Our support for HTML5 is an early experiment, and there are some limitations. HTML5 on YouTube doesn't support videos with ads, captions, or annotations [...]
I think I speak for everyone when I say: YouTube... do not fix these bugs!!!
I wouldn't agree. The choice between a patent-encumbered h264 or an improving open standard?
If you read this part: http://www.diveintohtml5.org/video.html#licensing it becomes clear that h264 isn't really a viable option for an open web. You will have to start paying licensing fees by 2011 if you use the h264 codec. Now I'm not against paying for good things, but paying $2500+ per year per video doesn't sound too attractive...
The point is that there is no need to make a choice between h264 and Theora. Firefox could easily support both (and a variety of other formats) if MozCo would allow it. I'm not against endorsing Theora, but it shouldn't break interoperability/compatibility and degrade overall user experience.
By not supporting h264 it helps prevent that codec from becoming the standard. If Firefox were to support ogg/h264 and everyone else supported only h264 then no one would bother with the ogg support. The format war would be lost at that point.
What "format war"? Everyone already standardized on h264 years ago, and there is a built in h264 decoder on damn near everything these days.
Keeping two copies of every movie would be a waste of CPU cycles, disk space and bandwidth (Theora videos are bigger than their h264 equivalents). Dropping support for h264 in favor of Ogg is also not an option due to h264 being in everything.
Am I right in thinking this license fee is only in the US? As far as I know the rest of the world (Europe at least) doesn't recognise patents on software or algorithms.
Could h264 support be added to Firefox with a plugin? Windows and Mac OS have the ability to natively play h264 videos, perhaps there is a way for FF to hook into that and not have to worry about any h264 licensing fees.
No, they belligerently designed their <video> and <audio> implementations to make that incredibly difficult to do without forking the whole project.
They link directly with liboggplay instead of using a library like ffmpeg (Chrome), gstreamer (Opera), Quicktime (Safari), or DirectShow (IE, eventually). They don't even support any other container formats! I hope their heads fall off.
I wonder what Adobe will have to say about this. As a Firefox user, I am out of luck with no h264 support. It's interesting that the only two browsers that don't support Theora are Safari and IE, which makes the choice of h264 as the standard a bit odd to me.
I'm expecting a post from their paid Flash commenter (I'm sorely tempted to say professional troll, given some of his recent posts) jon dowdell saying something mocking about Ogg, then adding that HTML 5 is purely for minority browsers, and Adobe is fully focused on helping businesses and advertisers connect rich internet content with their customers in innovative and engaging ways.
(Translation: Flash will always rule, we're betting the company against Apple-Google-Mozilla, and the rest of the internet may hate us, but it won't matter because IE and Windows will dominate forever)
Meanwhile, those of us using "minority" browsers and Macs will do to Flash exactly what we did to Real.
They do. The HQ setting on Youtube uses H264 baseline profile (notice how they introduced this around the time of the iPhone launch), and the HD setting uses H264 as well.
You can implement that with regular HTML/Canvas/SVG on-top of the video. That's the beauty of the whole thing.
I do wonder if full-screen will be supported someday.
This is an evil plot or noble attempt (delete as appropriate) by Mozilla to promote royalty free audio and video standards on the web over popular standards with patent fees.
Mozilla Foundation isn't trying to protect itself, it's trying to protect the web.
You can disagree with that goal and/or with their strategy, but if you think it's just about Mozilla not wanting to pay fees then you're going to be very confused about what they do and why.
I think protomyth was referring to the fact that while the Theora folks loudly claim to be unencumbered by patents this is a completely untested assertion and if such a patent were to show up they are without their own suite of patents with which to threaten the other party. MPEG-LA is covered by patents and has a licensing board, but the spec is also pretty-well vetted by various teams of lawyers and if someone tries to submarine a patent in they would find themselves facing a rather large, well-funded, and pissed off group with no qualms about burying the troll in counter-claims and long/expensive discovery, etc.
Yep, you nailed what I meant but didn't spend enough time writing. I just get this feeling that, given the number of companies involved, the patent situation is a known quantity for MPEG-LA, whereas the situation around Theora hasn't been as well researched. Unless someone with a massive amount of lawyers starts the ball rolling, I really don't see hardware people building accelerators into chipsets for Theora like they have done for h.264.
I think I speak for everyone when I say: YouTube... do not fix these bugs!!!