Utopia Talk - Politics - Google, Webm, Apple, h.264

Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Jun 27 16:33:31 2025

Utopia Talk / Politics / Google, Webm, Apple, h.264

pillz
Member Wed May 19 22:18:51
Google bought On2, a company that owned the VP8 video codec and an insane number of related patents for $124 million. Today, they released VP8 under the BSD liscene (open sourced it) as Webm for everyone to use, royalty free. Youtube will be moving ALL it's videos from Flash to Webm.

Google, Mozilla and Opera have all had a hand in this and Chrome/Chromium/Firefox/Opera will all support Webm within the month. Microsoft has officially announced that they will be supporting it in IE9.

What does this mean? That the HTML5 Video debate is over. Apple and Google refused to use Theroa because of possible patent issues + Apple owns h.264, which they were pushing as the replacement for Flash. This meant that Apple could collect royalties from websites and browser developers for their use of it.

Incase anyone is still asking "Why would they open source a 124m investment?", read over that again. Google just single handedly killed Flash video, h.264 internet video, and cost Apple untold millions in royalty fees.

Alex
Member Wed May 19 22:58:29
They're slick Jews. What did you expect? Nobody can beat a jew at fucking people up. Apple should quit now, and sell to Google while they still have a chance.

russian
Member Wed May 19 23:06:20
lol, that is genius.

habebe
Member Wed May 19 23:08:14
So what are the implications of this for the avg. user?

pillz
Member Wed May 19 23:10:13
Internet will be safer to browse. Flash was filled with security issues, webm/html5 eliminates that problem.

We get to laugh at Steve Jobs.

Thats all.

Ninja
Member Wed May 19 23:29:58
"Google just single handedly killed Flash video,"

Except that flash has announced they will also support the codec.

Secondly there are some real questions as to whether the codec is really free of material covered by h.264 patents

http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=377

The first in-depth technical analysis of VP8

Addendum C: Summary for the lazy

VP8, as a spec, should be a bit better than H.264 Baseline Profile and VC-1. It's not even close to competitive with H.264 Main or High Profile. If Google is willing to revise the spec, this can probably be improved.

VP8, as an encoder, is somewhere between Xvid and Microsoft's 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 ffmpeg's H.264. This probably can't be improved that much.

With regard to patents, 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 definitely better compression-wise than Theora and Dirac, so if its claim to being patent-free does stand up, it's an upgrade with regard to patent-free video formats.

VP8 is not ready for prime-time; the spec is a pile of copy-pasted C code and the encoder's interface is lacking in features and buggy. They aren't even ready to finalize the bitstream format, let alone switch the world over to VP8.

With the lack of a real spec, the VP8 software basically is the specâ??and with the spec being "final", any bugs are now set in stone. Such bugs have already been found and Google has rejected fixes

Google made the right decision to pick Matroska and Vorbis for its HTML5 video proposal.

pillz
Member Thu May 20 02:15:53
@ Ninja - why would they use Flash and VP8 instead of HTML5 and VP8 (when html5 is finalized)?

"Secondly there are some real questions as to whether the codec is really free of material covered by h.264 patents"

And vise versa. Google has a patent portfolio covering video codecs that rivals Apple's now (exceeds theirs, irrc).

"It's not even close to competitive with H.264 Main or High Profile."

It is meant to be used with online video, not high quality desktop videos and dvd rips. for the purpose it is meant to serve (at least for now) it is comparable to h.264.

i'm gonna skip the rest of your post because its 3am and i dont feel like looking at code comparisons to see if there is any basis to the c&p claims. all ive seen so far is an x.264 dev claiming it.

pillz
Member Thu May 20 02:19:47
i mean, VP8 is equal to h.264 baseline. which is what is used for online video by youtube, etc.

Ninja
Member Thu May 20 02:30:25
" why would they use Flash and VP8 instead of HTML5 and VP8 (when html5 is finalized)? "

Because VP8 isn't supported by IE maybe? That's not to say if enough people don't get on the wagon that Microsoft won't be dragged along but it's a good reason... especially with some people still stuck on XP or older browsers that don't support VP8.

"And vise versa. Google has a patent portfolio covering video codecs that rivals Apple's now (exceeds theirs, irrc). "

Apple isn't the one to be worrying about with h.264. The people to worry about are MPEGLA and other patent trolls who claim patents on h.264. They can come after you and if they have no implementations of their own you don't have anything to sue them for to get cross-licenses.

"It is meant to be used with online video, not high quality desktop videos and dvd rips"

While that's true but your average person isn't going to care the tech behind the thing, they're going to go to the source with the best looking video. If the VP8 codec doesn't hold it's own it won't win.

"i'm gonna skip the rest of your post because its 3am and i dont feel like looking at code comparisons to see if there is any basis to the c&p claims."

I just copied the conclusion. He goes into much more depth if you really want to read the article.

From the beginning of his review:

"The spec 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 itâ??s 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. Thereâ??s no way in hell anyone could write a decoder solely with this spec alone."

Now he does mention that an encoder and a spec aren't the same things but really it isn't promising... He gets pretty technical so if you know much about video codecs it seems to be a good read.

