Firefox Could Get H.264 Support After All

Martin Brinkmann
Mar 15, 2012
Updated • Dec 2, 2012

Remember the HTMl5 video war from about a year ago? When browser manufacturers left and right claimed allegiance to H.264 or WebM? For the user, such moves can often be disastrous, anyone remembering the Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD uncertainty knows what I'm talking about. With HTML5 video it came down to Microsoft and Apple supporting H.264, and Mozilla, Google and Opera supporting WebM. Google furthermore had support for H.264 built into the browser, but promised to remove support completely in the future.

The fronts appear to be crumbling right now, with Mozilla's Andreas Gal proposing a change in strategy for the Firefox web browser. Originally aimed at the mobile version of the browser, it soon widened to include the desktop versions as well.

Firefox Mobile is in a predicament, as WebM support has not yet been included into the Android operating system. With Firefox only supporting WebM, it would effectively mean that Firefox users cannot play HTML5 videos, the new standard when it comes to video on the Internet. For now, Adobe Flash offers a fallback.

Gal's idea to bake H.264 support into Firefox comes with an interesting twist. Instead of supporting H.264 natively, the developers plan to use the format if it is supported by the operating system. This could also pave the way for additional codecs being supported by the browser, mp3 comes to mind.

I want to land bug 714408 on mozilla-central as soon as I get review for it. It adds hardware-accelerated audio/video decoding support to Gecko using system decoders already present on the system. Android, for example, ships by default with a number of decoders, and in particular for such mobile devices we really have to use these hardware-accelerated decoders for good battery life (and performance).

Initially this will be enabled on Gonk (B2G). In a few weeks we will add support for Android as well. We will support decoding any video/audio format that is supported by existing decoders present on the system, including H.264 and MP3. There is really no justification to stop our users from using system decoders already on the device, so we will not filter any formats

On Android, H.264 would readily be available for the browser. As far as the desktop goes, things are more complicated. If you look at Windows, you will notice that Windows 7 ships with H.264 support, while Vista and XP do not. Microsoft recently created a Firefox add-on that added H.264 for Windows 7 users of the browser.

Concerns were raised by some developers that Mozilla was capitulating on free codecs, but most seem to agree that Mozilla needs to do something to stay competitive.

I do believe this war is lost. Just look around. Almost none of the content users want to watch is available in WebM. The only reason desktop is usable is because of Flash, a proprietary plugin, playing video for us (in H.264, mostly). Even Google, supposedly a proponent of open codecs, never fully converted YouTube and never dropped H.264 from Chrome. Taking a principled (I would at this point prefer 'stubborn' I think) stance on H.264 won't change reality. It just hurts us and our users.

Firefox got to the point where we are on desktop today by embracing reality. In the early days we started supporting IE-isms like document.all that were god awfully ugly and non-standard. But it was needed for compatibility so we can give people a usable web experience. The web uses H.264. That's an unpleasant fact, but its a fact. We have to support it whether we like it or not, so we can be around for the next round and continue to influence the web for the better.

Nothing seems to be set into stone yet, but it appears as if Mozilla intents to go forward with the implementation in the near future. Would you personally have a issue with Firefox supporting codecs such as h.264?


Tutorials & Tips

Previous Post: «
Next Post: «


  1. Kise said on March 31, 2012 at 10:50 am

    good for them i’ll never convert our whole video database to support dying spec, not all of us have million of servers ready to convert i have about 3 TB of video data all of them are in h264 and only about 15% of our users use firefox, so they get ti deal with flash and the rest of browsers get the nice free-flash experience, we are not ready to triple our storage just to support firefox

    1. Anonymous said on March 31, 2012 at 11:02 am

      Double, not triple, and 3TB is almost nothing—just 1-2 hard drives depending on capacity, times whatever redundancy you hopefully have.

      1. Kise said on April 1, 2012 at 10:01 am

        Yeah when you factor in the the cost vs the number of the users, it doesn’t sound too great, also while 3TB doesn’t sound match it does takes a lot of time to convert for 15% of our users, which most of them have flash already, and Doubling the storage is not something I’m really looking for, not to mention backing up 6TB of storage kinda hard for small companies, also most of the videos are private videos of our customers

  2. Mark said on March 16, 2012 at 12:07 pm

    WebM has been supported by the Android OS since version 2.3 (Gingerbread).

  3. Raj said on March 16, 2012 at 5:40 am

    It is sad. It just illustrates that Google cannot be trusted. It is after all accountable to its shareholders and ultimately needs to show profits. Increasingly it seems Google is an ad-company and not the innovative technology company it was. They have stopped many loss making projects in which they invested a lot of money and it won’t surprise me that they may cut the cord for webm too.

    This places Mozilla in a quagmire. I believe that they will have to compromise and supporting H264 through system codecs may be the only viable option. The alternative will see Firefox losing more market share to the competition against Chrome. That would be worse.

  4. Robert Palmar said on March 15, 2012 at 10:33 pm

    Whenever Microsoft and Apple are on the same page,
    which is almost never it seems, a juggernaut like
    that is hard to counter even for Google.

    1. Martin Brinkmann said on March 15, 2012 at 10:35 pm

      Well Google did not even try that hard until now, even though they promised commitment. And, uhm, they paid more than 100 million for that codec.

      1. Robert Palmar said on March 16, 2012 at 12:58 am

        Yeah, you have to wonder what Google was thinking.
        It’s almost like they decided to surrender and cut
        their losses rather than fight a battle against
        Microsoft and Apple united together.

  5. Atul said on March 15, 2012 at 6:31 pm

    This is totally sad and surprising. I was very optimistic about WebM/VP8 codecs.
    Google announced to drop support for H.264 but it is still pending. :(

  6. BlackisBack said on March 15, 2012 at 10:28 am

    I personally don’t know what browser supported codecs do, flash player plays youtube video, html is a premature but potentially better video player then adobe’s. I thoguht watching vids on youtube that are flv are already encoded with h.264?.

Leave a Reply

Check the box to consent to your data being stored in line with the guidelines set out in our privacy policy

We love comments and welcome thoughtful and civilized discussion. Rudeness and personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please stay on-topic.
Please note that your comment may not appear immediately after you post it.