HTML Video Codec Support in Chrome

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

The web’s open and community-driven development model is a key factor in its rapid evolution and ubiquitous adoption. The WebM Project was launched last year to bring an open, world-class video codec to the web. Since the launch, we’ve seen first-hand the benefits of an open development model:


  • Rapid performance improvements in the video encoder and decoder thanks to contributions from dozens of developers across the community
  • Broad adoption by browser, tools, and hardware vendors
  • Independent (yet compatible) implementations that not only bring additional choice for users, publishers, and developers but also foster healthy competition and innovation

We expect even more rapid innovation in the web media platform in the coming year and are focusing our investments in those technologies that are developed and licensed based on open web principles. To that end, we are changing Chrome’s HTML5 <video> support to make it consistent with the codecs already supported by the open Chromium project. Specifically, we are supporting the WebM (VP8) and Theora video codecs, and will consider adding support for other high-quality open codecs in the future. Though H.264 plays an important role in video, as our goal is to enable open innovation, support for the codec will be removed and our resources directed towards completely open codec technologies.

These changes will occur in the next couple months but we are announcing them now to give content publishers and developers using HTML <video> an opportunity to make any necessary changes to their sites.

738 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   1 – 200 of 738   Newer›   Newest»

Andrex said...

Whoah, ballsy move Google. Ballsy move. I like it.

Derek said...

No...No more codecs!

Vladimir Kelman said...

I hope we'll continue to be able to play H.264 in Chrome but probably indirectly through extensions/plugins, right?

rektide said...

does Chrome have a way for users to extend codec support, or will Chrome only play media types supported by their Chrome build? what extension points if any are available?

Abe said...

Those are great news for the open source software and for the developers. The codecs war is almost over.
Your move Apple.

Anthony said...

Thumbs up, Google.

Jean-Pierre said...

well, that a violent move : that leave the sites owner with the choice of staying with Flash player + h.264 alone or to double encode their videos : one in WebM for half the browser market, the other in h.264 for the rest of the world ...
I know Youtube is doing it, but for the rest of the world, that's not a cheap enough move

aren't you afraid to simply kill the HTML5 video tag ?

Eridius said...

Wow, this is the worst thing to happen to web standards I've seen in a long time. This just reinforces the notion that Google doesn't care about users.

Kevin said...

Considering that the licensing restrictions surrounding use of H.264 were lifted by their license holder to allow ease of adoption on the web and that H.264 is the most popular Video Codec for HD since it is used on Blue-ray Discs and on all Apple Products, I would think this was a dumb idea. I understand being "open" but people slammed Mozilla for taking this stance with Firefox and it's support of H.264 so this just looks like a lame duck attempt by Google to promote their own Video Codec. Thanks for making the HTML5 Transition even more messy.

Alexander said...

Jean Pierre - this Idea is just so super hilarious! You need to do multiple Codecs now, for any XBrowser, so this is a pretty NICE move- cause it will force more people to use open Formats that everybody can support.

Graydon Stoner said...

Agree with Kevin. Don't see how supporting an inferior codec (even if it is open-source) helps at all since the licensing restrictions on h.264 are gone.

Don't be evil.

George said...

Is it April already?

shidoshi said...

Ugh. This is a move by Google where they care more about the open source "community" than they do actual users of their browser. Let's be real here: WebM has a LONG way to go before it will have any serious amount of traction, and Theora is a joke. Like it or now, h264 IS becoming the standard, and dropping support for it for no good reason is ridiculous.

Current, in eyeshot, I have six devices that can all play digital video: a PS3, an Xbox 360, a laptop, an iMac, a PSP, and an iPhone. Guess what one codec each and every one of those devices is able to play? h264.

If I want the widest audience possible to be able to access my content, why in the world would I encode it in either WebM or Theora? I wouldn't.

Kevin said...

I just wanted to point out that I love all things Google. I own 3 Android Phones, a Google TV, use Google Chrome exclusively, run several web sites using the FREE Google Apps and recently helped move the company I work for to Google Apps. However, I do not agree with Google on this one. It appears they are trying to push their own Video Codec and thus will help to muddy up what is already pretty murky waters on the HTML5 front.

Greg Brown said...

Are you going to not be bundling Flash now in your support of open standards? How two-faced.

Christopher said...

And I'll be switching to Safari as soon as you do. I will NOT be using Flash to play videos, nor switching to using an "open" Google codec that isn't supported on iOS devices, nor any other devices I actually care about.

billy said...

@Kevin: "the licensing restrictions surrounding use of H.264 were lifted by their license holder"

No they weren't. They were only 'lifted' for a few years. That's not some great gift to the web community. Quite the contrary, it's a calculated move to entrench themselves as the dominant codec. Once everyone's using them....BAIT AND SWITCH! YOU GOTTA PAY!

They realize WebM is a threat to their patents, so they're doing everything they can to suck the life out of WebM. If free alternatives don't reach a critical mass of adoption, they (patent holders like Microsoft and Apple, who hamstringed the W3C video standardization process) win.

IDisposable said...

I guess I'll have to switch back to IE, then. Sigh...

Willie said...

The captcha to leave a comment on this article is "ecrock". Sums up my feelings perfectly.

Zach said...

Let's be realistic here: Chrome is ~10% of the browser market. Their decision to support WebM over h.264 won't kill HTML5 . In fact, once fireFox 4 is released with WebM, the majority of users with non-beta browsers that support HTML5 video will be using WebM.

Ricky said...

A foolhardy endeavor. H.264 is already too well-established for you to drop support for it now.

nicoles said...

Sigh. How obnoxious! There's no large scale enterprise encoding tools for WebM. Some of us have rather a lot of video to encode.

Thanks for breaking the browser I use, google. I'll be moving right back to safari as soon as this happens.

chrishawn said...

Sad please stop this is a move in the wrong direction.. i guess i need to stop telling people how great chrome is.

mnoga said...