Ninja
Member Thu May 20 02:35:04
http://www...e-does-720p-hd-using-h264.html

"On the H.264 front, YouTube is encoding with the High profile with CABAC enabled. "

That is supposedly for their 720p and 1080p streams.

NeverWoods
Member Thu May 20 03:29:00
"Because VP8 isn't supported by IE maybe?"

In the same sense that goes for flash also what you just said.
It's a plugin download same as flash no biggy but it's supported by IE.

"especially with some people still stuck on XP or older browsers that don't support VP8."
How is what OS you use effected by this?
It's more of a browser market then OS.
And it's not like MS has much say in it, if they don't provide some one else will and they know it.

Daemon
Member Thu May 20 06:23:57
http://win...-up-on-html5-video-in-ie9.aspx
"In its HTML5 support, IE9 will support playback of H.264 video as well as VP8 video when the user has installed a VP8 codec on Windows. "

And off topic:
http://googlewave.blogspot.com/2010/05/google-wave-available-for-everyone.html
"Starting today, we are making Google Wave openly available to everyone as part of Google Labs. You no longer need an invitation to wave -- simply visit wave.google.com and sign right in."

Nimatzo
Member Thu May 20 06:45:20
Will I be able to watch what used to be flash videos in my fucking iphone soon then?

NeverWoods
Member Thu May 20 06:47:25
No.
Apple will never support it they only support H.264 because they have money in it.

Camaban
Moderator Thu May 20 07:02:00
It goes deeper than that.

While Flash couldn't kill their app store, it would likely be able to hurt it. (Flash is for more than videos)

Nimatzo
Member Thu May 20 10:01:39
Fucking Steve Jewbs!

Nimatzo
Member Thu May 20 10:04:49
Holy fuck, did anyone know that Steve Jobs is Syrian???

pillz
Member Thu May 20 11:47:32
Google Wave sucks.

And Ninja, IE9 is getting support for it.

earthpig
GTFO HOer Thu May 20 12:18:03
good for google, and good for the Internet.

Paramount
Member Thu May 20 12:25:15
"Holy fuck, did anyone know that Steve Jobs is Syrian???"

He's probably a Syrian Jew then :P

pillz
Member Fri May 21 19:57:20
Hey Ninja, lets discuss the likely hood that MPEG-LA have anything on VP8.

On2 made VP8, they have all the neccessary patents, and Google bought them.
Consider the companies that Google has partnered with as well.

I think it is pretty likely that Google & co can prove in court that it doesn't violate anything.

pillz
Member Fri May 21 20:03:59
btw the x264 dev who was talking about VP8 stealing from x264 and possibly infringing on patents is 3 year university student

