●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load 500 More Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byditoa ( 952847 ) writes:
Perhaps it is a stupid question but why do the vendors have a say what goes into the spec and what doesn't? Isn't it up to them to choose to implement the spec fully or not? FFS just make it Ogg Vorbis/Theora and if Apple doesn't want to support it then Safari can just not support that part of the spec. It isn't like any of the browser are 100% complient anyway.
byRadhruin ( 875377 ) writes:
The stated reason is that, if vendors will refuse to implement a portion of the spec, that part shouldn't be in the spec. The spec isn't supposed to force vendors to implement something, it's supposed to be a common set of rules that everyone can follow, and mandating Theora is counter to that goal.
bycausality ( 777677 ) writes:
The stated reason is that, if vendors will refuse to implement a portion of the spec, that part shouldn't be in the spec. The spec isn't supposed to force vendors to implement something, it's supposed to be a common set of rules that everyone can follow, and mandating Theora is counter to that goal.
Sure, but there needs to be a way to distinguish between:
●A) refusing to implement because there are sound engineering reasons not to do so
●B) refusing to implement because doing so would make it harder for a company to lock people into proprietary formats
No standards body worthy of the slightest respect should ever concern itself with that second category.
I am not fond of putting it this way, but I think what really needs to happen is for the average user to grow a pair and realize why Item B is not in their interests and never will be. So long as the masses of users have no understanding of these things, it is always going to be an uphill battle to maintain an Internet that is as free and open as possible.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byerroneus ( 253617 ) writes:
Users do need to grow a pair but they also need to understand that "the magic" isn't really magic.
Users are "grateful" for all the new toys and they worship the brand name symbols that deliver them. Some worship at the alter of Microsoft; others at the partially-eaten Apple logo. We live in a culture of consumerism. We not only beg the providers of the magic, we worship them for every little thing they deliver. (My GOD! Copy and paste gets included in a phone and they spend millions on TV ads touting i
byslyn ( 1111419 ) writes:
What really needs to happen is the W3C needs to grow some fucking balls and put their foot down on a codec. I really don't care what codec they use, but they should absolutely pick one, because the vendors are never going to agree on a standard when each vendor is pushing its own agenda and there is no perfect codec solution. The result of *not* picking one and furthering the continuation of flash/silverlight bullshit is much worse than only half the vendors supporting the standard.
Good luck getting the mas
bybenwaggoner ( 513209 ) writes:
The funny thing is there are royalty free codecs out there.
I don't think anyone's ever asserted patents against MPEG-1, H.263, or MP2 audio, and any patents would be due to expeire soon anyway.
If being patent and license free is the paramount concern, there's plenty of choices with much more mature implementations than Theora. I don't understand the exclusive focus on just a few immature codecs like Theora and to a lesser degree Dirac.
Now, the bigger challenge is weighing the cost of patent licensing versus
bybeelsebob ( 529313 ) writes:
A) refusing to implement because there are sound engineering reasons not to do so
Tick -- no smart phone vendor can implement ogg theora -- there's no hardware support for it. Even ignoring the submarine patent risk, and the fact that it's worse quality than h.264.
There really isn't any of B going on here. h.264 may be somewhat proprietry, but it's already cheeply licensed, and it's *everywhere*. Movies bought off the internet are more often than not h.264, bluray disks are more often than not h.264, even
bydaemonburrito ( 1026186 ) writes:
"Cheeply licensed" is still a problem.
MPEG LA and all this RAND crap is killing this conversation by muddying the waters. That something is a standard does not imply that a license is usable by libre software. I suspect that this is not a problem for you, but it is for many of us.
If h.264 were to become the standard for the video tag, it could very well sink Mozilla and an open Webkit (Apple is really pooing where it eats on that one). "Reasonable" is such a subjective term... The cost wouldn't be reasonabl
byPecisk ( 688001 ) writes:
> Tick -- no smart phone vendor can implement ogg theora -- there's no hardware support for it.
Isn't that chicken-egg problem? I am sure Theora support in hardware isn't that hard to build in. And standard things aren't exactly "let's throw everything we got here". Lot of vendors oppose H.264 as defaulted codec for a reason. I think it is more psyhological problem (implementing still not popular codec while having uknown legal status - in US, that means wait for someone to rise up and sue you), not a tec
bybeelsebob ( 529313 ) writes:
In fact, H.264 sure is bigger submarine patent magnet than Theora.
