins will merely install a the codec in the browser, its not the same as installing flash.
Also, Google did the right thing here. So what if it was in their best interest as well? We should celebrate a company that is built around and thrives from doing the right thing.
Google paid a lot of money for WebM and making it free and open, so why should they pay for H.264. Its not a power move as they don't charge for WebM. You know you're doing something right when your most competitive competitors are backing you up (Opera & Mozilla)
If people don't like it, use IE9 or Safari. We wont miss you, seriously go away.
XanderJan 17th 2011 1:14PM
Slightly more intelligent? I beg to differ. More like exceedingly more intelligent.
Sebastian AnthonyJan 17th 2011 1:16PM
@Xander Why thank you :P
zpg006Jan 17th 2011 1:07PM
"One day, out of the blue, the H.264 consortium decides to increase its licensing fees"
One day, every 5 years, by a maximum of 10%. It is in the licenses put out by the MPEG group.
"Google's entire lifeblood is indexing content created by you and me"
Google's entire lifeblood is selling us to advertisers.
Sebastian AnthonyJan 17th 2011 1:15PM
@zpg006 Then by jove, sell me, Google, SELL ME!
(And thanks for the info, re: licensing fees.)
SilverWaveJan 17th 2011 5:52PM
@zpg006
MPEG is not MPEG-LA they are very different bodies.
SilverWaveJan 17th 2011 5:58PM
@zpg006
You missed a bit...
*Annual Royalty Caps are not subject to the 10% limitation
I'm sure it was just an innocent mistake.
SilverWaveJan 17th 2011 6:01PM
@Sebastian Anthony
But look at this mess!
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Documents/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf
SilverWaveJan 17th 2011 5:39PM
Hmm you seem to have touched a nerve :-D
Wow its always surprising how many ignorant or just plain stupid ppl there are out there...
I suppose we don't really know the fanboi/shill breakdown numbers on the posters above but I'm thinking mainly _fanboi_ as no shill would be that pathetic shirley?
For some more sanity see this post:
http://antimatter15.com/wp/2011/01/the-ambiguity-of-open-and-vp8-vs-h-264/
H.264 was a poison pill for the internet and WebM is the antidote.
Well worth the $130M Google, a strategic master stroke.
Sebastian AnthonyJan 17th 2011 6:01PM
@SilverWave You should see the LauncherPro comments... :)
They are just waiting for you to wade in!
SilverWaveJan 17th 2011 6:08PM
@Sebastian Anthony
no thanks that's enough spleen venting for one day.
:-)
SilverWaveJan 17th 2011 6:18PM
@Sebastian Anthony
>You should see the LauncherPro comments... :)
Hah! I had a quick look at the comments... and they are all barking mad.
I'm not going anywhere near any of those nutters ;-)
Sebastian AnthonyJan 17th 2011 6:19PM
@SilverWave Just roll up your sleeve, apply some Vaseline... and go for it.
I do it on a daily basis. It's very... invigorating.