Agreed: Neither rms nor anyone else can claim with any certainty that either h.264 or WebM is entirely free of patent violations.
The only thing we know for sure is that last year members of MPEG-LA made some noises about WebM violating their patents, but even though the source is available they have to date produced nothing which would substantiate their claims.
Does that fit the definition of FUD?
Yes, a little bit.
But at that point WebM was a mere curiosity being played with by Mozilla for implementing support for it and a test implementation in Chrome. So MPEG-LA threw up a little FUD because they weren't worried and knew the FUD was really directed to the ears of the commercial content creators. Maybe they thought that would be enough to get Google to back off since Google had no financial stake in the fight to that point.
Now, Google brings itself and it's paid proxy, Mozilla, into the fore again. There's no reason to go after Mozilla, they are just a bunch of coders with a common personal mission. They aren't going to shift the market one way or the other on their own as much as they try.
But Google suddenly made noises that could someday be seen as possible harming MPEG-LA member pocketbooks. Now that little bit of early FUD could turn into a real quick lawsuit because I doubt Google would risk losing face by backing off if MPEG-LA even quietly walked in with a "you stole our code line-for-line case". The play was all-in and they either follow all the way through, even in a case they know they could lose, intentionally playing the Open Source Martyr (like they are playing with Oracle pre-court over Android right now), or they lose HUGE partner credibility. Nobody, including the Android crowd could ever trust they will stick with a partner project if a hint of Patent case comes up should Google cut and run in either of those 2 situations.
WebM and Chrome is really a pretty small issue in isolation, it isn't big until you look at what the future precedent could be and it's the precedent and fallout everyone is talking about, not Chrome itself. It would be interesting to know if P&B really realize the stakes their company was just brought into, or if it was a division level call and now the Company hand is accidentally forced. Perception is everything in partnerships and they set some pretty tough perceptual requirements here.
My god man, he took SCREENSHOTS!!!!!!!!!!! In the test you love! And then he resized them!!!! And then PNG'd them!!!! So he based his test not on the quality of the images, but on the quality of lossily converted lower than native resolution external pics which were subject to some unknown Photoshop size transform!!
Holy Fried Monkey Testicles Batman!!! Can an image quality test get any more broken that that? No! Broke is broke!
The site didn't say these things of course, but if you actually click on the images and compare them it is obvious they are not screenshots as they shift all over the place. And that they are PNG's but which is evident in the URL when you click on the images to look for yourself. And the image itself reports it was modified in Photoshop.
The test was was not only so worthless as to be laughable, it was disingenuous as when he said the gremlin was sharper, that was only because the artifacts surrounding him got so bad it overly sharpened the outer black outline.
You obviously have a lot to learn in how to asses source material. And maybe you need some glasses too.
Seeing as how PNG is lossless and the transform isn't likely to be an earth shattering event as you put it...
But at that point WebM was a mere curiosity being played with by Mozilla for implementing support for it and a test implementation in Chrome. So MPEG-LA threw up a little FUD because they weren't worried and knew the FUD was really directed to the ears of the commercial content creators. Maybe they thought that would be enough to get Google to back off since Google had no financial stake in the fight to that point.
Now, Google brings itself and it's paid proxy, Mozilla, into the fore again. There's no reason to go after Mozilla, they are just a bunch of coders with a common personal mission. They aren't going to shift the market one way or the other on their own as much as they try.
Just so you know, along with being #2 in the US, Mozilla has the most market share of Europe, having just passed IE with ~38% vs ~37%.
I'll lay my 20/12 MILSPEC yearly verified Aviators eyeballs against the sloppy sensors you seem to have any day.
And if you were actually trying to say the opposite of how I read what you posted, then you impeach your source yourself! Nice self-constructed no-way-out trap there Bubba!
You are really special, and I'm sure you know that. You have absolutely no concept of how ignorant you have proven yourself to be via your posts which are ALWAYS full of factual slip-ups, sloppy logic and your absolutely perfect choices for source material.
You make my task of exposing your arguments as mere sham crapola unbelievable easy. You may not want to admit that, but everyone but your sock-puppetrs knows it and has for awhile.
Please make another demonstration that can so simply be decimated.
well unless a lawsuit stops webm prepare to install the codecs on your safari and ie browser. so you guys stick with your DC and the rest of the world will go with AC.
all that matters is the legality of it all. otherwise rest in peace h.264
I see this thread has gotten seriously out of control since I last visited it.
