or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Google announces free WebM video codec as H.264 alternative
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google announces free WebM video codec as H.264 alternative - Page 2

post #41 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

The fact that the iPhone OS is theoretically the same on all devices isn't really true.

No one said it was true. Each evolution of the iPhone HW requires new software for it to work. The difference is the stepped evolution and balanced released across all iPhones for 3 years compared to diverse and complex ecosystem that Google has unfortunately unleashed and it now trying to corral.

There is no Android user that has that confidence in their device like iPhone users. When Froyo hits will the HTC Dream get that day... or ever? What about the Moto Droid? And so on.... I think you'd be hard pressed to find an iPhone 3G or 3GS user than doesn't think that they will get v4.0 by the time the G4 iPhone hits the market, and those that are unsure are exactly the "techtarded" consumer base that Android is having trouble wrangling in because of their complex setup that offers little to no consumer security.

PS: I had the worst time the other day pushing video clips via Dropbox to a friend with a Moto Droid. The codec support sucks! even using H.264 with AAC using different encoders resulted in very different results, from nothing playing, to just audio, to just video. Apple has a long history of stingy codec support but I know if I work within their spec sheet listing the video will play fine.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #42 of 96
http://www.webmproject.org/license/bitstream/

VP8 Bitstream Specification License

Google hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise implementations of this specification where such license applies only to those patent claims, both currently owned by Google and acquired in the future, licensable by Google that are necessarily infringed by implementation of this specification. If You or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree to the institution of patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any implementation of this specification constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, or inducement of patent infringement, then any rights granted to You under the License for this specification shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.

[There is so much wiggle room in that statement]

http://www.webmproject.org/license/software/

Software License

Copyright (c) 2010, Google, Inc. All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
  • Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
  • Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
  • Neither the name of Google nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS “AS IS” AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

Subject to the terms and conditions of the above License, Google hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer this implementation of VP8, where such license applies only to those patent claims, both currently owned by Google and acquired in the future, licensable by Google that are necessarily infringed by this implementation of VP8. If You or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree to the institution of patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that this implementation of VP8 or any code incorporated within this implementation of VP8 constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, or inducement of patent infringement, then any rights granted to You under this License for this implementation of VP8 shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.


[again, All Rights Reserved and massive wiggle room]

Whoever said this is a GPLv3 style license is false.
post #43 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

No one said it was true. Each evolution of the iPhone HW requires new software for it to work. The difference is the stepped evolution and balanced released across all iPhones for 3 years compared to diverse and complex ecosystem that Google has unfortunately unleashed and it now trying to corral.

There is no Android user that has that confidence in their device like iPhone users. When Froyo hits will the HTC Dream get that day... or ever? What about the Moto Droid? And so on.... I think you'd be hard pressed to find an iPhone 3G or 3GS user than doesn't think that they will get v4.0 by the time the G4 iPhone hits the market, and those that are unsure are exactly the "techtarded" consumer base that Android is having trouble wrangling in because of their complex setup that offers little to no consumer security.

I'm not sure what the point is, though. Yes, iPhone 3G users will get iPhone OS 4. Every iPhone 3G user I know (of which I only know 2 -- most of them upgraded to the 3GS) is cursing the fact that their phones won't use much of iPhone OS 4's new features. One of them even cursed the lack of multitasking coming to the 3G and is getting an HTC Incredible since his 2 years qualify him for another subsidy.

Of course Apple is doing a better job at keeping their unified hardware with unified software. It's both a blessing and a curse for Apple.

Quote:
PS: I had the worst time the other day pushing video clips via Dropbox to a friend with a Moto Droid. The codec support sucks! even using H.264 with AAC using different encoders resulted in very different results, from nothing playing, to just audio, to just video. Apple has a long history of stingy codec support but I know if I work within their spec sheet listing the video will play fine.

It's interesting, I had the exact opposite experience. We had batch encoded our 22,000 videos (using mencode) with apparently some quirky parameters. iPhoneOS wouldn't play it, WebOS and Android would. We needed to tweak the b-frame parameter to get it to work. I still have problems getting QuickTime to play back some of my custom-encoded h264 rips, such that I installed VLC to get it to work.
post #44 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


Whoever said this is a GPLv3 style license is false.

Who said it was GPLv3? It's a BSD license.
post #45 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

Every iPhone 3G user I know (of which I only know 2 -- most of them upgraded to the 3GS) is cursing the fact that their phones won't use much of iPhone OS 4's new features.

The first two iPhones only have a 128MB RAM and if you look at the stats there is little room left for additional apps. The 256MB in the 3GS has plenty of room left for backgrounding some apps without issue so these 3G users shouldn't have been the least bit surprised as this was an expected outcome when they finally offered multitasking.

Quote:
It's interesting, I had the exact opposite experience.

Do you an Android video player and Mac OS X encoder recommendation?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #46 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erunno View Post

Interesting. Can you link to the technical explanation? I haven't had the time to occupy myself with this topic deeply yet.

One link I found is here: The first in-depth technical analysis of VP8
http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=377

It also mentions the similarities in between WebM and H.264 and the probable difficulties with patents. Like the case of VC-1, just because something was released as "open" doesn't necessarily mean that it's patent-unencumbered. We'll see if Google's confidence is justified. He also mentioned that as a "spec" it is very ill-defined for others to reliably implement.
post #47 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamias View Post

One link I found is here: The first in-depth technical analysis of VP8
http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=377

It also mentions the similarities in between WebM and H.264 and the probable difficulties with patents. Like the case of VC-1, just because something was released as "open" doesn't necessarily mean that it's patent-unencumbered. We'll see if Google's confidence is justified. He also mentioned that as a "spec" it is very ill-defined for others to reliably implement.

Keep in mind the bias of the source. The guy has spent years of his life working on an h264 encoder.
post #48 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

All of the modern codecs are extremely similar. They all work off the same fundamental ideas (except Dirac which is wavelet-based).

If MPEG-LA (of which Apple is a major member) wants to deal with the PR nightmare and risk the complete overhaul of software patents (which is long overdue), then they're welcome to go to war with Google over the patents. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot and having everyone muttering "Appholes" under their breath when they're forced to pay per download of Firefox, Opera, etc because MPEG-LA has some overly general, ridiculous software patent.

In a lot of ways, I hope they try. The image of Google trying to make everything free for users and Apple wanting everyone to pay for something ridiculously obvious would go a long way to further damaging Apple's brand.

This is quite a "strawman" fantasy you are spinning here.

There is no indication at all that Apple or MPEG-LA would be interested in suing Google over the patents, so all your imaginings about how people would feel about that and what motivations Apple has are just hot air.

What *is* happening, is that people involved with the industry are thinking of suing over Ogg/Theora, which is the main reason Google is doing this at all. They have a vested interest in having an open source codec available and they know Ogg/Theora is possibly in violation.

If this new codec gets better, or even to the same level of quality and ease of use as H.264, Apple will support it. It's almost a guaranteed thing based on their history and their actual goals. If both were equal and this one was free (assuming the H.264 owners started asking for money), then Apple would go with it and ditch H.264 rapidly.

What's more likely is that over the next five years or so this codec acts as a sop to the purists at Mozilla and the EFF and gets gradually better and better until it arrives at feature and quality parity with H.264.

I think by that time though, FireFox might be history (depending on how fast this thing can get good), and H.264 will be so widespread it will always be with us. The only thing that can really kill H.264 adoption is a markedly *better* codec, that's also free. This isn't likely to be that codec.
post #49 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Do you an Android video player and Mac OS X encoder recommendation?

I use the regular Android video player. I don't have any specific encoder recommendations. I only use command-line encoders because I encode in batch on servers. I use mencoder/x264 mostly. Toyed with ffmpeg for 3gp.
post #50 of 96
Funny how the author glosses over the very serious issue of H264 royalties - "Oh Mozilla is just too cheap to pay" H264 licensing is $5 million dollars a year (for software with wide distribution. Not exactly chump change. There are also issues with filming in H264 - cameras that do so (even some very expensive one) don't include the license to use that footage commercially, which is a way for MPEG LA to extort money out out of independent filmmakers.

H264 is really only "open" to those with extremely deep pockets.
post #51 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

This is quite a "strawman" fantasy you are spinning here.