No it's not -- if h.264 is patented, the MPEG group are the ones responsible, not apple, nokia, sony, ........ If ogg theora turns out to be patented, each and ever browser vendor can get sued.
And about worse quality - it is really subjective in this case.
As the post a few higher up the thread points out -- this is simply not true. h264 manages the same subjective pixel quality at double the resolution, but the same bandwidth!
Cheeply licens
by_Stryker ( 15742 ) writes:
I think you need to check your facts when it comes to possible submarine patents related to MPEG: MPEG-2 FAQ [mpegla.com]
Q: Are all MPEG-2 essential patents included?
A: No assurance is or can be made that the License includes every essential patent. The purpose of the License is to offer a convenient licensing alternative to everyone on the same terms and to include as much essential intellectual property as possible for their convenience. Participation in the License is voluntary on the part of essential patent holder
bydangitman ( 862676 ) writes:
B) refusing to implement because doing so would make it harder for a company to lock people into proprietary formats
But nobody is doing that. It's not like anybody is suggesting that Windows Media Video should be the baseline standard. The argument is over Ogg versus H.264, which is an ISO/IEC standard.
bydaemonburrito ( 1026186 ) writes:
The argument is over Ogg versus H.264, which is an ISO/IEC standard.
That means nothing! That it is a standard does not mean that it won't be used to smash FOSS and force DRM on everyone.
Man... This "standard" thing is killing me. WMV is a "standard", too (SMPTE 421M). This term is being thrown around, cynically, to muddy the waters.
bydangitman ( 862676 ) writes:
That means nothing!
Of course it means something. It's a widely-used standard, not a single-vendor proprietary CODEC. It means it's highly interoperable, and in everyday use.
That it is a standard does not mean that it won't be used to smash FOSS and force DRM on everyone.
What the hell does this have to do with DRM?
Man... This "standard" thing is killing me. WMV is a "standard", too (SMPTE 421M). This term is being thrown around, cynically, to muddy the waters.
You're upset because people are using the word "standards" to describe things that are actually standards? That's bizarre. It's not as if the Open Source community is the only one with the right to define standards.
The problem here is that people are throwing around the word "proprietary" in a way that is essenti
bydaemonburrito ( 1026186 ) writes:
Of course it means something.
Obviously, the phrase "It means nothing" is rhetorical in scope. Yes, it means something; it just means something other than what you imply. As I said in the very next sentence.
What the hell does this have to do with DRM?
Read the MPEG-4 standard. MPEG LA is totally free to stipulate that licensees implement part 13.
You're upset because people are using the word "standards" to describe things that are actually standards?
You contradict yourself. Your original point was "It's not like anybody is suggesting that Windows Media Video should be the baseline standard". You were saying that one was a standard and the other wasn't.
The issue is that h.264 would end
bydangitman ( 862676 ) writes:
Read the MPEG-4 standard. MPEG LA is totally free to stipulate that licensees implement part 13.
Yeah, so what? Allowing one to implement DRM is not the same as requiring it. It simply doesn't make sense in this context, which is web browsers, and we are mostly talking about content which the authors want to be public, not restricted. Nobody's forcing DRM on you.
Anyway, what's to stop somebody putting a DRM wrapper around Theora?
You contradict yourself. Your original point was "It's not like anybody is suggesting that Windows Media Video should be the baseline standard". You were saying that one was a standard and the other wasn't.
There is a SMPTE standard based on a particular version of WMV. Saying "WMV is a standard" is as nonsensical as saying that Quicktime is a standard, because the MPEG-4 containe
bydaemonburrito ( 1026186 ) writes:
You ended your comments with what should have been the beginning.
MPEG LA terms are going to be nastier in 2011.
Mozilla can't implement h.264.
If by "intelligent people" you mean corporations.
Software patents are stupid and bad for the web.
Was there anything else? I'm not sure more conversation is going to get us anywhere. You support h.264 for your reasons (software patents are good, and minuscule performance differences are more important than unencumbered software), and I don't for mine (I have FOSS to tha
bydangitman ( 862676 ) writes:
MPEG LA terms are going to be nastier in 2011.
And you know this, how?
Mozilla can't implement h.264.
Why not? It's easily licensable, and Mozilla has a pretty decent income.
If by "intelligent people" you mean corporations.
No, I mean "intelligent people." Corporations are just a legal/economic entity. People have to work to come up with new video compression techniques, etc.
Software patents are stupid and bad for the web.
Why are software patents stupid? Because you say so? Do you think there should be a difference between software and non-software patents? Why?
