Adobe Rants Over Linux Video Acceleration APIs

[RealNC]

Mozilla may have ulterior motives. They don't need to implement h.264 support. Just like they don't have to implement mp3 support for you to hear mp3 streams. A plug-in could do that. A plugin written by someone else. But there's no way for anyone to write such plugin that would deal with HTML5 video decoding. If Firefox can allow Flash and various "Media Player" plugins to play H.264 video, why does it not allow another plugin to play H.264 in HTML5 videos?

[BlackStar]

Or maybe, just maybe, Mozilla prefers a royalty-free, patent-unencumbered standard instead. H264 is neither. Vorbis/Theora is both.

Imagine for a moment what the web would be like if you had to pay royalties for using HTML. This is what Mozilla and Opera are trying to prevent. Not only do they have to pay for including a decoder, site owners would also have to pay for distributing H264-encoded video (and they pricing structure is far from straightforward.)

Don't think this could ever happen? It's already happened twice, first with GIF, then with MP3. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

All I can say is kudos to Mozilla for standing up for the web.

[RealNC]

Or maybe, just maybe, Mozilla prefers a royalty-free, patent-unencumbered standard instead. H264 is neither. Vorbis/Theora is both.

This counts as an ulterior motive, so you're actually agreeing with me. They claim they want to avoid patents. Since they can do that simply by allowing someone else to take the blame, their argument doesn't hold anymore. And that means they have some other reason for not doing it. This is what "ulterior motive" means. It doesn't matter what you think they're thinking. The only thing that matters is what they claim in public.

Imagine for a moment what the web would be like if you had to pay royalties for using HTML. This is what Mozilla and Opera are trying to prevent.

Dude, you forgot something: What if I *want* to pay royalties? My choice, right? If someone writes an H.264 plugin and pays those royalties, why should I be prevented from making use of it? I make use of Flash right now! And the royalties are not my concern; they're Adobe's.

Your argument is actually against Freedom. It's restricting me to a royalty-free codec even though I really don't want that.

[BlackStar]

Mozilla is leveraging their position as the second biggest browser maker to avoid a future they disagree with. That's obvious.

If you don't like that, you are free to use a different browser. You are also free to take Mozilla's source code, add H264 and call it PatentFox if you like. Just note that you will have to pay royalties to MPEGLA once you start distributing your version.

Arguing that Mozilla is reducing your freedom is disingenious at best.

[RealNC]

It's a browser that claims to be giving me choices. The first thing you read in Firefox's homepage is:

"There are literally thousands of totally free ways to adapt your Firefox to fit exactly what you like to do online."

OK, what I like to do online is watch H.264 HTML5 videos

But seriously, this is an issue that only the Free Software lunatics care about. (Linuxhater calls them "Freetards" but I won't use such strong words here.) Most other people are happy if both the Free Theora and the non-Free H.264 will be available. The lunatics can use the former, the ignorants the latter. Everyone's happy. Forcing your position upon the rest of us is definitely not free. We all like Firefox and would like to keep using it. You're free to not install any H.264 plugins of course. No one's forcing you to (the way you try to force us not to use such a thing.)

In other words, you're evil.

[DeepDayze]

Maybe this guy needs to spend LESS time on m$ paint, and more time, you know, CODING.

It's easy to arrive later at the party and say "meh, I don't like these APIs, they don't work". Why don't they work? How can they be improved? Where are you getting problems? -- Those are the lame, technical questions. Bitching and drawing a box graphic attacks the real issue, that is: er.., if I knew I'd be working for adobe.

So there you go.

Exactly...if the API's irk him so much, then he should be developing an API of his own and then let Adobe add support for that API to Flash.

[BlackStar]

It's a browser that claims to be giving me choices. The first thing you read in Firefox's homepage is:

"There are literally thousands of totally free ways to adapt your Firefox to fit exactly what you like to do online."

OK, what I like to do online is watch H.264 HTML5 videos

Are you posting just to post?

If so, I like coffee. HTML5 coffee. If Firefox is all about choice, why is it not making coffee for me? It's evil, that's why!

Seriously, that's how ridiculous your argument sounds. You want Mozilla to pay an unknown amount of money in patent royalties so that *you* can gratify your youtube addiction? Gee, I wonder why they are not rushing to do that.

You already have silverlight, moonlight, flash, gnash and a number of other plugins that can play H264. Take your pick!

[RealNC]

Seriously, that's how ridiculous your argument sounds. You want Mozilla to pay an unknown amount of money in patent royalties so that *you* can gratify your youtube addiction? Gee, I wonder why they are not rushing to do that.

The only ridiculous thing here is that you failed to read what I wrote. Otherwise you wouldn't claim that Mozilla would need to pay any royalties.

So, up and read again. This time *all* the words. Reading every third or fourth makes it difficult to grasp what's written.

[Ex-Cyber]

If Firefox can allow Flash and various "Media Player" plugins to play H.264 video, why does it not allow another plugin to play H.264 in HTML5 videos?

I suspect that the explanation boils down to "<video> is not just another name for <embed>".

[bugmenot]

The idea of <video> is, as Ex-Cyber said, not a replacement for an embedded video. You were always able to do this and you can to do so in the future. The idea of <video> is that it should be possible to include video / audio into websites *without* the need of selecting a special codec and hope that the visitor has an appropriate plugin! Like with jpg images it should always work. That's the idea. And this can only work with free codecs.

The great thing of the internet is that is is free and everyone with acces to it can use it. Just imagine HTML was proprietary. So it does not make sense to include a proprietary codec.