I wanted to share some info I found that might be relevant to the video codec topic (not sure what what you guys are discussing at this point). Really a good read IMO.
The link is essentially correct as far as I can see, but it does leave out the rub of the problem when discussing the video codecs. Theora and WebM are only non-encumbered because the owning companies granted their patents to the standard. Theora was never tested in a case because it has been fringe even though it is the #3 codec. That say's how much fall off there is in commercial codec use after H.264.
WebM isn't in jeopardy from Google patents, it is in jeopardy from MPEG-LA patents pertaining to H.264. MPEG-LA members intimated so last year after they read the WebM documentation and got open access to the code which was pasted inside. It wouldn't be too difficult to match up those implementations against H.264 equations and algorithms for someone with H.264 experience (if there is an actual infringement).
The verbiage in the VP8 section is quite compelling, but completely misses the point. A point that only the courts can rule on. Google could see an entire VP8 video patent folio evaporate due to covered prior art. Just think how hard a case Google would have over VP8 if MPEG-LA went and got a PO box in east Texas. What, an 80% or so success rate for plaintiffs?
Up until a patent case is filed the problem does solidly qualify as FUD, but it's no FUD vapor like IBM and MS used to so effectively wield in their partner marketing. It's sticky-gooey FUD that makes you wonder if there is a real problem here.
The link is essentially correct as far as I can see, but it does leave out the rub of the problem when discussing the video codecs. Theora and WebM are only non-encumbered because the owning companies granted their patents to the standard. Theora was never tested in a case because it has been fringe even though it is the #3 codec. That say's how much fall off there is in commercial codec use after H.264.
WebM isn't in jeopardy from Google patents, it is in jeopardy from MPEG-LA patents pertaining to H.264. MPEG-LA members intimated so last year after they read the WebM documentation and got open access to the code which was pasted inside. It wouldn't be too difficult to match up those implementations against H.264 equations and algorithms for someone with H.264 experience (if there is an actual infringement).
The verbiage in the VP8 section is quite compelling, but completely misses the point. A point that only the courts can rule on. Google could see an entire VP8 video patent folio evaporate due to covered prior art. Just think how hard a case Google would have over VP8 if MPEG-LA went and got a PO box in east Texas. What, an 80% or so success rate for plaintiffs?
Up until a patent case is filed the problem does solidly qualify as FUD, but it's no FUD vapor like IBM and MS used to so effectively wield in their partner marketing. It's sticky-gooey FUD that makes you wonder if there is a real problem here.
The link is essentially correct as far as I can see, but it does leave out the rub of the problem when discussing the video codecs. Theora and WebM are only non-encumbered because the owning companies granted their patents to the standard. Theora was never tested in a case because it has been fringe even though it is the #3 codec. That say's how much fall off there is in commercial codec use after H.264.
Well, I wasn't trying to support any legal argument. The article is rather long but from the perspective of whether content developers should be concerned about Google removing support for H.264, I would suggest reviewing the techniques presented for multiple browser support for your video as well as all of the minor incompatibilities addressed in the actual coding of the web page, video encode settings, etc.
One interesting point that was raised is that Flash actually has the ability to support higher profiles of H.264 and MP4 audio than does any of the other native browser implementation such as Safari or Mobile Safari which only support baseline profile. Not saying Flash is better but it is one of the formats that content providers need to continue to support since there is still a huge legacy browser issue with IE which although shrinking is not necessarily an audience that you would want to abandon.
How can it be anti-competitive when Google gives the codec away for free? That makes as much sense as apple being anti-competitive for snubbing flash.
I think I already said Apple should go ahead and support WebM in Safari and not make this a pissing contest. WebM is open and overtime it will get improved. Hardware makers and content providers are going to have to deal with it.
When google gives away their search engine algorithm then we can have a discussion about who's anti-competitive. On some level people have to be paid for their work. They can't always be working for free.
The flash stuff is weak since it's clearly not up to the task as it relates to mobile browsers. It's been years and years and Adobe has been saying they are trying to make flash reliable on phones and it's still a very unstable battery hog.
I think Apple should do this as a gesture of goodwill....and to help improve as it relates to PR. Sometimes good PR is also good business.
How can it be anti-competitive when Google gives the codec away for free? That makes as much sense as apple being anti-competitive for snubbing flash.
"How can it be anti-competitive when [Microsoft] gives the [internet browser] away for free?”
You may want to learn what anti-competitive means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU
I think I already said Apple should go ahead and support WebM in Safari and not make this a pissing contest. WebM is open and overtime it will get improved. Hardware makers and content providers are going to have to deal with it.
When google gives away their search engine algorithm then we can have a discussion about who's anti-competitive. On some level people have to be paid for their work. They can't always be working for free.
The flash stuff is weak since it's clearly not up to the task as it relates to mobile browsers. It's been years and years and Adobe has been saying they are trying to make flash reliable on phones and it's still a very unstable battery hog.
I think Apple should do this as a gesture of goodwill....and to help improve as it relates to PR. Sometimes good PR is also good business.
Why would they or anything adopt this when there is a better codec that is already adopted and invested?
The end result of all of this is that content developers will simply not get what they wanted, the all inclusive, single format <video> tag and will have to revert to the bad old days of providing several different formats if they want to address the widest available audience. A great example of that was the rather swift availability of H.264 as soon as iPhone came out. Developers will do whatever is necessary to reach the broadest possible audience. So it is really just a web video developer's problem. The general public will be unaffected.
The end result of all of this is that content developers will simply not get what they wanted, the all inclusive, single format <video> tag and will have to revert to the bad old days of providing several different formats if they want to address the widest available audience. A great example of that was the rather swift availability of H.264 as soon as iPhone came out. Developers will do whatever is necessary to reach the broadest possible audience. So it is really just a web video developer's problem. The general public will be unaffected.
An issue he didn?t address was the on-board decoder chips for H.264. Unless Google gets WebM decoding on chips it?s going to be an even worse competitor to H.264 on mobile devices.
I see what you and others are saying, but as stated I think there are plenty of similarities between what MS and Google are doing.
Well, how about this. To be similar, MS would have to give IE away for free, without having a license to windows or mac, license all code under a BSD license, and all patents if existing to technology like active x would be now open domain.
An issue he didn?t address was the on-board decoder chips for H.264. Unless Google gets WebM decoding on chips it?s going to be an even worse competitor to H.264 on mobile devices.
So far it amount to nothing more than FUD. Until MPEG-LA can pony up some actual evidence such claims merely legitimize questions about their intentions and methods.
OK Mr smartypants that can't read very well. I already said it is FUD. High quality FUD. You can't get any riling mileage when I very explicitly brought up your point first.
And since you indicate you want proof that can't happen until a judge or jury makes a ruling, which I also mentioned, I leave you with an article from one of my least favorite authors: http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/2...free-for-long/
All that was High Grade FUD but not a lawsuit threat. I believe it shows that MPEG-LA is willing to actively maneuver, not just sit around.
Also notice the last line of the article: "I’ve asked Google for comment on Horn’s remarks and will update here if I’m given one."
Note there were no updates, and it has been ~8 months. Maybe Google didn't answer because they didn't like what they would have to say???
Ok mea culpa on PNG not being lossy, but it is still a format conversion which is a no-no for this type of comparison.
And the rescaling and screenshot use are so egregious that even without a format conversion the "test" is indefensable to any degree.
Well I played both videos natively. Both have issues, but clearly h.264 will compress better no matter what due to b frames. It isn't in vp8 due to it being heavily patented.
Even for the people who download pirated videos, most still are using mpeg4-sp/asp or h.263, better known as divx. If bandwidth and quality are such a big factor, most would switch to h.264. I can't see why, as divx flat out sucks, and avi's are quite archaic.
Then everyone says "It's good enough." I say ipods support it. I get back in reply, "so what?"
How many people moved on from mp3? Still to this day it is more supported than anything. That is good for it but bad for aac. Same can be said (and has been said) for h.264.
Comments
Agreed: Neither rms nor anyone else can claim with any certainty that either h.264 or WebM is entirely free of patent violations.
The only thing we know for sure is that last year members of MPEG-LA made some noises about WebM violating their patents, but even though the source is available they have to date produced nothing which would substantiate their claims.
Does that fit the definition of FUD?
Yes, a little bit.
But at that point WebM was a mere curiosity being played with by Mozilla for implementing support for it and a test implementation in Chrome. So MPEG-LA threw up a little FUD because they weren't worried and knew the FUD was really directed to the ears of the commercial content creators. Maybe they thought that would be enough to get Google to back off since Google had no financial stake in the fight to that point.
Now, Google brings itself and it's paid proxy, Mozilla, into the fore again. There's no reason to go after Mozilla, they are just a bunch of coders with a common personal mission. They aren't going to shift the market one way or the other on their own as much as they try.
But Google suddenly made noises that could someday be seen as possible harming MPEG-LA member pocketbooks. Now that little bit of early FUD could turn into a real quick lawsuit because I doubt Google would risk losing face by backing off if MPEG-LA even quietly walked in with a "you stole our code line-for-line case". The play was all-in and they either follow all the way through, even in a case they know they could lose, intentionally playing the Open Source Martyr (like they are playing with Oracle pre-court over Android right now), or they lose HUGE partner credibility. Nobody, including the Android crowd could ever trust they will stick with a partner project if a hint of Patent case comes up should Google cut and run in either of those 2 situations.
WebM and Chrome is really a pretty small issue in isolation, it isn't big until you look at what the future precedent could be and it's the precedent and fallout everyone is talking about, not Chrome itself. It would be interesting to know if P&B really realize the stakes their company was just brought into, or if it was a division level call and now the Company hand is accidentally forced. Perception is everything in partnerships and they set some pretty tough perceptual requirements here.
My god man, he took SCREENSHOTS!!!!!!!!!!! In the test you love! And then he resized them!!!! And then PNG'd them!!!! So he based his test not on the quality of the images, but on the quality of lossily converted lower than native resolution external pics which were subject to some unknown Photoshop size transform!!
Holy Fried Monkey Testicles Batman!!! Can an image quality test get any more broken that that? No! Broke is broke!
The site didn't say these things of course, but if you actually click on the images and compare them it is obvious they are not screenshots as they shift all over the place. And that they are PNG's but which is evident in the URL when you click on the images to look for yourself. And the image itself reports it was modified in Photoshop.
The test was was not only so worthless as to be laughable, it was disingenuous as when he said the gremlin was sharper, that was only because the artifacts surrounding him got so bad it overly sharpened the outer black outline.
You obviously have a lot to learn in how to asses source material. And maybe you need some glasses too.
Seeing as how PNG is lossless and the transform isn't likely to be an earth shattering event as you put it...
Yes, a little bit.
But at that point WebM was a mere curiosity being played with by Mozilla for implementing support for it and a test implementation in Chrome. So MPEG-LA threw up a little FUD because they weren't worried and knew the FUD was really directed to the ears of the commercial content creators. Maybe they thought that would be enough to get Google to back off since Google had no financial stake in the fight to that point.
Now, Google brings itself and it's paid proxy, Mozilla, into the fore again. There's no reason to go after Mozilla, they are just a bunch of coders with a common personal mission. They aren't going to shift the market one way or the other on their own as much as they try.
Just so you know, along with being #2 in the US, Mozilla has the most market share of Europe, having just passed IE with ~38% vs ~37%.
Mean much compared to mobile devices? Maybe not.
I'll lay my 20/12 MILSPEC yearly verified Aviators eyeballs against the sloppy sensors you seem to have any day.
And if you were actually trying to say the opposite of how I read what you posted, then you impeach your source yourself! Nice self-constructed no-way-out trap there Bubba!
You are really special, and I'm sure you know that. You have absolutely no concept of how ignorant you have proven yourself to be via your posts which are ALWAYS full of factual slip-ups, sloppy logic and your absolutely perfect choices for source material.
You make my task of exposing your arguments as mere sham crapola unbelievable easy. You may not want to admit that, but everyone but your sock-puppetrs knows it and has for awhile.
Please make another demonstration that can so simply be decimated.
well unless a lawsuit stops webm prepare to install the codecs on your safari and ie browser. so you guys stick with your DC and the rest of the world will go with AC.
all that matters is the legality of it all. otherwise rest in peace h.264
have a banana, chimp.
I see this thread has gotten seriously out of control since I last visited it.
I wanted to share some info I found that might be relevant to the video codec topic (not sure what what you guys are discussing at this point). Really a good read IMO.
http://diveintohtml5.org/video.html
The link is essentially correct as far as I can see, but it does leave out the rub of the problem when discussing the video codecs. Theora and WebM are only non-encumbered because the owning companies granted their patents to the standard. Theora was never tested in a case because it has been fringe even though it is the #3 codec. That say's how much fall off there is in commercial codec use after H.264.
WebM isn't in jeopardy from Google patents, it is in jeopardy from MPEG-LA patents pertaining to H.264. MPEG-LA members intimated so last year after they read the WebM documentation and got open access to the code which was pasted inside. It wouldn't be too difficult to match up those implementations against H.264 equations and algorithms for someone with H.264 experience (if there is an actual infringement).
The verbiage in the VP8 section is quite compelling, but completely misses the point. A point that only the courts can rule on. Google could see an entire VP8 video patent folio evaporate due to covered prior art. Just think how hard a case Google would have over VP8 if MPEG-LA went and got a PO box in east Texas. What, an 80% or so success rate for plaintiffs?
Up until a patent case is filed the problem does solidly qualify as FUD, but it's no FUD vapor like IBM and MS used to so effectively wield in their partner marketing. It's sticky-gooey FUD that makes you wonder if there is a real problem here.
The link is essentially correct as far as I can see, but it does leave out the rub of the problem when discussing the video codecs. Theora and WebM are only non-encumbered because the owning companies granted their patents to the standard. Theora was never tested in a case because it has been fringe even though it is the #3 codec. That say's how much fall off there is in commercial codec use after H.264.
WebM isn't in jeopardy from Google patents, it is in jeopardy from MPEG-LA patents pertaining to H.264. MPEG-LA members intimated so last year after they read the WebM documentation and got open access to the code which was pasted inside. It wouldn't be too difficult to match up those implementations against H.264 equations and algorithms for someone with H.264 experience (if there is an actual infringement).
The verbiage in the VP8 section is quite compelling, but completely misses the point. A point that only the courts can rule on. Google could see an entire VP8 video patent folio evaporate due to covered prior art. Just think how hard a case Google would have over VP8 if MPEG-LA went and got a PO box in east Texas. What, an 80% or so success rate for plaintiffs?
Up until a patent case is filed the problem does solidly qualify as FUD, but it's no FUD vapor like IBM and MS used to so effectively wield in their partner marketing. It's sticky-gooey FUD that makes you wonder if there is a real problem here.
Read this fud
The link is essentially correct as far as I can see, but it does leave out the rub of the problem when discussing the video codecs. Theora and WebM are only non-encumbered because the owning companies granted their patents to the standard. Theora was never tested in a case because it has been fringe even though it is the #3 codec. That say's how much fall off there is in commercial codec use after H.264.
Well, I wasn't trying to support any legal argument. The article is rather long but from the perspective of whether content developers should be concerned about Google removing support for H.264, I would suggest reviewing the techniques presented for multiple browser support for your video as well as all of the minor incompatibilities addressed in the actual coding of the web page, video encode settings, etc.
One interesting point that was raised is that Flash actually has the ability to support higher profiles of H.264 and MP4 audio than does any of the other native browser implementation such as Safari or Mobile Safari which only support baseline profile. Not saying Flash is better but it is one of the formats that content providers need to continue to support since there is still a huge legacy browser issue with IE which although shrinking is not necessarily an audience that you would want to abandon.
How can it be anti-competitive when Google gives the codec away for free? That makes as much sense as apple being anti-competitive for snubbing flash.
I think I already said Apple should go ahead and support WebM in Safari and not make this a pissing contest. WebM is open and overtime it will get improved. Hardware makers and content providers are going to have to deal with it.
When google gives away their search engine algorithm then we can have a discussion about who's anti-competitive. On some level people have to be paid for their work. They can't always be working for free.
The flash stuff is weak since it's clearly not up to the task as it relates to mobile browsers. It's been years and years and Adobe has been saying they are trying to make flash reliable on phones and it's still a very unstable battery hog.
I think Apple should do this as a gesture of goodwill....and to help improve as it relates to PR. Sometimes good PR is also good business.
How can it be anti-competitive when Google gives the codec away for free? That makes as much sense as apple being anti-competitive for snubbing flash.
I think I already said Apple should go ahead and support WebM in Safari and not make this a pissing contest. WebM is open and overtime it will get improved. Hardware makers and content providers are going to have to deal with it.
When google gives away their search engine algorithm then we can have a discussion about who's anti-competitive. On some level people have to be paid for their work. They can't always be working for free.
