Firefox 4

This is a discussion on Firefox 4 within the General Discussions forums, part of the Community Boards category; The fact is that this could potentially hold true for pretty much any other codec. Re the second issue: why ...

  1. #31
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,411
    The fact is that this could potentially hold true for pretty much any other codec.
    Re the second issue: why is it that Google, Apple and Microsoft all have implemented H264 is that were an issue?
    And yes, while they would have to pay some royalty, I do believe that their income could cover that.
    Those two aren't the main issues that Mozilla won't support it, I believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by phantomotap View Post
    Bull........! I'm speaking as a content creator. You don't have to worry about a royalty fee ONLY if the content is delivered for free. If you wish to charge for content the "now" is 'crystal clear": pay the patent trolls or face potential legal problems.
    Since when did we start discussing content creators? We're talking about delivering the ability for users to watch videos in their browsers without paying a coin.
    For this, H264 will and is free for another 6 years, it seems: http://www.cultofmac.com/h-264-will-...ugh-2016/28982

    They are patent trolls. What do you expect? They'd patent "linear memory addressing" if they could!
    And your point being...?

    So instead of hoping that they improve, you hope they die? That's very clever of you.
    VP8 was stillborn the day Google released it. It's a. Piece. Of. Crap.
    Everything is horrible, right down to the compression to the spec.
    And that's what you get for buying something from ON8 (I believe that's the company's name).
    And google just declared it final and threw it into the wild. Great work, Google.
    That said, however, they are working on improving it, so hopefully there will be a better VP9 standard. I sincerely hope so.

    This.

    If you don't like what VP8 currently has to offer, get off your ass and help improve it.
    Ha! The VP8 spec is final. There is no say in the matter.
    Now let's hope Google get their asses in gear and fix VP9.
    Last edited by Elysia; 07-13-2010 at 04:56 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  2. #32
    Disrupting the universe Mad_guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    258
    H264's future for at least 5 years is crystal clear. No patent issues.
    You have just demonstrated with those 2 sentences you have no actual idea about the issue at hand. Following this...

    H264 is free for another 5 years.
    Wrong. It is not free in any sense of the word. You know what they do say though? That you don't have to pay royalties if you are streaming free online web content, and nothing else. Any other means of use requires you to pay MPEG-LA royalties. If you think that's really 'free,' you are insane. Sorry.

    WebM is a complete and utter idiocy if you ask me. Not only do I not like how it has inferior compressions and a limited set of supported formats, but it's also another minefield.
    How is WebM as a container format a minefield? I've never heard of any sort of potential litigation problems against Matroska-based containers, only the potential litigation issues pertaining to VP8 itself.

    There have been suggestions on MPEG-LA discussing whether to form a patent pool for it and Vorbis.
    They've been trying to pull this over for YEARS on Theora, and you know why it never worked? Because they never cited actual patent numbers. Never. The leader of Xiph.org has attacked them again and again and told them to bring on the heat numerous times if they believe there's an actual problem - which he doesn't believe there is, seeing as how him and many others have spent the past 10 years EXPLICITLY making sure there is no infringement on any patented technology of MPEG or anyone elses - and they have only ever said that they "believe it is open to patent lawsuit." You know what their solution is? "Just pay us royalties if you're using Theora, and in case any patent issues DO come up, you'll be protected anyway!"

    They're trying to extort people on that front. They're known patent trolls. End of story.

    On the note of VP8, like I said earlier, it's pretty probable that because VP8 and H264 are so similar in so many ways, that VP8 probably infringes on some of H264's patents. At the same time, like I said earlier, it's also pretty likely that H264 infringes on some of Google's patents which they acquired from On2 (some of which likely date back to the times of VP3/VP4.) There is no clear winner here, and if they DO decide to open litigation, what will they do if Google says "Well, we clearly have patents that H264 infringes on. Take a look." Essentially it's just nuclear deterrence, only with patents instead of nuclear weapons. Nobody wins. If it wasn't Google, sure, maybe MPEG would probably have no problem suing them into oblivion despite the fact they could have patents on you. Whether or not that tactic would work, against, uh, Google is another matter entirely.

    Those two aren't the main issues that Mozilla won't support it, I believe.
    No, they aren't. The issue is that Mozilla has ideologies to stick to, and the main one is to keep the web free. H264 is not free. It never will be. That is why they will not support it, ever.
    operating systems: mac os 10.6, debian 5.0, windows 7
    editor: back to emacs because it's more awesomer!!
    version control: git

    website: http://0xff.ath.cx/~as/

  3. #33
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,411
    Quote Originally Posted by Mad_guy View Post
    Wrong. It is not free in any sense of the word. You know what they do say though? That you don't have to pay royalties if you are streaming free online web content, and nothing else. Any other means of use requires you to pay MPEG-LA royalties. If you think that's really 'free,' you are insane. Sorry.
    I never meant it free as in "do whatever you want with it." It's free as in you can watch authored H264 content for free, granted that whomever you're streaming it from is paying the proper royalties. You don't have to pay anything and that's how it's going to stay for the coming 6 years. Beyond that, who knows?

    How is WebM as a container format a minefield? I've never heard of any sort of potential litigation problems against Matroska-based containers, only the potential litigation issues pertaining to VP8 itself.
    WebM is also the name of the whole project, no? You're right in that VP8 is the biggest target, but Vorbis may also be a target. Matroska I doubt will be a problem.

    They've been trying to pull this over for YEARS on Theora, and you know why it never worked? Because they never cited actual patent numbers. Never. The leader of Xiph.org has attacked them again and again and told them to bring on the heat numerous times if they believe there's an actual problem - which he doesn't believe there is, seeing as how him and many others have spent the past 10 years EXPLICITLY making sure there is no infringement on any patented technology of MPEG or anyone elses - and they have only ever said that they "believe it is open to patent lawsuit." You know what their solution is? "Just pay us royalties if you're using Theora, and in case any patent issues DO come up, you'll be protected anyway!"

    They're trying to extort people on that front. They're known patent trolls. End of story.

    On the note of VP8, like I said earlier, it's pretty probable that because VP8 and H264 are so similar in so many ways, that VP8 probably infringes on some of H264's patents. At the same time, like I said earlier, it's also pretty likely that H264 infringes on some of Google's patents which they acquired from On2 (some of which likely date back to the times of VP3/VP4.) There is no clear winner here, and if they DO decide to open litigation, what will they do if Google says "Well, we clearly have patents that H264 infringes on. Take a look." Essentially it's just nuclear deterrence, only with patents instead of nuclear weapons. Nobody wins. If it wasn't Google, sure, maybe MPEG would probably have no problem suing them into oblivion despite the fact they could have patents on you. Whether or not that tactic would work, against, uh, Google is another matter entirely.
    That is called uncertainty. Yes, it may now infringe on anything right now. But you cannot guarantee it will stay that way for the next 100 years. That is the biggest issue today.
    The terms for H264 "free" as in above, the terms are clear and are static for the next 6 years. You know exactly what is going to happen.
    And this uncertainty is what is a problem. I know Microsoft have stated that they've backed H264 exactly because of this uncertainty.
    As for Google and patents, I'm not sure on that area. From what I understand, Google may be huge, but their portfolio of software patents is slim. They didn't protect the company who used their operating system Android (can't remember the name) when they were slammed with a law suit from Apple, I believe. They said they would stand behind them, but they haven't done a lot.
    Sorry, details are fuzzy. I could find a source, though, hopefully, if anyone's interested.

    No, they aren't. The issue is that Mozilla has ideologies to stick to, and the main one is to keep the web free. H264 is not free. It never will be. That is why they will not support it, ever.
    Well, I might have been thinking about Microsoft. Sorry.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  4. #34
    Master Apprentice phantomotap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,145
    Elyisa:

    You are obviously very confused about binary streams, "programs" that generate such stream, delivering such a stream, and delivering "programs" that generate such a stream.

    Why don't you go read some legal and technical papers?

    Soma

  5. #35
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,411
    Absolutely not. Legal papers are devils papers.
    I read what sources on the internet say and if they're wrong, then I blame them for misleading information. Besides, I have no clue about what's wrong and damn, I don't think I'll ever be able to please you. You are too high for me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  6. #36
    Master Apprentice phantomotap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,145
    I read what sources on the internet say and if they're wrong, then I blame them for misleading information.
    I'll make it simple for you.

    1) generate a stream
    2) deliver a stream
    3) deliver a "program" that generates a stream

    These three things are very different. It is only number 2 that is free from royalties until 2016. A program created to generate or process the stream must pay royalties to the trolls or face potential legal issues.

    An incredibly important issue in the debate is that a user who obtains such a "program" from a provider known to be in "bad standing" with the trolls is responsible for those royalties.

    This "temporary freedom of royalties" is not generosity. It is a deliberate ploy to "bind"/"lock-in" providers to a particular delivery mechanism. They actually teach this crap at colleges in the USA.

    Besides, I have no clue about what's wrong and damn, I don't think I'll ever be able to please you.
    Who asked you to try?

    I don't care if you express opinions. I don't care if you aren't always right.

    I don't pretend to be right all the time and all the gods know how opinionated I can be.

