H.264 goes royalty-free, web to go H.264?
The MPEG LA licensing group has announced that their H.264 video codec standard would be going royalty free in perpetuity for free-to-end-user use. Why does this matter to us? Well, if you're using an iPhone or iPad, you're using the H.264 video codec. If you buy video off iTunes, you're using H.264. If you're using Safari on iOS or Mac OS for that matter, you're using H.264 because it's the only HTML 5 video standard Apple supports. Google and Microsoft support it as well, along with others. Firefox has chosen not to support it for philosophical reasons, however, which has potentially stopped H.264 from becoming the one true HTML 5 standard to unify them all.
Will this change by MPEG LA be enough to get Firefox and everyone else on board? Will it lead to an H.264, HTML 5 video web? Will it relegate Flash to non-video content that requires that level of runtime support (and resources)?
Who knows, but it's another tiny little step in that direction, and good news for anyone rendering free content for iPhone and iPad support.
[Macworld]
Editor-in-Chief of iMore, Executive Producer at Mobile Nations, co-host of Iterate and ZEN and TECH, cook, grappler, photon wrangler.
| Tweet |
|
|
Leave a Reply
Note: Comments must be civil, respectful, and on-topic. If a comment does not add to the conversation, if it contains spam advertising, or inappropriate language or content, it will be removed. Insulting the topic, author, staff, site, network, or other commenters will result in the comment being marked as spam and potential prevent future comments from appearing on the site. Do not post as a business or your comment will likely be confused with spam. Comments containing links may be held for moderation. Relax, enjoy, and share in the discussion.
Okay, why is it only Apple-oriented sites are posting this? Is Engadget or Gizmodo really that slow?
yes. they are. this kinds of news doesn't draw page hits, thus they don't care.
The royalties have been lifted for video "that is free to end users." In the past, the MPEG group has interpreted that to exclude ad-supported video, either in the video stream or in other browser elements. I would love to be proven wrong on this, but I do not see anything in the text of the article or the MPEG-LA pages themselves that indicate this stance has changed.
If this is still the case, then commercial sites from Hulu to Youtube to SouthParkStudios to [insert your favorite TV network's web site] must still pay royalties, in which case this announcement will do precisely bupkiss to motivate producers who are not already using H.264.
After quickly looking through the document futher, no, this will not sway Mozilla or Opera, because it appears that the creators of the decoders will still have to pay license fees. In other words, MPEG-LA has removed the threat of charging the VIEWER license fees, but not of charging the DEVICE MAKER, in this case, the browser/plugin. Mozilla's stance is that implementing an open standard should never require license fees to a single corporate entity. This announcement does nothing to change that underlying issue, as the browser maker would still be liable for royalties. Perhaps even more to the point, due to other extant licensing restrictions, in some jurisdictions it is questionable whether Mozilla COULD legally release open source H.264 support, and there is zero chance they would close off part of their codebase to placate the MPEG-LA group.
So, no, this will not make Mozilla budge, nor should it, as it completely sidesteps the crucial issue.
Yeah, I guess it is free as in 'not really all that free'. Sucks. You would think that with all the underwriters of the MPEG-LA they could afford to open the licensing.
Looking forward to an all-Google future!
@SheiknetChris
Well, I think that practically speaking, H.264 has already won this round, unless the MPEG group gets too greedy with licensing terms. Even if they lose this round, I am still glad that Mozilla is out there fighting the principled fight, though. Without Mozilla's similar stance against ActiveX years before, when people were screaming for full support, it is quite likely neither Apple nor Google would be reaping the benefits of the open web they (and we) are reaping today. We need our idealists to stay strong to keep parties honest not just in the present, but also in the future.
I don't think this changed anything. Wasn't this how it was supposed to be until, what was it 2015? It's possible this codec could be replaced by a better codec by that time anyways.
That combined with every other mobile platform apparently getting flash in the future is probably why this hasn't been picked up that quickly by non-Apple sites.
(Copy of) Dev has it right, there is really no news here. Free to end users still leaves commercial use susceptible to outrageous licensing charges from the MPEG group once H.264 sees wide adoption, which is why many are hesitant to adopt it.
Rene Flash has been compatible with H.264 since version 9.
@(Copy of) Dev: That actually seems fair, if you ask me. Most users don't have to worry about licensing, but those who use the codec to profit should pay. That's how MPEG-LA will be able to continue employing to create the next, great codec.
@Aaron
That is a tangential argument, though. I don't think Mozilla begrudged the MPEG group a single dime, just the inclusion of proprietary, for-pay, single-company IP into the spec. From Mozilla's perspective, the question is "should an international standard which makers worldwide will have to support in order to release a product require both closed source and licensing payments to a single specific company?"
The answer, IMHO, is clearly no, and i would also postulate the lack of such entanglements is part of the reason the web took off so rapidly and so globally. I certainly agree with Mozilla that introducing such entanglements into the spec can only bog down future progress.
The MPEG group has every right to extract every last dime from their property, just as Mozilla and Opera have every right not to support them. The official spec shoul not force one or the other's views on the other, and it should never, ever, endorse a setting where implementation is at the pleasure of and requiring payment to) a single entity.
@Aaron
As an addendum, Mozilla is not-for-profit, and so would not profit from writing an H.264 decoder. For that matter, neither Google nor Microsoft nor Apple profit from H.264 support in their browsers, though you could argue that MS and Apple do indirectly. Still, the "change" in licensing still lumps a free browser maker in with a Bluray manufacturer directly selling goods wholly dependent on the codec, which is why this change will have no impact at all.
Big win for the community. Sweet
@(Copy) Good points. I was mostly talking about those using it for Blu-ray, etc. I work in Hollywood and, if this was a cost I'd have to endure, I would (as long as it wasn't an obscene license amount). I don't think Mozilla would necessarily have to pay, but at this point they are only hurting themselves.
Now, if I were MPEG-LA, I would make this 100% free for all. Then work on the next piece as an upgrade of sorts. It's a razor principle: Give the razor away, make money on the blade refills.
The MPEG-LA is representing a host of companies that have patents on H.264 technology. That is, they represent and manage the patent pool, of which Panasonic, Toshiba, Sony, Fraunhofer, Philips, Hitachi, Samsung are big contributors (they have the most patents). Yes, they are patent lawyers. There are a host of smaller contributors, but you can tell from the companies listed that it is the hardware makers (drives, chips, circuits, tool makers, etc) who drive the boat.
If I were to surmise, I think Apple chooses H.264 as the path of least risk and most benefit. Hardware acceleration readily available, tools readily available, and industry wide support. They are currently non-commital to WebM. There's basically not much in it for them to support WebM as there really no support from the industry on it. Maybe next year. There's nothing in it for them to support Google in this fashion. If the industry swings to support WebM, Apple will swing that way.
@Shrike
Apple itself one of 27 members of MPEG-LA (as is Microsoft). There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but it does mean they have vested interest in H.264 beyond which way the wind blows. [ from MPEG-LA: http://bit.ly/aYVCCI ] I do agree with you that that wind is not likely to change directions anytime soon.
Understand the keys to opportunity strategy and transfer this knowledge to your sales team so they can apply these concepts to other opportunities