All 2 entries tagged Firefox
View all 26 entries tagged Firefox on Warwick Blogs | View entries tagged Firefox at Technorati | There are no images tagged Firefox on this blog
September 08, 2008
The availability of a Firefox 3.1 alpha (and Safari 3.1) with video tag support has prompted a few people to proclaim that Flash will soon be replaced as the primary medium for playing video on the web. I think predictions of Flash’s demise are both premature and inaccurate, and also think there’s a possibility that the introduction of the new tag could cause more problems than it was intended to solve. Why? – codecs…
Firefox (and Opera) will support one embedded codec in the first instance, Theora. Theora is completely open-source but based on an older-generation codec, On2 VP3. Flash currently uses VP6 and H.264, Quicktime Player supports H.264 and Silverlight adds support for VC-1, one of the newest kids on the video block. All are newer, higher-quality formats than Theora (typical comparison here). That’s not to say Theora is a bad codec, far from it, but in the world of video codecs it is at least a generation old, maybe more, and as such doesn’t represent the current best of breed in terms of video quality/performance.
Secondly, in order to take over from Flash, Theora needs to be on all or enough browsers to work as a standard. The HTML5 specification doesn’t advocate or recommend any codecs, and as the specification notes, this is problematic:
It would be helpful for interoperability if all browsers could support the same codecs. However, there are no known codecs that satisfy all the current players: we need a codec that is known to not require per-unit or per-distributor licensing, that is compatible with the open source development model, that is of sufficient quality as to be usable, and that is not an additional submarine patent risk for large companies. This is an ongoing issue and this section will be updated once more information is available.
So, if one browser advocates Theora, will every other browser follow? After all it’s a fairly trivial (and zero-licencing cost) thing to include support for it. Firefox and Opera combined currently have around 25-30% share of the browser market; while 30% (and growing) is an excellent starting point to build from, IE’s and Flash’s dominance in terms of installed base will make it difficult forTheora to overtake the current popular formats unless they support it too.
We’re not starting with a blank sheet of paper here either; many video services and sites that use video have spent a considerable amount of time and investment in encoding to a specific platform, one that is currently supported by enough browsers/platforms to make it worthwhile. At best a move to Theora would have to be transitional, and likely to take several years, as people migrate content over to the new format. IE is the most common browser by a considerable margin, and Microsoft has its own favoured formats; WMV via Windows Media Player and/or VC-1 via Silverlight, plus the formats supported by Flash Player. It’s hard to see these not being with us for a while yet, unless IE starts supporting Theora at the expense of Windows Media formats (unlikely); if Theora isn’t included in IE, it simply isn’t going to get traction as quickly as it needs to to become the standard. Similarly unless Webkit (as the core engine of Chrome and Safari) or YouTube also add native support for it (AFAIU latest Safari builds that support the video tag currently support Quicktime’s supported formats, which doesn’t include Theora as standard), it’s hard to see it taking over. While users will be able to add new codecs manually, assuming they will do so in order to view a new video format could be risky. Then there’s streaming support via RTSP/RTMP, etc.
My point is we are going to have to live with multiple formats whether we like it or not, and that Theora is a technically a backward step; it will only take one browser vendor to ignore Theora and it will become void as a standard, yet HTML5 isn’t forcing or even recommending a standard to follow. At this point video on the web will be in danger of becoming a mess as people find they don’t have the required codec and have to install support for it. I wouldn’t go as far as to suggest the video tag is going to create chaos where relative calm currently exists, but it might. I can’t see a good technical reason why the current model of using Flash as a wrapper for video and codec support is broken, or why it needs to be replaced with what may become a mess of format support where we move from two or three dominant formats to five, six or maybe more competing ones, plus multiple downloads for users. In my experience proprietary formats tend to be better, that’s why they cost, and neither do I buy into the ‘everything has to be open-source’ argument, especially considering that the dominant audio format is MP3, which isn’t an open-source format at all (even AAC codecs require patent licence).
Most importantly though, while all this takes place a solution already exists; Flash Player. It supports H.264, VP6 and Sorenson, most people already have it and it works on all the browsers mentioned above, across Windows, Linux and Mac. “But Flash is a terrible resource hog!” I hear you say, but when you consider that Flash is decoding and rendering video, in software, it’s worth noting that this takes CPU cycles and is a processor/memory intensive task. Even if you could run fully-hardware accelerated video (which Flash is moving towards), video is still relatively intensive work for the average desktop/laptop. In the first instance, Theora decoding in Firefox is going to run in software, just like Flash, and presumably consume CPU cycles in a similar way.
With all this in mind it would seem to me that the only reason for wanting to take Flash off its video pedestal is that it is owned by a commercial entity, ignoring the fact that Flash Player has been a key enabler and driver of the dramatic increase in use of video on the web, without any of the ‘payback’ people seem to fear. Without advocacy from W3C, the reality is that browsers are going to be free to implement their own choice of favoured codecs, but those choices are likely to be driven by different criteria, not necessarily whether they are open-source. It could be about to get messy.
Alternatively, we could all start using Mike Chambers’ workaround for getting Flash to display video wherever the video tag is used, and everyone could just carry on. ;-)
March 22, 2006
Writing about web page http://www.firefoxflicks.com/adcontest/
Firefox is currently running a competition to develop a 30-second advertisement for the browser. It's open to individuals or teams and they are actively encouraging submissions by the student community. Be quick though – 3 weeks until it closes.
The primary target audience for the Firefox advertising campaign are moderately experienced Web users, who are comfortable with using the Web but are not necessarily power users. These users understand how to download and install software, and use the Web for basic activities: reading news, web-based email, limited online shopping and banking. They may rely as much on the physical Yellow Pages as they do Yahoo! or Google. They may also have had negative experiences with the Web as a result of spyware, viruses and other Web nuisances. Yet they see the value in the Web, and so return. But they likely do not clearly understand how a Web browser can improve their Web experience.
That seems like a reasonable assumption – most people I know using Firefox are knowledgeable, technically-literate internet 'natives'. Most of my friends and family all use it too, but only because I've waxed lyrical about all the cool things it can do. Firefox is currently sitting at around 10–20% usage (some estimates go some way either side of this) and while the figures continue to go up, it's obvious that Mozilla wants to maintain that momentum using more than word-of-mouth.
Here are the guidelines from the brief…
- Exciting, easy, simple, fun, modern, smart, cool, adventurous, young, empowering, helpful. We're sure there are other angles you can think of.
- Ad should function more at brand level than at product features/benefits level.
- Ad can be in any style: live action, animated, etc.
- Don't overhype. If you have to, err on the side of subtlety, and let the audience connect the dots to get the message.
- Take risks. The brand is new. The product is one-year old. Be fresh.
- Use these guidelines as very broad suggestions. We are most interested in seeing how creative you can be in expressing the core premise of Firefox: making the Web experience better for everyone, and getting that message out to mainstream Web users.
- Entries must be submitted no later than midnight, April 14th, 2006.
This is an interesting idea; take our cool, friendly and downright useful browser and help us shout it out to the world. Despite a momentary flash of cynicism, I like the approach they've taken – it adds further weight to the sense of community and 'the people vs IE' tack that Firefox seems to elicit. I'm looking forward to seeing the best entries and the final winner, mainly because I've never seen a commercial for a web browser before.
Which reminds me – am I the only one who hates the current MS TV ad, with that patronising voice saying something about 'we're working to improve security'? Yes, but only because you had to.