Bad move google, the support is already there, just leave it alone. First time I find a video I can't view in Chrome because of this will be the last time I use Chrome.

Craig said...

what's next? dropping support for mp3?

jough.com said...

Will you be removing the embedded Flash plugin too, then, since it's also not an open standard?

I get the idea of supporting open rather than closed standard, but for most content providers h.264 *is* the standard. Who's using Google's video codec besides the Chrome team?

nguyenhm16 said...

Basically,

1) Make deal with Adobe to include closed-sourced Flash in the browser in furtherance of your cold war with Apple

2) Under the guise of supporting an open standard (of which nobody really cares about at this point, and is not in widespread use), remove support for the most realistic competitor to Flash from your browser (because after all, H.264 and WebM are mutually exclusive and will cause your computer to blow up)

3) Profit!

Chad Burt said...

Terrible move. This is just going to hurt adoption of the tag. What codec will I have to re-encode all my video to next year?

csamuel said...

Goodbye Chrome! It was a good run...

shidoshi said...

Totally hadn't thought about the whole Flash situation. Google is indeed very two-faced in this if they will still support Flash but not h264.

@ billy

"Aug 26 2010: MPEG LA, the group that oversees licensing for a number of Internet media standards, today announced that Internet broadcast content using the H.264 video coding standard will remain royalty-free for the entire life of the license, quashing fears that the standard could suddenly become subject to royalty payments in 2016 after the current licensing term expires and is required to be renewed."

Jeff Geerling said...

As someone who has to manage (currently) about 150 GB worth of different videos across a plethora of websites, I wholeheartedly do NOT thank you for doing this.

All you're doing is making me consider moving back to using Safari as my primary browser. I was just starting to like HTML5's video element, too...

The problem is, WebM and Ogg are both extremely unsupported in everything except for FireFox, and now Chrome.

Professional video software (Final Cut, Premiere, Avid, et all) doesn't support it (or support is flaky at best), and most video tools these days haven't a clue as to what a webm or oggv file is.

This is a bad move, and will set the adoption of HTML5 video back even further. Definitely for me, and definitely for anyone besides YouTube.

Back to flash for everything :-/

crowder said...

It is a mistake to suggest this decision supports some nebulous "open source community". Google is making a choice here that supports the web. Anyone who thinks that h264 is free in any way is mistaken. Google seems to be taking a longer term view here, and should be applauded for accepting some short term pain in exchange for very real, very measurable long-term benefits.

Wes said...

Christ, Google. I hope your extension API allows for different codec use.

Steve said...

While I applaud the idea of a completely open codec, this seems like the kind of move someone who wants to make a name for themselves would pull.

I think that name is "mud".

Also curious that the word verification for this comment is "sucke" ... kind of says it all for me.

nematsakis said...

This is a really poor decision for users and site designers alike. Right now I can encode video in one codec, H.264 and serve it to all modern browsers and mobile platforms, using either the video tag or a Flash wrapper.

If Chrome drops H.264 support from the video tag, then Chrome users will just get H.264 with a Flash wrapper. I'm not encoding in another codec. Peace.

MySchizoBuddy said...

so when are you dropping windows support. since it isn't open source.
how about dropping flash support as well.

Manton said...

Very disappointed by this, Google, and I hope you reconsider the decision when you hear from real users. H.264 is already the new standard; nothing else is going to be widely supported.

phogasmic said...

Holy crap. This a stupid move and makes me very angry. You do realize that instead of serving Chrome HTML5 video publishers are just going to serve it Flash video now. No one wants to encode video twice and since publishers want their video to be viewed on iOs devices they are going to choose H.264. Regular people don't give a crap about "open" they just want to watch video. Why can't you just support H.264 and WebM.

Bios Element said...

Keep up the good work, to hell with H.264.

billy said...

>an "open" Google codec that isn't supported on iOS devices

"Open" doesn't mean everyone is required to support it by penalty of death. It just means it's out there, available for free use.

Apple chooses not to implement it because it competes with the MPEG-LA patents which they have their fingers in, and could cut off their delicious flow of tasty patent dollars

-----------------------

oh, and I Googled it and evidently they did extend the license once again - only to distribution/streaming of free video files, not to encoder/decoder implementations. My mistake. I missed that third change of heart. Excuse me for not following every second of the petty politics. Their motives, however, are quite the same...and such a move is designed to even more aggressively suck the air out of the room for WebM.

John said...

Bad move -- instead of being able to watch *some* of the content I watch that's been encoded in H.264, I'll be able to watch *none* of the content I want, since it hasn't been encoded in Google's formats.

Pablo said...

I will definitely switch to Safari if you decide to do that

Chealion said...

Sigh. Now if only it didn't take 30 times real time to encode a WebM video...

Jeff Geerling said...

One more note, to boot:

Whoever says anything about how wonderful and great this is because it helps the 'open web' or any of that crud is mistaken.

If you are dealing with real-world use cases and video distribution via the web, you are using H.264 or nothing.

robert said...

The h264 license does not expire in a few years as noted above, it is free for life.
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100825006629/en

Joel said...

Wow, what an idiotic move. Guess I'll be switching back to Firefox or over to Safari. Between Google search results getting so crappy/spam filled to Google's increasingly Microsoft-like hostility towards users in the name of its fanatical ideology, I'm going to abandon my Google account soon.

Brandon said...

Does this mean Android will also lose support?

Kevin said...

In the words of the great Lucius Fox in The Dark Knight, "This...is...WRONG."

mcg said...

These changes will occur in the next couple months but we are announcing them now to give content publishers and developers using HTML <video> an opportunity to make any necessary changes to their sites.

Here, let me rewrite that for you.

These changes will occur in the next couple months but we are announcing them now to give content publishers and developers using HTML <video> an opportunity to move their site to Flash and disable iPad/iPhone support.

There we go.

Andrex said...

