What precludes bundled libraries from having support for hardware acceleration? Firefox 4 accelerates full-screen WebM videos on Windows and Mac, for instance.
You need platform-specific APIs to give you direct access to the relevant hardware, which you then need to be able to use efficiently.
I'd rather see applications just feed the bytestream to the OS to decode using the best means available, even if it means support for new codecs is a bit slow. (Although an OS-level codec plugin architecture like QuickTime Components can get you software decoding for new or obscure codecs.)
If my GPU has a high-quality, high-speed H.264 decoder, I shouldn't have to worry about which browsers will use it. They should all default to the OS-provided decoding and playback methods unless there are sound technical reasons not to. If I want to use a new codec that's not supported by the fixed-function decoder, I shouldn't have to worry about which web browsers have bothered to include the necessary OpenCL code to decode on my GPU. I should just be able to install one codec that hooks in to the OS's media framework, and all browsers should use that first.
You need platform-specific APIs to give you direct access to the relevant hardware, which you then need to be able to use efficiently.
Yes, and Firefox already has platform-specific Direct3D and OpenGL backends. Remember that a browser today needs to be able to accelerate not just video but all content and compositing, so they already have to put in that investment. The investment in video is just an additional delta.
I'd rather see applications just feed the bytestream to the OS to decode using the best means available, even if it means support for new codecs is a bit slow. (Although an OS-level codec plugin architecture like QuickTime Components can get you software decoding for new or obscure codecs.)
Hm. "I'd rather see applications just feed the HTML to the OS to render using the best means available, even if it means support for new HTML features is a bit slow. (Although a engine-level plugin architecture like ActiveX or NPAPI can get you some sort of rendering for new or obscure features.)" How is your assertion materially different?
If my GPU has a high-quality, high-speed H.264 decoder, I shouldn't have to worry about which browsers will use it. They should all default to the OS-provided decoding and playback methods unless there are sound technical reasons not to. If I want to use a new codec that's not supported by the fixed-function decoder, I shouldn't have to worry about which web browsers have bothered to include the necessary OpenCL code to decode on my GPU. I should just be able to install one codec that hooks in to the OS's media framework, and all browsers should use that first.
HTML is a web technology, but video codecs are needed by a wider range of applications, including playing optical media, games, and presentation software.
The non-political arguments the mozillazine article makes against using the OS's media frameworks can be solved by using ffmpeg/etc. as fallbacks, except for the one about having to support multiple rendering paths (and even that could be solved by just packaging ffmpeg in the OS-supported codec format).
If a web browser maker wants to make it hard to use H.264 even when the user already has a fully-licensed decoder as part of their operating system, then they are putting their political goals above the users' needs.
If I want my browser to supplant my operating system, I'll use ChromeOS. Otherwise, I want my browser to play nice and not bring along political baggage.
I don't want my browser to include it's own unoptimized codecs, it's own half-assed OpenGL implementation, it's own font rendering code, it's own widget library, it's own PDF viewer, and it's own device drivers. I want my browser to include a kick-ass [X]HTML+CSS+JS engine, and delegate the rest to the operating system like any sane application.
That doesn't really matter. There's basically no usability difference between:
"You need to install plugin X to view this video."
"You need to install QuickTime Component X to view this video."
"You need to install third-party Firefox codec X to view this video."
Except that the third piece of software likely won't exist, and Mozilla might not even let it exist.
If browser vendors make it hard to install and use a codec for patent-encumbered formats like H.264, that will only prolong the use of even worse plugins like Flash for the purpose of playing H.264 videos.
HTML is a web technology, but video codecs are needed by a wider range of applications, including playing optical media, games, and presentation software.
But inside the browser it's a web technology. That's the whole point of the video tag.
When a browser's raison d'être is "political" as you put it, then of course any such decision is going to have a moral component. It isn't just about short-term support -- it's about a long-term vision for what the web should be like, and more importantly shouldn't be like. H.264 isn't compatible with that vision.
they are putting their political goals above the users' needs.
But those goals are the users' long-term needs. The minor loss if people can't play H.264 video right now is offset by the much greater victory if the web stays free and open.
I don't want my browser to include it's own unoptimized codecs, it's own half-assed OpenGL implementation, it's own font rendering code, it's own widget library, it's own PDF viewer, and it's own device drivers.
Stop making ridiculous blanket statements. This is much more nuanced than that, and involves balancing the costs of including custom code with its benefits.
