Learn more about changing the HTML video codec in Chrome.
The recent announcement of changes in HTML-based video codec support in Chrome has caused a lot of discussion. The future of Internet video is an important topic, we welcome these debates, and we want to speak on several of the issues raised.
Why does Google support WebM in the <video> HTML tag?
')
The announcement made this week fully related to the HTML <video> tag, which is included in the increasingly popular set of standards called “HTML5”. We believe that this tag is very promising, and we wish him success. However, organizations involved in defining a video standard for HTML are at a standstill. There is no agreement on which video codec should become the main standard. Firefox and Opera support the open WebM and Ogg Theora codecs and will not support H.264 due to its licensing requirements; Safari and IE9 support H.264. Because of this status quo, all publishers and developers using the <video> tag will be forced to support several formats at once.
This situation is far from ideal, and we wanted to see a viable core codec that all browsers can support. Obviously, H.264 cannot become such due to its licensing requirements. In addition, we sincerely believe that basic web technologies should be open and created by the community to maintain the high level of innovation that has brought the web to its current state. These facts led us to unite the efforts of the web community and invest in an open alternative, WebM.
Why didn't you choose H.264 as the main codec for the <video> tag in Chrome?
We recognize that today H.264 has broader support among publishers, developers and iron producers (although the situation with WebM support is improving at a rapid pace). However, as mentioned above, the agreement to use it as the main one in the HTML video standard will not be reached due to its licensing requirements. To use and distribute H.264, the creators of browsers and operating systems, hardware makers and publishers who charge for content must pay significant contributions — without any guarantee that they will not increase their volume in the future. For companies like Google, these contributions may not be very noticeable, but in the case of a new excellent video start-up or people working in new markets, these contributions will stifle innovation.
But the matter is not only in license fees; more important is the speed of innovation and development incentives. No collective development process is perfect, but usually the collective development of the basic components of a web platform takes place with an eye to user convenience, security and performance. When technological solutions are influenced by a conflicting incentive to collect patent fees, priorities and results become less clear, and the process takes more time. This is bad for the state of the web video in the long term. We believe that the web will suffer if it is not a truly open, fast-growing, jointly developed alternative, and have made significant investments in ensuring that there is one.
Does this mean that I can no longer play H.264 videos in Chrome?
H.264 plays a significant role in video and most H.264 videos on the Internet today are viewed using plug-ins like Flash and Silverlight. These plugins are supported and will be supported in Chrome. Our ad only concerned the <video> tag included in the gaining momentum of the HTML platform. While the HTML video platform is very promising, few sites use it right now, which means that only a small number of users will be immediately affected by this change.
And this is not just an attempt by Google to control the web video format?
WebM is supported by many in the web community. Google sees its role in it as the role of any other member of the community and has neither the desire nor the intention to control the format. Our task is to make the <video> tag a first-class video platform. As is the case with many other web platforms, we expect that the majority of organizations and individuals that give WebM will not be associated with Google.
The developers have already created high-quality alternative (but compatible) implementations of WebM, and we believe that this choice is good for everyone.
Will publishers have to make multiple copies of their videos because of this?
Some expressed concern that our ad had led publishers and developers to maintain several different copies of their content, while otherwise they wouldn’t have to. Google is one of the largest video content publishers in the world, so we are not indifferent to this issue. Remember, Firefox and Opera never supported H.264 due to licensing requirements, they both support WebM and Ogg Theora. Thus, if publishers and developers using the <video> tag are not going to abandon much of the computer and mobile web using these browsers, they will still need to support a different format from H.264 (that's why we are working on a single codec for all ). In addition, given the increase in the number of devices, platforms and connection types used to access the web, most content providers already create multiple copies of each video in order to optimize it for viewing on different devices. We are confident that the rapid distribution of HTML-video and WebM in the coming year will make their combination an excellent solution for content providers, and an increase in the number of devices with WebM support will make their investments high-paying.
To summarize: we are at an impasse in the development of HTML video. The absence of the main codec in the HTML specification is a far from ideal situation. Therefore, we connect to other community members to invest in WebM and encourage all browser developers to support it in the picking up HTML video platform (the WebM Project team will soon release plugins that provide WebM support in Safari and IE9 via the standard> video <tag). Our choice was either to make a decision today and invest in an open technology to advance the platform, or to accept the status quo of a fragmented platform, where the pace of innovation may be limited by the interests of collectors. In this light, we decided to bet on the open web and are confident that this solution will accelerate innovation, from which it is better for users and the industry.
Posted by Mike Jazayery, product manager
Updated: It has been confirmed that the plug-ins for Safari and IE9, which will be released by the WebM Project team, allow WebM playback using the standard <video> tag interface canPlayType, rather than an alternative non-standard method.