    I only care so much about crap like this because I know how dangerous and wasteful misinformation can be. In this case, the danger of "lock-in" is a detriment to the internet and everyone who has an interest in a "free web". I don't want patent trolls and lawyers controlling/crippling my internet with a greasy smile and a promise of "no royalties until we get good and ready to sue".

    Soma

  7. #37
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,411
    o_O
    From what I take it, option #2 is what Mozilla & co have to be worried about concerning H264, and that will be free for end users as long as the the companies cough up royalties. For now.

    The question is if VP8 would solve this. It's in pretty bad standing right now. I don't trust it, and I don't like it. I can't say I know enough about patent pools to know if they could help with patent trolling or not.
    I still think Mozilla should implement H264. Heck, take all popular formats instead. Why lock yourself into one?
    Currently, well, that is unless VP8 becomes popular, Mozilla will hinder web development.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  8. #38
    Master Apprentice phantomotap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,145
    From what I take it, option #2 is what Mozilla & co have to be worried about concerning H264, and that will be free for end users as long as the the companies cough up royalties.
    No. You still don't understand the differences.

    If "Firefox" directly implemented the "h.264 CODEC" necessary for viewing the stream, delivered by a third-party, they would not be acting in the capacity of "option #2".

    The "Mozilla Foundation" would require a license and payment of royalties in order to legally provide such a mechanism. (This is where it gets interesting. This is partially why they refuse to obtain such a license.) A lowly developer such as myself who distributes a version of "Firefox" as part of a "LFS" distribution would not be "covered" by the license "Mozilla Foundation" obtained. I would be liable for any penalties the trolls could manage. (It gets worse.) Everyone who used my illicit version of "Firefox" to view the covered stream would be liable to the trolls.

    It's in pretty bad standing right now.
    STOP. SPREADING. FEAR! UNCERTAINTY! DOUBT!

    I don't like it.
    You can't. You know almost nothing about it.

    *shrug*

    Well, you can dislike it on principle.

    I can't say I know enough about patent pools to know if they could help with patent trolling or not.
    o_O

    "Patent Pools" are a trolls most spectacular weapon.

    I still think Mozilla should implement H264.
    Yes. You've said. You don't understand any of the issues at play which is why your pontification is meaningless and dangerous.

    Soma

  9. #39
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,403
    BTW, just for laughs Elysia, why is that you want H.264? You surely must have a technical reason that far outweighs VP8 or Theora. Something so important (and unknown to everybody else) that not only has in you one of their greatest supporters, but also wishing the competition fails in favor of H.264.

    So, tell us. Is there a reason to your overblown preference, or is that the case you really don't have a clue and just prefer H.264 because you heard it somewhere its a good and fast codec?
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  10. #40
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,411
    Because it is technically superior to VP8. This I know for a fact. Experts have said it. Particularly one expert I trust.
    Why in all the world should we go backwards in technology? We're finally at a point where we can actually download video that is of good quality.
    And the future of VP8 is just too uncertain now. Google made a mess of it when they first released it (no readable official spec, for example) and now they have to fix it.

    Oh yes, and since some people here obviously know the situation better than me (I'm being serious), anyone has any concrete facts/ideas as to why the world (save for Mozilla) chose H 264 as the default video codec for HTML5?
    Last edited by Elysia; 07-14-2010 at 03:25 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  11. #41
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    Because it is technically superior to VP8. This I know for a fact. Experts have said it. Particularly one expert I trust. Why in all the world should we go backwards in technology? We're finally at a point where we can actually download video that is of good quality.
    VP8 and Theora offer good enough quality already and can be improved by the community even further since they are both (VP8 is now too) open codecs.

    If H.264 could be considered the Ferrari of video codecs, it is no less true that both VP8 or Theora are functional options. It's like having the money to buy a Ferrari, but knowing of the litigation dangers it may pose, we choose the BMW instead.

    My question was of course rhetorical. Because there's no technical reason why H.264 should be chosen over VP8 or Theora. Both are not a step backwards from H.264. Your fundamentalist and childish approach to technology is thankfully not how the world turns.

    Oh yes, and since some people here obviously know the situation better than me (I'm being serious), anyone has any concrete facts/ideas as to why the world (save for Mozilla) chose H 264 as the default video codec for HTML5?
    Your misinformation is telling. You just don't know. The world hasn't chosen H.264 at all. It is still open for grabs the position for a standard video codec. Meanwhile Google, Mozilla and Opera all pledged their support to VP8 as part of the WebM project. Along with them, NVidia, Qualcomm, AMD and ARM (which is essential for hardware acceleration support). And if that wasn't enough Microsoft will also support VP8. If anything, it seems once the decision was made to open VP8, everyone flocked in.

