or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › X264 developer says Google's new VP8 WebM codec is a mess
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

X264 developer says Google's new VP8 WebM codec is a mess

post #1 of 90
Thread Starter 
Despite the unbridled enthusiasm among bloggers for Google's newly announced free WebM codec, a digital video expert has reviewed the new VP8 specification and delivered a severely deflating technical analysis, noting that it decodes video slowly, is buggy, and copies H.264 closely enough to all but guarantee patent issues.

What could possibly go wrong?

The knee jerk reaction to Google's announcement was to ask whether Microsoft and Apple would immediately jump to support the new codec, given that the two companies offer the default choice in web browsers to nearly all desktop users, and given Apple's strong influence over mobile devices.

Speaking to journalists, Microsoft offered to "support" the new codec as long as users installed it themselves, leaving reporters to wonder aloud if Apple (which has not commented on the issue) would also allow its Mac users to install their own codecs, as it always has for the last twenty years. Mac users can already install Ogg Theora within QuickTime; it's just that Apple doesn't do this for them because doing so would open the company up to patent assault.

Ars even wondered in print if Google would take the "nuclear option" and cut off support for viewing H.264 videos in YouTube to force the world to use its new VP8, killing off all support for YouTube on existing mobile devices. The site also suggested that Apple was a major intellectual property holder in the MPEG H.264 patent pool, and therefore that it gets royalties from the use of H.264 that would prevent the company from being interested in free, open alternatives.

Apple is not a codec vendor

However, Apple has never been a major codec developer. While the ISO's MPEG-4 adopted Apple's QuickTime container file format as the basis for the standard MP4 container in 1998, that was a contribution by Apple, not something that could or has generated significant patent royalties.

If Apple had a bunch of proprietary codec technology to push, it wouldn't have made a splash about licensing the third party Sorenson codec for QuickTime 3.0 back in 1998, when that codec was among the world's most advanced. Apple continued to license subsequent Sorenson Video codecs through QuickTime 5 in 2001, in an effort to distinguish its media platform as the best way to present and view video.

But Apple then began to focus its resources on supporting the open development of the ISO's MPEG-4 codecs, leaving Sorenson to licenses its proprietary codecs to Macromedia's Flash. Macromedia also licensed On2's VP6, which became the preferred codec for Flash starting with version 8 in 2005. In contrast, Apple relegated the Sorenson codecs into a bin of legacy codecs within QuickTime, pushing MPEG-4's H.263 codec and later the more advanced H.264 in QuickTime 7.

The commercial development of video codecs was moving so quickly that Apple saw value in pooling the top technology company's video expertise together and licensing it all in one place from the ISO's MPEG LA, an independent entity with no bias toward any particular company.

With digital video playback standards having moved beyond the desktop computer and into embedded and mobile devices, video games, disc players and other applications, it was no longer in Apple's best interests to have an exclusive proprietary codec in QuickTime anymore. Instead, Apple prefers open standards in video codec technology, just as prefers open standards on the web, where proprietary encroachments like Adobe's Flash can only complicate its efforts to build its hardware products.

That means that while Apple is listed as a patent owner by the MPEG Licensing Authority, it is not primarily Apple's technology that is being licensed by any stretch of the imagination. The actual video technology comes from the hardware component and software makers that have always been part of MPEG, including Bosch, Dolby, Ericsson, Frauenhofer, Fujitsu, Hitachi, Philips, JVC, LG, Mitsubishi, Panasonic, Samsung, Sharp, Siemens, Sony, and Toshiba.

Even Microsoft, which has developed far more technology in the area of video encoding and decoding than Apple, says it earns about half as much from H.264 royalties compared to how much it pays to the MPEG LA in order to use the pool's technology. Apple is clearly not supporting H.264 because it is getting rich doing so. If there were some openly available, free alternative to the advanced video technology being collaboratively developed by all the world's advanced video experts, Apple would happily use that.

The problem is that the patents are already filed, and there isn't any acceptable, free technology that can be used that is not subject to respecting those patents. The only way to get the world's most advanced video technology is to pay for it.