Two things to point out:

1. Anyone serious about has already been encoding in WebM anyways, as it's the only codec Firefox and Opera support.

2. This is pretty much the same thing as Apple not allowing Flash on their devices.

Spindel said...

I will stop using Google Chrome now.

FreeWizard said...

just another sacrificing of user experience to fight with each other. what a shame.

Alan said...

Thank you Google!

Unfortunately, as can be seen in these comments, many people don't understand what your move means, what h.264 is (hint it's very much not free) and how it helps out open source and Mozilla's Firefox.

Thank you again and please consider taking to the time to explain a little more why this is important and why h.264 support needs to be set aside.

Yury Korolev said...

Google, stop using open source as a cover.

666666 said...

Supporting iOS is a waste of time. Apple does not seek to play fair.

MpegLA doesn't want to play fair either. No sense playing with them.

Do you use a consumer video camera for commercial purposes? Do you make advertising revenue off of any of your videos. Did you buy a device that was licensed for commercial production of h264 from MpegLA? No you didn't. Very few devices exist which are licensed for commercial use of h264.

Did you know that by distributing those files you're liable to MPEG-LA?

So it doesn't matter if you're allowed to stream for free, or use for free. What matters is you're not free to use to h264, especially in a commercial setting. But you have the right to use Ogg Theora, Dirac and Webm.

Licensing IS practical. Because practically, it costs you a lot of legal fees in the end.

russiantriplex said...

To those that are saying that it is a stupid move, you are the stupid ones. Me as a user, I want a one universal web browser codec. I don't want to switch to Google Chrome and then see that it cannot play the video that Firefox plays, or Safari. If all the browsers move to OGG Theora codec, it'll be legit, and will teach Apple a thing or two about the cost of licensing H.264 codec.

kalleboo said...

As a content publisher and developer using HTML , I'm taking this opportunity to make the necessary changes to my sites so that Chrome also gets the Flash plugin fallback that IE and Firefox get. Bandwidth is expensive, and h.264 is a miracle-worker in that regard.

jay said...

Sigh. Do no evil indeed. Yet another reason to avoid Chrome and Google products in general. Just as bad as everyone claims Microsoft, Apple, etc are.

Heff said...

WebM is supported by about 17% of users. It's definitely got a lot of catching up to do, but I appreciate Google's choice here. Maybe this will inspire MS to actually include WebM in their browser instead of requiring another install.

While 2 formats may be annoying now, open is better for everyone in the long run.

billy said...

"H.264 is the only thing used in the real world", etc.

Don't you realize how circular your reasoning is? It's that way because Microsoft and Apple interfered to keep it that way. WebM and Theora COULD have been required parts of the HTML5 standard and implemented in every modern browser, right now. It was such a short time ago and already we've rewritten history to forget it!

It's just incredible to me. A techno-mafia comes along and beats up all the competitors, and then you praise the last one standing for having no competition.

If we work on increasing WebM adoption, then in a few years you'll be saying the opposite: "Nobody uses that patented pile of crap anymore. Everything supports WebM anyway, just use that"

Don't you realize that Chrome has around 10% of the market, Firefox 20+, and together they're using their clout to drive adoption of the free alternative (this move included)

Garance_D said...

This is extremely disappointing.

It is particularly evil if you're going to continue to support Flash, but drop H.264. If that's true, then it's a blatant lie that you're doing it to promote "open" standards.

Steven Schrab said...

"These changes will occur in the next couple months but we are announcing them now to give content publishers and developers using HTML an opportunity to make any necessary changes to their sites."

Great, can you convince our clients to give us more money to convert their h.264 clips for all the content we've already created? Thanks.

David Gerard said...

Best move ever. Thank you very much.

Oshawapilot said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

russiantriplex said...

Have to add something. Some of you guys say that H.264 is free for life. That is bull. Reread the article: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100825006629/en
"MPEG LA previously announced it would not charge royalties for such video through December 31, 2015". That is not free for life. The companies that are moving to OGG Theora codec are actually aiding the users and the developers. Rather than taking up the server space by adding two videos(H.264 and OGG), now they will have one(OGG), and it will work on every browser.

Pablo Defendini said...

Putting ideology before practical reality. Great. There is *no way* I'm adding yet another codec encode to our production workflow. Back to Flash for Chrome.

David A. Fenton said...

This is stunning. There must be more to the story.

Ron Overdrive said...

@billy:

"In the case of Internet Broadcast AVC Video (AVC Video that
is delivered via the Worldwide Internet to an End User for which the End User does not
pay remuneration for the right to receive or view, i.e., neither Title-by-Title nor
Subscription), there will be no royalty for the life of the License."

This is directly from the AVC Licensing Terms. While licensing is updated every five years, in its current language it says it will never require royalties from free software/services.

I'll be honest I supported WebM when it was first introduced because of the licensing issues of H264, but those licensing issues no longer exist and H264 is undeniably an industrial standard with an open-source implementation. Its now harder to support WebM over H264 so what we're seeing now is just straight up competition from Google which is always a good thing.

shidoshi said...

To anybody saying "this helps us move to a standard for web video"...

Before this announcement, the breakdown was this (for the HTNL5 video tag):

IE9: h264
Safari: h264
Firefox: Theora (WebM?)
Chrome: Theora, WebM, h264

We had one codec (h264) that played in three of the four major browsers. Now we have no codec that plays in more than two. Google's move has taken us further away from a standard, not closer.

mconnors said...

standards war begins it has
http://www.messaghop.com

Chris Brind said...

I distinctly remember someone at Google IO (Mr Schmidt maybe) saying "the web is about inclusion not exclusion" (sic) very much at the expense of Apple not supporting Flash.

Pretty hypocritical. Don't think I'll be going to Google IO this year.

Cheers,
Chris
Scotland, UK

Jeff Geerling said...