    The only one that hasn't was Safari. Which is not surprising, since Apple shares a piece of the patent cake it is about to lose big time. Steve Jobs has been the biggest defender of H.264 by far. He also likes to throw more FUD into the fire of poor old Theora. Just recently (some 2 or 3 months ago) he was claiming a mystery patent pool was in the works to go after Theora. Steve Jobs is a bit like you. You will like him.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  12. #42
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,411
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    VP8 and Theora offer good enough quality already and can be improved by the community even further since they are both (VP8 is now too) open codecs.

    If H.264 could be considered the Ferrari of video codecs, it is no less true that both VP8 or Theora are functional options. It's like having the money to buy a Ferrari, but knowing of the litigation dangers it may pose, we choose the BMW instead.

    My question was of course rhetorical. Because there's no technical reason why H.264 should be chosen over VP8 or Theora. Both are not a step backwards from H.264. Your fundamentalist and childish approach to technology is thankfully not how the world turns.
    But the problem is that the VP8 spec is final. No more changes. Unless that has changed last time I looked. So basically the only option is to wait for VP9, and the gods know how many years that will be.

    Your misinformation is telling. You just don't know. The world hasn't chosen H.264 at all. It is still open for grabs the position for a standard video codec. Meanwhile Google, Mozilla and Opera all pledged their support to VP8 as part of the WebM project. Along with them, NVidia, Qualcomm, AMD and ARM (which is essential for hardware acceleration support). And if that wasn't enough Microsoft will also support VP8. If anything, it seems once the decision was made to open VP8, everyone flocked in.

    The only one that hasn't was Safari. Which is not surprising, since Apple shares a piece of the patent cake it is about to lose big time. Steve Jobs has been the biggest defender of H.264 by far. He also likes to throw more FUD into the fire of poor old Theora. Just recently (some 2 or 3 months ago) he was claiming a mystery patent pool was in the works to go after Theora. Steve Jobs is a bit like you. You will like him.
    I know. You aren't getting my message.
    Mozilla is the only one who has refused to implement H264 for the video tag. Yes, all the major browsers now also support WebM, not Mozilla still doesn't support H264.
    Which will be the final codec we shall see.
    Basically, all the companies except Mozilla, for some reason, include H264 as a candidate to the video tag (at least from what I understand). So they have, in some part, chosen H264. Take that as you will.

    Now, I wonder if Jobs would allow users of Apple products to pay extra everytime they watch an H264 movie? I don't suppose that's impossible? Granted that he loves dumbing things down and screwing over users, I also believe he's greedy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  13. #43
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    Basically, all the companies except Mozilla, for some reason, include H264 as a candidate to the video tag (at least from what I understand). So they have, in some part, chosen H264. Take that as you will.
    They can't, Elysia! Why is this so hard for you to understand. Mozilla cannot offer out of the box support for H.264 because it is a royalty based codec that will inevitable force them to pay a fee. Mozilla simply can't, for statutory and financial reasons.

    And don't give me the "they have enough money to pay". It has nothing to do with that. Finanbcial decision aren't made just around the idea of cash flow. If they were, companies would bankrupt left right and center.

    You are also wrong. Opera does not support H.264. That's two out of 4 major browser vendors. It's not "all companies", as you say. It's half. Your attitude concerning this issue is frankly unnerving. It's been a long while since I last spoke face to face with a FUD maker and the fearful memories of how you people act and think are coming back to me.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  14. #44
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,411
    I wasn't saying Mozilla should or can offer support. I was merely saying that most other companies have decided to add H264 support.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  15. #45
    Disrupting the universe Mad_guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    258
    Which is not surprising, since Apple shares a piece of the patent cake it is about to lose big time.
    I'll chime in here and just say that Apple really doesn't have a significant stake in H264 patents. I am actually pretty sure they only hold one patent in the entire spec and one MPEG4 systems patent - Microsoft actually has a TON more patents pertaining to H264. Safari also supports any system codec that is installed, but I don't think mainline WebKit implements the VP8 codec itself.

    But yes, Steve Jobs talking about a 'free internet' with HTML5 and 'no flash' and then talking about using H264 is quite hilarious.
    operating systems: mac os 10.6, debian 5.0, windows 7
    editor: back to emacs because it's more awesomer!!
    version control: git

    website: http://0xff.ath.cx/~as/

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. How to get the URL out of FireFox
    By 02weife98 in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-13-2009, 01:01 PM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-16-2008, 09:29 PM
  3. Problems with Firefox
    By DavidP in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 12-21-2007, 08:35 AM
  4. HTML tables with firefox and IE nightmare
    By MisterSako in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-01-2006, 12:46 PM
  5. Mouse buttons in Firefox
    By Draco in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-25-2005, 09:22 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21