>When a big company in Redmond says stuff like this, its called FUD. This is FUD, plain and simple.
Even if they say the sky is blue?
I don't even know why you're dragging MS into this. They've already stated that IE9 will pick up WebM codecs if they're installed on the machine and will use it play HTML5 video.
They just don't want to ship it with the OS and step onto patent landmines which could cost them billions in lawyer and licensing costs. Google does not provide patent indemnity with WebM.
I brought MS into it, not to bash MS, but to point out how hypocritical these arguments often are. If MS says something with no substantiation, but merely an attempt to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the future, people are up in arms yelling FUD. But when Google does it it's about the greater good of humanity.
It's not Google making up FUD — Google is noting an objection that's been around for a long time, and they're doing something about it. Mozilla has been saying the same thing for a long time.
And I don't know how you even create FUD about something like this, where the uncertainty is based on traps that are known to exist, which most users are currently standing on but simply haven't been triggered yet. Is it a controversial claim that H.264 requires a patent license? Is it a controversial claim that MPEG-LA has only offered a limited-time indemnity, and that only for a subset of uses? This is all verifiable and documented.
FUD, FUD, FUD, FUD. Now it's FUD that you may subscribe to, but it's FUD nevertheless.
I love this line, "where the uncertainty is based on traps that are known to exist"
Have you never bought a DVD player in fear of MPEG-LA might do? Do you own no computers with no licensed technology? I shiver in my boots every morning for fear over this.
Gimme a break. I love how the Google/Mozilla tribe have become the world's best FUD slingers. Everything now is about this horrible tragedy that can happen at any moment.
If that's your choice fine. Stick with Chrome and stay away from H264 streams. Like I said to RBanffy, a fragmented web won't keep me up at night either.
I don't shy away from buying DVD players. The companies that make them are the ones on the hook there. But I certainly wouldn't want to build one.
Again: We have no guarantees from the MPEG-LA that they won't turn around tomorrow and demand outrageous royalties from anyone using H.264 videos. We also know that they are able to do so. The only reason it isn't so today is by their good grace. That is real uncertainty, and it seems like a valid cause for worry (Google would have been better off if they'd treated Java so cautiously). Am I mistaken somewhere, and this situation is actually not plausible? I'm not personally involved with either camp — they just seem to have the facts on their side, while all any pro-H.264 folk ever respond with is ad hominem and dismissals.
We have no guarantees from the MPEG-LA that they won't turn around tomorrow and demand outrageous royalties from anyone using H.264 videos.
Yes, we do know that, for the same reason that they don't start charging end users of DVD players. They have legally binding agreement.
For free video, H264 is permanantly free. They can not turn around and change this.
For non-free video, they have established pricing that is locked-in until 2016. And then you're saying, but then they'll screw me, right? Wrong, MPEG-LA states in their contract: "For the protection of licensees, royalty rates applicable to specific license grants or specific licensed products will not increase by more than ten percent (10%) at each renewal."
So enough with the FUD please. H264, amongst licensed technologies, is probably one of the clearest there is and with the least minefields.
To me it is about permission and free legal redistribution. If H.264 were to become an entrenched part of HTML5 video, then freely distributed browsers would greatly suffer. Open source browsers like Konqueror would be left by the roadside. This is why I think Google is doing a good thing. HTML5 video suffers in the short term, but it is a good thing for the future.
You could say the same for any tribe, I think. I like Google but I doubt that they are making decisions for the greater good intentionally, or all the time. I do think that Google, like Apple, try to swing their business model towards a better design or better implementation. In a lot of those cases, the better implementation or design is open source or built for the greater good.
Even if they say the sky is blue?
I don't even know why you're dragging MS into this. They've already stated that IE9 will pick up WebM codecs if they're installed on the machine and will use it play HTML5 video.
They just don't want to ship it with the OS and step onto patent landmines which could cost them billions in lawyer and licensing costs. Google does not provide patent indemnity with WebM.