Secondly, Apple "picked" H.264 as a format nearly four years ago when they built the original iPhone with hardware decoding, before WebM existed and likely before some of the code for WebM was written.
Third, whatwg tried to pick one single codec in 2009. Again, this was well before WebM existed in its current state. Back then, the two options were:
1) Ogg Theora
2) H.264
Read Ian Hickson's summary of the different browser vendors' positions from 2009: http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-Jun...
As you'll note, it boiled down to "we're okay with H.264 because we can afford it and want to support something now" vs. "it's too expensive and we'll wait." Microsoft was late to the game or apathetic.
WebM was released by Google 7 months ago. Think about that! You expect a company like Apple whose business lies primarily in mobile devices that are capable of hardware decoding H.264 video to suddenly pivot and widely implement a codec released by a company that is increasingly competing with its core business and that has an unclear patent future and inferior technology.
A table of the current state of implemented tech features is not the same as knowing the history behind these decisions.
Why are so many against the proprietary Flash format but embrace the H.264 codec? Google even invested 133 million dollar to buy On2 and offer the world an alternative.
> Why are so many against the proprietary Flash format but embrace the H.264 codec?
This is the wrong question to me. A more apt comparison is to JPEG or GIF. Considering the work I just did, it's like comparing JPEG to Bitmap—of course I like JPEG better, and its licensing issues have been transparent to me as a developer and end-user.
As a developer, I dislike Flash because:
1. it's slow on my computer
2. it requires another language for client-side development,
3. it breaks how the web "works" (open in new window, back button, etc.)
4. it costs me a developer money as opposed to the browser vendor
If you look at the above list, the web going the way of H.264 has none of these problems. Personally, I'd like a single video format but wish that WebM had come along two years ago instead of causing another transition in video formats.
Considering that MS and Apple have been working in video for a long time now they chose the codec with the best available experience for their users (who aren't the ones picking up the licensing fees).
[1] http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/02/ogg-theora-v...
Anyway, i think WebM comes very close already (i actually don't see differences): http://www.quavlive.com/video_codec_comparison
Instead of embracing the patent encumbered codec we should be thankful for Google to actually buy a codec (VP8) and release it _for free_. I couldn't imagine this from any other company.
Still many people just want their h.264 no matter what. It's bad for a free and open internet, that's my belief.
Then they can use a browser whose creators decide to pay for the license.
H.264 is not Apple's codec, nor is it Microsoft's. Both of them have to license it, just like any random company off the street would. Apple does own one or two of the several hundred patents involved, so might get a very slight discount on their license.
> I am fully behind the decision of Mozilla, Opera, Google and others to support open and patent unencumbered video formats.
WebM is probably patent encumbered. We just don't know who owns the patents yet.
Actually we do, because Google used the very clever strategy of essentially copying the H.264 algorithm and then methodically working around all the patents. This means that if there are outstanding patents on WebM they are probably on H.264 as well. But the great likelihood is that there are not outstanding patents because any such patent holders would have long ago put their hands up to join the H.264 patent pool and reap the benefits.
H264 isn't "an algorithm" its a pretty massive collection of different algorithms. I actually find it a bit difficult its not infringing in some way and this analysis seems to confirm this.
I don't think your link contradicts what I said - in fact, in a way it gels very well with it: the conclusion is that VP8 is essentially H.264 with all sorts of bits missing and tweaks that in most cases make it worse than H.264. That's exactly what you would expect if someone took a patented algorithm and went through it point by point to work around the patented parts.
There's a more thorough discussion of this here:
An analysis of WebM and its patent risk
Classic FUD.
Nada @ http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/bo...
Do you really think Mircrosoft is like "oh, well. MPEG-LA, we hand over the rights for our patens to you. Do as you wish with those patents and also please give the license fees to the other companies. But please don't give us money!"? ;)
You do know that the MPEG-LAs purpose is to collect the rights to those patents from those companies (the licensors) and collects money from the licensees, redistributing it to the licensors. Now Apple and MS are on the list of licensors. And they don't get money, you say? And never will? sure... :)
Can someone just look at the table at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video and really tell me that this mess isn't the fault of MS and Apple in the first place? Ogg is ready to play a big role and WebM is catching up. The only blocking factor here is Internet Explorer and Safari, not Chrome.