At this point it is not easy to understand the positions of the main actors in this conflict , much less after the announcement of Webm . Various vested interests lead to different addresses to companies that place them in awkward positions. In this article we will clarify the ideas to try to discover the real reasons that motivate each of these companies and foundations.

WHATWG

The foundation was created with the purpose of the web standards of benefiting future closer to reality. The revisions to the standard HTML / XHTML at the W3C was working that did not correspond, as the founders of the WHATWG , with capacities that could reach the browser, or solved the problems of the current web. So in 2004 began writing a specification of a standard called HTML5 . Years later, the W3C decided to leave what he was doing and chose HTML5 as the next standard to support.

The founders of the WHATWG are people who, coincidentally , worked at Apple, Mozilla and Opera . Since then, the principal editor of the company was changed from Opera to Google . Therefore, although the foundation is an open community where anyone can participate, the truth is that the major browsers have a say in the process.

I tell this to explain why HTML5 does not (yet) a codec officer in their specifications. The official reason is that there is no universal codec that provides the required quality and that is free of licensing problems. The unofficial reason is that pressure from several companies (especially Apple) were able to Theora not chosen as initially proposed, creating an ambiguity that can sustain a profitable business.

Keep in mind that HTML5 is a standard unfinished , specifications change from day to day and there are still many decisions to make. It is therefore possible scenario in which Webm officially be included in the draft HTML5. This would take to debug Webm specifications and show that is free from patent, at which point the WHATWG have a lot of pressure to change his mind. But it is possible.

MPEG-LA

Another organization fully involved in this war is the MPEG-LA , mainly because it is theresponsibility of H.264 . The part of the consortium that controls this codec is composed of 26 companies that have one or more patents for their development, including Apple and Microsoft . In addition to licensing, you must also ensure that its patents do not infringe on other products.

Currently the license allows relatively permissive use until 2016, without additional costs for content creators or publishers like Youtube. However, for coding programs and / or decoders themselves to establishing an annual fee, which for example applies to browsers who want to integrate. Moreover, within 5 years can change at will the terms of use.

Clearly much interested and H.264 is the de facto standard of web video, as at present. This means more money for its coffers and, better still, more power. Until now, only had threatened free and Theora codecs without going further than a statement, but it is possible to initiate lawsuits against Webm. In general, it is kept floating the notion that infringes its patents Webmbenefits them the longer it lasts, whether it’s true, lies, legal or illegal.

Mozilla and Opera

The Mozilla and Opera interest in this subject are the easiest to understand, perhaps because they are being more consistent and sincere in his statement. When the label proposed video Opera three years ago , proposed to OGG Vorbis + Theora + because they have very clear that Web standards are technologies that continue to base free, open and neutral. That view is shared by Mozilla.

Since it is virtually impossible to support a web technology that is not free and open , we may be dead H.264 support in Firefox or Opera if this codec is not released (and not going to do.) At the same time as they have shown they have no problem supporting any free codec that meets basic requirements (useful, effective, etc), which explains why they support both as Webm Theora.

Link | official Mozilla Blog
Link | Official Blog Opera

Google

Google has a more complex view of what seems at first sight, especially as the owner Youtube. For starters, it supports all codecs because he wants that end users have no problem when viewing your videos, regardless of platform. That’s the main reason that Chrome supports H.264.

At the same time, Google is not interested in anything that the video for the web passes through H.264 , and is not willing to risk all their cards to a format that does not control and has an uncertain future. If Youtube only supports H.264 that would mean a change in the license in 2016 could pull the site down for being unable to cope with unreasonable costs. I’ll put it clearer:Apple, Microsoft and other competitors of Google may have the power of Youtube charged whenever they wanted . That’s the main reason why Google Chrome stand OGG Theora.

Why throw Webm rather than more actively support Theora? On both sides (Mozilla / Opera in front of Apple / Microsoft) positions were entrenched, so it was clear that neither H.264 or Theora would win the battle in the short term, the first by not being free and second because more inefficient. The compromise solution Google has been taking a form of efficiency comparable to H.264 and free. That’s the main reason why Google has spent more than $ 100 million to buy a company that makes codecs. That’s the main reason for launching Webm. Google is still a company and is supporting formats free because you are interested , period.

Link | Google announces Webm

Apple

The bad of the film, watch where you look is a failure of marketing strategy in HTML5 alive . Webm do not understand how, or rather the massive support of the rest of the industry, have been caught completely off guard, but with the public can ruin their arguments antiflash war. How can now say that HTML5 is a better alternative to Flash because it is free and open if not just supporting Webm?

Apple is one company that has invested most in H.264 . In all its factory products is supported, moreover, are specifically optimized for that format. Therefore it is not uncommon to be the most supportive of this codec. And so far has been successful: just a pair of devices has the majority of the content industry tipping their videos in H.264 using HTML5.

