Google Opens Up VP8, Launches New Container Format

[pingufunkybeat]

Yes iPhone can do HTML5, but how many people use it?

[deanjo]

Yes iPhone can do HTML5, but how many people use it?

Read the links and find out.

[deanjo]

One other nice little read.

http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/01/h-264-66-percent-web-video/

[pingufunkybeat]

Read the links and find out.

I still didn't find out, because the links do not state it.

The only one who really knows how much HTML5 content in x264 is being streamed from youtube is Google.

And they are releasing a competing codec.

What you're doing is textbook FUD.

[pingufunkybeat]

Keep in mind that ALL of these devices can trivially support the new format too.

Even if apple chooses not to, initially.

[Apopas]

That's mobile phones in general, not smartphones. Most of them are not used for web surfing at all.

[yotambien]

Deanjo, those numbers can perfectly be interpreted so that they support the viability of WebM. According to the paper, the mobile traffic amounts to just 3% of the total, although it's rapidly increasing--it can only increase, can't it? From the other link we learn that VoIP takes a good share of the total traffic, and a lot of the mobile one. It is also mentioned that youtube makes up for 10% of the global traffic and streaming in general represents a third on the mobile. So, let's see what happens with two of the biggest players...Skype--explicitly mentioned in that article--uses VP7 and apparently they'll adopt WebM; youtube is already transcoding shit to this format. If anything, I see good prospects for this codec.

Where are you trying to get to? Are you denying that VP8 will be able to outperform H264 baseline in the near future and hence become the codec for web content delivery? Do those mobile users (all the 3% of them) require the highest performing codec at its highest profile to watch crap on their phones?

[Remco]

So support in 1% of user space is a testament of success?

Linux is used by more than 1% of developers. 1% is bogus: directshow filters are available. VP8 support will be there for Firefox, Chrome and Opera, which represents 34% of the market. I'm sure Google will find a way to get the codec installed for IE and Safari, which brings it closer to 100%. Plus, Flash will support it, so that's the ultimate fallback.

That's a BIG if there. If it was as easy as you perceive it Google or On2 probably would have had already done it before it was even released publicly.

From the looks of it (the crappy state of the software), Google didn't work on the codec. They probably needed all this time to verify that VP8 doesn't infringe on MPEG patents. That's an easy job, but takes time. Compare just-opened VP3 with Theora today. It's miles apart.

You better believe they do play a major role.

Are these phones that play H.264?

Nobody knows yet, that's the thing. With h264 having over 1000 patents on it alone (that's not including patents from previous codec patents) and patent law being as gray as it is with the similarities between it and h264 there is a strong chance that it does infringe on some patents. They probably would have been safer off looking at a wavelet based codec implementation where there is enough differential and prior art that a strong defense could be made.

The nice thing about MPEG patents is that they have these "independent claims". For a patent to apply, all of these claims have to hold. So, Google can just go through each of the ~1000 MPEG patents and verify that for each patent, at least one claim doesn't hold. That takes time, but is not at all a grey area.

Some other interesting reading:

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source...cefeQIQoyYMg7Q

This says that mobile phones account for 3% of DSL traffic. That's more than Linux, but not exactly a major role.

and more reading

http://connectedplanetonline.com/3g4...ip-rises-0209/

"YouTube dominates mobile traffic" doesn't mean "mobile traffic dominates YouTube". It would be surprising if YouTube didn't dominate mobile traffic, since it requires ridiculous bandwidth compared to regular mobile browsing.

[smitty3268]

deanjo's just getting more and more ridiculous as this thread continues.

mobile devices are suddenly the most important factor for youtube, and flash support only counts for 1% support? someone should tell Google, because they clearly think otherwise.

Oh, but some geek living in his parent's basement will no doubt start up a competitor to youtube that everyone will flock to because it uses the vastly superior h264 codec.

And how stupid is google? They've had > 6 months to go over the codec line by line and figure out if each and every one of those well-known mpeg-la patents apply, and their lawyers are just clearly incompetent because they got it all wrong. Or maybe they didn't even bother, huh? That obviously wouldn't have been a priority to complete.

Maybe they will find a patent it infringe on, but I would be absolutely shocked if it was one of the already known patents the mpeg-la is sitting on and requiring for h264. Those would be the first one's that Google would check.

[deanjo]

deanjo's just getting more and more ridiculous as this thread continues.

mobile devices are suddenly the most important factor for youtube, and flash support only counts for 1% support? someone should tell Google, because they clearly think otherwise.

I never said that, I said it was an important factor. I did not say the most.

Oh, but some geek living in his parent's basement will no doubt start up a competitor to youtube that everyone will flock to because it uses the vastly superior h264 codec.

I said quite the opposite. I mentioned MS and Yahoo. Those are hardly a "geek in the basement".

And how stupid is google? They've had > 6 months to go over the codec line by line and figure out if each and every one of those well-known mpeg-la patents apply, and their lawyers are just clearly incompetent because they got it all wrong. Or maybe they didn't even bother, huh? That obviously wouldn't have been a priority to complete.

Ya, just like they just caught their wifi data collection that happened years ago. Lawyers by the way don't make the decision on patent infringement. They present their argument. The rest is up to judge or jury, usually filled with unqualified individuals who have a hard time grasping the technical aspects.

Maybe they will find a patent it infringe on, but I would be absolutely shocked if it was one of the already known patents the mpeg-la is sitting on and requiring for h264. Those would be the first one's that Google would check.

I wouldn't be shocked at all. With the amount of patent trolls out there and google putting it out as opensource it makes it all that much easier for them to pick it apart. It's not only the mpeg-la that one has to worry about. What could be juicer then going after one of the largest companies in the world with deep pockets who laid out everything in plain sight?