If someone should choose to spend their intellectual work in developing software, why should they be any less protected t
byIlgaz ( 86384 ) writes:
Why can`t they implement H264? Money? Do you know how much money that organization does? Anyway, they can link to system frameworks (xine, quicktime, wmedia) and play the video. It is why Quicktime and Windows Media are called "Frameworks" and why Quicktime is that "big".
For political reasons? Well, I wish them a happy life with their unpatented Theora since I am not re-encoding or transcoding millions of hours because someone thinks patents, even by motion picture professionals are bad.
bydaemonburrito ( 1026186 ) writes:
Google is your friend, if those are serious questions for you.
I accept your opinions at face value; but now that you have expressed them, if you are intellectually honest, you will never again attempt to placate someone who is concerned about proprietary (pwned [wiktionary.org], ha!) software by implying that they have nothing to fear from an "ISO/IEC standard" (or ECMA, etc).
bymr3038 ( 121693 ) writes:
Mozilla can't implement h.264.
Why not? It's easily licensable, and Mozilla has a pretty decent income.
Because even though Mozilla has some money, it cannot license H.264 with GPL compatible terms. They need a license that allows end users to modify and redistribute modified versions of Mozilla products (e.g. Firefox). The modified version could be a GPL licensed H.264 codec which has absolutely no browser code remaining. The patent owner, MPEG LA, is not happy with such licensing terms because if they lice
bymattwarden ( 699984 ) writes:
That's fine idealism, but the problem with every implementing browser ignoring a portion of the spec is that is discredits the spec as a whole. At the end of the day, this is a voluntary agreement amongst vendors to adhere to this thing. If the spec starts departing from reality too much, you risk losing the bigger game.
byKenshin ( 43036 ) writes:
B) refusing to implement because doing so would make it harder for a company to lock people into proprietary formats
Making Ogg Theora part of the standard would essentially lock people into that format for the web. But that's OK, as long as it's an "open" format, right?
bydaemonburrito ( 1026186 ) writes:
But that's OK, as long as it's an "open" format, right?
Well... Yes. That's the whole point. Prevent licensing of video on the web from becoming a weapon.
Judging by your use of the scare quotes, you believe that MPEG LA licensing and standards bodies make it similarly open. You're totally wrong, even ignoring the changes coming in 2011. Theora is"open"; relevantly, it's open in that it can't be used by a cabal to smash FOSS, control the web, and dictate implementation of part 13 in client software.
byKenshin ( 43036 ) writes:
You're missing my point. Lock-in is lock-in. Forcing people to use FOSS as a standard is just as bad as forcing people to use proprietary as a standard. But, the FOSS community, who get into a big fuss about "choice" whenever anyone is locked into a proprietary format, would gleefully accept locking people into FOSS.
bydaemonburrito ( 1026186 ) writes:
I'm not missing your point. I'm saying you're wrong.
And I think that you evaded every point I raised.
It's possible that you just honestly disagree with the notion of the video tag and a standard video codec for the web; but you must know that this argument (ie "lock-in is lock-in") is used as a red herring by those who would like to see libre software disappear forever, in all areas of software development.
Cut to the chase here... h.264 and Theora are different beast in many respects. The salient point here
byKenshin ( 43036 ) writes:
I never said I dislike the VIDEO tag. I like it. However, here's a thought: How about no official standard codec?
Where in any of the HTML specs does it say that JPEG, GIF, or even PNG are the official formats for IMG that must be used?
The only reason you guys want Ogg Theora declared the official standard is because it doesn't have a shot in hell of becoming the standard on its own merits. But, no one should be discouraged from using Ogg if they want, just like no one should be discouraged from using H.264
bydaemonburrito ( 1026186 ) writes:
The only reason you guys want Ogg Theora declared the official standard is because it doesn't have a shot in hell of becoming the standard on its own merits.
That's obviously not true. We just want a codec that isn't patent encumbered, and we don't want a licensing scheme that is impossible for open source browsers. We're not so much for Theora as we are against h.264 being the standard. Which, perhaps, is why W3C is saying "none of the above" rather than kicking open source software off of the web (to reiterate: it would mean that Mozilla could never fully implement HTML5).
On the advocacy of Theora as the standard: I didn't have a horse in this race. I will gra
bySimonInOz ( 579741 ) writes:
"for the average user to grow a pair " ... over half the "average users" are female you insensitive clod!
●r current threshold.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...