So the first reaction of Steve Jobs is talking scare patent infringement . And so this palm reading with their ears to a developer putting green Webm x264. The first thing is unlikely, and Google has already said it is clear that infringes any patent, and that if the MPEG-LA to go to court they are not afraid. On the second, according to other sources of quality in general is quite similar to the profiles of H.264 used, and the criticisms focus or where the tools are green (they are) or that some aspects polishing (left) . And both are fixed in time and resources (any), but are not structural problems.

Whether or not you believe it is likely that Apple Webm end bearing . In fact, the video tag in Safari desktop is compatible with all Quicktime codecs installed, so in the near future will support Apple unmediated by using plugins like Perian. Another thing is their mobile devices, which have a privileged position, and where it has wide sleeves to do what he pleases. The only thing that would force him to change his mind is to stop supporting H.264 Youtube … but that does not suit Google, at least for now.

Permalink | Diary of an x264 Developer
In Applesfera | Steve Jobs is positioned against Webm

Microsoft

The team of Internet Explorer 9 has made some statements extremely intelligent , announcing that bear Webm if the user has installed on your computer. In this way they keep the good press IE9, suggesting that support it as the most, and specifying that they do because they said they would support all HTML5. They were inclusive, not exclusive. In that case they should be asked why they announced that they would not support Theora.

Even so, support is halfway: H.264 will actually be installed at the factory , but Webm need for further action by the user. Clearly, this affects the extent of Webm for users of Internet Explorer, and not enough support for a standard. I do not think they will announce that fully support HTML5 other labels … as long as other companies implement it on their own.

Why does Microsoft as well? On the one hand that H.264 is also interested in triumph, as part of the WHATWG and that would grant him power over the web and Google specifically, his nemesis. On the other hand, should not become popular because it means that the i-Apple devices could have a competitive advantage over its competition in the mobile world. We put other factors such as its recent support for HTML5 (which initially rejected automatically) or fear because Apple or Google to earn back public opinion and then we understand that the statement deserves some applause.

Link | Official Blog IE9

Adobe

That of Adobe ‘s another interesting position , being one of the Google partners since the birth of Webm. In announcing that Flash (and AIR ) Webm bear in a future version, improve its image and put pressure on Apple in particular war. As we have discussed with Google, the Flash H.264 support the need to license it to MPEG-LA , so it also is at the expense of a change of license.

The first codec used by Adobe for video was the Sorenson Spark (another company that also supports WEBM), adding, support for VP6, the precursor of webme. Lastly, in 2007 integrated H.264, which has been the preferred and most popular format since then. Because of its history, see that Adobe should have no technical problems to work with WebM/VP8, as it did in the past with their precursors.

Meanwhile, Adobe takes a little air in front of its war with Apple paradoxically supporting the alternative that is intended to banish Flash video online. In the short term is beneficial for them but in the medium term which means a less rosy future for Flash. Which leads me to think that your plugin will exploit whatever they can, focusing on their niche while gradually convertedinto a Flash authoring tool for HTML5 . Flash CS5 has a characteristic bit airy but very interesting that is exported to HTML5 Canvas . Will it the future of Flash to polish this export?

Link | Adobe Flash Official Blog

Conclusions

Each organization follows its own interests, but if we add up all these interests seems clear that is an open road Webm unthinkable a week ago. Just when we thought being in a dead end in the HTML5 video, and Google has changed the rules. Who else?

Much has been reported, and much has been presented at the Mobile World Congress. A clear winner is in place, but a trend is discernible.

Especially in view of the abundance of “Firsts” sting HTC and Google out. HTC introduced the Touch phone Legend and Desire, is perhaps the best phones before the show. Both phones were no technical weaknesses, and visually convincing and sparkled with its fantastic displays.

This success of HTC goes hand in hand with Google’s Android. Besides the two HTC Touch phones here stung even the Sony Ericsson phones X10 Mini and Mini Pro and the Motorola QUENCH out. Virtually every mobile phone manufacturer now relies on Google Android. One of the exceptions: Nokia. Overall, not so much to see from the Finnish industry giants. Anders then even Samsung.

With a huge booth and the new OS Bada Koreans have tried to stand up to. The Samsung S8500 Wave could convince this already and will enrich the market. Here too obvious: The best thing about the mobile phone is the display. Still has some work to do, however Microsoft. Phone Windows 7 was presented and therefore was indeed on everyone’s lips, but there are still months away until the first cell phones are available with Microsoft’s new mobile operating system in stores.

This time can use the Android phones and even Apple is now to develop key advantages. Microsoft has unveiled a mobile radically new operating system software. The response which this has been shared. Worrisome is the idea that as the current devices running Windows Mobile 6.5 will make representations to the competitor. Therefore, the current focus on Android by HTC is only understandable.

In the next few months, the buyer will make a bow to Microsoft. Whether Microsoft’s Windows 7, this phone can reverse it, currently seems a little questionable. The now presented instruments of Acer and Co. are more likely to eke out a niche existence.