Codecs War is On – HTML5 Video Issue!

Codecs War is On HTML5 Video Issue!
The Apple of Discord – Codec for the New HTML5 <video> tag

Do you remember those good old times when we haven’t heard anything about the “Flash killers” and playing the web video with Flash player was the option and everyone was pretty much happy with that option? Yep, those days are long gone and things are totally different today – although it is hard to tell whether it’s good or bad. HTML5 strikes the web industry with new standards and unusual solutions that will someday get a status of “revolutionary”. The latest version of hyper text markup language raises its hand against many standards and of course one of the most controversial things about HTML5 is the <video> tag debates. The problem is that the folks from W3C group haven’t decided yet on what exact codec will be used for the new HTML5 <video> tag. And therefore what we have today are the two possible candidates to do this big job – Ogg Theora and H.264 codecs.

The Candidates

In the red corner of the ring is the Ogg Theora – the open source video codec project from Xiph.org which in turn is being funded by Mozilla Foundation. It is not bounded by some patents and fees so it is very convenient for the users and strongly recommended by the open source software community. Non-profit status of this software is a great thing but we can’t say that this codec can give you high performance video. It means that main trump of this codec is the free distributing but the quality of the video provided by Ogg Theora codec will surely make W3C think twice about it.

In the blue corner is the H.264 codec brought by the ISO Moving Picture Experts Group (aka MPEG). This codec’s mission is to deliver the high quality video with the assumption of low bitrate. An additional goal is to allow the standard to be applied to a wide variety of applications in various networks and systems. So far sounds awesome, doesn’t it? Well take this, W3C: the main problem is that if you want to use this software you will have to pay the licensing fees to MPEG LA.

Another Battle of the Browsers War?


Safari uses QuickTime framework and you can play anything you want if you have proper QuickTime codec. It seems to be an original and efficient solution but unfortunately it can’t fix the problem globally because this method cannot be used for other browsers. Firefox and Opera are the famous supporters of the open source stuff and it is obviously that these guys will want to support the Ogg Theora codec. According to the recent statements from Microsoft officials, the Internet Explorer 9 will support the H.264 codec as the part of basic HTML5 support from this browser. Google Chrome is using ffmpeg library that supports both Ogg Theora and H.264. Ok, looks like that Chrome has solved the problem but it is not as simple as it seems. Even though ffmpeg is an open source project it still requires paying fees and this is a problem for the rest of the browser providers.

So what do we have as a result of this browser thing? In our opinion Google Chrome will be able to dramatically increase its market share given the opportunities it currently has. And Google will obviously neither want to do anything to help other browsers solve what appears to be their codec problem nor to support the Ogg Theora codec – because all of the YouTube videos are encoded into H.264 codec (and YouTube is in turn owned by Google as we all know it). So in terms of HTML5 Google Chrome so far appears the obvious winner.

Waiting for the Messiah

So, what do we have for today? Web community is waiting for the long-anticipated solution that will be suitable both for the monster market players and for the web users. Indeed, easier said than done…

There are also several possible ways of solving this problem.

  1. Making the H.264 codec an open source project – everybody will be happy, except for maybe the owners of this codec. Google can’t accept the Ogg Theora because YouTube stores most of its content encoded into H.264 codec so it is unprofitable for Google to make this step. Of course the chances that h.264 will get free patent are minimal but we can hope for that.
  2. Creating a unified solution that will be built into all major operating systems and will allow encoding any video with one codec that will be supported by all browsers. That’s not a bad idea but it does require a lot of time and a lot of money. There’s this codec called VP-8, it has a chance to become a new “video” Messiah because Google has made an acquisition offer to the shareholders of the On2 company which owns patent for VP-8 video codec. So if this software will be released under the free patent we can hope that it will beat the expensive H.264. But again – will Google want to make other browsers’ lives this easy?
  3. Such monsters as Adobe or Apple may step in with something that will also look like the ultimate solution. The resources of these giants do allow them to still be able to jump on the ultimate codec bandwagon. Not sure if Apple will indeed want that but they are very much likely to because they’re not really used to hanging around and watching things passing them by, Steve Jobs wouldn’t lose this sort of marketing opportunity.As for Adobe - they’re not likely to want to lose their current leading positions in terms of web video, and we as an audience in turn would treat what they will possibly provide with great respect and trust, because come on – that’s freaking Adobe after all!
  4. Basically anything else may happen. What we mean here is that the Internet does very much simplify the process of inventing and integrating brilliant things within just a couple of months. Plus, the folks at W3C are smart enough to see whether some startup may be a Web video Messiah and will surely hold on to it in case they see it. So the doors are open for the innovative solutions, and to be honest we would like to see something more interesting than the options we’ve seen so far.

Anyways it is hard to predict how this problem will be solved. May the power be with us and let’s just hope that the solution – whatever it would be – will indeed be the best option and will actually make a better place for us all.

And we are sure that many of you have your own visions and opinions about how this whole video thing will work out. Please let us know in the comments – we’d love to know what you think.

Written by Edward Korcheg

Edward has been with TemplateMonster blog since 2009 and is a great fan of social media and web development trends (especially jQuery and HTML5). In fact, HTML5 along with retro trucks are his two biggest hobbies. He dreams of one day coding himself a retro truck using nothing but HTML5 Canvas tag.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • email
  • StumbleUpon
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
    • http://www.beatmatrix.com Anthony

      I think the new tag will benefit most, but there are already scripts that aren’t too difficult to integrate (jquery, moo tools) that can enable users to integrate video into their sites, but in either case, the internet is about progress, so looking forward to the release

    • http://www.newsvend.com Newsguy

      The new tag is versatile enough to integrate whatever codecs become popular. But ultimately the codec war will be won by the open source warrior, wherever they may come from. it’s just a matter of time.

    • Pingback: This Tool Makes Your Blogs Grow Automatically… | Marketing-Fusion-Secret.com

    • Carl Russell

      Interesting article, but you haven’t mentioned the thorny issue of DRM, which is not supported by HTML5, no matter what the codec.
      This means Flash video will probably be the preferred choice of many media suppliers for years to come.

      • Rob

        @Carl : For companies that wish to apply DRM protection to their content, true, Flash will still be THE platform. However, do you believe a company like Revision 3, whom already offer their videos in many formats free of DRM (including H264, MPEG4, WMV, XVID, and MP3), would want to use Flash over HTML5?

        Revision3, TWiT and other podcast networks not bent on protecting their content will move to HTML5 and help it grow, whereas Netflix and Hulu will stick with Flash.

    • Pingback: frenzin.com

    • http://www.myspacestardom.com mstardom

      I love new web technologies because they help innovation along its way.

    • keith

      You say that Ogg isn’t up the par with H.264… but if it were to become the “standard” every body and their brother could and would start working on to improve it. That is the wonderful thing about OSS. Then H.264 will be a distant memory. At least that is how I view it.

      Hell if they wanted to make a whole new codec (open source of course) they could do that.

      Long live open Source

    • Flash Player

      Dont fix anything that isnt broken Flash is better then HTML5 it really suxx hard on youtube (HTML5 compared to Flash)

    • tapius

      I don’t understand though, can’t they use VLC”s source for codec handling, it’s open too. It plays all of those formats. I’m surprised I dont see many VLC clients made for mobile platforms.

    • BPM

      No one standard will win, we all are ultimatly against monopolistic behaviour regardless where it comes from,

    • Hamranhansenhansen

      W3C is not responsible for setting video format standards, that is done by MPEG. The W3C defines Web *markup*. Their responsibility with regards to video is to set video *markup* standards.

      In other words, W3C defines how Web developers should write a tag, what attributes it can have, what it can contain such as fallback content. W3C defines how browser makers should interpret and render the tag, and what to do when they encounter a malformed tag. That is why W3C is made up of Web technologists. People who are experts at the creation and rendering of *markup*.

      It is MPEG who defines how video publishers should create consumer video for universal playback. It is MPEG who defines how video player makers should interpret and render that video. That is why MPEG is made up of video technologists. People who are experts in the creation and playback of video. Your DVD’s have MPEG-2 on them, and your CD-ROM’s have MPEG-1, and today we are in the MPEG-4 era, same as we are in the HTML5 era at W3C.

      A key thing to understand is that video playback is done in hardware. The consumer video decoder is a chip in your video playback device, same as inside your DVD Player there is a chip that decodes the video off the DVD. Your pocket media player, set-top box, smartphone, even Mac or PC (GPU’s) have video decoding hardware with one common MPEG codec in there so that publishers can publish “consumer video” and consumers can watch “consumer video” on any platform or device that the *consumer* chooses. No matter what codec W3C may prefer, there is no magic that will install their favorite codec into all of the video players and consumer camcorders in the world from the last 8 years in place of the MPEG standard codec that is already there.

      The MPEG standard consumer video playback codec for the past 8 years is ISO MPEG-4 H.264. If you publish in any other codec than H.264, you are not publishing consumer video. You cannot playback on set-top boxes, pocket media players, smartphones, and many other devices. You cannot playback on all Mac or PC, and on those where you do play, you cannot play with the best efficiency and lowest battery drain. Publishing something other than H.264 would be like making a DVD that doesn’t play in DVD Players.

      > No one standard will win, we all are ultimatly against monopolistic
      > behaviour regardless where it comes from

      MPEG cannot be a monopoly any more than W3C can be a monopoly, because both groups are made up of people from many, many companies, *cooperating* in a vendor neutral fashion. This *prevents* monopolies. Companies compete to make the best Web browser, but they don’t compete to make the best HTML, that happens inside W3C and is shared with all. One common HTML enables a Web that can be viewed on multiple browsers from many, many manufacturers and on many platforms. No monopolies. Similarly, companies compete to make the best video player, but they don’t compete to make the best consumer codec, that happens inside MPEG. One common consumer codec enables a video library that can be viewed in multiple video players from many, many manufacturers on many platforms and devices. Again, no monopolies. Anyone can make an HTML browser, and anyone can make an H.264 video player.

      If you are against monopolies, you should be very firmly pro HTML5 and pro H.264. They prevent monopolies. That is their purpose, function, and they are very good at it.

      HTML5 and H.264 are the roads, not the cars. W3C and MPEG are road builders, not car builders. A system of roads that any car can drive on enables a car industry, it enables consumers to choose any car they prefer based on how well the manufacturer competes at car building. A common consumer video codec enables consumers to choose a Flip camcorder or an iPod nano, shoot some video, and send it to a friend who views it on their iPhone or Blackberry, who sends it to a friend who plays it on their Mac or PC. It enables anyone to create a podcast with any tools that plays on set-top boxes from any manufacturer. It enables video publishers to create one H.264 file that plays on set-tops or Blu-Ray disc, iPhone or Blackberry or Palm or Nokia phone, iPod or Samsung media players, Mac or PC or Linux, and that can be sold or distributed through iTunes or YouTube or Amazon. All are H.264.

      So no, publishers do not get a choice of which markup language to use, they use HTML. Publishers do not get a choice of which video codec to use, they use H.264. The fact that their choice is limited enables the *consumer* to have a choice of any Web browser, any video player. It enables any manufacturer to compete fairly in Web browsers or video players.

      There is no video codec war. There is a debate about video codec *licensing*. Mozilla has come literally 12 years late to the party and doesn’t like that everybody is supposed to chip in at the door to cover the open bar, they want to come in for free and they still want to drink. That is the debate that’s going on. Eventually, Mozilla will either get a free license or they will pay for a license from the money they make from their user’s Google searches, or *H.264 will continue to play in Firefox via FlashPlayer as it does today and has for 2.5 years now*.

      The decayed skeleton of Ogg has been dug up to provide leverage in this *licensing* debate. Ogg is not going to replace H.264 which is in its prime and doing an outstanding job of providing a common video platform, and nobody with any knowledge of the technologies thinks that it is. It’s simply not technically or practically possible. Especially not, when as previously mentioned, H.264 already plays in Firefox via FlashPlayer. The debate is purely about whether Mozilla has to chip in for the open bar like every other manufacturer or video players.

      • Pedant

        FANTASTIC response. THIS should be the blog post, not the half-informed nit-wittery people linked here to read.

        • Karl

          Indeed. The article itself is very inaccurate and contains several errors. “Messiah” = H.264 open source. Already exists. Open source is not the same as patent free. Ogg Theora’s quality and technology is so far below H.264 it does not stand a chance. Attempts to improve it are a futile waste of time and energy. Firefox needs an H.264 license, however it can obtain it, but I no longer care as I would just months ago, having happily switched to Chrome on both Linux and Windows.

    • http://sargodarya.de Sargo Darya

      “As for Adobe – they’re not likely to want to lose their current leading positions in terms of web video, and we as an audience in turn would treat what they will possibly provide with great respect and trust, because come on – that’s freaking Adobe after all! ”

      Are you serious? Since Adobe started renaming everything into [Product Name] CS 1/2/3/4 their software is running unstable and they’re pushing software updates with no reason and release new Suites with new functions which are even more unstable. So “That’s freaking Adobe after all” really doesn’t count!

    • Sam

      Linux guy so my vote is ogg.

    • http://www.hoponbaby.com Hummy

      I wish they would just hurry up and sort this out already!

    • henners

      @Karl: switch to chrome, that’s the one isn’t it?
      Firefox just lost their lead i.m.o.

    • concerned_netizen

      “Do you remember those good old times when we haven’t heard anything about the “Flash killers” and playing the web video with Flash player was the option and everyone was pretty much happy with that option?”

      actually I’ve hated the ex-macromedia but now-adobe plugin since day one. it was a piece of crap (both in term of computer security and software quality) and it was the end of being able to download not-so-bad quality video from the web and sent us back to realplayer era.

      as a few others, I’ll be glad when it finally disappear as expected.

    • VIDEO APPLE Red Herring to OUT Flash Interactive 3D Gaming

      This whole debate is really about the reasons Apple will have to respond to the Federal Trade Commission complaints the FTC is receiving about Apple using Flash Video to support iPad and yet locking-out Flash.

      The real reason Steve Jobs CEO of Apple is locking out Flash is Not Really about Streaming Video (which is already proven in TEST RESULTS to be False).

      It’s about Interactive 3D Gaming on the iPad and iPhone. And regarding NVIDIA, which Apples Ex-con-exclusive buddy INTEL who is trying the same tactics on NVIDIA that it has been for over a decade to kill the AMD Processor -Choice For Consumer-. This has prompted the US FTC, Japan, China, The State of New York and the EU to file suit against INTEL. EU has already fined them 1.4B for illegal “pay offs” to VARS to not sell AMD processors, this new suit supports NVIDIA for more Choice for Consumers.

      Apple is doing what many companies are Tempted to do, but a True CEO of Character does not allow to happen, and that is DON’T ALLOW MONEY and POWER to CHANGE YOUR ETHICS.

    • Roger

      > W3C is not responsible for setting video format standards, that is done by MPEG.

      W3C made a Recommendation for websites to use PNG, back when GIF patents were being litigated. There is no difference now between MPEG and Theora, except the W3C is sitting on their hands.

    • Mike

      This is not even a debate. Linux people love to stand behind Theora simply because they hear the words “Open Source” and get all frothy at the mouth. But the reality is Theora is not a serious format. Those of us in the video content creation world don’t use it. The software we use to encode doesn’t even support it. Most of us have never even heard of it, yet it’s an old format. Goes to show you just how much penetration it actually has. Beyond that, if it’s of lesser quality, why bother?

      H.264 is nearly universal these days. People use it for capturing and playback. All these video cameras that say AVCHD are actually H.264 cameras. Even HDSLR cameras are using H.264 video in a .mov wrapper. Plus every new smart phone and media device is being shipped with H.264 hardware decoder chips for smooth playback. Same is becoming true of laptops and desktop computers. Plus sites like YoutTube (as mentioned) and even Blu-ray can playback H.264 encoding.

      There is no format war. H.264 is the clear winner. It’s now just a matter of figuring out the licensing issues with it.

    • Pingback: ATI Radeon HD 3800 | ATI Graphics Cards Review

    • Pingback: ATI Radeon HD 3000 Series | ATI Graphics Cards Review

    • Pingback: ATI Radeon HD 2000 Series | ATI Graphics Card Review

    • http://www.americanrecordablemedia.com/ DVD Duplicator

      I agree with this. Chrome is good when it comes to plugins but it doesn’t be considered as the best browser since only few browser plugins are applicable to Chrome and more of these plugins works on Firefox.

    This entry was posted on Thursday, March 18th, 2010 at 3:03 am and is filed under HTML5. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.Both comments and pings are currently closed.

    March 18th, 2010 in HTML5
    26 Comments