1. Anyone serious about has already been encoding in WebM anyways, as it's the only codec Firefox and Opera support.

I've tried this for one of my sites, but it's just too much hassle to do this for one browser. Plus, I have duplicate video files, and that gets messy fast.

I've decided to use the Flash wrapper (a swf player) for idiotic browsers that only support WebM/OGG. And Chrome will now be included in that list.

2. This is pretty much the same thing as Apple not allowing Flash on their devices.

No, it is not. And H.264 is not owned by Apple. Plus, Apple does allow Flash on it's devices—just not it's mobile phone and iPad, so much. They have their reasons for that.

I'd like to know the real reasons Google doesn't want to use a universally-supported codec that is efficient, looks great, and works on pretty much any software/hardware released in the past five years, but rather use a codec that only the nerdy among us have ever had to attempt to use in a production workflow?

Sean said...

Let this be a lesson to Google: never support any standard that isn't completely open, lest your users complain when you withdraw support.

And for the people claiming they'll dump Chrome the first time they can't watch a video with it: why aren't you using IE?

Augos said...

Let's just hope MS tries to get a little webdev goodwill (they need it) by pushing for WebM. WebM looks like shit though, the steaming might make it worthwhile.

webmink said...

It's depressing to see how many people have been deceived by MPEG-LA's "free" gambit, perhaps because they are restricted to a simplistic view of the world. Google's decision to follow Mozilla's lead is a welcome leadership position that helps break the patent tax on creative professionals and open things up for everyone - bravo.

Aryeh Gregor said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

TheChairman said...

What, pray tell, are we supposed to do with a library of hundreds upon hundreds of existing videos? I got to tell you, I've been really excited about the prospects for HTML5 and love Chrome. But this is lunacy.

Blueberry said...

Interesting move. IE9 will ship with h264 and webm support, while safari, flash, iOS devices, portable gaming devices, some consoles, and the majority of 3G-capable phones (see 3gpp standard) only handle h264 as a sane web video format.

Every platform which doesn't support h264 either ships with flash preinstalled, or has an install base of over 90%. Clearly, the format which has won is H264 - the single video format every browser supports, everywhere. This remains true until google retracts their recent statement on bundling Flash with Chrome.

Sander Bos said...

Just so that I understand: What we're talking about here would be similar to Netscape dropping GIF for PNG in 1996 right?
(spoiler alert: The Chrome homepage has 2 GIF-images on it)

Can Google just do this without infrininging on Apple's patent for screwing over its users to attempt to steer web formats (Flash on iOs, or lack thereof).

Oh well, at least Google waited for hardware accelleration for WebM to appear in its Android mobile devices (sorry, what's that?).

Carniphage said...

"To that end, we are changing Chrome’s HTML5 support to make it consistent with the codecs already supported by the open Chromium project. Specifically, we are supporting the WebM (VP8) and Theora video codecs, and will consider adding support for other high-quality open codecs in the future."

So to that end, will Google end support for the Flash video codecs? Or is this just some bullshit?

C.

Alan said...

h.264 is NOT FREE!!!!

Wow you guys really swallowed that PR move by the makers of h.264 didn't you.

It's free for end-users NOT for content providers and content creators. Huge, HUGE difference.

That is why Mozilla can't afford to pay for h.264 support about $10 Million.

Andrex said...

@shidoshi

You're forgetting market size here.

Firefox and Chrome are the number one and two HTML5 browsers available, and now they will both be WebM only. This tips the scales significantly, I think. And of course, Opera.

IE9 supports WebM if it's installed in DirectShow. And it may even be added properly eventually. But IE9 is not "IE" on the whole. If we're counting browsers that can actually use [video], its market share is less than 1% right now.

The only real staunch holdout is Safari. There's a certain level of contradiction with Chrome pulling this and still bundling Flash, but Apple is also being hypocritical as well. Unlike implementing H.264, adding WebM to a browser doesn't cost anything but a small amount of dev time.

Eric said...

How about adding support for x264 in it's place?

newtown said...

If it isn't broken, don't fix it.

Seth said...

More fragmentation (H264 & Flash & WebM) and maintenance of a clearly proprietary format (Flash) indicates this is a power play not a philosophical stand.

John Federico said...

This is an utterly stupid move driven purely by corporate competition and not consumer convenience.

Pushing WebM - an inferior and unsupported format - is all about an attempt to wrest control of the consumer video market from h.264 (and in many ways, Apple).

h.264 is in use nearly everywhere - including your very own YouTube, Google.

If anything, it's going to make publishers even more hostile toward Google and it's perceived control over their businesses.

Craig Hunter said...

Hey, while you're at it, please drop Flash. I mean, if we want to embrace a modern open standard, Flash is a pretty obvious turd to flush. Oh wait, you guys have a marriage of convenience with Adobe that changes the meaning of "open", so it probably won't happen.

Phil Dokas said...

So when's Android dropping h264 support?

Javier Quevedo said...

Great job, almost as good as you've done with Orkut, Checkout, Wave, Buzz or Latitude.

You sure know what your users want!!

billy said...

@Sander: That's an interesting choice of analogy, because the web revolted against GIF and moved to PNG because of - yet again - a software patent (LZW)

So yes, I would say this move is just like that one - it's a good one!

Nick said...

It's getting tiresome listening to Apple and now Google brag about removing features rather than adding them.

Ben said...

Awesome, nice to see a continuing commitment to open and interoperable standards! Thanks Google.

Anders Tornblad said...

Wait, what? How many different codecs must video content providers use for encoding to ensure that all modern browsers can display properly? Used to be two. Now three. Tomorrow how many?

itsgoingd said...

I am huge Chrome fan, but this just sucks. I fail to see the point to remove such a useful piece of code for some political reasons.
Btw. why not enable use of all system codecs?

Anders Tornblad said...

Also, if Google is dropping H.264 because their "goal is to enable open innovation", why not also drop support for closed plugins like Flash?

billy said...

