TheRealTimeWeb.com: My Answers To Gruber's Questions

My Answers To Gruber's Questions

Posted by Stefan Richter in Apple, Flash Player, iOS | 29 Comments

Argh, Tim Anderson tricked me into reading a post on daringfireball... As expected, what I saw wound me up. In the post John Gruber has some 'questions', and since I highly doubt that Google feels that they owe him a personal explanation I'll take a stab at the answers here (Gruber's blog does not allow comments).

Q 1. In addition to supporting H.264, Chrome currently bundles an embedded version of Adobe's closed source and proprietary Flash Player plugin. If H.264 support is being removed to 'enable open innovation', will Flash Player support be dropped as well? If not, why?

A: No, it won't. Flash does not hinder open innovation, quite the opposite. H.264 on the other hand does, and someone, somewhere has to pay if you and me want to consume H.264 content. In the case of Flash, Adobe pays some of the fees for us, but the future licensing terms are quite uncertain
The Flash community is one of the most highly creative collection of people I have ever had the joy of being a part of. I could go on and list 100 examples here, but just take a look at the most recent thing that comes to mind:
Use Kinect to Control Adobe Flash Using Node.js

That's open innovation in my book. Blitz didn't have to ask anyone for permission to build this application - compare that to iOS. They did not have to pay Adobe to either author or play Flash content - compare that to Apple's developer program. Large parts of Adobe's Flash Platform are open source, but the Player is closed - and rightly so in my opinion. Flash does not hinder innovation, it encourages it. Can the same be said for H.264?

Q 2.Android currently supports H.264. Will this support be removed from Android? If not, why not?

A: Who cares really? Are you calling Google a hypocrite if they don't? If so, where is your criticism of Apple for championing closed source codecs such as H.264 and calling their platform open? Maybe Google is hiding behind 'open' too?
And since the fallback technology for video playback in the browser is Flash anyway you can simply use that - Android has great support for Flash.

Q 3. YouTube uses H.264 to encode video. Presumably, YouTube will be re-encoding its entire library using WebM. When this happens, will YouTube's support for H.264 be dropped, to 'enable open innovation'? If not, why not?

A. It won't matter either way. I have a feeling that YouTube will ensure that their videos can be played back. Did things break when YouTube transitioned to H.264? Actually, transitioning is the wrong term here. Contrary to popular belief there was never such a thing as a 'Flash video codec'. Flash has supported H.264 for years, alongside other codecs. Adding WebM to the mix is a formality now.

4.Do you expect companies like Netflix, Amazon, Vimeo, Major League Baseball, and anyone else who currently streams H.264 to dual-encode all of their video using WebM? If not, how will Chrome users watch this content other than by resorting to Flash Player's support for H.264 playback?

A: Maybe like so: Chrome user navigates to video page. Site detects Chrome. Chrome plays video using Flash which is bundled into Chrome, using an H.264 or WebM version of the content, whichever is available. User is happy.
What am I missing here? Is there something inherently wrong with playing a video in Flash?

Q 5. Who is happy about this?

Google I guess for taking a swipe at Apple. And I know who isn't happy: you aren't, quite clearly. One's own medicine can taste bitter.

Tweet Follow @stefanrichter
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 4:35 PM. 6831 views. 29 comments. Print

Related Blog Entries

Thoughts On Flash - Revisited (December 22, 2011)

TweetBacks

Comments

[Add Comment] [Subscribe to Comments]

#1 by mnem on 1/12/11 - 4:44 PM

Q1) H.264 and innovation: see Vimeo, YouTube, sublimevideo, "The Wilderness Downtown", video running my oldish Nokia phone, all the hardware decoder chipsets available and so forth.

To be honest, I'm not sure his comment was suggesting Flash hindered innovation. I read it more along the lines that since people are innovating in Flash (Flash Player is arguably a closed "codec"), then why does H.264 cause problems for innovation?

Regardless of the anti-Flash sentiment of the article, there something a little distasteful about a powerful company trying to limit users (or more likely developer's) options overtly in the way Google has. It smacks of the dark old days of (insert choice of: Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Oracle/Sun).

It will take active development on Google's part to remove support for H.264. I would argue that a far better approach to eliminating H.264 would be to produce a sufficiently superior alternative that would cause developers and users to willingly make the switch. Carrot as opposed to stick.

