Microsoft and Apple’s True Colours
I’m sure you’ve all heard of Apple and Microsoft suddenly bashing Adobe’s Flash. I won’t link those stories here – best left as an exercise for the reader. Similarly, I’m sure you are all smart enough to realize that even though Flash has been crashing web browsers since its inception for a decade, they only now start harping on its flaws and promote H.264 for HTML5. And at the same time, no less. Adobe, which has been Apple’s most stalwart supporter through all this time (heard of Photoshop on Macs?), is, of course, miffed, especially since Apple is no more open than a closed door itself. If you don’t think something smells fishy, you’re naive.
You see, Microsoft and Apple are part of the MPEG-LA, which sells H.264 licenses. You can read about the whole H.264 licensing issue on OSNews. Suffice to say that whenever somebody encodes a video file using a licensed H.264 encoder, the MPEG-LA gets money. What about x264, you ask? Well, obviously, that’s not licensed, so anybody who has anything to do with x264 encoded video files, whether decoding them or encoding them with the x264 encoder, is legally liable.
This also explains why x264 only recently supports making Bluray compatible H.264 video streams.
Oh yes, I forgot to mention – you also have to pay for a license for a H.264 decoder. That’s why the Mozilla Foundation, which maintains Firefox/Seamonkey, is reluctant to support the H.264 codec for HTML5 video. That also means anybody who watches a H.264 video that is decoded using an unlicensed decoder is also legally liable.
There’s also OGG Theora, which Firefox (and a number of other web browsers) supports right now. But if Steve Jobs’s reply to a random blogger is to be believed, Theora might be infringing on some patents held by the MPEG-LA foundation. Patenting video compression techniques is like patenting mathematics, people. Already some people are thinking that all codecs might be infringing on patents held by the MPEG-LA at one point or another. (see EDIT note 1)
It seems some people believe Apple more than Microsoft when they talk about Flash being closed source and problematic. Can anybody tell me why a company with extremely high profit margins (do I even need to link that one?), and a penchant for raiding people’s homes without sufficient permission (hint: of course, once you heard that the raid was unsanctioned, it should pop up in your mind that Apple was behind that raid) garners more trust than Microsoft?
Isn’t life just like a huge game?
EDIT: Thanks to some readers who pointed out that while it is unlikely that companies on the board profit directly from being on the board and receive licensing fees, they are undoubtedly benefiting in some other indirect ways – who knows? As Netscape has shown us – get enough users to use your product and there is always a way to make money out of it. Just ask Jim Clark. Or Mark Zuckerberg. Or Google. They never had a plan to monetize their products at first.
Since the time of writing, I’ve come to learn that a lead dev on OGG/Theora has responded to Jobs’s remark about a patent pool, calling it either a move calculated to discourage people from getting involved in the format, or a misunderstanding, or a fake reply. He also says that Theora (and other free video codecs) are LESS lurking-patent-prone than Jobs would like it to be, and goes into some details of the development process that I don’t quite get. It’s nice to see these parties going all out at each others’ throats, but I do wish Theora would win, since H.264 is more of a CPU hog than even Flash itself.
EDIT: Engadget has posting a more comprehensive writeup with specific details that asserts that H.264 licensing is not an issue for the end user, and from what I’ve since read on x264, not an issue for x264 either, although I’m not sure of the details.