@Alan: Mozilla can perfectly well afford to pay the licensing on H.264. That's not the issue. Firefox is Free Software. You cannot implement and encoder or decoder without infringing the many patents held by the MPEG-LA pool (this is because software patents are so frivolous, but that's another matter)

Any Joe Blow can fork off Firefox and make his own browser without permission from or even notice to Mozilla, but Joe Blow can't pay the patent royalties for the patented ideas that the software employs.

(While we're at it, Chromium is in the same boat: If it employs software concepts that are -frivolously - patented, it's not really free)

Patrick said...

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Way to make a ton of people stop using Chrome AND alienate all the good will website developers and operators have towards you.

Case in point: we have many, many gigabytes of video encoded in H.264. We like it that way. There is no way we're going to a) re-encode it to whatever else, b) waste twice the storage, c) add complexity by serving multiple formats to different people, d) give up the features we have such as dynamic quality switching and e) find and invest in new streaming video server technology when we have something that works perfectly fine right now.

Thanks for forcing us to use Flash morons.

Niko said...

That's just stupid. H.264 has hardware support in a number of devices. There's really only 2 relevant codecs out there right now: H.264 and Flash. Now Chrome users will be served Flash, and Flash will live a little bit longer.

Aaargh! said...

So, that's back to Safari for me then.

John said...

Booo... no more codecs.

openid said...

Great remove the best video codec from the best browser. And since your feeling "open" Google I'm assuming you will be removing Flash as well? Or has Adobe open sourced that today?

Melns said...

In the name of open web? When will you drop Adobe Flash support then?

David said...

Since you're pursuing open codecs and platforms, does this mean you're going to drop support for Flash and MP3 soon as well?

Hilton Travis said...

That's brain dead. We'll no longer be able to support Chrome if it drops the H.264 industry standard.

Richard Lemon said...

April's fool day already? I'm not laughing...

carterson2 said...

I think I have part ownership in the CELP audio patent which is part of H.264. I don't know this drama, but a lot of hard work went into that patent and I sure could use some cash right now... But no one reads "Posts" anyhow so I might as well say, "Twas Brilling and the Slivey Toes did gyre and gimble in the myre".

mattdot said...

dumb. chrome is an awesome browser, but this is a dumb move. You can do stuff like this when you have 40%+ market share, but is chrome even past 5%? No publisher is going to go through this pain for <5%. Maybe chrome will play even less web video than Google TV now.

Jason said...

"Case in point: we have many, many gigabytes of video encoded in H.264. We like it that way. There is no way we're going to a) re-encode it to whatever else, b) waste twice the storage, c) add complexity by serving multiple formats to different people, d) give up the features we have such as dynamic quality switching and e) find and invest in new streaming video server technology when we have something that works perfectly fine right now."

this, exactly this... Thanks Patrick

dmitrek said...

good to go. we'll use safari instead.

Andrex said...

@mattdot

Chrome has between 10-15% depending on who you talk to, and is the only browser a meteoric rise. The rest are either growing slowly (Firefox), falling (IE), or stagnating (Opera, Safari.)

Trekkie said...

dropping flash too then since it's just as proprietary?

artaxias said...

Why not Flash too? Google is becoming the next Microsoft. Only "open" when open suits their needs.

Fatal said...

Good job (for once) Google. Those of you saying this is a bad move really do not understand the motives or the effects this will have.

I hope this means YouTube will be switching away from H.264.

Matt Kirsch said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

Greg Notch said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

Thomas Kumlehn @pixelpartner said...

The only reason to drop H264 is to hit iOS users in their faces, when Youtube drops H264. The war has already begone.

Matt Kirsch said...

As a FCP user, does this mean I will no longer be able to upload videos onto youtube? What good does this do and why would this make me want to use Chrome?

It just seems stupid from here.

James said...

Like many of the other commenters have mentioned h.264 has become the standard video codec for most of the web. Once the restrictions on h.264 were lifted I thought we could finally all agree on one codec for web video. Please don't make life tougher for web developers by making us support two different video formats.

tz said...

Flash can add webm support, then you would need only 1 codec for everything but iOS stuff. And that one codec is open enough to go into embedded devices and anything else.

H.264 is still encumbered and still has a big threat - they can reverse their loosening and/or start suing everyone not unlike what happened with the GIF format. That one thing created PNG, and for the same reason, perhaps preemptively, WebM is the better choice.

I would assume there would be an H.264 plugin available anyway - however how much would you pay for it?

Sunjammer said...

Hey, idiots. Flash is open. RTMP protocol is closed. Check your facts.

Mick said...

what crowder said.

Google are making some hard decisions to ensure the best future for the web, and should be applauded for it.

- said...

Thanks for thinking of your own self-serving interests instead of developers and users. :\

Kevin said...

So just how much money exchanged hands between Adobe and Google to make this happen. You know there is more to this than Google's desire to push their own "open" Codec that nobody uses or supports.

luminoso said...

VP8 will only be better than h264 when HW is available for my hardware as H264 is right now

stevenf said...

Well fuck you too.

Greg Notch said...

These changes will occur in the next couple months but we are announcing them now to give browser users and developers using HTML an opportunity to make any necessary changes to what browser they use

FTFY. thanks google, back to safari...

aside: we encode 40+ hours of video a *day* to deliver on the web.... no way thats happening with webM. certainly not in the next year. so you're saying you want us all to spend to encode to yet another format just to support your browser? really?

vectoron said...

While I understand the reasoning it seems kind of unprofessional to not give a heads up. "Hey guys we won't support H264 in six months, so please update your content."

Instead they cut it out cold turkey and leave already existing content dead to their browser. I am not really sure why they chose to do it this way; they don't do this with their other projects.

Vinod Tonangi said...

This makes absolutely no sense. How are you going to say that H.264 is a closed format when there are no licensing restrictions on using it, and instead continue to effectively promote flash by embedding it in your Chrome OS?

