Google acquires On2
Surprised that nobody has brought this up:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08...6_open_source/
Google has acquired the creator of Ogg Theora, the competing standard to H.264 (which Apple has been pushing) for HTML5 video. Google will now own the later codecs, which are used by many sites to encode their Flash videos. It means that Google can now open source those codecs, making them free and non-patent encumbered. This will give it an advantage over H.264, which requires royalties for use.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08...6_open_source/
Google has acquired the creator of Ogg Theora, the competing standard to H.264 (which Apple has been pushing) for HTML5 video. Google will now own the later codecs, which are used by many sites to encode their Flash videos. It means that Google can now open source those codecs, making them free and non-patent encumbered. This will give it an advantage over H.264, which requires royalties for use.
Comments
What they could do is have Ogg Theora replace Flash for the lower quality video on Youtube and still have H264 for the higher quality. Google is probably the only company who can displace Adobe's hold on the market here as they can leverage the fact that so many people visit youtube and simply have a message that asks to install the Ogg Theora codec when trying to access youtube.
Not to not nitpick, but Google made this acquisition to get codecs that are superior to Ogg Theora. They're the same codecs currently used by some Flash video sites. On2 claims that their latest codecs are superior to H.264:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On2#H.264
So this wouldn't be a low-end/high-end complimentary strategy with Theora on the low-end and H.264 on the low-end. They will most probably open-source and de-encumber VP7 and save tons of money on H.264 licenses.
Not to not nitpick, but Google made this acquisition to get codecs that are superior to Ogg Theora. They're the same codecs currently used by some Flash video sites. On2 claims that their latest codecs are superior to H.264:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On2#H.264
So this wouldn't be a low-end/high-end complimentary strategy with Theora on the low-end and H.264 on the low-end. They will most probably open-source and de-encumber VP7 and save tons of money on H.264 licenses.
On2's codecs aren't superior to H264, the quality difference is noticeable. H264 has richer colors and much sharper images at the same bitrate. Ogg Theora has lower processing requirements but no hardware acceleration support.
The codecs can be improved though and you're right it does get round the royalties/license. I don't think the few million dollars licensing cost will matter so much to a multi-billion dollar company like Google but it will for smaller providers.
The BBC switched their iplayer from On2 over to H264 for improved quality last year:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern...goes_h264.html
The improvement is very noticeable. The current iplayer is pretty much DVD quality streaming live even on 2Mbit connections without buffering delays.
If Google do manage to improve the codecs to this quality with fast encoders and no licensing, all the better of course.
On2's codecs aren't superior to H264, the quality difference is noticeable. H264 has richer colors and much sharper images at the same bitrate. Ogg Theora has lower processing requirements but no hardware acceleration support.
Are we talking about Ogg Theora or On2 VP*'s codecs? There's a difference? One is an old (2000) codec from On2 that was open source, the other is a proprietary codec that's more advanced that On2 is still proprietary.
Are we talking about Ogg Theora or On2 VP*'s codecs? There's a difference? One is an old (2000) codec from On2 that was open source, the other is a proprietary codec that's more advanced that On2 is still proprietary.
Yeah, I mixed the two together in the same sentence. Most of it was about the VP7 On2 codecs not Ogg Theora, which is an open source version of VP3 and is worse but all the information applies to both. In short:
H264 > On2 VP7 > Ogg Theora VP3
What I said earlier about the purchase displacing Flash is a bit stupid actually because Flash video is already VP6/VP7. Google went with Flash originally so that people wouldn't have to install a plugin. Owning the codecs doesn't change that requirement.
It could be used to embed the codec with their browser though and if they got Apple, Mozilla and Microsoft (even if it's via silverlight) on board then it could displace the Flash dependence.
Flash will always be around though until they develop tools to create animated content otherwise and to be honest, I kind of like it the way it is. I can block animated content this way. I see demos of HTML5/CC3 animation and it uses a lot of CPU too but I can't block it.
Neither is consistent with the principles of an open and accessible web, especially for those who use open source software such as Linux or Firefox. In the case of Flash, the license explicitly prohibits alternative implementations of the runtime and Adobe could at any moment refuse to support Linux or OpenSolaris. In the case of H.264, the problem is identical to that of MP3 and DVD support in Linux. Until Fluendo came along, there was no legal way to support MP3 and DVD playback in Linux. Despite many promises, nobody even offered to *charge* for MP3 and DVD codecs for Linux. This is one very important reason why Linux never took off in the consumer space.
If H.264 wins the HTML 5 <video> battle, then the second-most popular browser and the (distant) third consumer operating system will not be able to view video on the web unless somebody bothers to sell an H.264 plugin for Firefox. This is a big deal, as it means anybody wanting to experience the full internet will have to pay Microsoft or Apple a "tax", much as they need to for legal MP3 and DVD playback.
Yeah, I mixed the two together in the same sentence. Most of it was about the VP7 On2 codecs not Ogg Theora, which is an open source version of VP3 and is worse but all the information applies to both. In short:
H264 > On2 VP7 > Ogg Theora VP3
What I said earlier about the purchase displacing Flash is a bit stupid actually because Flash video is already VP6/VP7. Google went with Flash originally so that people wouldn't have to install a plugin. Owning the codecs doesn't change that requirement.
It could be used to embed the codec with their browser though and if they got Apple, Mozilla and Microsoft (even if it's via silverlight) on board then it could displace the Flash dependence.
Flash will always be around though until they develop tools to create animated content otherwise and to be honest, I kind of like it the way it is. I can block animated content this way. I see demos of HTML5/CC3 animation and it uses a lot of CPU too but I can't block it.
Neither is consistent with the principles of an open and accessible web, especially for those who use open source software such as Linux or Firefox.
In the case of H264, that is the fault of those providers though, not the people who deserve to be paid for their work in developing powerful compression algorithms.
This is one very important reason why Linux never took off in the consumer space.
Software support is a pretty big problem in Linux so blame for its uptake doesn't lie solely on these issues.
I think the argument about freedom requiring completely open source and/or free software is wrong. It takes away much of the incentive to spend the R&D developing the software in the first place, which could take years of research. Forcing developers to find alternate means of support like donations or advertising only damages the industry as a whole.
Linux developers and users have chosen that path, they should not expect the rest of the industry to make the same choice and lose revenue to support their decisions.