Google Opens Up VP8, Launches New Container Format

[pingufunkybeat]

LOL, that sure stopped all the RM rubbish out there, which is supported by virtually nothing and looks like crap.

If Youtube adopts it and it is integrated in all major browsers, then it's a rather big thing. Doesn't mean that it will succeed, but it will certainly help towards that goal.

[deanjo]

Youtube adoption isn't the end all and be all. Google would be absolutely nuts to kill off other codec support. It would allow Yahoo and Bing to start a Youtube clone service that does offer those formats and a huge number of users would migrate just for the simple fact that they would offer support to the thousands of devices that already support the current h264 standard. Because of that other codec support will probably remain on youtube as well.

[XorEaxEax]

Those groups don't cater to what is open and free but what gets the the widest audience and usually the best quality solution around for a task. Lets face it the first guy that tries to put out a scene release using VP8 will get nuked by his peers for offering a lower quality product with a higher payload that can play on limited devices.

They don't really matter since they operate illegaly. This is about anyone who wants to start a website or has a website on which they want to show video. MPEGLA won't come chasing after you for not paying licence fees for those pirated x264 encodes (though MPAA likely will but for other reasons), but they will chase after you when you put h.264 videos up on your website. And the trendsetter for online video is still youtube which belongs to google, but there are tons of other social/video sites popping up each day and they will likely find a not licence encumbered video codec complete with free tools very attractive. I think it's success is all but reassured, only thing to worry about is the impending patent fud actually escalating to litigation. On the other hand, that might also be a good thing.

[smitty3268]

Youtube adoption isn't the end all and be all. Google would be absolutely nuts to kill off other codec support. It would allow Yahoo and Bing to start a Youtube clone service that does offer those formats and a huge number of users would migrate just for the simple fact that they would offer support to the thousands of devices that already support the current h264 standard. Because of that other codec support will probably remain on youtube as well.

You think it makes more sense to double encode everything and keep all that extra disk space full? A month ago everyone was saying it was completely unrealistic to expect Youtube to keep a 2nd copy around for Theora. Now all of a sudden it's just obvious that they'll have to keep one for h264.

With Flash supporting WebM, I just don't see it happening in the long term. It won't go away immediately, but I'd say by this time next year Google might pull the plug. Assuming WebM doesn't die before then, of course. I'm sure Apple and the MPEG-LA are working overtime trying to figure out how to kill it in it's infancy.

[smitty3268]

Having a sugar momma certianly didn't help Google Video, Google Catalog Search, Dodgeball, Jaiku, Google Mash Up editor, Google Notebook. There is also a HUGE player that steers trends on the net and that is , like it or not, legal or not, the piracy crowd. Those groups don't cater to what is open and free but what gets the the widest audience and usually the best quality solution around for a task. Lets face it the first guy that tries to put out a scene release using VP8 will get nuked by his peers for offering a lower quality product with a higher payload that can play on limited devices.

Lots of posts by you on this, deanjo. Trying to convince yourself, or what?

Having a sugar momma doesn't ensure success. But it does seem to be almost a pre-requisite. Without one, WebM would be doomed to failure, but now it has a chance. The fact that YouTube is easily the most important player in the web video game means that it actually has a pretty decent chance.

And talking about how the pirates aren't going to abandon h264 is missing the point entirely. I don't think Google, or any of the people concerned about an open web care about those videos. Blu-Ray certainly isn't going to switch either, and nobody cares. h264 is good for that kind of stuff, this is about streaming web video. Nothing more.

[deanjo]

You think it makes more sense to double encode everything and keep all that extra disk space full? A month ago everyone was saying it was completely unrealistic to expect Youtube to keep a 2nd copy around for Theora. Now all of a sudden it's just obvious that they'll have to keep one for h264.

Yes it was unrealistic to keep a second copy of video that had virtually no devices that utilized it and had far inferior quality. That however is not the case with h264. Thousands of devices already support it, and does it's job well. Not to mention the large array of hardware solutions for encoding h264 is firmly in place. VP3 never had those luxuries.