Whatever happened to "Don't be Evil" ?

Reüel said...

I love AppZapper on my Mac. Just dragged Google Chrome to the window, clicked on 'Zap!' and *flash* (no, not the one from Adobe, just a lovely AppZapper-animation, you have to see it yourself - you can try with removing Google Chrome, for example) and the App was completely removed from my computer.

FYI, there is another Webkit-based browser INCLUDING H.264, which is called Safari. Love it!

lnxwat said...

In simple English, Chrome, Firefox, and Opera users will have built-in support for the same video codecs. Safari and IE will each support a different set.

Advice for HTML5 sites: Use WebM or Ogg Theora and recommend VLC for those whose browsers won't support those codecs.

Beos said...

What hypocrites. They say it's to promote inovations and open standards. Then why are they not dropping support for Flash? Why are they really doing this?

Kyle Wilson said...

This is a great idea. I'm glad to see Google stepping up to set good standards on the web. H.264 is a horribly restrictive codec, and I would hate to have to be supporting it years down the road like IE6. Good standards start now, and I'm glad to see Google takes that seriously

There sure are a lot of Apple fanboys here too. Keep white knighting H.264 you idiots.

David K. said...

I'm going to call BS on this one. You are doing this because you own WebM, not because you suppport open standards. If this was about open standards you wouldn't have Flash built in to Chrome. Flash is as closed and proprietary as it gets!

Its one thing to make a decision that you feel is in your best interest, its another to be so misleading about the reasons.

Nicholas said...

Three cheers for the Chromium devs for a gutsy move to help keep the internet free of proprietary standards.

Just to repeat what a couple of others have said: H.264 encoding and decoding are not free of charge, only transmission is.

Kyle Wilson said...

Oh and Flash isn't a codec for all you rocket scientists out there. Were talking about which codecs will be used for the tag in HTML 5. So flash wasn't even a part of this discussion anyway.

But whatever H.264 is on your iPhone right!

gamepr0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

Robert said...

I don't understand the anger. Content providers already have to support browsers that don't include h.264, and Chrome users are now in the same boat as Firefox users -- which content providers certainly won't ignore.

For sites which only produce h.264, Chrome includes Flash which can play h.264. And every video site is going to support a Flash playback path for older browsers.

The real impact here is pretty small. Chrome has just moved from one must-support category to another one. Most people will never notice the difference.

Jake said...

My hardware does H.264 decoding. IT doesn't do WebM decoding.

I don't know if I can go back to Flash in order to use H.264.

Goodbye Chrome, I knew ye well.

Nicholas said...

To clarify my earlier comment, read: http://shaver.off.net/diary/2010/08/27/free-as-in-smokescreen/

Loren said...

I guess I can't support chrome users from now on. Everything I have is encoded in h.264, there is no way I'm re-encoding everything. This browser war is getting ridiculous.

Iuri Lammel said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

Chris said...

I completely agree with the removal as H264 threatens open-source web browsers.

What is the point of an open web if you have to pay license fees to implement parts of the specification? A standard video codec should have been included in the spec and Google has been altruistic in freeing up a great codec for web-use to break the deadlock.

The shame of this is in the short to medium term is that pretty much no devices (that I know of) have WebM hardware acceleration meaning that H264 is the only codec that is high quality without draining the battery on mobile devices. Even the latest Nexus devices will decode WebM inefficiently right now so I would say the right time to remove support is when hardware support for the new codec is available.

I hope that upcoming ARM SoCs will support WebM in the same way they support H264.

Out of interest, does anyone know what is the transistor budget for H264 hardware acceleration?

For those that blame Google for not pulling Flash support... That will happen, its just that HTML5 does not not cover all the use-cases of Flash yet so pulling Flash support will kill websites. Flash will NEVER enter web standards though (as H264 is threatening to do through the back door if unopposed).

kylerrr said...

"our goal is to enable open innovation."

Obviously this means you'll also be retiring support for the proprietary, non-open Adobe Flash as well.

Markus said...

Great decision, thanks! Now you just need to do the same on YouTube :-)

Fredrik Olsson said...

Excellent, and support for other proprietary formats such as mp3 and Flash is to be dropped soon as well I assume?

Kyle said...

INSTEAD OF WHINING ABOUT CHROME SUPPORTING OPEN STANDARDS, WHY DON'T YOU ASK APPLE WHY THEY REFUSE TO ADOPT WEBM, EVEN THOUGH IT'S FREE AND WILL COST THEM NOTHING TO DO SO?

Oh I know, because you're Apple retards and you don't think critically. Apple is trying to use MPEG-LA and their ownership in H.264 to extract economic rent and compete unfairly.

When we used to have problems with patents (GIF), we resolved them (PNG) and everybody cheered. The comments in here really show how dumb the Yukon speculator developers that rushed in after we setup a free and open playing field for them have gotten.

You want to live in hell and have Steve Jobs tell you what you can and can't do, then be an iphone developer, but THE WEB IS FREE (AS IN FREEDOM) AND WE INTEND TO KEEP IT THAT WAY.

Iuri Lammel said...

Well, maybe it is a dumb question... BUT: if HTML5 is still being built, so why don't you just create an attribute called CODEC inside the <video> element? Like <video codec="theora">

Diego Ezequiel Pérez said...

Google is free to choose what codecs they want to support. And the most honest thing they can do is to favorite the open source codec they gave to th world, and drop support for the MPEG-LA backed one.
If you want h264 so badly in Chrome, build Chromium with ffmpeg or use another browser. You're also free to choose what to do.

And WebM is a pretty good codec, stop whining about the micro-pixel detail. Google favored all mankind by buying and open sourcing a VP8, which is great, they didn't get VP8 free, you know that?