Or you can steal it

After Apple began shifting its desktop computers and mobile devices toward the open (but not free) H.264 specification, it started to become apparent that alternative proprietary codecs were often simply open MPEG-4 specifications with some improvements made to them.

Sorenson Video 3 was revealed by an anonymous developer's reverse engineering to simply be a tweaked version of H.264, while Microsoft's competing Windows Media Codec, once published by the SMTPE under the name VC-1, was also revealed to be largely derived from MPEG standards, a revelation that limited Microsoft from substantially profiting from VC-1 royalties.

Now, Jason Garrett-Glaser (also known as Dark Shikari) an independent developer working on the x264 open source project (which encodes H.264 video) has discovered the same thing about Google's new VP8, branded as WebM. Garrett-Glaser says he "was able to acquire access to the VP8 spec, software, and source a good few days before the official release and so was able to perform a detailed technical analysis in time for the official release."

At issue are three points: how good is the VP8 specification (the published explanation how its technology is supposed to work), how good its its implementation (the code provided to actually do the work) and how likely is it that VP8 is really safe from patent issues.

On page 2 of 2: VP8 is a mess.
The VP8 specification is a mess

"The spec," Garrett-Glaser says, "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 its 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. Theres no way in hell anyone could write a decoder solely with this spec alone."

Garrett-Glaser noted that "On2 claimed [its VP8 encoder was] 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."

The VP8 implementation is a mess

"Irrespective of how good the spec is, is the implementation good," Garrett-Glaser asked, "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? Lets hope not; it took 6 years to fix Theora!"

Other commentators have also noted that Google is largely just releasing code that it obtained without doing the work to actually make it high quality or easy to use, assuming that once the code is available, developers in the community will fix it. But that strategy has rarely worked. Mozilla's failure to fix and release anything functional other than portions of the Netscape web browser over the last decade is a notable example. The majority of Netscape's code, including Communicator, collapsed along with its big plans to deliver XUL as a platform and brand out into mail viewers and media players.

Garrett-Glaser launches into an in-depth technical analysis of VP8, describing the limitations in the design of VP8 while noting many similarities with H.264. Among his conclusions:

"VP8, as a spec, should be a bit better than H.264 Baseline Profile and VC-1. Its not even close to competitive with H.264 Main or High Profile." (H.264 has multiple profiles, each acting as a a separate encoder, making the "standard" really a broad family of related encoding standards, each suited to a particular task. Baseline is for web or mobile applications, Main is targeted at standard definition TV, and High applies to high definition applications such as Blu-Ray.)
"VP8, as an encoder, is somewhere between Xvid and Microsofts VC-1 in terms of visual quality. This can definitely be improved a lot, but not via conventional means.
"VP8, as a decoder, decodes even slower than ffmpegs H.264. This probably cant be improved that much.
"VP8 copies way too much from H.264 for anyone sane to be comfortable with it, no matter whose word is behind the claim of being patent-free.
"VP8 is not ready for prime-time; the spec is a pile of copy-pasted C code and the encoders interface is lacking in features and buggy. They arent even ready to finalize the bitstream format, let alone switch the world over to VP8."

Outlook not so good

If Google can rapidly improve upon the VP8 codebase and specification, and can push chip makers to incorporate support for the new codec immediately, it is possible that Apple will eventually support the new codec in its products.

However, the similarities with H.264 suggest that the real technology licensees behind the world's advanced video processing technology aren't likely to give Google a free pass at erasing their revenue streams. While Apple is largely neutral in this issue as a minor player in the codec business, there are many major players who are going to test the new codec before anyone in the industry with deep pockets is likely to buy into Google's new plans.

That's why Microsoft isn't offering any voice of commitment supporting the free new codec, and why Apple is not likely to get involved unless Google can promise to take the heat by indemnifying all of its partners from patent attacks.
post #2 of 90
Interesting. I don't know v8 from x264 or whatever, but I am sure there will be improvements down the line.
post #3 of 90
I think it would be correct to say the quality won't be as good as H.264 codec just like xvid/divx given the patent issues. I guess time will tell. As it is already noted, if it become widely available and free (and vastly improved) Apple will support it down the line.
post #4 of 90
Can some explain what "open (but not free)" means? In what way is something open if you have to pay for it? Regardless of any other measures of the term "open", surely the final arbiter that you have to actually pay for it precludes the use of the term?

