Who Will Win The Battle Over Open Web Video?

With Apple and Microsoft committed to one side, and Mozilla and Google committed to another, are consumers stuck in the middle again?

A few years ago, in the battle between two standards for high-def video, one format seemed superior and more consumer-friendly: it could be manufactured in the same plants as DVDs; it used the better ‘VC-1′ compression; all its technical standards were in place; and it was a little cheaper. That format, of course, was HD-DVD. But because of some backroom deals and the fact Blu-Ray was put into the Playstation 3, HD-DVD lost.

Though we were glad to have the battle over, it’s a stark reminder that format wars aren’t decided on quality or appeal – it’s actually the power plays of large organizations. And now another stalemate is occurring with open web video standards. And though stuff like ‘standards’ always sounds a little dry or technical, when you think about how much we used web video now – whether YouTube or Hulu or Netflix – any behind the scenes battles over which format gets used and is bound to affect us.

Format Battle. Ugh, This Again?

As has been much discussed, web video is moving away from proprietary, closed technologies like Flash to the open HTML5. Despite some mild reservations about who this affects in the meantime, this is an excellent thing. Open means that anyone can use and create web sites without having to buy or implement often expensive software like Flash. On top of this, HTML5 sites are often just really slick and fast. (Check out this really nice demo for a sample of what I mean.)

But HTML5 is only a language to create sites with – the standards for audio and video on a web page can change depending on what you choose. So, as happens all too often in the tech world, we’re faced with another format battle. On one side you have people like Apple and Microsoft. And on the other, there are folks like Google and Mozilla.

H.264 – A Great Standard With One Small Snag…

The really big players in the industry are going with an already common technology they are familiar with: H.264. Part of the MPEG-4 spec, H.264 is the same technology used in things like Blu-Ray and has wide support around the industry. Quicktime, iTunes, Windows Media Player – these all support H.264, and  manufacturers have even tweaked their products to make them H.264 run faster. On top of this, H.264 produces high-quality video. I mean, the Avatar Blu-Ray uses it, and that thing is stunning. And in their present or upcoming browsers, Apple and now Microsoft have thrown their weight behind it.

Sounds perfect, right? Sure – but there’s a snag. If the movement towards these standards is about ‘going open’, H.264… well, isn’t. It’s a patented technology, and Sony, Apple, Toshiba and others hold patents that govern the use of the codec.

They are all part of licensing body MPEG-LA who, in order to encourage development of the standard, have extended royalty-free licensing for H.264 until 2016. But for those concerned with the freedom of open source, that gesture of good will isn’t enough.

Ogg Theora: The Open (But Still Not Perfect) Option

Because H.264 is only ‘open for the time being’ (and given the players involved, it’s likely someone will charge for something down the road), Mozilla, the makers of the Firefox browser, aren’t happy with it, and refuse to integrate it into Firefox.

Mozilla want fully open source technologies, and they have been pushing an option called Ogg Theora. Ogg Theora is completely open source, lightweight and Mozilla were so keen on it that they donated $100,000 toward its development. But even this ideal-sounding option has a problem – in terms of quality, it’s just not as good as H.264. If you want to change standards on the web so that the user experience is better, that’s a tough pill to swallow. It’s pretty hard to convince people to go open if they have to accept a drop in quality.

Google to the Rescue?

For their part, Google are a little bit in between camps. On one had, YouTube (who are owned by Google) slowly converted their entire catalogue from Flash to h.264 after the release of the iPhone, and for the time being, YouTube seem content to stick with

But a fun and promising wrinkle in the debate has appeared. In February of this year, Google completed their acquisition of On2, a company responsible for the efficient, high-quality VP8 video compression codec. And this month, Google announced that it would open source that VP8 technology, meaning that anyone could use the tech to implement web video.

Reports say that VP8 can provide h.264 quality at half the bandwidth. With the technology open-sourced, many now hope that Mozilla and others will incorporate the tech into their browsers and players, and that the ‘war’ will be over. But…

So It's Settled Then Right? Well, No.

So, if a solution seems to be found, this is all over then? Well, no. The problem is simple as this: one does not simply walk into Redmond or Cupertino and tell massive companies like Apple or Microsoft to do. (Nerd reference: not with 10,000 men could you do this. It is folly)

Both Apple and Microsoft are notorious for sticking to their guns, both for different reasons. Apple will almost always go with what what they know and what is the best quality, whereas Microsoft is increasingly trying to move toward the thing that is standard. Additionally, given the recent friction between Apple and Google and the ongoing competition with Microsoft, how likely is it that these companies will shift over to a made-in-Google solution?

So for the time being, it seems we are stuck in a stalemate, watching giants battle out while we wait for the solution. And as the HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray battle showed, sometimes the things that decide the war aren’t ‘what’s best’, but the business moves made by these companies. And sure, that’s how competition works. But let’s hope that we web users don’t get caught in the crossfire of this particular battle.

Written by Navneet Alang

Navneet Alang is a technology-culture writer based in Toronto. You can find him on Twitter at @navalang
SEE MORE ARTICLES BY "Navneet Alang"

Related posts
Comments

12 Comments »

 
#1
Greg
May 3rd, 2010 at 9:21 am

I have to say… flash will lose. It’s inevitable. Steve’s right with all the points he’s made.

 
 
#2
Cliff
May 3rd, 2010 at 11:42 am

@greg I’m not so sure about this. Will browsers have hardware acceleration for html5 video decoding? If not or its not made right it’ll be just as cpu/ram intensive and prone to crashing as flash is now. And I think it also depends on how well flash 10.1 is. If they can make it much stabler and with hardware acceleration there’s no reason why flash won’t continue to thrive. If flash 10.1 for mobile devices is well programed and not battery intensive (let’s face it, even with html5 its gonna use more power to play videos there’s still decoding and playback invoolved, there’s no reason to exclude flash at all.

 
 
#3
Cliff
May 3rd, 2010 at 9:22 am

I was actually discussing with my colleague about HTML5 video, and the problem of not having a standard codec for encoding/decoding. At least with Flash, we know that 99% of desktop/laptop (but not mobile) users have Flash player – it’s been a centralized, standard way to develop and deliver video content. With HTML5, there’s going to be another battle for browser compatibility if there’s not consistent standard for every browser – and it’s going to be a lot worse than just coding for IE6.

Now with CSS3 eventually coming into the picture…only adds to the splitting of browser rendering…

 
 
#4
Jeroen Marechal
May 3rd, 2010 at 2:37 pm

I agree with your points. Flash has become a standard during the last years. Even my parents know what flash is and what it is used for (and thats pretty cool, hehe).

 
 
#5
David Ingledow
May 3rd, 2010 at 9:30 am

Very interesting battle between the companies – great article!

 
 
#6
7php.com
May 3rd, 2010 at 12:56 pm

I agree with Greg, it will not be flash!

@Cliff:
You never know where it will come, HTML5 might not tackle it yet, but with the fast pace of the web, you never what ‘might explode’.

//K_Wasseem
(7php.com)

 
 
#7
Sebastian
May 3rd, 2010 at 1:19 pm

$100,00 looks odd. Do you mean $10,000, $100,000 or $100.00(!)?

 
 
#8
navneetalang
May 3rd, 2010 at 2:04 pm

Thanks for the point the error, Sebastian. Now fixed :)

 
 
#9
Cespur
May 3rd, 2010 at 3:31 pm

I honestly dont’t care what the big guys come up with: As long as the quality/speed ratio is good I’m cool with everything, as long as Flash gets destroyed.

I’ve been hating Flash for years now, and always considered myself as one of the few who had this opinion, but I was very happy surprised when Apple started the Anti-Flash campaign.

 
 
#10
Erico Lisboa
May 3rd, 2010 at 9:01 pm

Nice one Nav!

cooll!

 
 
#11
Mae
May 4th, 2010 at 12:49 am

I think if Mozilla and other open-source browsers start supporting VP8 then there’s a chance that Microsoft will go there, too. After all, it seems that Microsoft is going to do everything just so people won’t bash on IE anymore. Apple on the other hand… ugh. =/

 
 
#12
e11world
May 7th, 2010 at 12:43 am

Flash is not going anywhere. It will always be there because of it’s ease of use and other features. The only problem I have with it is it uses my processor more than it should and I believe that will be fixed in the near future.
VP8, Google is rocking the show and soon, all will follow.

 

Name (required)

E-mail (required - never shown publicly)

Web-site

Your Comment