Google Opens Up VP8, Launches New Container Format

[BlackStar]

Yeah but what are the chances of including the VP8 codec in a default IE9 installation? (Safari will be able to use VP8 as a QuickTime plugin, too. The million-dollar question is whether the codec will be available out of the box.)

[yotambien]

Assuming that On2 has a patent portfolio that could be used against Microsoft/Apple, that's one possible avenue.

The thing is that I'm not sure they need to have patents that could be used against them (or others). Now, this is unlikely because apparently video codecs is a mine field. But forget about this. My point was a differnt one. If I understand it right, from the moment one of these companies tries to sue Google concerning WebM, their rights to it, which include use, will be revoked. Transcoding the whole of youtube to WebM is a perfect way to make damn sure your competitors are using it, and therefore stop patent litigation threats. I'm not sure about a) the very present, i.e. Google still doesn't have this leverage power since WebM is inexistent in practical terms; b) what about other entities that have no users and therefore can't be stopped by this mechanism? (patent trolls or whatever).

[cl333r]

Because Matroska is too complex and somewhat arcane. A simplified version would be pretty nice.

Not really. From their FAQs:

A valid WebM file can only contain VP8 video and Vorbis audio in a .webm container. Why did you define WebM so narrowly?

We decided to define WebM files in this way because we wanted to do what?s best for users. Users just want video to work, they don?t want to worry about supported codecs, file formats, and so on. After much discussion with browser makers, tool developers and others, we reached a consensus that a narrowly defined format would cause the least confusion for users. If a user has a .webm file, they can be confident that it will play in any browser or media player that supports WebM.

[RahulSundaram]

I really don't see the need for the 'webm' format. Matroska is there, why do we need another container with more limitations when Matroska does it so well?

WebM is infact a subset of the Matroska container with the VP8 codec and compatible with it. No need to panic. There is a mapping for the Ogg container as well.

[yotambien]

Yeah but what are the chances of including the VP8 codec in a default IE9 installation? (Safari will be able to use VP8 as a QuickTime plugin, too. The million-dollar question is whether the codec will be available out of the box.)

Ah, I see. Sure, that is a good question. Well, knowing how they like to advertise their products to "just work", I'd say chances are high, unless of course they have something in mind...

[BlackStar]

Edit: this is a reply to yotambien's previous post on patent revocation. Ninja'd!

This "revocation" clause is standard fare for all patent-holders. Check Microsoft's "community promise", for instance. This is the basis for all defensive patents: "feel free to use our patent portfolio but sue us and we'll make sure you will regret this later".

While this mechanism works well for entities that sell actual products/services (e.g. IBM vs Microsoft vs Apple), it doesn't work at all for parasites that have no product. That's why patent trolls are so dangerous and that's why almost everyone is asking for patent reform.

[cl333r]

And according to, well, Microsoft, IE9 will support WebM.

I think you're being over-optimistic (but I wish you were right), IE9 won't support VP8 out of the box, only if VP8 is already installed on windows, so this could mean, well, anything:

IE9 will support playback of H.264 video as well as VP8 video when the user has installed a VP8 codec on Windows.

[RealNC]

I still prefer H.264 :P

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

[curaga]

A very smart move indeed. A subset of Matroska guaranteeing good streaming, and playback support; ready patches for every meaningful software out there. Youtube transcoded, and just about everyone pitching in to say they support it.

What's Apple's stance? They're the one player so far missing.

[yotambien]

I still prefer H.264 :P

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

That's exactly the blog post I was waiting for. I didn't expect him to have it ready this soon. Well, what would be appreciated now is the FFmeg people, this is, the author of that article and a bunch of others, to improve the implementation of WebM. They have been bashing to no end everywhere (sometimes to the point of trolling) about Theora. And while they were quite right about the huge technical gap between x264 and the alternatives, a bit of help now would be nice. Especially considering they basically created the best H264 implementation, making their claims a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.