BTW, Somehow, the OPs again managed to fire a shot about Flash on completely unrelated topic matter. Bee in his bonnet?
post #5 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

Interesting. I don't know v8 from x264 or whatever, but I am sure there will be improvements down the line.

No. If Jason Garrett-Glaser is correct--and I have no doubt that he is--the issues with VP8 are numerous. They can't be fixed unless significant changes to the format are made to the specification. The result will be that a fixed VP8 will be a different format that is substantially incompatible with most implementations of the current standard.
post #6 of 90
This article could clearly use some editing...
  • In several places, the author says VP6 when it seems like they mean VP8
  • x264 is a video ENCODER not decoder

Everyone got all high on VP8 but without indemnification its not going anywhere. There will be a patent pool and before long VP8 will be subject to the same licensing issues as x264.

Until software patents either get more tightly regulated or abolished completely, there isn't much hope for an open video spec.
post #7 of 90
Anyone else notice that the author incorrectly wrote "VP6" twice, when they meant to say "VP8?" Sorta makes me wonder if even the author understands what the heck is going on here.

Just saying.
Video editor, tech enthusiast, developer.

http://www.yuusharo.com
http://www.studioyuu.com
Reply
Video editor, tech enthusiast, developer.

http://www.yuusharo.com
http://www.studioyuu.com
Reply
post #8 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

Interesting. I don't know v8 from x264 or whatever, but I am sure there will be improvements down the line.

Regardless, do we really need yet another video format? Technology is wearin' me out.
post #9 of 90
There is a difference between open source and open standard. Open source software is generally free, H.264 is an open standard. The reason it is open is because it is not owned by any one company. H.264 is a collaberation between many different companies and organizations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

Can some explain what "open (but not free)" means? In what way is something open if you have to pay for it? Regardless of any other measures of the term "open", surely the final arbiter that you have to actually pay for it precludes the use of the term?
post #10 of 90
can someone PLEASE explain why google is bothering doing this. why create all this hassle and confusion? what is in it for them? what was wrong with how H.264 was going? it seems pretty good with hardware acceleration and everything. i know there are some licensing issues, but they do not seem to be that significant.
post #11 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

Can some explain what "open (but not free)" means? In what way is something open if you have to pay for it? Regardless of any other measures of the term "open", surely the final arbiter that you have to actually pay for it precludes the use of the term?

Open but not free means anyone can write a H.264 video encoder or decoder because the specification is open. However if you use one of those encoders or decoders you're subject to licensing fees paid to MPEG-LA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yuusharo View Post

Anyone else notice that the author incorrectly wrote "VP6" twice, when they meant to say "VP8?" Sorta makes me wonder if even the author understands what the heck is going on here.

That and the second page was just about all quote from DS without much substantial added.

Granted, understanding video encoding is f*cking hard. 99% of people here wouldn't know CAVLC from CABAC if it bit them in the butt.
post #12 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuusharo View Post

Anyone else notice that the author incorrectly wrote "VP6" twice, when they meant to say "VP8?" Sorta makes me wonder if even the author understands what the heck is going on here.

Just saying.

At least on one occasion, the author contextually used VP6 correctly. VP8 is a later incarnation.
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
post #13 of 90
So, yet another half-assed derivative effort from Google?

Seems that's all Google amounts to these days - no wonder their stock is going nowhere.
post #14 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwfrederick View Post

can someone PLEASE explain why google is bothering doing this. why create all this hassle and confusion? what is in it for them? what was wrong with how H.264 was going? it seems pretty good with hardware acceleration and everything. i know there are some licensing issues, but they do not seem to be that significant.

The problem with H.264 is that it is an encumbered format. In order for a browser to playback H.264, the makers would have to pay a licence to the ISO to use it. To companies like Apple, Google and Microsoft, its easy for them to do, but alternatives like Firefox, Opera and any number of Open Source browsers including Chromium-based ones, they simply cannot or refuse to pay such high fees just to support video playback within the browser.