There is no indication at all that Apple or MPEG-LA would be interested in suing Google over the patents, so all your imaginings about how people would feel about that and what motivations Apple has are just hot air.

I realize "strawman" is a neat word, but please use it correctly. Somebody had asked what would occur when MPEG-LA "realize" VP8 is infringing on their patents.

This should somewhat obviously fall in the realm of speculation. But thank you for your observation that this is, indeed, speculation.

Quote:
What *is* happening, is that people involved with the industry are thinking of suing over Ogg/Theora, which is the main reason Google is doing this at all. They have a vested interest in having an open source codec available and they know Ogg/Theora is possibly in violation.

I do enjoy how you took me to task for my "hot air" in my "strawman" in answering someone's question based on speculation, but here you are inventing random facts that don't even make much sense. Google is doing this because VP8 is a far better codec than VP3/Theora, which is the main criticism for not supporting Theora. Yes, it is in Google's interest for there to be a free, no-strings-attached codec. It should be in everyone's interest except for the companies who stand to gain from h264 adoption by being part of the MPEG-LA patent pool, like Apple and Microsoft.

Quote:
I think by that time though, FireFox might be history (depending on how fast this thing can get good), and H.264 will be so widespread it will always be with us. The only thing that can really kill H.264 adoption is a markedly *better* codec, that's also free. This isn't likely to be that codec.

Speaking of strawmen...no one mentioned killing h264. I believe I thought I made it explicitly clear that h264 and WebM would coexist.
post #52 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

I fully expect the iPod/iPhone to never support WebM, though, because Apple is pushing h264 hard as they're part of the patent pool for it. Sites will need to maintain both h264 and WebM versions to hit all clients.

Apple has many reasons for pushing H.264. Many have been publicly stated. Being part of the patent pool is not one of them and it's silly of you to throw that out there.

Of the 1,135 patents from 26 companies in 44 countries, Apple owns 1. In contrast Microsoft owns 75 and Dean Hachamovitch has stated that, "Microsoft pays into MPEG-LA about twice as much as it receives back for rights to H.264". So please stop spreading that meme as the basis of it is just ridiculous.
post #53 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamias View Post

One link I found is here: The first in-depth technical analysis of VP8
http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=377

Thanks, I'll read through it later this week. The source has to be handled with care though as the x264 developers have a vested interest in seeing H2.64 succeed as they allegedly are in the process of trying to commercialize the x264 encoder. Plus, one of their developers has been caught pants down recently bad-mouthing the OGG container to which the original developer of OGG issued a very detailed rebuttal.

This doesn't mean that what is written in the link you provided is false, of course. But the background should be taken into account.
post #54 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamias View Post

Apple has many reasons for pushing H.264. Many have been publicly stated. Being part of the patent pool is not one of them and it's silly of you to throw that out there.

Of the 1,135 patents from 26 companies in 44 countries, Apple owns 1. In contrast Microsoft owns 75 and Dean Hachamovitch has stated that, "Microsoft pays into MPEG-LA about twice as much as it receives back for rights to H.264". So please stop spreading that meme as the basis of it is just ridiculous.

Don't think you understand -- I'm not talking about making money from the patent pool/MPEG-LA. That money is chump change to Apple and MS (and Google).

There are other benefits, such as patent indemnity. They're basically part of a large alliance so there's little risk exposure. If h264 violates someone's patent, MPEG-LA gets sued...not Apple. In reality, MPEG-LA just invites that company into the patent pool to start collecting money also rather than engage in lawsuits.

(PS: If you're going to be pedantic, MS has 65 in the pool, not 75 last I checked)
post #55 of 96
Awesome, but confusing.

First Awesome: this means that we might have a way to have a free and open video format that can be played on mobile devices using HTML5. It's awesome that Firefox, Opera and Chrome will support it. It's awesome that it is coming to android sometime this year. It will be used by youtube, which should help speed up adoption. It can even be ran on IE9!!

It's confusing: Google made a serious partnership with Adobe to get flash built into chrome and mobile chrome on adroid. Playing flash 10.1 will be a competitive advantage for the Android platform. So why is Google pushing this format out there while courting adobe? Could it be that they just want to produce division in the open source community to try to keep Adobe (and android) at a competitive advantage?

