Apple adds WebM Web Audio support to Safari in latest iOS 15 beta

Comments

• Reply 1 of 10

  wwinter86 Posts: 50member

  August 10, 2021 10:21PM

  Playback doesn't seem to be working yet in latest beta even though there is the option in settings. 

  
• Reply 2 of 10

  auxio Posts: 2,728member

  August 11, 2021 3:28AM

  AppleInsider said:

  
  WebM dates back to 2010, but Apple has been reluctant to bake the format into its flagship operating systems. Late co-founder Steve Jobs once called the format "a mess" that "wasn't ready for prime time."
  

  It was a mess at the time given the potential for patent infringement.  That was settled a while ago, but Apple (and the rest of the industry) already had H.264.  So no real reason to add support until something required it.

  
• Reply 3 of 10

  Jayaigh Posts: 3member

  August 11, 2021 11:37AM

  auxio said:

  AppleInsider said:

  
  WebM dates back to 2010, but Apple has been reluctant to bake the format into its flagship operating systems. Late co-founder Steve Jobs once called the format "a mess" that "wasn't ready for prime time."
  

  It was a mess at the time given the potential for patent infringement.  That was settled a while ago, but Apple (and the rest of the industry) already had H.264.  So no real reason to add support until something required it.

  Thanks for the insight @auxio. Now I wonder... what would require support for WebM audio?

  
• Reply 4 of 10

  gatorguy Posts: 24,213member

  August 11, 2021 12:49PM

  auxio said:

  AppleInsider said:

  
  WebM dates back to 2010, but Apple has been reluctant to bake the format into its flagship operating systems. Late co-founder Steve Jobs once called the format "a mess" that "wasn't ready for prime time."
  

  It was a mess at the time given the potential for patent infringement.  That was settled a while ago, but Apple (and the rest of the industry) already had H.264.  So no real reason to add support until something required it.

  https://www.ionos.com/digitalguide/websites/website-creation/webm/
  WebM is open-sourced, no cost, easier to deploy, and mobile device friendlier.
  
  On the other hand H.264 and H.265 licensing has become a bit of a mystery, lots of questions about whether licensed integrators actually have full rights to use it, and quite the turnabout from a few years ago when MPEG LA pushed the story that it was Google and VP-9 with the problem.
  
  "Many multi-channel video providers say a major cause of the delay in deployments is that there are currently three patent pools representing different companies, making royalties difficult to understand. These organizations include MPEG LA (which includes Apple, Canon, JVC Kenwood, and Samsung..."
  
  Plus another separate pool claiming ownership:
   "HEVC Advance (including Dolby Labs Mitsubishi Electric Corp., Samsung Electronics, and Warner Bros. Entertainment)"
  
  and yet a THIRD:
  "Velos Media (including Ericsson, Panasonic, Qualcomm, Sharp and Sony) Ericsson, Panasonic, Qualcomm, Sharp and Sony).
  https://www.thebroadcastbridge.com/content/entry/11204/to-deploy-hevc-users-must-choose-what-patent-pool-to-dive-into
  
  Way too many fingers and dollars and restrictions, making WebM a far more simple solution with no real downsides other than support which is fast spreading. 

  edited August 2021
• Reply 5 of 10

  crowley Posts: 10,453member

  August 11, 2021 1:46PM

  Jayaigh said:

  auxio said:

  AppleInsider said:

  
  WebM dates back to 2010, but Apple has been reluctant to bake the format into its flagship operating systems. Late co-founder Steve Jobs once called the format "a mess" that "wasn't ready for prime time."
  

  It was a mess at the time given the potential for patent infringement.  That was settled a while ago, but Apple (and the rest of the industry) already had H.264.  So no real reason to add support until something required it.

  Thanks for the insight @auxio. Now I wonder... what would require support for WebM audio?

  YouTube Music probably.  Maybe not "require", but I bet Google prefers it, and maybe only offers higher bitrates in WebM, similar to how YouTube (video) was previously resolution limited unless using WebM video.

  
• Reply 6 of 10

  StrangeDays Posts: 12,886member

  August 11, 2021 6:03PM

  How does it add value to to put an auto-playing video popup of unrelated content over a major chunk of my cell phone screen? Which is difficult to impossible to tap closed?
  
  

  

  255B1651-7516-4873-8647-546F3C308439.png 1.1M
• Reply 7 of 10

  auxio Posts: 2,728member

  August 11, 2021 8:09PM

  gatorguy said:

  auxio said:

  AppleInsider said:

  
  WebM dates back to 2010, but Apple has been reluctant to bake the format into its flagship operating systems. Late co-founder Steve Jobs once called the format "a mess" that "wasn't ready for prime time."
  

  It was a mess at the time given the potential for patent infringement.  That was settled a while ago, but Apple (and the rest of the industry) already had H.264.  So no real reason to add support until something required it.

  https://www.ionos.com/digitalguide/websites/website-creation/webm/
  WebM is open-sourced, no cost, easier to deploy, and mobile device friendlier.
  

  You don't need to run the ad campaign, I understand the business model.  Google has essentially devalued every technology they've encountered by cloning it, open sourcing their cloned version, giving it away to the world, and looking like a hero.  They can do this because they're an advertising company, not a technology company.  The problem is, anyone who does want to start a company which actually researches, develops, and tries to sell technology as a product has to worry about being cloned and owned too.  Which is why most have turned to data mining for their main revenue stream.
  