VP8 and WebM are Google's attempt to bring a modern, high quality codec that is available to anyone and everyone, so that they can deliver video within the browser and the HTML5 spec. Will it work? That's another issue.

Google is doing this because the more people that use the web, the more traffic it drives to their services, which in turn drives up ad revenue. Anything that makes the web a richer experience to use is in Google's interest financially.
Video editor, tech enthusiast, developer.

http://www.yuusharo.com
http://www.studioyuu.com
Reply
Video editor, tech enthusiast, developer.

http://www.yuusharo.com
http://www.studioyuu.com
Reply
post #15 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

Can some explain what "open (but not free)" means? In what way is something open if you have to pay for it? Regardless of any other measures of the term "open", surely the final arbiter that you have to actually pay for it precludes the use of the term?

Open means publicly documented. It doesn't mean free and/or public domain.

The works of Shakespeare are open, free, and public domain

Linux is open and free (within the terms of the GPL), but not public domain
WebKit is open and free (within the terms of BSD) but not public domain

Android's "with Google" is neither open nor free nor public domain
Safari is neither open nor free nor public domain

W3C HTML is open and free and essentially public domain
VP6 is open and free but not public domain (but won't be free once the patents settle)
H.264 is open but not entirely free nor public domain
post #16 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glockpop View Post

Open means publicly documented. It doesn't mean free and/or public domain.

The works of Shakespeare are open, free, and public domain

Linux is open and free (within the terms of the GPL), but not public domain
WebKit is open and free (within the terms of BSD) but not public domain

Android's "with Google" is neither open nor free nor public domain
Safari is neither open nor free nor public domain

W3C HTML is open and free and essentially public domain
VP6 is open and free but not public domain (but won't be free once the patents settle)
H.264 is open but not entirely free nor public domain

Thanks for that. That's the most concise description yet - but it's only one point of view. There are myriad:

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

I appreciate the word standard is also used. But the variation on 'open' are clearly evident here.
post #17 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by siromega View Post

This article could clearly use some editing...
  • In several places, the author says VP6 when it seems like they mean VP8
  • x264 is a video ENCODER not decoder

Furthermore, h.264 is not a codec, and h.263 and h.263 are not MPEG standards, they belong to ITU-T. It would make more sense to write MPEG-4 Visual (which is similar but not identical to h.263) and MPEG-4 AVC (which is identical to h.264).

I'm disappointed that Google didn't clean up the mess.
post #18 of 90
I know I'm going to get derided by the following-Solipism are you there!

But from a user's perspective, I find Google's products, other than search, of course, clumsy and fragmented. Basically, one level above MS. Apple is a hundred levels above Google.

I can see why they want to 'expand' into other areas, but that's how unimaginative CEO's show some semblance of growth/leadership.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Google is going into the frozen meatball business! Or buying Taco Bell!

The CEO's of Google, MS, Dell, Sony, HP have the Walmart business model. Which is design and make 'crap' as cheaply as possible, sell it as cheaply as possible and 'hope' they sell a lot of crap to a lot of people.

I think that most businesses after the first generation go out of business because subsequent CEO's really don't know what they are doing.

Essentially, most businesses, 'are in the business of going out of business.' It's just a matter of time!

Not every company can have a blockbuster, cheap, 'crap,' product like Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Starbucks, GM, MS, Budweiser, Gateway, Dell and sell the sh*t out of it!
post #19 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwfrederick View Post

can someone PLEASE explain why google is bothering doing this. why create all this hassle and confusion? what is in it for them? what was wrong with how H.264 was going? it seems pretty good with hardware acceleration and everything. i know there are some licensing issues, but they do not seem to be that significant.

They just wanted to create a furball. There is nothing wrong technically with H.264 but it isn't free and for alot of folks free is better. Did you ever turn down a free beer

For Google they have muddied the water and created this love fest of all these folks bellying up to the bar to be googles new best friend. Apple has remained silent so they are the bad guy. Apple will be able to adapt as well as anyone if they so choose, but h.264 is the primary codec today on the iphone & ipad so any developer who wishes to target that market will need to continue to encode as is. Apple allows plugins for Quicktime so I'm sure Perian will have an update or VLC so folks can view VP8 on their Macs.
post #20 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuusharo View Post

The problem with H.264 is that it is an encumbered format. In order for a browser to playback H.264, the makers would have to pay a licence to the ISO to use it. To companies like Apple, Google and Microsoft, its easy for them to do, but alternatives like Firefox, Opera and any number of Open Source browsers including Chromium-based ones, they simply cannot or refuse to pay such high fees just to support video playback within the browser.

VP8 and WebM are Google's attempt to bring a modern, high quality codec that is available to anyone and everyone, so that they can deliver video within the browser and the HTML5 spec. Will it work? That's another issue.

Google is doing this because the more people that use the web, the more traffic it drives to their services, which in turn drives up ad revenue. Anything that makes the web a richer experience to use is in Google's interest financially.

thanks for explaining.. still seems like there's something else going on though as well, seems like google has lost its easy-going, innovation-focused attitude since schmidt went all nutjoby
post #21 of 90
How is this Apple news?

This is an article about a Google technology. It has nothing to do with Apple. Articles on Android I can understand as it does compete with the iPhone, but why publish this?

I come to this site to find out Apple news and rumors, not to get the latest news on Google.
post #22 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

... I find Google's products, other than search, of course, clumsy and fragmented. Basically, one level above MS.

...

The CEO's of Google, MS, Dell, Sony, HP have the Walmart business model. Which is design and make 'crap' as cheaply as possible, sell it as cheaply as possible and 'hope' they sell a lot of crap to a lot of people.

...

Other than search, I don't think I would generally rate Google's products above Microsoft's.

As far as business model, Google's is to give free crap away so they can harvest private user data out of it, essentially the trojan horse model.
post #23 of 90
Did google ever say they want VP8 to replace h264? Maybe they just got it through acquisition and didn't need it so they are throwing it out there.
post #24 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by pats View Post

They just wanted to create a furball. There is nothing wrong technically with H.264 but it isn't free and for alot of folks free is better. Did you ever turn down a free beer

For Google they have muddied the water and created this love fest of all these folks bellying up to the bar to be googles new best friend. Apple has remained silent so they are the bad guy. Apple will be able to adapt as well as anyone if they so choose, but h.264 is the primary codec today on the iphone & ipad so any developer who wishes to target that market will need to continue to encode as is. Apple allows plugins for Quicktime so I'm sure Perian will have an update or VLC so folks can view VP8 on their Macs.

Well said! I like the 'create a furball' analogy. I had the misfortune of stepping on one in bare feet yesterday morning...I almost said to my GF, "it's me or these damned cats!" but I fear, I know what her answer would be. And no, I have never turned down a free beer!

Anyway, I'm not a programmer, but is this a case of giving the razor away and selling a boat load of overpriced razor blades? a la Gillette. Or giving the insta-matic camera away and selling a boat load of overpriced film? a la Kodak.

It seems as though Google is all over the place and doesn't matter what havoc they reek as long as they get the ad dollars! And when I say 'havoc,' I mean, havoc on the end-user. And that's me!

It reminds me of 'modern art' throw a sh*tload of paint on a large canvas and see if someone will buy it! That doesn't take any talent!
post #25 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuusharo View Post

The problem with H.264 is that it is an encumbered format. In order for a browser to playback H.264, the makers would have to pay a licence to the ISO to use it. To companies like Apple, Google and Microsoft, its easy for them to do, but alternatives like Firefox, Opera and any number of Open Source browsers including Chromium-based ones, they simply cannot or refuse to pay such high fees just to support video playback within the browser.

VP8 and WebM are Google's attempt to bring a modern, high quality codec that is available to anyone and everyone, so that they can deliver video within the browser and the HTML5 spec. Will it work? That's another issue.

Google is doing this because the more people that use the web, the more traffic it drives to their services, which in turn drives up ad revenue. Anything that makes the web a richer experience to use is in Google's interest financially.

Best comment!
American centrism dominates 50% of the population here. That half don't think outside the box ... or perhaps just don't think. © digitalclips
Reply
American centrism dominates 50% of the population here. That half don't think outside the box ... or perhaps just don't think. © digitalclips
Reply
post #26 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

How is this Apple news?

