Google has been trying to quell some of the controversy that it stirred up earlier this week when it announced that it would limit support for the H.264 video codec in its Chrome browser. Today the search giant published a blog post laying out a longer explanation for the decision.
If, like me, you dona4a4t spend that much time thinking about video formats, this may seem like an arcane point. But Google framed the move as a step forward for openness on the Web, so there have been articles endorsing Googlea4a4s viewpoint and others arguing that ita4a4s actually a step backward (more on both arguments in a second).
In todaya4a4s post, Google says the organizations working on HTML5, the latest version of the basic language of the Web, had reached a4Aan impassea4 over the &''video&'' tag, which should allow browsers to play video without installing a plugin like Flash. Microsofta4a4s Internet Explorer and Applea4a4s Safari support H.264 as the a4Abaselinea4 video codec for HTML5, while Mozilla and Opera do not. Google says it ultimately decided to join Mozilla and Opera because a4Awe genuinely believe that core web technologies need to be open and community developeda4, so ita4a4s throwing its weight behind the WebM format:
We acknowledge that H.264 has broader support in the publisher, developer, and hardware community today (though support across the ecosystem for WebM is growing rapidly). However, as stated above, there will not be agreement to make it the baseline in the HTML video standard due to its licensing requirements. To use and distribute H.264, browser and OS vendors, hardware manufacturers, and publishers who charge for content must pay significant royaltiesa4a4with no guarantee the fees wona4a4t increase in the future. To companies like Google, the license fees may not be material, but to the next great video startup and those in emerging markets these fees stifle innovation.
In other words, Google is saying: &''Man, those royalties on H.264 are a drag. I mean, not for us. Wea4a4ve got boatloads of money. But for other people.&''
Which may be true. As Google itself notes, as the owner of YouTube, the company is a4Aamong the largest publishers of video content in the worlda4, but YouTube&'s other infrastructure costs may dwarf the licensing fees. In fact, ZDNeta4a4s Jason Perlow argued earlier that the decision is related to YouTube, but not to the licensing fee. He says that in order to control YouTube&'s expenses, Google needs to consolidate the videos into a single format. So why not make that single format one that it controls
But will the move actually work As TechCruncha4a4s MG Siegler notes, the ultimate result is a fragmented video landscape, and one whose demand for plugins seems to defeat one of the main advantages of HTML5. Want to watch an H.264-encoded video in Chrome Youa4a4ll need Flash. Want to watch a WebM video in Internet Explorer Youa4a4ll need some plug-in from WebM thata4a4s been promised for the future.
Google&'s blog post does tackle the fragmentation question, but the answer (that the landscape was fragmented already) isna4a4t very satisfying:
Our choice was to make a decision today and invest in open technology to move the platform forward, or to accept the status quo of a fragmented platform where the pace of innovation may be clouded by the interests of those collecting royalties. Seen in this light, we are choosing to bet on the open web and are confident this decision will spur innovation that benefits users and the industry.
[image via Flickr/Chris Ingrassia]
Next Story: Deals &038' More: Scenechronize scores $5M to streamline film production, GlobalTranz raises $10M to optimize the flow of merchandise Previous Story: Can Boingo IPO before 4G and free Wi-fi make it pointless
Print Email Twitter Facebook Google Buzz LinkedIn Digg StumbleUpon Reddit Delicious Google More&8230'
Companies: Google
Companies: Google
Anthony is a senior editor at VentureBeat, as well as its reporter on media, advertising, and social networks. Before joining the site in 2008, Anthony worked at the Hollister Free Lance, where he won awards from the California Newspaper Publishers Association for breaking news coverage and writing. He attended Stanford University and now lives in San Francisco. Reach him at anthony@venturebeat.com. (All story pitches should also be sent to tips@venturebeat.com) You can also follow Anthony on Twitter.
VentureBeat has new weekly email newsletters. Stay on top of the news, and don't miss a beat.
Discuss Add this link to... Bury
Comments