  I get that the licensing model for video codecs was convoluted.  But fundamentally, I believe that research and development of technology is worth something.  If you don't like the cost/terms of use, negotiate or shop around.  But I guess I'm a relic of the era where most technology creators had a level of respect for other creators.

  edited August 2021
• Reply 8 of 10

  gatorguy Posts: 24,213member

  August 11, 2021 8:22PM

  auxio said:

  gatorguy said:

  auxio said:

  AppleInsider said:

  
  WebM dates back to 2010, but Apple has been reluctant to bake the format into its flagship operating systems. Late co-founder Steve Jobs once called the format "a mess" that "wasn't ready for prime time."
  

  It was a mess at the time given the potential for patent infringement.  That was settled a while ago, but Apple (and the rest of the industry) already had H.264.  So no real reason to add support until something required it.

  https://www.ionos.com/digitalguide/websites/website-creation/webm/
  WebM is open-sourced, no cost, easier to deploy, and mobile device friendlier.
  

  You don't need to run the ad campaign, I understand the business model.  Google has essentially devalued every technology they've encountered by cloning it, open sourcing their cloned version, giving it away to the world, and looking like a hero.  They can do this because they're an advertising company, not a technology company.  The problem is, anyone who does want to start a company which actually researches, develops, and tries to sell technology as a product has to worry about being cloned and owned too.  Which is why most have turned to data mining for their main revenue stream.
  
  I get that the licensing model for video codecs was convoluted.  But fundamentally, I believe that research and development of technology is worth something.  If you don't like the cost/terms of use, negotiate or shop around.  But I guess I'm a relic of the era where most technology creators had a level of respect for other creators.

  It's obvious Apple generally agrees with Google on the benefits of an open-sourced no-cost codec competing with MPEG LA.. They joined them in further development of it three years ago. 
  Cheap bastards. 
  https://blog.streamroot.io/apple-joins-av1/
  

  edited August 2021
• Reply 9 of 10

  auxio Posts: 2,728member

  August 11, 2021 9:06PM

  gatorguy said:

  auxio said:

  gatorguy said:

  auxio said:

  AppleInsider said:

  
  WebM dates back to 2010, but Apple has been reluctant to bake the format into its flagship operating systems. Late co-founder Steve Jobs once called the format "a mess" that "wasn't ready for prime time."
  

  It was a mess at the time given the potential for patent infringement.  That was settled a while ago, but Apple (and the rest of the industry) already had H.264.  So no real reason to add support until something required it.

  https://www.ionos.com/digitalguide/websites/website-creation/webm/
  WebM is open-sourced, no cost, easier to deploy, and mobile device friendlier.
  

  You don't need to run the ad campaign, I understand the business model.  Google has essentially devalued every technology they've encountered by cloning it, open sourcing their cloned version, giving it away to the world, and looking like a hero.  They can do this because they're an advertising company, not a technology company.  The problem is, anyone who does want to start a company which actually researches, develops, and tries to sell technology as a product has to worry about being cloned and owned too.  Which is why most have turned to data mining for their main revenue stream.
  
  I get that the licensing model for video codecs was convoluted.  But fundamentally, I believe that research and development of technology is worth something.  If you don't like the cost/terms of use, negotiate or shop around.  But I guess I'm a relic of the era where most technology creators had a level of respect for other creators.

  It's obvious Apple generally agrees with Google on the benefits of an open-sourced no-cost codec competing with MPEG LA.. They joined them in further development of it three years ago. 
  Cheap bastards. 
  https://blog.streamroot.io/apple-joins-av1/
  

  The Oracle/Sun v Google case over Java pretty much settled any notions of trying to challenge Google's approach to technology development.  Apple's not dumb, and didn't have much stake in the codec game.

  edited August 2021
• Reply 10 of 10

  Jayaigh Posts: 3member

  August 11, 2021 9:46PM

  auxio said:

  gatorguy said:

  auxio said:

  AppleInsider said:

  
  WebM dates back to 2010, but Apple has been reluctant to bake the format into its flagship operating systems. Late co-founder Steve Jobs once called the format "a mess" that "wasn't ready for prime time."
  

  It was a mess at the time given the potential for patent infringement.  That was settled a while ago, but Apple (and the rest of the industry) already had H.264.  So no real reason to add support until something required it.

  https://www.ionos.com/digitalguide/websites/website-creation/webm/
  WebM is open-sourced, no cost, easier to deploy, and mobile device friendlier.
  

  You don't need to run the ad campaign, I understand the business model.  Google has essentially devalued every technology they've encountered by cloning it, open sourcing their cloned version, giving it away to the world, and looking like a hero.  They can do this because they're an advertising company, not a technology company.  The problem is, anyone who does want to start a company which actually researches, develops, and tries to sell technology as a product has to worry about being cloned and owned too.  Which is why most have turned to data mining for their main revenue stream.
  
  I get that the licensing model for video codecs was convoluted.  But fundamentally, I believe that research and development of technology is worth something.  If you don't like the cost/terms of use, negotiate or shop around.  But I guess I'm a relic of the era where most technology creators had a level of respect for other creators.

  Wow... I never realised this situation. Thanks for waking me up.