It's a shame so many companies at the moment are abusing the term open. Anyone coined the phrase "Open Washing" yet?
#2 by felix on 1/12/11 - 5:04 PM

I unsubscribed from Gruber's noise a while ago and feel a lot better for it. There is no point reading him because his opinion is predetermined: anything Apple does is genius, anything anyone else does is evil.
#3 by Robert M. Hall on 1/12/11 - 5:50 PM

Hey Stefan,

Wanted to just add some info - thought it was interesting that the first hardware acceleration chips/hardware for WebM video were announced just last week at CES, just prior to google announcement.

Reference:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/rockchip-a...

and

http://ces.cnet.com/8301-32254_1-20027785-283.html...

On2 had some other silicon partners prior to their acquisition by google, so I imagine we may see the fruits of those labors in the not too distant future.

Not that any of this means much until we get devices that implement this hardware - but it's just nice to know that its already being implemented
#4 by kibbles on 1/13/11 - 11:08 PM

@felix - you must not have been paying attention, then. grueber knocks apple where its appropriate by reason. see recent crits on apple's attempt to TM "app store".
#5 by macflashdev on 1/13/11 - 11:29 PM

There is nothing "inherently wrong with playing a video in Flash", but it does take the wind out of Google's stance that it is making this change in the interest of being "open". How can requiring a closed source proprietary plug-in promote "open"? I thought the whole idea of the HTML5 <video> tag is that it doesn't require a plug-in.
#6 by Jay Martin on 1/13/11 - 11:34 PM

"but the future licensing terms are quite uncertain"

Actually, it's quite clearly spelled out in the licensing terms.

You really missed the point of his post: the HTML5 <video> tag was invented solely so that video content could be played back without plugins. Given that most video out there is encoded in H264 (open standard) Google's move is clearly less about adhering to the spirit of HTML5 (open standard) and more about promoting their WebM (non standard even though it's open source).

Remember: open source != open standard. Google's use of "open" is ambiguous at best.
#7 by Steko on 1/13/11 - 11:35 PM

Your answer to #1 hinges entirely on this line:

"but the Player is closed - and rightly so in my opinion"

However this isn't an argument, just fiat opinion.

Try again.

As a starting point you could explain why it's "good for open development" that every new OS be dependent on Adobe shipping a new closed Flash player. And why all security fixes related to these players should wait for Adobe to patch them. To me that strikes me as laughable bad and why Flash needs to be open or replaced. Any new OS, device etc. can support H.264 thru HTML5 because people can build it themselves because they aren't closed like the Flash player.
#8 by Jensa on 1/13/11 - 11:55 PM

@mnem By removing support for H.264, Google no longer need to pay the millions of dollars that MpgLA requires. I'd say that easily pays for the required engineering effort.

It seems this is more about a principle, really. Google wants their software infrastructure to be free. Flash support is not much of a cost, but H.264 really is expensive.

J
#9 by David on 1/14/11 - 12:03 AM

WebM is technically inferior to H.264 and that won't change even if every hardware manufacturer on the planet supports it. Thank you "open" supporters.

As for Flash, it boggles the mind that any "open" supporter would want this closed source dinosaur to stick around even one minute longer.

Of course the author of this blog isn't a supporter of "open" software. He has a deep, vested interest in Flash and would do anything to keep the old beast breathing a few years longer.
#10 by poritsky on 1/14/11 - 12:09 AM

You seem to imply H.264 doesn't encourage innovation. As a filmmaker, I'd beg to differ. When Canon starts making a camera that shoots WebM, I'll prick up my ears. Until then, I can't see how H.264 has stifled innovation by the nature of its licenses. In fact, I can't think of a single example. Please share some if they exist.
#11 by GadgetGav on 1/14/11 - 12:10 AM

When has Apple called iOS 'open' as you claim in the answer to Q2?
I recall a piece they did (during a conference call I think) about the different approach between them and Apple, but I don't think they ever called iOS 'open'. I think they were more focussed on promoting what they saw as the advantages of a 'curated' system.
Google just throws the word 'open' into various pronouncements and thinks that it makes everything better. When the hardware acceleration chips for WebM are cheap and commonplace, then maybe it will be a viable and even popular choice, but it seems very early days to be dropping H.264. The license terms are not due to be renegotiated until 2016, so why not wait until then and drop it if the new terms are draconian? The fees can only go up by a maximum of 10% anyway...
#12 by Vatdoro on 1/14/11 - 12:21 AM

kibbles is right. Gruber can be one of Apple's harshest critics.

I just pulled up his blog, www.daringfireball.net, and the first page has at least 5 posts that are critical of Apple, and/or supporting Apple's competitors.

John Gruber is definitely pro-apple overall, but when Apple does something that he thinks is wrong, he takes them to task. His opinions is definitely not "predetermined", like felix says.