I understand that h264 is used everywhere and blah blah blah, but, seriously, don't you understand that not dropping its support means to fuel the greedy all-evil MPEG-LA machine that turns little babies into solid gold bars? and it's not "h264 has no restrictions", OEM, chip manufacturers exist too and they don't have an alternative!
WebM will be usable from FF, Opera and Chrome. IE and Safari users will have to find an alternative way to play WebM content, and Apple/Microsoft are two of the five biggest MPEG-LA partners (guess what? you have to pay a lot of money for building hardware h264-capable).

Kevin said...

Bad move. H.264 is open and claiming that it's not doesn't make it so. I've enjoyed Chrome, except for the fact that there's been a bug in it that causes it to become unresponsive if I try to download any extension, anything from Google Docs, practically anything from anywhere. I'm about ready to give up on Chrome and this might be the last straw.

Diego Ezequiel Pérez said...

proprietary != bad
closed specs = bad
allow alternative implementations = good

=>

flash != bad, it's simply a resources hog
h264 = bad, try to build hardware

Craig Erskine said...

@Kyle

So, my PSP, PS3, XBOX, and digital camera are all controlled by Apple? Are you dense?

H.264 is the standard and it's used in millions of other devices besides Apple products. All of my DVD's are converted to H.264 because they work on all my other devices, and it has nothing to do with Apple.

NFBlaze said...

Oh noes....I'll switch to Safari.

pffft who the hell cares. Safari is an inferior browser anyhow. Plus didnt a couple months ago all these Apple-fans were callin for the death of flash? How else is that suppose to happen.

Anyway, good move on you Google. I realyl would like to use the VP8 encoder/decoder more

grahamperrin said...

If Google will no longer support H.264 in Chrome then I guess support can be plugged in. http://identi.ca/conversation/61335155#notice-61998006

Joe said...

@google google "define: hypocrite"

saturdaysaint said...

Goodbye, Chrome! I'm also done recommending it.

hemp said...

@shidoshi, you conveniently left out that the free license for H.264 encoded internet video is granted if, and only if, the published video content is free to end users.

Which means placing any H.264 encoded content behind a pay wall requires purchasing a license.

marcoos said...

What should web developers be doing in a few months, when Adobe updates the Flash plugin to support WebM/VP8?

Make two copies of each video you're serving:
* hi-res WebM
* lo-res h.264

For phones like iPhone - serve h.264 through HTML5 video element.

For whomever supporting WebM (incl. Firefox 4, Chrome, Opera, and even IE with a VP8 codec) - serve WebM through HTML5.

For Safari and IE with the new Flash plugin - serve WebM through a Flash-based player. (Adobe says they're gonna support WebM in Flash soon)

For legacy browsers with legacy Flash plugins - serve the lo-res h.264 version.

I don't think you should whine about multiple copies: you still need a lo-res copy for the mobile devices anyway.

Nathan Ziarek said...

What about hardware support? Will the Android browser lost h264 support as well? Won't that incur a significant battery-life cost to not have hardware decoded video? Are there any hard WebM / OGV decoders?

dwheeler said...

Software patents are once again causing problems.

It's important that there be one standard that everyone can support. Unfortunately, h.264 cannot be that worldwide standard, because it is patented (and the patents are enforced by MPEG-LA, effectively acting as a cartel). That means that the only practical standards today that EVERYONE can use are WebM and Ogg Theora.

Those of you who want h.264: Please work to eliminate the patents covering it. Once those patents are eliminated, then of course everyone should support h.264. Until then, good riddance.

p v said...

As mentioned above, this is bullshit.
If you'd care that much about open you wouldn't be trying to help Adobe at saving their dying plugin by integrating it in your browser.

Hypocrisy ftw!?

Loverock said...

Most devices have h.264 chips in them for rendering. All this does is hurt the end user. I too will be switching back to Firefox or Safari. It was good while it lasted Google Chrome.

Don Andrachuk said...

Wow--how stupid! Chrome has become significantly less useful...

MjM said...

Terrible idea. This will result in almost all web video except youtube (and other google properties) having to rely on a flash video player. Fewer people will be willing to use the tag if they know they have to re-encode all their videos for just chrome users. I know your heart is in the right place, but this will surely hurt online video and html5 video adoption.

Mallin said...

But leaving in support for flash? The very definition of closed source technology, that sounds hypocritical to me.

Remco said...

Wow, did not expect this. Awesome move!

ragdoll said...

Google, speaking as one who builds flexible and bulletproof websites, I applaud your decision.

peekinteractive said...

Lets use Flash and forget problems! lolol

Rada said...

H.264 is only "well supported" because companies have wanted to reach those consumers who use Apple products. No professional web developer should be shocked that there is still quite a bit of time before an HTML5 video format is decided on. When iOS devices came out we all knew that the videos we were encoding for them would eventually need to be reencoded.

Xero said...

Excellent move by Google, pulling of the band-aid sooner rather than later. A year from now these same loudmouths will realize it was all worth it.

Adobe is a WebM partner, they bundle VP8 inside Flash containers.

Ben Thomas said...

Epic Fail Google.

h264 is a great format, and it works now on all my devices and web browsers.

Why do you want to worsen my user experience.

Andrew Newby said...

Bad decision, GOOG!

Scott Skibell said...

This confuses the HTML5 market even more. As a small business, you've just made my life even more difficult.

I find a great hypocrisy to your support of Flash. Talk about closed. And can I tell you just how many times a botched Flash upgrade has ruined my projects?

This is a sad day as I lose faith in Google.

Axel Gneiting said...

Where did they state that they are dropping H.264? That's more than unlikely.

xyke said...

This is excellent news! Please also drop support for MP3, but please do allow the underlying operating system to support codecs not in the browser.

H.264 licensing is still a mess. If you charge, or have "financial gain" you are still required to get a license from the mpeg la. All of those video download sites that charge a subscription, they still need to pay.

Go order your copy today, http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/AgreementExpress.aspx

I applaud this move.

Mike said...

As a die hard Chrome lover, I hate this move. Flash still built-in but H.264 is out? Doesn't this seems a bit hypocritical? Drop flash and I'll have no issues with this.