I am not really sure about which one is right, and since google's new motto is "do some evil when it suits you" it could well be the second scenario. We need to settle this HTML5 video codec debate as soon as possible, or risk a continuos domination of flash.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #56 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheff View Post

It's confusing: Google made a serious partnership with Adobe to get flash built into chrome and mobile chrome on adroid. Playing flash 10.1 will be a competitive advantage for the Android platform. So why is Google pushing this format out there while courting adobe? Could it be that they just want to produce division in the open source community to try to keep Adobe (and android) at a competitive advantage?

Adobe is backing WebM also and Flash will support it in the next version. Adobe isn't in the codec game.

Quote:
We need to settle this HTML5 video codec debate as soon as possible, or risk a continuos domination of flash.

There is only one possible way to settle it: Adopt WebM. h264 is impossible to put in the standard.
post #57 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

"anybody to implement", provided they have the means to pay for it. That's not open.

It's a misnomer.

"open" is usually defined as "free of obstruction" or "affording free passage".

Asherian - Please, stop already. You're making a fool of yourself. We get it that you have a passion for this new codec. Feel free to make your case with facts, etc. However, "open" and "free" are not the same. Open can sometimes also be free, but has no obligation to be. You seem desperate to somehow wish the opposite, but wishing "open" to always mean "free" serves no purpose other than to make you look silly.

You've asked others to be practical here. The only web browser of significance that doesn't support H.264 is Mozilla (sorry Opera, you're insignificant). Apple is H.264 only, Microsoft is moving to H.264 only and Google is neutral by supporting everything. Nobody in their right mind is going to put out web content that will not play on both Microsoft and Apple's browsers, phones, etc. Further, without widespread hardware support, nothing will challenge H.264 on mobile devices. Period. Also, despite what you may think, nobody is going to go through the trouble of providing half baked hardware support either.

The only thing that could take movement away from H.264 at this point is MPEG-LA themselves by starting to charge money for streaming beyond 2016. Though they reserve the right to do so, that seems highly unlikely at this point. Kudos to Google for providing this option. However, the best this will do is serve as an insurance policy to keep streaming free for H.264.

Sorry, but you needed a dose of reality.
post #58 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by another_steve View Post

Asherian - Please, stop already. You're making a fool of yourself. We get it that you have a passion for this new codec. Feel free to make your case with facts, etc. However, "open" and "free" are not the same. Open can sometimes also be free, but has no obligation to be. You seem desperate to somehow wish the opposite, but wishing "open" to always mean "free" serves no purpose other than to make you look silly.

Let's face reality. "open standard" is not a universal declaration. Some think "open" can mean "anyone can implement as long as you pay", others don't. The people who think being royalty-free is part of being an "open standard" includes, but is not limited to:

1) W3C (the standards organization behind the web -- so yes, the "open web" must be royalty free -- sorry)
2) The European Union
3) Danish Government
4) French Government
5) Spanish Government
6) Venezuelan Government
7) South African Government
8) New Zealand Government
9) Bruce Perens (if you don't know who he is, just step away from this discussion now)
10) Microsoft ("Let's look at what an open standard means: 'open' refers to it being royalty-free, while 'standard' means a technology approved by formalised committees that are open to participation by all interested parties and operate on a consensus basis." - National Technology Officer for MS)
11) Open Source Initiative

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard

By far, the consensus is "open standards" are to be royalty-free. Any opinion that an "open standard" can charge $5M/yr for implementation is in the distinct minority.

Yes, Apple calls it an "open standard" in their marketing. Apple is being misleading in their marketing. Under no reasonable, generally accepted definition is h264 an open standard.

Quote:
You've asked others to be practical here. The only web browser of significance that doesn't support H.264 is Mozilla (sorry Opera, you're insignificant). Apple is H.264 only, Microsoft is moving to H.264 only and Google is neutral by supporting everything.

I guess you missed the news today that IE9 will play WebM video also (provided the system codec is installed).

Safari is the only browser that won't. Put Safari (won't play WebM) vs Firefox (won't play h264) -- who has the biggest marketshare here?

