[whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*
ian at hixie.ch
Tue Dec 11 04:11:18 PST 2007
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Maik Merten wrote:
> Ian Hickson schrieb:
> > The difference is that while Apple (for example) have already assumed
> > the risk of submarine patents with H.264, they currently have taken no
> > risks with respect to the aforementioned codecs, and they do not wish
> > to take on that risk.
> Which surely means that they won't ever support any new codecs or new
> features at any point in the future. This would be the only way to stop
> adding new risks.
One would imagine that they would happily take new risks if the rewards
were great (e.g. a better codec). Sadly the rewards in the case of Ogg
Theora are low -- there isn't much content using Theora, and Theora isn't
technically an especially compelling codec compared to other contemporary
codecs like, say, H.264.
One way to get a company like Apple to want to take the risk of
implementing Theora would be to cause there to be a large pool of existing
Theora content out there. Obviously, this presents a bootstrapping problem
(aka a "chicken and egg" problem).
> If patents are such a threat to big companies they better should drive
> serious efforts to get the patent lottery into a more sane state or they
> innovation potential is endangered.
I assure you that this is happening, but it's somewhat out of the scope of
the work on HTML5. :-)
> The problem is that the requirements describe the emtpy set, as is
> correctly described with "However, there are no known codecs that
> satisfy all the current players".
Indeed. Work is ongoing to address this. If we had a solution today, we
wouldn't be having this discussion, the spec would just be updated to
Sadly, work to get a solution here is likely to occur mostly behind closed
doors, since it's principally a political problem and not a technical one.
I am not actively involved in the work to find a solution here.
> To put it into a nutshell: To respect the needs of the big players for
> sure is important - but same shall apply to the needs of the not-so-big
> ones. I know you don't intend anything else, but the current wording may
> be a bit unfortunate.
I think the current wording in the spec is actually biased towards the
small players more than the big ones, but if you think it's the other way
around then I probably have struck the right balance.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg