VP9 Codec Now Enabled By Default In Chrome

[smitty3268]

And you're ok with it?

Here's one possible scenario... youtube takes on hollywood videos for profit, implements DRM on them, and then, Google has a direct financial incentive in making sure that this web DRM stays alive... solution? Make all youtube videos require DRM support in the browser, even if the videos themselves don't contain DRM. This way, people who want to use youtube will want to use DRM-supporting browsers, and web DRM will quickly become just another thing people have to tolerate.

I don't think you understand how it's going to work. The browsers are just going to plug into DRM on the OS. It's going to be there whether Google does anything on youtube or not.

At least it will be there on windows, macs, and android. I bet you'll be able to buy it on linux similar to the way you can buy mp3/etc. support now.

I don't like that, but i also know that what i think doesn't matter. Whether i'm "ok with that" is pretty meaningless.

I also don't particularly blame google for it - it's the hollywood producers that are the problem here. Google has just given up trying to fight them, and given the current situation i'm not sure i blame them. It's disappointing, but i'm not mad at them.

[powdigsig]

You can also use extension (for Firefox; Chrome should have equivalents) such as Youtube Anywhere Player, that force HTML5.

Thx lots !!! !!! !!! !!!
Also anybody know of a simple technology in Chromium that does what brosis explained? A simple extension in Chromium/Chrome that changes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whatever to https://www.youtube.com/embed/whatever ?
I'm switching from firefox to Chromium(actually not because of VP8-9, but because of WebRTC)

and please don't suggest I have to create the extension. I'm a squib.

[dee.]

I fully expect some videos on Youtube to start requiring DRM, just so Google can attract some of those more hollywood content providers, and compete more directly against services like Hulu. They've already been talking about providing tv content and original programming.

I don't think you'll ever see most of the generic user-uploaded videos require it though. It will probably be one of those opt-in things for uploaders.

And you're ok with it?

Here's one possible scenario... youtube takes on hollywood videos for profit, implements DRM on them, and then, Google has a direct financial incentive in making sure that this web DRM stays alive... solution? Make all youtube videos require DRM support in the browser, even if the videos themselves don't contain DRM. This way, people who want to use youtube will want to use DRM-supporting browsers, and web DRM will quickly become just another thing people have to tolerate.

[smitty3268]

@RahulSundaram


Please tell me how this is not "Google makes a standard by releasing the software".

I'm also not clear on what you want Google to do, exactly. They were soliciting others about what kinds of changes should go into the codec. I know they made several changes over the last month or two at the request of some hardware partners to make it more hardware friendly.

Were you wanting it to be designed by the HTML committee? It just would have gotten vetoed by Microsoft and Apple anyway.

Are you simply opposed to Google creating any kind of technology that ends up in it's browser? That seems kind of self-defeating, and none of the other browser makers have that restriction.

[smitty3268]

Ok, and you're sure that won't happen because... what, Google says so? Well, that changes everything. Everyone knows we can ALWAYS trust big, multinational corporations, they NEVER go back on their word or have hidden ulterior motives...

Google is one of the parties behind the HTML5 DRM plan. The whole thing is a scheme lobbied for by hollywood gatekeepers and media giants, who want to protect their "intellectual property". Mark my words, soon we'll see youtube videos that require DRM to play, because if the media giants demand that of Google... they'll pretty much have to give in.

I fully expect some videos on Youtube to start requiring DRM, just so Google can attract some of those more hollywood content providers, and compete more directly against services like Hulu. They've already been talking about providing tv content and original programming.

I don't think you'll ever see most of the generic user-uploaded videos require it though. It will probably be one of those opt-in things for uploaders.

[GreatEmerald]

Nice. I hope this will also be a part of the Lib-ray standard.

[RahulSundaram]

Ok, and you're sure that won't happen because... what, Google says so? Well, that changes everything. Everyone knows we can ALWAYS trust big, multinational corporations, they NEVER go back on their word or have hidden ulterior motives...

The more realistic reason is that DRM extensions in HTML 5 is better suited for ... DRM (duh) and Google has a commercial interest in an open video codec.

[dee.]

That won't happen. The "encrypted media extensions" html5 drm will be used for pay content like films, tv shows, live broadcasts etc on youtube and possibly music videos, possibly partner videos. The rest won't otherwise enormous numbers of people wouldn't be able to use youtube.

Ok, and you're sure that won't happen because... what, Google says so? Well, that changes everything. Everyone knows we can ALWAYS trust big, multinational corporations, they NEVER go back on their word or have hidden ulterior motives...

Google is one of the parties behind the HTML5 DRM plan. The whole thing is a scheme lobbied for by hollywood gatekeepers and media giants, who want to protect their "intellectual property". Mark my words, soon we'll see youtube videos that require DRM to play, because if the media giants demand that of Google... they'll pretty much have to give in.

[RahulSundaram]

@RahulSundaram


Please tell me how this is not "Google makes a standard by releasing the software".

You seem confused. Google doesn't get to declare any standards on its own. For something to be called a standard, it has to go through a standards body like ISO. VPx has been submitted to the MPEG standards committe but hasn't gone through the standardization process and it will take time. This is not something you want to rush.

Google has published a reference implementation for VP9 a while back but they are finalizing the spec and releasing a reference implementation at the same time and this is not a uncommon thing for anyone publishing a new version of a codec. Ogg codecs have been published by Xiph in a similar manner. The spec is under an open royalty free license and the reference implementation is under free and open source license. What more do you want?

[dstaubsauger]

@RahulSundaram

[...] Today also marks the day that the VP9 Bitstream is considered frozen.

Please tell me how this is not "Google makes a standard by releasing the software".