Your point just backfired. (PS: for your dig on Opera...Opera's market share is 2.30, but Safari's is only 4.72. Firefox is at 24.59%. Chrome is at 6.73% and growing very fast. http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/new...rket-share.ars)

Quote:
Sorry, but you needed a dose of reality.

I enjoyed contributing to this thread, hopefully clearing the issue up for some people. But now that we've got the self-righteous fanboys coming in on the high horses, it's time to take my leave.
post #59 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

If MPEG-LA (of which Apple is a major member) wants to deal with the PR nightmare and risk the complete overhaul of software patents (which is long overdue), then they're welcome to go to war with Google over the patents. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot and having everyone muttering "Appholes" under their breath when they're forced to pay per download of Firefox, Opera, etc because MPEG-LA has some overly general, ridiculous software patent.

Actually how much of a major member of the MPEG-LA is Apple, have a look the AVC/H.264 AVC Patent Portfolio license, Apple has one patent listed, even Microsoft has over 40 in there.
post #60 of 96
I'm liking this WebM, Steve Jobs must not be happy today...
post #61 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

Adobe is backing WebM also and Flash will support it in the next version. Adobe isn't in the codec game.


There is only one possible way to settle it: Adopt WebM. h264 is impossible to put in the standard.

There's also a chance that WebM will fall under h264 patents, so IT may be impossible to put into the spec.

The reality is that Apple doesn't really care which codec is used. As long as the codec works well and is open, Apple couldn't care less.

Whether Adobe Flash reads WebM or h264 or (far more likely) both is also irrelevant to Apple.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #62 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

It's royalty free until 2016 for end-users. Corporations must license it now -- Mozilla would need to pay millions of dollars to license it. Apple, Google, and Microsoft already have paid the money which is why it's not a big deal for them.

But no company seriously supporting "the open web" can support h264 only, which is NOT truly free and is virtually guaranteed in 2016 to cost end users money.

If h264 is ubiquitous and entrenched in 2016, as Apple would like it to be, why would MPEG-LA leave hundreds of millions of dollars sitting on the table? It's only temporarily royalty free for end-users to foster its adoption, then once it's widely adopted they'll be looking to cash in. The companies that are part of MPEG-LA do not develop these technologies out of the goodness of their hearts. The entire purpose of MPEG-LA is to make money from people using their technology.

This is just anti-iso propaganda. In 2016 there will be a vote. It is "virtually guaranteed" that h264 will remain free for end users (not the other way around). I doubt that they could even get away with per user licensing. If they tried it, everyone would jump ship. It is self regulating in this respect. I'm sure that Firefox could afford the license with their Google search money. If not, I'm sure the ISO may make an exception for Firefox. If firefox is resisting, it is because they want something that is free instead of open. Personally I think that is the wrong stance because it probably doesn't reflect the opinion of the majority of their users. The corporate licensing is just a way to pay for its development. If google wants to present an alternative format then great, but Firefox should still support the whole web... which means they should support h264 in addition to any other formats.

The interesting thing with firefox is that they could piggyback on the Operating Systems h264 license by using the Operating Systems APIs like every other program that plays video does. So this is just a problem for some distributions of Linux.
post #63 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

Keep in mind the bias of the source. The guy has spent years of his life working on an h264 encoder.

I think that that's readily apparent, and doesn't dismiss his article.

More interesting is that he has spent a lot of time looking at other codecs and documenting what he's found. It also sounds like he truly wishes there to be another viable competitor to H.264. Why wouldn't he want other choices? His is at least a technical expert's look into the codec which is more interesting than all of the political commentary.

You didn't even believe that brian g had read anything to back up his "blatant troll" opinion. I'd be more interested in hearing what you think about his research into WebM. Read the article and then let us know whether he has a point.
post #64 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

Actually how much of a major member of the MPEG-LA is Apple, have a look the AVC/H.264 AVC Patent Portfolio license, Apple has one patent listed, even Microsoft has over 40 in there.

Yes, that's Apple 1, Microsoft 75, of around 1,135 patents. I think that anyone thinking Apple is pushing H.264 to get rich off the patent is "patently" absurd.
post #65 of 96
Just found this on my way out:
http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2010...-with-webm.ars

Broadcom's chipset for mobile video acceleration (which the vast majority of phones use) will support WebM acceleration by Q3 this year.

