Google Misinterprets “Open”, Threatens HTML5

Over the past two years we have seen a different Google emerge on to the internet.  They’re not just a search company anymore, but one of the most integral software companies in the history of the internet.  Building operating systems, web services, sponsoring custom hardware, and powerful browsers.  But as Google’s ambitions have grown, the company’s greed and cliché corporate malice has become more visible.  First they spar with Apple, then they attack net neutrality, and now they threaten to undo all the progress of HTML5 in the past year.  This newest development has arisen from the news earlier this week that Google will drop support for H.264 in HTML5 from the Chrome browser and most likely all their web services.  Focusing completely on their own “open” video codec: WebM, and Ogg Theora instead of the “insufficiently open” standard of MPEG-4/H.264.

Ed Note: Some of this editorial may reference the recent ArsTechnica article “Google’s dropping H.264 from Chrome a step backward for openness” by Peter Bright.  Bright gives an excellent overview of the situation surrounding Google’s decision.  The editorial will use Bright’s remarks and thoughts as support or possibly refute a few of his points.  I recommend you read that article as well at some point for a more complete understanding.

Let’s start at the beginning and weigh how Google considers the term “open”.  To paraphrase Bright’s position, which I agree with: they don’t know shit!  H.264 is the definition of open.  The video codec was designed and standardized by ISO and ITU-T, the authorities on standardization on this planet.  The technology was compiled and developed by a team of engineers stemming from across the industry, voted on and ratified by an international standards organization.  Now, compare that with Google’s WebM.  That was originally called VP8, built by the private firm On2 (in secret) before being acquired by Google.  They released it as a free and open standard, but they have yet to submit it to a standards organization and Google controls the codec by itself.  So you tell me, what is more open here?

Advertisement

Witness the Power of HTML5!

Now imagine that title said with some intensity and you’ve got the kind of feeling Apple wants to convey to you.  Today Apple opened up a new section of their website for developers lauding and showing off the abilities of HTML5 with a few demos of the technology.  Included is an example of text manipulation using CSS3 and Javascript, slide transitions a la Powerpoint using HTML5 and CSS3, photo gallery animations using 3D effects, embedded video and audio, 360˚ image rotation, and virtual reality overlays.  Apple is really pushing the combined technology of javascript, CSS3 and HTML5 as an alternative to Flash and these examples do a lot to show the power of these standards.  One of the big pluses that Apple is focusing on with these little demos is that you don’t need plug-ins or even embedded images and files, everything is augmented by HTML5.  Take a look at the demos here: HTML5 Demos.

So how well does it work?  Pretty well.  Video was exceptionally clear and high quality, but then again it was on Apple’s website using highly optimized H.264 video.  Playback was choppy at higher resolutions, but I blame that on my slower computer.  All in all it performed just as well as Flash does.  All the demos are pretty impressive, but it remains to be seen if web developers will put that much effort into it as Apple has.  Also, keep in mind that not every browser full supports HTML5 and CSS3 + SVG, so these features may not all work exactly the same on Firefox, Chrome, or Internet Explorer (though the next version of all these browsers will probably fix that).  In a bit of irony, I actually could not run one of the demos (the VR segment) because it requires support for CSS3 3D animation, which Safari 4 on Leopard does not support.  I’ll have to revisit that one once I get my new computer for college.

So, what do you think?  This good enough to replace Flash?