The flash stuff is weak since it's clearly not up to the task as it relates to mobile browsers. It's been years and years and Adobe has been saying they are trying to make flash reliable on phones and it's still a very unstable battery hog.
I think Apple should do this as a gesture of goodwill....and to help improve as it relates to PR. Sometimes good PR is also good business.
Why would they or anything adopt this when there is a better codec that is already adopted and invested?
Gruber sums it up nicely.
You may want to learn what anti-competitive means.
I thought you were better than that solipsism. Seriously. That was addressed like on page one or two.
Why would they or anything adopt this when there is a better codec that is already adopted and invested?
Gruber sums it up nicely.
Bud, the reason has been beaten to death like 50 times and is now ad nausem.
Gruber sums it up nicely.
http://daringfireball.net/2011/01/pr..._vs_idealistic
That article appears to be mostly about Flash.
The end result of all of this is that content developers will simply not get what they wanted, the all inclusive, single format <video> tag and will have to revert to the bad old days of providing several different formats if they want to address the widest available audience. A great example of that was the rather swift availability of H.264 as soon as iPhone came out. Developers will do whatever is necessary to reach the broadest possible audience. So it is really just a web video developer's problem. The general public will be unaffected.
That article appears to be mostly about Flash.
The end result of all of this is that content developers will simply not get what they wanted, the all inclusive, single format <video> tag and will have to revert to the bad old days of providing several different formats if they want to address the widest available audience. A great example of that was the rather swift availability of H.264 as soon as iPhone came out. Developers will do whatever is necessary to reach the broadest possible audience. So it is really just a web video developer's problem. The general public will be unaffected.
An issue he didn?t address was the on-board decoder chips for H.264. Unless Google gets WebM decoding on chips it?s going to be an even worse competitor to H.264 on mobile devices.
I thought you were better than that solipsism. Seriously. That was addressed like on page one or two.
I see what you and others are saying, but as stated I think there are plenty of similarities between what MS and Google are doing.
I see what you and others are saying, but as stated I think there are plenty of similarities between what MS and Google are doing.
Well, how about this. To be similar, MS would have to give IE away for free, without having a license to windows or mac, license all code under a BSD license, and all patents if existing to technology like active x would be now open domain.
An issue he didn?t address was the on-board decoder chips for H.264. Unless Google gets WebM decoding on chips it?s going to be an even worse competitor to H.264 on mobile devices.
Take a look at the supporters:
http://www.webmproject.org/about/supporters/
Seeing as how PNG is lossless and the transform isn't likely to be an earth shattering event as you put it...
Ok mea culpa on PNG not being lossy, but it is still a format conversion which is a no-no for this type of comparison.
And the rescaling and screenshot use are so egregious that even without a format conversion the "test" is indefensable to any degree.
URL to where this has been proven?
So far it amount to nothing more than FUD. Until MPEG-LA can pony up some actual evidence such claims merely legitimize questions about their intentions and methods.
OK Mr smartypants that can't read very well. I already said it is FUD. High quality FUD. You can't get any riling mileage when I very explicitly brought up your point first.
And since you indicate you want proof that can't happen until a judge or jury makes a ruling, which I also mentioned, I leave you with an article from one of my least favorite authors: http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/2...free-for-long/
All that was High Grade FUD but not a lawsuit threat. I believe it shows that MPEG-LA is willing to actively maneuver, not just sit around.
Also notice the last line of the article: "I’ve asked Google for comment on Horn’s remarks and will update here if I’m given one."
Note there were no updates, and it has been ~8 months. Maybe Google didn't answer because they didn't like what they would have to say???
Ok mea culpa on PNG not being lossy, but it is still a format conversion which is a no-no for this type of comparison.
And the rescaling and screenshot use are so egregious that even without a format conversion the "test" is indefensable to any degree.
Well I played both videos natively. Both have issues, but clearly h.264 will compress better no matter what due to b frames. It isn't in vp8 due to it being heavily patented.
Even for the people who download pirated videos, most still are using mpeg4-sp/asp or h.263, better known as divx. If bandwidth and quality are such a big factor, most would switch to h.264. I can't see why, as divx flat out sucks, and avi's are quite archaic.
Then everyone says "It's good enough." I say ipods support it. I get back in reply, "so what?"
How many people moved on from mp3? Still to this day it is more supported than anything. That is good for it but bad for aac. Same can be said (and has been said) for h.264.