Les said...

I gotta say that I agree with the dissent. It would be one thing if you had the lion share of the market, but you do not. As a result, people that use chrome will install a plugin. The only way to make WebM go, it to get other browser vendors to include it by default (apple, microsoft, and firefox). Once you make that happen, then a move like this makes sense.

petiar said...

You do not want us to use Chrome, do you? Just kidding - who would use it anyway? ;-)

jason said...

Delete Quicktime from your system. Now go try and open up a 'open source' video in Safari using tag. Fail. A plugin is a plugin, even if it's slipped under the door by the leader of the iSheeple.

David Hogue said...

Wow, so much misinformation and misunderstanding in the comments here.

Hamish said...

Google -- could you please clarify, will you be dropping support for MP3 in HTML5 <audio> as well?

Matt said...

Sad because I really liked using Chrome. But I'm not going to allow Google to decide what videos I watch, because they feel like pushing their own agenda. (aka codec) Too many videos on the web are H264. Not to mention hardware decoding of H264.

Why not drop Flash for not being open? Oh wait, you don't have the balls for that kind of change.

Either way I suppose it's your browser, and you can do what you want with it. But I won't use it, or install it on anyone's computer after this change takes effect.

Peter said...

Don't you guys DARE to do that!

http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/486

TJ Brown said...

This is a great move to keep the web open. Thank you Google.

bobocel said...

Wow! Great move Google! The truth is that playing the same game as Apple does, feels really evil, doesn't it?

Well, I guess this will make Apple feel the pressure of a bigger company. :)

$chola said...

Thanks Obama!

allgood2 said...

Others have said it, but if you are doing this in the name of "open" when do you plan on dropping Flash support? In fact, this move kind of forces Chrome users to use 'Flash'.

Well Chrome was my secondary browser, guess I need to go grab FireFox again.

Dima said...

Open formats FTW!

geaf said...

Excellent, well played! Now there will exist a stronger balance between codecs, and the world hopefully wil gain a well-established Free codec.

a nude walrus said...

Bad move Google...wtf?

Stewart said...

Good move. It's about time we stop letting Apple hold back the future of the web and technology because of one mans hatred for anything Flash or porn.

Now please get us some tools for faster webm encoding and allow the uploading of theora videos to youtube please.

josh said...

looks like I'll definitely be uninstalling chrome from all of my computers. what a self centered stupid decision

Damian said...

Here's the thing though; only developers give a shit about this. Everyone else just wants YouTube and streaming video to work.

Goatthrower 2K7 said...

Billy was correct much earlier in this thread when he pointed out that the temporary suspension of licensing requirements was a bait-and-switch operation.

The h264 guys want webM out, so if they kill it now by making it appeal to idiots who think it's free and don't understand long term ramifications, when the time comes to amp up the charges, there won't be any competition left.

I can't believe some people are actually concerned that google is proactively defusing this 100% malicious time bomb. The temporary suspension of fees is quite the underhanded trick, akin to a heroin dealer giving someone a first taste for free, knowing that later, they won't have a choice.

Kurt said...

Oh, while a nominal Google fan... this one rubs me the wrong way.

So, how much did Adobe pay you? Don't do evil. This will have a polarizing effect unless hardware docoding for WebM gets some real traction, and implementation will take YEARS.

And I was trying SO hard to detox off Flash.@

Candradasa said...

File under "Oh for Pete's sake!" I don't care about the politics or the competing ideologies - but as a small developer without a huge budget trying to use HTML5 for video on our websites that will work across all platforms and function well on mobile devices this is a royal pain in the neck. Now we have to produce three versions of everything to keep the squabbling parties happy - .h264, theora and now WebM. Sigh. Sort yourselves out people and start thinking about actual users rather than theoretical, abstract ideals of web use... Please?

flakeyfoont said...

Maybe gif was superseeded by png, but no browser maker had the nerve to remove gif support altogether. I am working on a research project that had chrome with h.264 videos as its display technology. Thanks to this move, we will have to redo much of our work.
I don't care about all the controversy regarding patents, it simply doesn't affect me. But as a developer and as a chrome user, this feels like an undeserved kick in the balls.
It totally support Mozillas stance of not adding h264 support but, to remove it after people have done actual work based on Chrome is like removing interfaces from a published API. You just don't do that or you lose developer trust.

So how does it help promote Open Source, to prove that you can't trust an Open Source tool to mantain older features you were using on your projects? Rather the contrary, I'd rather put my money on a commercial tool to broadcast videos, instead of this html5 mess that just became even more tangled thanks to this irresponsible move on your side. Even 'Evil' Microsoft has always worked hard to keep the crappy legacy rendering of older html sites in newer version of explorer. I hate explorer as muich as anyone else, but, lo and behold, here's chrome doing something worse than freaking IE 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9!

Please, reconsider this decission and do it soon. I backed using chrome for our project and I'll have a very hard day at the office tomorrow because of this. For thinking chrome was serious software done by responsible, smart people. Don't let us down.

Eddie Rodriguez said...

Whatever happened to "Don't do evil"?... sounds to me like Google is being completely hypocritical by pulling the proprietary card on H.264 while still supporting (Proprietary) Adobe Flash!. Plus, now that licensing restrictions will be dropped from H.264, this looks like a frantic move to keep this codec from killing WebM (which has some ways to go before it's ready as an equivalent video solution!.

Don't do EVIL!!!

Dhruv Parashar said...

This is ridiculous. I expect a browser to play any video on the web when on a computer. Please stop your political wars and making the consumer suffer.

MJT said...

very interesting. is this going to turn into some apple vs google thing ?

Clark Endrizzi said...

Wow, thanks for making sure that Flash will continue to be the defacto web video standard. I would have lliked to see html5 become the standard and then changed codecs than this. What a stupid move!

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 738   Newer› Newest»