Relating to this discussion about Chrome dropping support for H.264... I think Gruber is critical of Google, because their stated goal is to "enable open innovation" and support only "completely open codec technologies".

These reasons that Google is giving for their decision are so hollow, I can't see how anyone can NOT criticize them.

Google likes to throw around the term 'open', but what does 'open' mean? Are they talking about 'open source'? An 'open standard'? Or something else that is supposedly 'open'?

If I had to come up with a perfect example of 'open', one of the first things to pop into my head is HTML and the web. HTML source code is available for anyone to see, and the web is open to anyone with a web browser and an internet connection (unless you live in China).
What enables the web and HTML to be this great symbol of 'openness'? I think one huge factor is the 'open standard' that is HTML. And the future of HTML is HTML5.

So, is Google's decision to stop supporting H.264 helping or hindering the open web and the movement to HTML5? I think this will play out very close to how Gruber predicts. Web sites aren't going to re-incode their video (again) into WebM. They will stick with H.264. Chrome users will simply end up using flash to watch all the H.264 video on the web. Other devices and browsers will be able to play H.264 video natively.

So, is it that big a deal to most end users? No, not really. But it seems like Google is definitely not supporting 'open', when this decision effectively means their browser won't be using 'open web standards' to play video. Their browser will be using a closed source proprietary browser plug-in.
#13 by axian on 1/14/11 - 12:22 AM

>>"It seems this is more about a principle, really. Google wants their software infrastructure to be free. Flash support is not much of a cost, but H.264 really is expensive." (Jensa)

As of 2011 through 2016 the maximum amount an enterprise will pay for licensing h.264 on a yearly basis is 6.5m and not a cent more. With every renewal cycle the price will only increase at a 10% rate or less.

So let me make it simpler: Google will only pay 6.5 million dollars to license h.264 for the entire organization and their properties like youtube. This is a company with a market cap of 200 billion.

I hope that "really expensive" bit is put to rest. Please read the terms. There is a cap in place. In addition, it does not affect the end users or random cat videos.

http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/...
#14 by Bart Lee on 1/14/11 - 12:42 AM

"They did not have to pay Adobe to either author or play Flash content - compare that to Apple's developer program."

Apple's iOS developer program: $99
Adobe Flash: $614.38 on Amazon right now

Unless there's a way to author Flash content for free that I don't know about?

Flash and iOS are both closed development environments, each controlled by their respective owners. No one gets a say in what gets added to iOS but Apple and no one gets a say in what is added to Flash but Adobe. By taking the stance that h.264 video is not "open", Google is trying to force people to use a "closed" product because they think it will hurt Apple (it would, probably). I seriously doubt they've achieved the critical mass to do so, though.
#15 by Steko on 1/14/11 - 1:32 AM

I thought #1 was bad, your response to #2 is either shockingly deceitful or ignorant:

"where is your criticism of Apple for championing closed source codecs such as H.264 and calling their platform open?"

First H.264 is not closed. As Peter Bright states on Ars today:

"H.264 is an open standard. That is to say, it was a standard designed by a range of domain experts from across the industry, working to the remit of a standards organization. In fact, two standards organizations were involved: ISO and ITU. The specification was devised collaboratively, with its final ratification dependent on the agreement of the individuals, corporations, and national standards bodies that variously make up ISO and ITU. This makes H.264 an open standard in the same way as, for example, JPEG still images, or the C++ programming language, or the ISO 9660 filesystem used on CD-ROMs. H.264 is unambiguously open."

Second, to my knowledge Apple does not represent iOS as 'open'. Steve Jobs' Thoughts on Flash:

"Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. "
#16 by Geoff on 1/14/11 - 1:53 AM

I'd say Gruber is much more willing to criticize Apple than Richter is to criticize Adobe. Richter has the word "Flash" in his URL, after all -- it's his business. Talk about "predetermined." This is shill stuff.
#17 by Jeff J on 1/14/11 - 2:12 AM

If you actually go to this url
and download chrome http://www.google.com/landing/chrome/beta/
then go look at video on youtube.. you will see the 360p stuff is HTML5 WEBM already - huge number of them working fine.
Like this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyG-g_J-psc

NO FLASH NEEDED - i had to make proof
this is a <video> tag webm
http://ctndigital.com/ctnd/lab/vp8-webm/

Note that all 720p video on youtube is still mp4 baseline h.264 - no flash needed , yet flash works fine also.

From what i can tell its all good. Use chrome if you like it, and get the best of both i think. I doubt that gruber has actually tried any of this - which works just fine on my iMAC and my PC
#18 by Gromit on 1/14/11 - 2:33 AM

Your answer to Q1 seems confused. I'm pretty sure Google isn't talking about innovation in content, but rather about innovation in technologies. Of course the Flash community is innovative and extremely creative, but then so are the people who use H.264 day in and day out. In both cases this is irrelevant to what Google and Gruber are each saying. Nobody but Adobe can do anything innovative with the development of Flash itself because it is a closed, proprietary platform. It is much worse as a web standard than H.264 in this regard, since the developers of the various applications that use the Flash Player are utterly dependent on Adobe to port, optimize, and maintain it. Its code is not just patent-encumbered, it is a trade secret.
#19 by Dan on 1/14/11 - 5:48 AM

>>>Apple's iOS developer program: $99
Adobe Flash: $614.38 on Amazon right now

Unless there's a way to author Flash content for free that I don't know about?<<<

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=open+source+flash+tools
#20 by Gromit on 1/14/11 - 6:35 AM

Maybe I'm mistaken about third parties being able to code their own Flash players? Is this possible?
#21 by Jensa on 1/14/11 - 8:26 AM

@bart and others - it's a very common misconception that you have to pay money to Adobe to author Flash content. This is all wrong. You do not have to give Adobe a single cent to author Flash content: http://www.flashmagazine.com/news/detail/open_sour...

J
#22 by Jensa on 1/14/11 - 8:31 AM

... oh and I should add - there is no requirement that you buy hardware from Adobe to author Flash content either. You can use any platform you want or have available. Last time I checked, you had to have a Mac to package iOS applications? Is that still a requirement?

J
#23 by Jensa on 1/14/11 - 8:31 AM

... oh and I should add - there is no requirement that you buy hardware from Adobe to author Flash content either. You can use any platform you want or have available. Last time I checked, you had to have a Mac to package iOS applications? Is that still a requirement?

J
#24 by Stefan Richter on 1/14/11 - 8:38 AM

thank you all for commenting. I'd love to respond in more detail but got to head out to a conference. Will try and follow up soon.
#25 by Steve on 1/14/11 - 8:56 AM

@Bart - there are lots of free ways to author Flash and you categorically do not need to buy the Flash IDE to author Flash content. In addition the Flex framework used to author Flash and AIR applications is open-source.

@Geoff actually Stefan is often critical of Adobe (have you read some of the other posts on this blog or just this one?). A Flash developer's 'business' isn't Adobe, it's multiple platforms/endpoints, including Apple's devices.
#26 by Ben Darlow on 1/14/11 - 10:27 AM

I won't bother getting into the nitty gritty of the subject matter above, but one point in your lead-in stands out that I feel needs addressing.

You say “The Flash community is one of the most highly creative collection of people I have ever had the joy of being a part of” — I can't debate how creative these people are, but the fact that they *are* creative is the important part, not that Flash is the tool they choose to be creative with.

Talented and clever creative types will be talented, clever and creative using whatever technology they choose to employ, and Flash is just one such technology. To focus on the technology and imply that *it* is the reason for these individuals being so good belittles the individuals themselves and takes away from what they achieve.

Flash is a tool, nothing more, so you shouldn't imbue it with mystical qualities it doesn't possess.
#27 by Martin Pilkington on 1/14/11 - 11:01 AM

"Flash does not hinder open innovation, quite the opposite. H.264 on the other hand does, and someone, somewhere has to pay if you and me want to consume H.264 content. "

So the difference is that Flash doesn't require you to pay to use it but H.264 does. Would care to show me the fully featured development tools that let me use every last aspect of the Flash plugin without paying Adobe a penny? The only differences between H.264 and Flash licensing wise is that H.264 is an open standard and more than one company gets paid when people use it to make stuff.
#28 by Steve on 1/14/11 - 11:38 AM

"Would care to show me the fully featured development tools that let me use every last aspect of the Flash plugin without paying Adobe a penny?"

Sure. Repeating Jensa's comments above, here's a list of free development tools for Flash - http://www.flashmagazine.com/news/detail/open_sour...

Plus there's Eclipse and the Flex framework, both of which are open source.

Now, what was your point again?
#29 by Vatdoro on 1/14/11 - 5:19 PM

Why are commenters debating the cost of creating content in flash vs H.264?

1) This has nothing to do with the original post.

And

2) There is no cost to create content in H.264. The x264 encoder is free and open source.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but content creators aren't the ones paying the H.264 licensing fee. The only companies who pay the licensing fee are the people who create a media player (or browser) that implements the H.264 open standard.