With Flash supporting WebM, I just don't see it happening in the long term. It won't go away immediately, but I'd say by this time next year Google might pull the plug. Assuming WebM doesn't die before then, of course. I'm sure Apple and the MPEG-LA are working overtime trying to figure out how to kill it in it's infancy.

The thing is that MPEG-LA doesn't have to really do anything. They still have the superior solution with all the infrastructure and consumer devices in place.

Lots of posts by you on this, deanjo. Trying to convince yourself, or what?

Nope just seen this play out many times before where the open community counts their chickens before the eggs are hatched.

Having a sugar momma doesn't ensure success. But it does seem to be almost a pre-requisite. Without one, WebM would be doomed to failure, but now it has a chance. The fact that YouTube is easily the most important player in the web video game means that it actually has a pretty decent chance.

And talking about how the pirates aren't going to abandon h264 is missing the point entirely. I don't think Google, or any of the people concerned about an open web care about those videos. Blu-Ray certainly isn't going to switch either, and nobody cares. h264 is good for that kind of stuff, this is about streaming web video. Nothing more.

If Google kills h264 support they would be cutting their own throats abandoning the vast majority of their viewers and leaving the door wide open for their competitors to step in. We already know that VP8 requires higher hardware demands for a lower quality product. Yes that will improve over time but it's going to take far longer then a year. What people do care about is their product being able to play their content on their devices. Don't undersell the pirates either. They pretty drove the whole mp3 and mpeg4 movement. Those solutions wouldn't be even on the radar map if it wasn't for them. Don't forget another couple of major players are Hulu and Netflix as well. Hulu sees youtube as a competitor and it's highly doubtful that they are going to switch to VP8 considering who their joint venture partners are. Streaming web video isn't a weakness for h264. In short VP8 offers no clear advantage to the end user and doesn't even have an advantage right now especially as until 2015 h264 is royalty free for non commercial use (read content that is free to view by end users). So who does this leave that could really potentially benefit from VP8? In reality it's really the small independent who tries to sell his online content.

To think that Google is going to pull h264 support in a year is completely unrealistic given the current landscape.

[deanjo]

Just as an other example how slow change even if you have support of pretty much every single big player out there. OpenCL has been out for over a year and does enjoy hardware support but yet there is next to nothing out there utilizing it. Instead they are using the proven solutions that were provided years in advance that have matured. Change is slow, especially when there is already a proven solution out there that already is mature and adopted.

[deanjo]

They don't really matter since they operate illegaly. This is about anyone who wants to start a website or has a website on which they want to show video. MPEGLA won't come chasing after you for not paying licence fees for those pirated x264 encodes (though MPAA likely will but for other reasons), but they will chase after you when you put h.264 videos up on your website. And the trendsetter for online video is still youtube which belongs to google, but there are tons of other social/video sites popping up each day and they will likely find a not licence encumbered video codec complete with free tools very attractive. I think it's success is all but reassured, only thing to worry about is the impending patent fud actually escalating to litigation. On the other hand, that might also be a good thing.

You seem to completely forget that video encoded with h264 is royalty free until at least 2015 when used for "free to end user" use.

[smitty3268]

Yes it was unrealistic to keep a second copy of video that had virtually no devices that utilized it and had far inferior quality. That however is not the case with h264. Thousands of devices already support it, and does it's job well. Not to mention the large array of hardware solutions for encoding h264 is firmly in place. VP3 never had those luxuries.

Sure, but if VP8 can match that then why bother with a 2nd copy?

The thing is that MPEG-LA doesn't have to really do anything. They still have the superior solution with all the infrastructure and consumer devices in place.

They also have much higher licensing fees. If I were a hardware maker, I know which format I would prefer won.

Nope just seen this play out many times before where the open community counts their chickens before the eggs are hatched.

