FSF Announces Support For WebM 333
An anonymous reader writes "The Free Software Foundation has signed up as a supporter of the WebM Project. They write, 'Last week, Google announced that it plans to remove support for the H.264 video codec from its browsers, in favor of the WebM codec that they recently made free. Since then, there's been a lot of discussion about how this change will affect the Web going forward, as HTML5 standards like the video tag mature. We applaud Google for this change; it's a positive step for free software, its users, and everyone who uses the Web.' The FSF's PlayOgg campaign will be revamped to become PlayFreedom."
Re:Riding coattails! (Score:4, Interesting)
The choir may be the WC3 over here at MIT. The FSF putting a stamp of approval on WebM helps allay one of the big hurdles for making it the HTML 5 video standard: questions of quality. While the average consumer may not care, if WebM gets baked into the standard, that would have a large effect on how we get video on the web (and how free it is).
Re:Riding coattails! (Score:0, Interesting)
Reading comprehension helps before you jump in to disagree, and further demonstrate the lack of comprehension the FSF and its dogmatic adherents display. "Preaching to the choir" in this case means that their message of "openness" is only going to resonate with those who already agree with their message. It will not win them new supporters, and it will do nothing to further the cause of WebM.
Do you think anybody outside the FSF and the normal cavalcade of FOSS neckbeards gives a shit about whether the FSF supports Vorbis or WebM?
This is a "HEY GUYS WE'RE STILL HERE AND WE STILL MATTER... DON'T WE?" press release. Nothing more.
Re:Misguided (Score:2, Interesting)
The day youtube stops serving flash and requires WebM will be the day Flash dies.
That depends on when that happens. If it is at a time when there is little support for WebM, or little interest in Youtube, it might be the day that Youtube dies.
Sort of right, but between Open and Closed (Score:2, Interesting)
The real battle is between Apple and Adobe
That is true from the standpoint of Apple fighting for open technologies backed by large groups of companies (HTML5, h.264) where Adobe is fighting for maintaining control over the stronghold of Web Video, where they are the ones who provide players everyone needs to operate universally.
That's why Google, Apple and Microsoft were together in supporting the video tag. But then Google got greedy, and thought "Why can't I have Adobe's position"? So under the guise of being open, Google is pushing for a standard controlled by them.
The end effect is now the same standoff we had before, where neither Apple nor Adobe can get the upper hand. And that is a shame because when all three were standing together you could actually see a chance of Flash being booted off the internet.
Re:Misguided (Score:2, Interesting)
If google released it to the public domain, then their implementation would be prior art, invalidating any subsequent attempt to patent the technology.
My concern with the patents on WebM boil down to the simple fact that Google won't indemnify users. They're flogging their pet standard, but it seems they're not confident enough in it to say, "and we'll help you if anybody comes after you." If they're not confident enough in their patent status to say that... why should anybody else be? It's a pretty huge risk they're asking everybody else to take.
I may have to pay for H.264, but at least I can *plan and budget* for that expenditure. WebM is free today, but if I somebody brings a suit against me tomorrow, I may have to spend way more than I ever would have spent on H.264 royalties to defend myself.
Re:Riding coattails! (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems more likely to me that is some kind of power play. They want to piss on Apple & Microsoft's parade by forcing them to dance to a tune played by Google. Google will be stewards of this codec and if it becomes a web standard they may force their competitors to support it (e.g. in their browsers & desktop / phone operating systems) or risk looking "non standard". It diminishes their competitors offerings just like supporting Flash in Android did.
Secondly, if Google have such an enormous ongoing investment in H264 then they must be paying a pretty penny to MPEG-LA and possibly a lot more when certain web moratoriums are up. I would not be surprised if they are waving this codec around to threaten MPEG-LA to either drop or modify their existing licensing agreement.
So I don't think Google are doing this for reasons for altruism and I don't believe they'll never support H264. WebM is just a stick and they may well do an about face when it serves its purpose.