AMD, ARM, NVIDIA, and Qualcomm (the largest mobile SoC vendor) are all collaborating on HW acceleration as well for WebM.
post #66 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn View Post

That's a really great and informative post. Does this mean the iPad and the iPhones that have come out or are coming out will not be able to support this WebM format? Did Apple jump the gun?


Yes. The earliest Apple can introduce this would be in the Spring of 2011.
post #67 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

Where do you get your numbers?

Here -> Information Week - Android Versions Now Evenly Fragmented and here -> Android Developers - Platform Versions
Quote:
Apple has a fragmented market also. If you look at OS stats, there's still tons of 2.x out there (mostly iPods).

And that is simply because those users simply choose not to update. The majority of Android users cannot update, even if they wanted to.
post #68 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

Just found this on my way out:
http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2010...-with-webm.ars

Broadcom's chipset for mobile video acceleration (which the vast majority of phones use) will support WebM acceleration by Q3 this year.

AMD, ARM, NVIDIA, and Qualcomm (the largest mobile SoC vendor) are all collaborating on HW acceleration as well for WebM.

Which means that h264 is already entrenched.
post #69 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

There's also a chance that WebM will fall under h264 patents, so IT may be impossible to put into the spec.

The reality is that Apple doesn't really care which codec is used. As long as the codec works well and is open, Apple couldn't care less.

Whether Adobe Flash reads WebM or h264 or (far more likely) both is also irrelevant to Apple.

Agreed. Apple just doesn't want to rely on Flash performance on the Mac OS, and wants a good user experience on the iPhone OS. All of their decisions about it (whether you agree with them or not) can trace back to these. They've changed the underlying technology and codecs plenty of times. Much to some users dismay. They are always chasing whatever tech they think will enhance the experience on their platform.

So I'm more interested in how WebM compares TECHNOLOGICALLY with H.264. It would be great if it is really comparable. But just being open and free doesn't automatically make it better. Especially for mobiles.

I would also have like it if Google had let the community contribute to the spec before they froze it. This doesn't seem to be the case unfortunately.
post #70 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

Just found this on my way out:
http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2010...-with-webm.ars

Broadcom's chipset for mobile video acceleration (which the vast majority of phones use) will support WebM acceleration by Q3 this year.

AMD, ARM, NVIDIA, and Qualcomm (the largest mobile SoC vendor) are all collaborating on HW acceleration as well for WebM.

So how long before we can expect that "most" phones out there will be able to use this codec without putting a drain on the battery? I hope that Google and others plan to transition their content slowly to allow for this.

This also seem pretty fast. As in Google buying up the IP and then releasing it "warts and all" without any review by the community. They've basically said the spec is "done" and "as is". And the more software and hardware support they pile on, the harder it will be to make any changes to that spec without breaking something. I worry with Google's "release it now as BETA and see how it does" tendency.
post #71 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

"anybody to implement", provided they have the means to pay for it. That's not open.

It's a misnomer.

"open" is usually defined as "free of obstruction" or "affording free passage".

As others previously stated h264 is open, just not free. "open" doesn't mean free passage, otherwise that would mean I could go to a open store, grab any product on their store shelf that's 'open' to anyone to buy, then go to the check out line and not pay anything for that product.

Or does paying for a open product mean it's not really open?
post #72 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

As of yesterday, his stats look dead-on-balls accurate.




I think you are misreading things. He said:" Originally Posted by Chris_CA
Don't you mean all "Android devices that are updated with this when it is available" since over 65%% of Android devices cannot run the current (2.1 OS)?
35% are still stuck with version 1.5."


He's claiming that 65% of Android devices CANNOT upgrade.

The graph you inserted shows the actual use - with some not being able to upgrade, but not all.

You guys both got it wrong. You thought that "didn't upgrade" means "cannot upgrade".

But the two are not the same. For example, the HTC Hero just got an upgrade to Android 2.1 today. So while most all Heros are still in the "didn't upgrade" space, none of them (as of a few hours ago) are in the "cannot upgrade" space.

While the original guy was overly broad in stating that all the Android phones will get all the new features, he was correct if he meant that all the new phones will get/be upgraded.

And most of the Android phones are new(er) phones, given that the growth rate is accelerating. I think that Google will try to standardize on 2.2 ASAP.
post #73 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I have no faith that any Android-based devices will be getting updates 3 years after their launch right when the update is available. The Moto Droid got version 2.1 last month(?) while the Nexus One had it the first week of January? Imagine if Apple did that with the iPhone.


Its a whole different world with Android vs. Apple.

While it is true that some older devices will not be upgraded immediately or at all, this was true with computers since just about forever. I don't think that most people even care about reinstalling a phone OS. They like thier phone just the way their nephew (or whoever) set it up for them, and aside from maybe asking their nephew to download and install an app they heard about, they don't want changes.

But for the folks who want the latest and greatest OS that their old phone won't support? Traditionally, those guys sell their phone on eBay and buy the coolest newest phone.
post #74 of 96
All of the relevant parties here (Google, Apple, Adobe, W3C et al) need to figure out a proper solution once and for all.

Whilst this topic has been very interesting (and I have to say, Asherian appears to be someone who knows their onions), as an end user I don't really give a toss. I just want the web to work, on every device I have.

This seems to invite a lot of opportunities for fragmentation, which I don't think the web is about. Whilst the techies agrue, the consumers could well lose out.
post #75 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Its a whole different world with Android vs. Apple.

Correct.
The iPhone is one manfacturer and Android is on many phones from many manufacturers.
Thisis one thing that is overlooked, especially with Macs/Windows. If you want to compare OS numbers, then compare MS and Apple.
If you want to compare hardware numbers, compare Apple to Dell, HP, etc. but not to MS since they don't make computers).

Keep in mind that once Android OS gets an update from Google, , it's up to the cell company to turn around and update their specific version of Android OS for their phones. If they decide not to update for older phones (and you have one), you lose.
post #76 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by jk7117 View Post

As others previously stated h264 is open, just not free. "open" doesn't mean free passage, otherwise that would mean I could go to a open store, grab any product on their store shelf that's 'open' to anyone to buy, then go to the check out line and not pay anything for that product.

Or does paying for a open product mean it's not really open?



What about an "open bar" at a wedding? Does that prove your point?
post #77 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

Correct.
The iPhone is one manfacturer and Android is on many phones from many manufacturers.
Thisis one thing that is overlooked, especially with Macs/Windows. If you want to compare OS numbers, then compare MS and Apple.
If you want to compare hardware numbers, compare Apple to Dell, HP, etc. but not to MS since they don't make computers).

Keep in mind that once Android OS gets an update from Google, , it's up to the cell company to turn around and update their specific version of Android OS for their phones. If they decide not to update for older phones (and you have one), you lose.

Google is essentially offloading all Android testing to the carriers and you won't see updates until SQA and more certifies the OS as being improved and no caveats to their infrastructures.
post #78 of 96
http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=377

Excerpt:
Quote:
The questions I will try to answer here are:
  1. How good is VP8? Is the file format actually better than H.264 in terms of compression, and could a good VP8 encoder beat x264? On2 claimed 50% better than H.264, but On2 has always made absurd claims that they were never able to back up with results, so such a number is almost surely wrong. VP7, for example, was claimed to be 15% better than H.264 while being much faster, but was in reality neither faster nor higher quality.
  2. How good is On2’s VP8 implementation? Irrespective of how good the spec is, is the implementation good, or is this going to be just like VP3, where On2 releases an unusably bad implementation with the hope that the community will fix it for them? Let’s hope not; it took 6 years to fix Theora!
  3. How likely is VP8 to actually be free of patents? Even if VP8 is worse than H.264, being patent-free is still a useful attribute for obvious reasons. But as noted in my previous post, merely being published by Google doesn’t guarantee that it is. Microsoft did similar a few years ago with the release of VC-1, which was claimed to be patent-free — but within mere months after release, a whole bunch of companies claimed patents on it and soon enough a patent pool was formed.

We’ll start by going through the core features of VP8. We’ll primarily analyze them by comparing to existing video formats. Keep in mind that an encoder and a spec are two different things: it’s possible for good encoder to be written for a bad spec or vice versa! Hence why a really good MPEG-1 encoder can beat a horrific H.264 encoder.

But first, a comment on the spec itself.

AAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH !

The spec consists largely of C code copy-pasted from the VP8 source code — up to and including TODOs, “optimizations”, and even C-specific hacks, such as workarounds for the undefined behavior of signed right shift on negative numbers. In many places it is simply outright opaque. Copy-pasted C code is not a spec. I may have complained about the H.264 spec being overly verbose, but at least it’s precise. The VP8 spec, by comparison, is imprecise, unclear, and overly short, leaving many portions of the format very vaguely explained. Some parts even explicitly refuse to fully explain a particular feature, pointing to highly-optimized, nigh-impossible-to-understand reference code for an explanation. There’s no way in hell anyone could write a decoder solely with this spec alone.

...

Intra Prediction

Intra prediction is used to guess the content of a block without referring to other frames. VP8’s intra prediction is basically ripped off wholesale from H.264: the “subblock” prediction modes are almost exactly identical (they even have the same names!) to H.264’s i4×4 mode, and the whole block prediction mode is basically identical to i16×16. Chroma prediction modes are practically identical as well. i8×8, from H.264 High Profile, is not present. An additional difference is that the planar prediction mode has been replaced with TM_PRED, a very vaguely similar analogue. The specific prediction modes are internally slightly different, but have the same names as in H.264.

Honestly, I’m very disappointed here. While H.264’s intra prediction is good, it has certainly been improved on quite a bit over the past 7 years, and I thought that blatantly ripping it off was the domain of companies like Real (see RV40). I expected at least something slightly more creative out of On2. But more important than any of that: this is a patent time-bomb waiting to happen. H.264’s spatial intra prediction is covered in patents and I don’t think that On2 will be able to just get away with changing the rounding in the prediction modes.

This is just brutal:

Quote:
Before I go into specific components, a general note on code quality. The code quality is much better than VP3, though there’s still tons of typos in the comments. They also appear to be using comments as a form of version control system, which is a bit bizarre. The assembly code is much worse, with staggering levels of copy-paste coding, some completely useless instructions that do nothing at all, unaligned loads/stores to what-should-be aligned data structures, and a few functions that are simply written in unfathomably roundabout (and slower) ways. While the C code isn’t half bad, the assembly is clearly written by retarded monkeys.
post #79 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

I realize "strawman" is a neat word, but please use it correctly. Somebody had asked what would occur when MPEG-LA "realize" VP8 is infringing on their patents.

This should somewhat obviously fall in the realm of speculation. But thank you for your observation that this is, indeed, speculation.


I do enjoy how you took me to task for my "hot air" in my "strawman" in answering someone's question based on speculation, but here you are inventing random facts that don't even make much sense. Google is doing this because VP8 is a far better codec than VP3/Theora, which is the main criticism for not supporting Theora. Yes, it is in Google's interest for there to be a free, no-strings-attached codec. It should be in everyone's interest except for the companies who stand to gain from h264 adoption by being part of the MPEG-LA patent pool, like Apple and Microsoft.


Speaking of strawmen...no one mentioned killing h264. I believe I thought I made it explicitly clear that h264 and WebM would coexist.

Maybe it's just the way you write, but I detect a very distinct attitude here.

I'm thinking from looking at the thread that you are doing pretty well dominating the whole discourse (mostly by talking to yourself) so I'll leave it at that. You obviously have an agenda and a very specific view of the facts that you can't be shaken from so there's not much point in even engaging you in debate.

For what it's worth, I think I used the "strawman" term correctly and "hot air" is much more descriptive of your contributions than mine. I also think it's pretty clear what I meant, regardless of how you're picking my words apart.

So, I bow out and you win! Yay!

But remember that "winning" an argument is not always the same thing as being correct. It might make you feel better, but it doesn't prove much. It certainly doesn't mean you are necessarily right.
post #80 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

What about an "open bar" at a wedding? Does that prove your point?

And that means?

Someone paid for that open bar, the guests no, but probably the brides parents. Just as the end user's don't pay to use h264, but the companies incorporating it in their web browsers do.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Google announces free WebM video codec as H.264 alternative