You could be right, I think there's certainly a lot of excitement and hype right now. It's probably best to wait a few months and reassess.

If Google kills h264 support they would be cutting their own throats abandoning the vast majority of their viewers and leaving the door wide open for their competitors to step in.

That's just plain false. The vast majority of their viewers currently come from Flash. If you think otherwise, you're delusional. And if you think a competitor to YouTube is going to rise up just because they use a different codec that no one will be able to tell the difference in a blind test, then you're even more delusional. There are a lot of barriers to keep that from happening, just like it's tough for Bing to gain a foothold against Google searches, even if the final product is just as good or better.

We already know that VP8 requires higher hardware demands for a lower quality product.

We do? Source? What I've seen is that it requires about the same hardware for a similar quality to h264 baseline. Which is what the vast majority of web content is, anyway. Again, they aren't trying to compete with Blu-Ray quality video, so if you're talking about that then you're creating a straw man argument.

Yes that will improve over time but it's going to take far longer then a year.

Maybe.

What people do care about is their product being able to play their content on their devices.

Yep, and Google has a ton of hardware manufacturers signing up. Plus Flash. I'm not saying it's a slam dunk, but Google has the power to drive manufacturers to make sure their devices play VP8 - something that clearly wasn't going to happen for Theora. If Apple is the only holdout, then VP8 will win. Apple just isn't that important to the overall market, and will be forced to go along or lose users.

Don't undersell the pirates either. They pretty drove the whole mp3 and mpeg4 movement. Those solutions wouldn't be even on the radar map if it wasn't for them.

The vast majority of pirates are still using XVid. HD video is h264, of course, but it's so large that most people seem to prefer the smaller sizes anyway.

Don't forget another couple of major players are Hulu and Netflix as well. Hulu sees youtube as a competitor and it's highly doubtful that they are going to switch to VP8 considering who their joint venture partners are.

Hulu already uses VP6 for some of their videos. More to the point, it doesn't really matter what they use, because they are committed to Flash. In this case, Flash acts as a compatibility layer, so that they can change the codec to whatever they want and no one will even notice.

Streaming web video isn't a weakness for h264.

Nope, it's just not a particular strength, either. At least in comparison to other codecs.

In short VP8 offers no clear advantage to the end user

Sure it does, if it's the only one available in all browsers. (Obviously that's not the case yet) It's the same reason Flash has an advantage in web video, even though we all know how terrible it is. They've managed to do pretty well, though.

You seem to be missing the important point that the best technical solution to a problem often isn't the one that's actually chosen, for a variety of other reasons.

and doesn't even have an advantage right now especially as until 2015 h264 is royalty free for non commercial use (read content that is free to view by end users). So who does this leave that could really potentially benefit from VP8? In reality it's really the small independent who tries to sell his online content.

Pretty much anyone who has to pay licensing fees, if they eventually decide that they can skip h264. And how about after 2015 - if h264 had taken over the web, you can bet they would have tried adding new royalties. VP8 has probably stopped that from happening, so even if you continue to use h264 you should be thankful that there is competition out there to help keep the price down. Nobody wins in a monopoly, except the guys setting the price.

To think that Google is going to pull h264 support in a year is completely unrealistic given the current landscape.

Maybe. We'll have to see what kind of hardware support is out there in a year's time.

[XorEaxEax]

You seem to completely forget that video encoded with h264 is royalty free until at least 2015 when used for "free to end user" use.

Yes, but we all know that from that day on we will have to pay if h.264 is the standard web video format. The whole idea behind mpegla is to corner the market for video so as to be the only game in town and then profit handsomely from licencing fees. Hulu and Netflix are not the targets of vp8 since they likely have strong ties to many companies in the mpeg la patent pool. But they are also not particularly important in the success or failure of a video codec. There's still a huge amount of sites hosting videos and this will just continue to grow. And these sites will likely see vp8 as the most attractive choice given that h.264 licence fees will kick in for them either immediately if they are a pay to view or in 5 years even if they are free.