This is an article about a Google technology. It has nothing to do with Apple. Articles on Android I can understand as it does compete with the iPhone, but why publish this?

I come to this site to find out Apple news and rumors, not to get the latest news on Google.

You honestly can't see how an open and royalty-free codec might affect the direction of Apple and the internet?
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 #27 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by gin_tonic View Post

Best comment!

What about my comment(s)?
post #28 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Other than search, I don't think I would generally rate Google's products above Microsoft's.

As far as business model, Google's is to give free crap away so they can harvest private user data out of it, essentially the trojan horse model.

Yep, good points!

Ps. That word 'harvest' makes my kidneys hurt...for some reason!
post #29 of 90
A developer of a competing technology says VP8 is a mess. LOL. In other news, Microsoft says Windows is better than OSX.
post #30 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwfrederick View Post

can someone PLEASE explain why google is bothering doing this. why create all this hassle and confusion? what is in it for them? what was wrong with how H.264 was going? it seems pretty good with hardware acceleration and everything. i know there are some licensing issues, but they do not seem to be that significant.

I agree that this seems to only muddy the waters, creating more uncertainty without actually addressing the main issue, which is that Web video is patent encumbered. If Google really wants to solve the problem, they should just buy out MPEG-LA and make H264 unencumbered! They have the most to gain from this, and the cost to them would be insignificant.

It also looks to me like opening up VP8 is a cynical move on Google's part. This has the appearance of progress to the open source community, and gains Google credit and support among that group. This seems like politics to me, though, where the perception of doing good is much more important than the reality.
post #31 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

... from a user's perspective, I find Google's products, other than search, of course, clumsy and fragmented. Basically, one level above MS. Apple is a hundred levels above Google. ...

I totally agree with this sentiment.

I find GMail to be ... OK, and Google docs to be sometimes handy, but that's about it.

The worst applications on my iPhone are Google applications. GMail is awkward at best, and the Google app (search and voice search) is poorly designed and coded. They simply don't make very good software.

The real thing that Google had going for it, the real *worth* of Google for many people (myself included), was the culture of the company. The whole "do no evil" thing and providing services to people for free. Now that they've grown up and been shown to be as selfish and corrupt as the rest of the companies out there, it's just not the same. Without that rosy glow of morality and goodness around their product, they are just another MySpace/Yahoo/MSN etc. Worse perhaps, because they don't even have any design chops.

I hate to even say this out loud, but Microsoft's new UI for Live Hotmail is a thousand times better than GMail ever was, and GMail hasn't changed almost since it's introduction anyway (at least not in any significant way).
post #32 of 90
This is another example why the U.S. and a handful of other countries have totally insane "intellectual property" laws.

Software patents don't make sense. There are millions of different ways to implement a video codec, such as Ogg Theora, but some company fall just short of filing a patent for "displaying video over the web" and then use that patent as a weapon against anybody else who would implement such a player (I'm exaggerating, of course).

I'm not saying Ogg Theora is a better codec than H.264, but it seems rather insane to me that as a separate clean-room implementation that it should ever be subject to any patent violation.

Copyright is enough to protect software from being copied. Software patents don't make any sense because there's absolutely no standard to distinguish between an architectural or specific behavioural spec, and a simple idea. The worst real-life example is Amazon's one-click shopping patent, which should absolutely never have been granted.
post #33 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

I totally agree with this sentiment.

I find GMail to be ... OK, and Google docs to be sometimes handy, but that's about it.

The worst applications on my iPhone are Google applications. GMail is awkward at best, and the Google app (search and voice search) is poorly designed and coded. They simply don't make very good software.

The real thing that Google had going for it, the real *worth* of Google for many people (myself included), was the culture of the company. The whole "do no evil" thing and providing services to people for free. Now that they've grown up and been shown to be as selfish and corrupt as the rest of the companies out there, it's just not the same. Without that rosy glow of morality and goodness around their product, they are just another MySpace/Yahoo/MSN etc. Worse perhaps, because they don't even have any design chops.

I hate to even say this out loud, but Microsoft's new UI for Live Hotmail is a thousand times better than GMail ever was, and GMail hasn't changed almost since it's introduction anyway (at least not in any significant way).

