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

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 89
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,660member
    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.
  • Reply 22 of 89
    esummersesummers Posts: 953member
    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.
  • Reply 23 of 89
    christopher126christopher126 Posts: 4,366member
    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!
  • Reply 24 of 89
    gin_tonicgin_tonic Posts: 163member
    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!
  • Reply 25 of 89
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    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?
  • Reply 26 of 89
    christopher126christopher126 Posts: 4,366member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gin_tonic View Post


    Best comment!



    What about my comment(s)?
  • Reply 27 of 89
    christopher126christopher126 Posts: 4,366member
    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!
  • Reply 28 of 89
    bullheadbullhead Posts: 493member
    A developer of a competing technology says VP8 is a mess. LOL. In other news, Microsoft says Windows is better than OSX.
  • Reply 29 of 89
    normmnormm Posts: 646member
    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.
  • Reply 30 of 89
    prof. peabodyprof. peabody Posts: 2,860member
    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).
  • Reply 31 of 89
    javacowboyjavacowboy Posts: 864member
    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.
  • Reply 32 of 89
    christopher126christopher126 Posts: 4,366member
    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)!
  • Reply 33 of 89
    prof. peabodyprof. peabody Posts: 2,860member
    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.
  • Reply 34 of 89
    javacowboyjavacowboy Posts: 864member
    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.
  • Reply 35 of 89
    dreyfus2dreyfus2 Posts: 1,072member
    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.
  • Reply 36 of 89
    javacowboyjavacowboy Posts: 864member
    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?
  • Reply 37 of 89
    coolcatcoolcat Posts: 156member
    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?
  • Reply 38 of 89
    dreyfus2dreyfus2 Posts: 1,072member
    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.
  • Reply 39 of 89
    amdahlamdahl Posts: 100member
    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.
  • Reply 40 of 89
    orlandoorlando Posts: 601member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    You honestly can't see how an open and royalty-free codec might affect the direction of Apple and the internet?



    I fully understand the significance for web video and the future of the internet.



    The problem is this reads like an attack article: Google dared come out with a rival to the iPhone so lets start posting negative articles about them.
Sign In or Register to comment.