Why does Google support WebM in the <video> HTML tag?
')
The announcement made this week fully related to the HTML <video> tag, which is included in the increasingly popular set of standards called “HTML5”. We believe that this tag is very promising, and we wish him success. However, organizations involved in defining a video standard for HTML are at a standstill. There is no agreement on which video codec should become the main standard. Firefox and Opera support the open WebM and Ogg Theora codecs and will not support H.264 due to its licensing requirements; Safari and IE9 support H.264. Because of this status quo, all publishers and developers using the <video> tag will be forced to support several formats at once.
This situation is far from ideal, and we wanted to see a viable core codec that all browsers can support. Obviously, H.264 cannot become such due to its licensing requirements. In addition, we sincerely believe that basic web technologies should be open and created by the community to maintain the high level of innovation that has brought the web to its current state. These facts led us to unite the efforts of the web community and invest in an open alternative, WebM.
Why didn't you choose H.264 as the main codec for the <video> tag in Chrome?
We recognize that today H.264 has broader support among publishers, developers and iron producers (although the situation with WebM support is improving at a rapid pace). However, as mentioned above, the agreement to use it as the main one in the HTML video standard will not be reached due to its licensing requirements. To use and distribute H.264, the creators of browsers and operating systems, hardware makers and publishers who charge for content must pay significant contributions — without any guarantee that they will not increase their volume in the future. For companies like Google, these contributions may not be very noticeable, but in the case of a new excellent video start-up or people working in new markets, these contributions will stifle innovation.
But the matter is not only in license fees; more important is the speed of innovation and development incentives. No collective development process is perfect, but usually the collective development of the basic components of a web platform takes place with an eye to user convenience, security and performance. When technological solutions are influenced by a conflicting incentive to collect patent fees, priorities and results become less clear, and the process takes more time. This is bad for the state of the web video in the long term. We believe that the web will suffer if it is not a truly open, fast-growing, jointly developed alternative, and have made significant investments in ensuring that there is one.
Does this mean that I can no longer play H.264 videos in Chrome?
H.264 plays a significant role in video and most H.264 videos on the Internet today are viewed using plug-ins like Flash and Silverlight. These plugins are supported and will be supported in Chrome. Our ad only concerned the <video> tag included in the gaining momentum of the HTML platform. While the HTML video platform is very promising, few sites use it right now, which means that only a small number of users will be immediately affected by this change.
And this is not just an attempt by Google to control the web video format?
WebM is supported by many in the web community. Google sees its role in it as the role of any other member of the community and has neither the desire nor the intention to control the format. Our task is to make the <video> tag a first-class video platform. As is the case with many other web platforms, we expect that the majority of organizations and individuals that give WebM will not be associated with Google.
The developers have already created high-quality alternative (but compatible) implementations of WebM, and we believe that this choice is good for everyone.
Will publishers have to make multiple copies of their videos because of this?
Some expressed concern that our ad had led publishers and developers to maintain several different copies of their content, while otherwise they wouldn’t have to. Google is one of the largest video content publishers in the world, so we are not indifferent to this issue. Remember, Firefox and Opera never supported H.264 due to licensing requirements, they both support WebM and Ogg Theora. Thus, if publishers and developers using the <video> tag are not going to abandon much of the computer and mobile web using these browsers, they will still need to support a different format from H.264 (that's why we are working on a single codec for all ). In addition, given the increase in the number of devices, platforms and connection types used to access the web, most content providers already create multiple copies of each video in order to optimize it for viewing on different devices. We are confident that the rapid distribution of HTML-video and WebM in the coming year will make their combination an excellent solution for content providers, and an increase in the number of devices with WebM support will make their investments high-paying.
To summarize: we are at an impasse in the development of HTML video. The absence of the main codec in the HTML specification is a far from ideal situation. Therefore, we connect to other community members to invest in WebM and encourage all browser developers to support it in the picking up HTML video platform (the WebM Project team will soon release plugins that provide WebM support in Safari and IE9 via the standard> video <tag). Our choice was either to make a decision today and invest in an open technology to advance the platform, or to accept the status quo of a fragmented platform, where the pace of innovation may be limited by the interests of collectors. In this light, we decided to bet on the open web and are confident that this solution will accelerate innovation, from which it is better for users and the industry.
Posted by Mike Jazayery, product manager
Updated: It has been confirmed that the plug-ins for Safari and IE9, which will be released by the WebM Project team, allow WebM playback using the standard <video> tag interface canPlayType, rather than an alternative non-standard method.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/111948/
All Articles