Thanks Prof for expanding on my point(s)!
post #34 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuusharo View Post

... In order for a browser to playback H.264, the makers would have to pay a licence to the ISO to use it. To companies like Apple, Google and Microsoft, its easy for them to do, but alternatives like Firefox, Opera and any number of Open Source browsers including Chromium-based ones, they simply cannot or refuse to pay such high fees just to support video playback within the browser....

This is a bit of a misrepresentation.

The only companies that I'm aware of that don't support H.264, do so for ideological reasons. For instance Mozilla (the creators of Firefox), has plenty of cash as does Opera. Also, the fees are not so high as to put it out of reach of anyone.

Firefox has made an ideological stand, it's their choice not to support H.264. Most of the reason that Google is doing what it's doing with this codec is done for the same reason. The truth is that there are a group of people, (right or wrong), that won't use H.264 because it doesn't fit with their ideology.

I disagree personally, but there are many times when I take a stand based on *my* ideology so I don't begrudge them doing it. Even if they are wrong, it makes them more moral than the rest of humanity. However, the thing with ideology is, it often blinds you to the facts.
post #35 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

This is a bit of a misrepresentation.

The only companies that I'm aware of that don't support H.264, do so for ideological reasons. For instance Mozilla (the creators of Firefox), has plenty of cash as does Opera. Also, the fees are not so high as to put it out of reach of anyone.

You're totally wrong. If Mozilla includes H.264 support in Firefox, then they can't distribute the source code. That means they can no longer operate as an open-source project.
post #36 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy View Post

You're totally wrong. If Mozilla includes H.264 support in Firefox, then they can't distribute the source code. That means they can no longer operate as an open-source project.

That is complete nonsense. According to the MPEG LA licensing terms (they are in charge of H.264) only the party selling content has to pay. So, if you download/watch a video on YouTube, nobody pays, as nobody is collecting any money. (The interesting question would be, if Google has to pay something, as they are showing ads in YouTube and subsequently make money - still, the browser maker has nothing to do with it in any case.) If a VOD provider sells you a movie, he has to pay, not the browser maker. Insert another one million examples here... the browser maker does not have to pay unless he is delivering content (movies) for a fee.

You might simply consider that WebKit is Open Source AND does support H.264.
post #37 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post

That is complete nonsense. According to the MPEG LA licensing terms (they are in charge of H.264) only the party selling content has to pay. So, if you download/watch a video on YouTube, nobody pays, as nobody is collecting any money. (The interesting question would be, if Google has to pay something, as they are showing ads in YouTube and subsequently make money - still, the browser maker has nothing to do with it in any case.) If a VOD provider sells you a movie, he has to pay, not the browser maker. Insert another one million examples here... the browser maker does not have to pay unless he is delivering content (movies) for a fee.

You might simply consider that WebKit is Open Source AND does support H.264.

What's to stop MPEG LA from changing the license terms, as the owners of GIF and JPEG did?
post #38 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

How is this Apple news?

This is an article about a Google technology. It has nothing to do with Apple. Articles on Android I can understand as it does compete with the iPhone, but why publish this?

I come to this site to find out Apple news and rumors, not to get the latest news on Google.

I totally agree! What's up with Google bulls**t?
post #39 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy View Post

What's to stop MPEG LA from changing the license terms, as the owners of GIF and JPEG did?

Well, the current terms are valid until the end of 2015. The successor of H.264 (HVEC) will be finalized in 2012. By 2016 nobody will care for H.264...

No idea about JPEG, but Unisys did never say that the compression used in the GIF format is free, they just started charging for it at some point. That is not a "change" in licensing terms though, as there has been no licensing at all.
post #40 of 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwfrederick View Post

can someone PLEASE explain why google is bothering doing this. why create all this hassle and confusion? what is in it for them? what was wrong with how H.264 was going? it seems pretty good with hardware acceleration and everything. i know there are some licensing issues, but they do not seem to be that significant.

Google owns YouTube, the biggest video encoder/distributor in the world. What more needs to be said? By having a viable alternative to H.264, Google can make sure they never get robbed by MPEG LA.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › X264 developer says Google's new VP8 WebM codec is a mess