so his opinion isnt very valid

show deleted posts

pillz Member	Wed May 19 22:18:51 Google bought On2, a company that owned the VP8 video codec and an insane number of related patents for $124 million. Today, they released VP8 under the BSD liscene (open sourced it) as Webm for everyone to use, royalty free. Youtube will be moving ALL it's videos from Flash to Webm. Google, Mozilla and Opera have all had a hand in this and Chrome/Chromium/Firefox/Opera will all support Webm within the month. Microsoft has officially announced that they will be supporting it in IE9. What does this mean? That the HTML5 Video debate is over. Apple and Google refused to use Theroa because of possible patent issues + Apple owns h.264, which they were pushing as the replacement for Flash. This meant that Apple could collect royalties from websites and browser developers for their use of it. Incase anyone is still asking "Why would they open source a 124m investment?", read over that again. Google just single handedly killed Flash video, h.264 internet video, and cost Apple untold millions in royalty fees.
Alex Member	Wed May 19 22:58:29 They're slick Jews. What did you expect? Nobody can beat a jew at fucking people up. Apple should quit now, and sell to Google while they still have a chance.
russian Member	Wed May 19 23:06:20 lol, that is genius.
habebe Member	Wed May 19 23:08:14 So what are the implications of this for the avg. user?
pillz Member	Wed May 19 23:10:13 Internet will be safer to browse. Flash was filled with security issues, webm/html5 eliminates that problem. We get to laugh at Steve Jobs. Thats all.
Ninja Member	Wed May 19 23:29:58 "Google just single handedly killed Flash video," Except that flash has announced they will also support the codec. Secondly there are some real questions as to whether the codec is really free of material covered by h.264 patents http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=377 The first in-depth technical analysis of VP8 Addendum C: Summary for the lazy VP8, as a spec, should be a bit better than H.264 Baseline Profile and VC-1. It's not even close to competitive with H.264 Main or High Profile. If Google is willing to revise the spec, this can probably be improved. VP8, as an encoder, is somewhere between Xvid and Microsoft's 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 ffmpeg's H.264. This probably can't be improved that much. With regard to patents, 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 definitely better compression-wise than Theora and Dirac, so if its claim to being patent-free does stand up, it's an upgrade with regard to patent-free video formats. VP8 is not ready for prime-time; the spec is a pile of copy-pasted C code and the encoder's interface is lacking in features and buggy. They aren't even ready to finalize the bitstream format, let alone switch the world over to VP8. With the lack of a real spec, the VP8 software basically is the specâ??and with the spec being "final", any bugs are now set in stone. Such bugs have already been found and Google has rejected fixes Google made the right decision to pick Matroska and Vorbis for its HTML5 video proposal.
pillz Member	Thu May 20 02:15:53 @ Ninja - why would they use Flash and VP8 instead of HTML5 and VP8 (when html5 is finalized)? "Secondly there are some real questions as to whether the codec is really free of material covered by h.264 patents" And vise versa. Google has a patent portfolio covering video codecs that rivals Apple's now (exceeds theirs, irrc). "It's not even close to competitive with H.264 Main or High Profile." It is meant to be used with online video, not high quality desktop videos and dvd rips. for the purpose it is meant to serve (at least for now) it is comparable to h.264. i'm gonna skip the rest of your post because its 3am and i dont feel like looking at code comparisons to see if there is any basis to the c&p claims. all ive seen so far is an x.264 dev claiming it.
pillz Member	Thu May 20 02:19:47 i mean, VP8 is equal to h.264 baseline. which is what is used for online video by youtube, etc.
Ninja Member	Thu May 20 02:30:25 " why would they use Flash and VP8 instead of HTML5 and VP8 (when html5 is finalized)? " Because VP8 isn't supported by IE maybe? That's not to say if enough people don't get on the wagon that Microsoft won't be dragged along but it's a good reason... especially with some people still stuck on XP or older browsers that don't support VP8. "And vise versa. Google has a patent portfolio covering video codecs that rivals Apple's now (exceeds theirs, irrc). " Apple isn't the one to be worrying about with h.264. The people to worry about are MPEGLA and other patent trolls who claim patents on h.264. They can come after you and if they have no implementations of their own you don't have anything to sue them for to get cross-licenses. "It is meant to be used with online video, not high quality desktop videos and dvd rips" While that's true but your average person isn't going to care the tech behind the thing, they're going to go to the source with the best looking video. If the VP8 codec doesn't hold it's own it won't win. "i'm gonna skip the rest of your post because its 3am and i dont feel like looking at code comparisons to see if there is any basis to the c&p claims." I just copied the conclusion. He goes into much more depth if you really want to read the article. From the beginning of his review: "The spec 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 itâ??s 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. Thereâ??s no way in hell anyone could write a decoder solely with this spec alone." Now he does mention that an encoder and a spec aren't the same things but really it isn't promising... He gets pretty technical so if you know much about video codecs it seems to be a good read.
Ninja Member	Thu May 20 02:35:04 http://www...e-does-720p-hd-using-h264.html "On the H.264 front, YouTube is encoding with the High profile with CABAC enabled. " That is supposedly for their 720p and 1080p streams.
NeverWoods Member	Thu May 20 03:29:00 "Because VP8 isn't supported by IE maybe?" In the same sense that goes for flash also what you just said. It's a plugin download same as flash no biggy but it's supported by IE. "especially with some people still stuck on XP or older browsers that don't support VP8." How is what OS you use effected by this? It's more of a browser market then OS. And it's not like MS has much say in it, if they don't provide some one else will and they know it.
Daemon Member	Thu May 20 06:23:57 http://win...-up-on-html5-video-in-ie9.aspx "In its HTML5 support, IE9 will support playback of H.264 video as well as VP8 video when the user has installed a VP8 codec on Windows. " And off topic: http://googlewave.blogspot.com/2010/05/google-wave-available-for-everyone.html "Starting today, we are making Google Wave openly available to everyone as part of Google Labs. You no longer need an invitation to wave -- simply visit wave.google.com and sign right in."
Nimatzo Member	Thu May 20 06:45:20 Will I be able to watch what used to be flash videos in my fucking iphone soon then?
NeverWoods Member	Thu May 20 06:47:25 No. Apple will never support it they only support H.264 because they have money in it.
Camaban Moderator	Thu May 20 07:02:00 It goes deeper than that. While Flash couldn't kill their app store, it would likely be able to hurt it. (Flash is for more than videos)
Nimatzo Member	Thu May 20 10:01:39 Fucking Steve Jewbs!
Nimatzo Member	Thu May 20 10:04:49 Holy fuck, did anyone know that Steve Jobs is Syrian???
pillz Member	Thu May 20 11:47:32 Google Wave sucks. And Ninja, IE9 is getting support for it.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Thu May 20 12:18:03 good for google, and good for the Internet.
Paramount Member	Thu May 20 12:25:15 "Holy fuck, did anyone know that Steve Jobs is Syrian???" He's probably a Syrian Jew then :P
pillz Member	Fri May 21 19:57:20 Hey Ninja, lets discuss the likely hood that MPEG-LA have anything on VP8. On2 made VP8, they have all the neccessary patents, and Google bought them. Consider the companies that Google has partnered with as well. I think it is pretty likely that Google & co can prove in court that it doesn't violate anything.
pillz Member	Fri May 21 20:03:59 btw the x264 dev who was talking about VP8 stealing from x264 and possibly infringing on patents is 3 year university student so his opinion isnt very valid
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: