Google Announces 'WebM' Open-Source Video Format, Plans for Android Television Integration

[zombitronic]

Integrating stuff into a tv is not the way to go.

Bad idea, and always has been. The TV needs to remain a display device, that accepts input from other devices that can manage such things that can be more easily replaced and updated.

The success of the iMac shows that consumers may be more accepting of an integrated TV than you are.

For my personal setup (Mac mini to TV) I wouldn't want this. I watch, record, store and network my content on my Mac. Integrated Android is likely a feature that I would have no desire to use.

For the millions of people who are still impressed that you can hook a computer up to a TV at all, this integrated solution may be compelling.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

Good. Apple absolutely should embrace it. If they don't, it will be clear their real motivations are somewhere else other than "open-standards".

I think to a lot of us Apple users who aren't Apple drones can already see those motivations.

 

[rococoloco]

This is huge!

 

[carmenodie]

Google is aggressively moving forward like this because they have a high stock. They make nothing but ad money that they throw around like rice at a wedding. But very soon that internet ad market will get fractured by other players entering the market and when that happens Google won't be able to justify having all these acquisitions they paid millions to that they are giving away for free. Eric Schimdt is playing a very very rough game. I can't believe, but I should, that Wall Street hasn't put a red flag. But sh** will hit the fan.
Right now Google pays its partners in the cell phone business money to carry Android. Kick back money is what it is.
Hell, they even pay Apple a 100 million a year to support Google search. Funny all this off of one freaking search engine and a complex financial paradigm that has put imaginary money into Google's hands.
I can't wait to see Eric Schimdt's face when his business model explodes in his face.

 

[Peace]

I just don't understand how can anyone on this forum be against this move from Google.

Apple has been touting about a future filled with h264 video because they have the pockets to license it.

The biggest threat to HTML5 nowadays seems to be the dispute towards the video technology that will be used (h264 vs Ogg Theora). This will be a great step forward in having a true open source video format on the web, contrary to the format Apple is supporting.

My idea is that, once the licensing date expires on h264 (2015 if I'm not mistaken), and if h264 eventually becomes the ubiquitous video format on the web, the cost of licensing it will be much higher to take advantage of Apple, Google and Microsoft's large pockets (thus destroying all browser competition except from these big companies).

I cannot believe the posts saying "Like we need another video format".

Yes, we do! A royalty-free, open source one!

Maybe the h.264 guy is biased but he disagrees.

"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."

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Right now you have some major players in the web backing this format.

Google is backing it. The Chrome browser is gaining market share.

Firefox which is the number 2 browser on the web by a huge margin over number 3rd (Chrome)

Chrome seems to be stealing market share away from IE and Safari. Firefox market share seems to of been holding steady and any they loss to Chrome they seem to take just as many from the others.

Now if Microsoft chooses to back this then it will more or less force apples hand. That would put 90-95% of the web browser market out there backing this format. Apple little corner will be forced.

Mix that in with the cell phones which Android will pass the iPhone up in terms of market share as it is only a matter of time. I am going to expect that Palm OS will support it and I would not be surprised in the least to seem RIM support it as well.

 

[Mk2]

I'm not impressed. Firefox Nightly / Chrome Nightly gave an 'unsupported codec' error. I finally got it working under Opera, so I thought I'd take a look at the CPU usage:

WebM (Opera): ~128%
H.264 (HTML5, Safari): ~12%
H.264 (Flash 10.1 Gala, Safari): ~40%

 

[portishead]

Check out the technical assessment of WebM from the lead developer of x264

That is a GREAT article! Thanks for the find.

 

[cppguy]

h.264 is not open by any means, it's owned by patent trolls who demand extremely hefty licensing fees, keeping even consumers utterly vulnerable to lawsuits. Have you guys missed the article on osnews? http://www.osnews.com/story/23258/MPEG-LA-owned_Patent_Troll_Sues_Smartphone_Makers

 

[Molecule]

One advantage of this coming from a big company like Google is that if patent trolls start cropping up, Google can just buy them.

 

[aiqw9182]

I'm not impressed. Firefox Nightly / Chrome Nightly gave an 'unsupported codec' error. I finally got it working under Opera, so I thought I'd take a look at the CPU usage:

WebM (Opera): ~128%
H.264 (HTML5, Safari): ~12%
H.264 (Flash 10.1 Gala, Safari): ~40%

Good god that's awful...

Granted it's a "new" codec but still...

 

[tkatz]

Check out the technical assessment of WebM from the lead developer of x264

This is an excellent read. Sadly it will probably be overlooked and unnoticed by most, but I feel that everything who has anything to say about h.264 vs VP8 should at least give it a read. Even if its to argue some of the things stated.

There's way too many people commenting on things that they have no idea of what they're talking about. Its nice to see that someone took the time to go through the spec (if you can call it that based on what it appears to be, ie lots of copy/pasted C code) and post their observations on it.

 

[hitekalex]

h.264 is open, in terms of being an Open Standard. It's just not "Open Source", and its not "License Free".

Yeah, H.264 is "open" just like Flash is "open". In today's world when people say "open" - to most people it means open source and free distribution.. which H.264 is neither.

 

[yg17]

People complain that Flash shouldn't be used since it's not an open format. Google releases an open format. People now complain that there are now too many formats. You just can't win with some people, can you?

Good for Google, the web needs to be as open as possible and it would be great if we can finally have one, universal, open standard for web video.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

Check out the technical assessment of WebM from the lead developer of x264

From the article:

I’m not quite sure why Google chose to rebrand Matroska; “WebM” is a stupid name.

I wonder if his opinions are skewed any by the fact that he is an H264 developer, much like Flash developers' opinions on Apple's actions against flash. He certainly seems to know what he's talking about otherwise.

 

[job]

I'm not impressed. Firefox Nightly / Chrome Nightly gave an 'unsupported codec' error. I finally got it working under Opera, so I thought I'd take a look at the CPU usage:

WebM (Opera): ~128%
H.264 (HTML5, Safari): ~12%
H.264 (Flash 10.1 Gala, Safari): ~40%

It's not even a few hours old. Give it some time.

 

[TheSlush]

2 different activities?

To attract consumers, Google will need to provide a broad variety of easily searchable programming and let viewers chat or post comments about it online, on a single screen, said Ray Valdes, an analyst at Gartner Inc.

But um, Ray? Most people don't want to chat and comment and crap on the same screen while they're trying to watch TV!

 

[BornAgainMac]

Is it possible for Apple to buy H264 and then give it away? If I were Apple and such a thing were possible, that would be my next move. Use some of that gazillion dollars to put an end to this nonsense once and for all.

I agree. If it is possible, Apple should buy it out and give it away. Give those H264 crooks their money and let it be free for everyone.

 

[clevin]

This is beginning of death of H.264 as a universal web video standard. Before it even really started.

now microsoft, mozilla, google, opera all pledged support for VP8, firefox 3.6.x, google chrome 5, opera 10.5.x, IE9 will all support the codec by year ends, with google throwing in Youtube.

This changes the whole situation.

 

[John.B]

Meh. Another video codec without hardware acceleration support.

 

[MikhailT]

1) "How can anybody be against this move"?
Because it's not proven that this codec is actually patent free and won't face suits from the real patent owners. There's no solid patent review or court review that says it does not have infringe on any patent.
H.264, we already know who owns it and who has patents on it. We know when the royalties is going to start, etc.

We don't know exactly what's the story on this VP8 codec. That's why certain people are not going to support this until they know for sure

2) "No HW Support?"

It's finally open sourced just now, meaning any company can start adding support however they want to. You can't have HW support first and then software. H.264 didn't have HW support in the beginning either, it took years to have the same support. If this open and "free" video codec is what Google says what it is, it'll gain the HW support faster and will overtake H.264.

This codec can be improved by the companies themselves without the actual original company's permission. Something even Apple will love since it'll give them full total control over the source code of the codec.

3) "Apple not on the list?"
Apple is probably being cautious about this as I would be since there's no patent review that shows VP8 does not infringe on any patent. They won't add support for this for another year or two, they'll be the last company to add support. Just like everything else, Apple waits for the mature technology to catch up before adding full support.

4) "Apple looks bad if they don't support this"
Apple doesn't give a crap what we think. Apple is a business that decides in terms of profit, not what we like or if its something open source.

Adding support to something that has no HW support, nonexistent or small source of video encoded in this format, makes no sense for Apple to start supporting it now. They'll add support when it makes sense, not the other way around.

 

[John.B]

This is beginning of death of H.264 as a universal web video standard. Before it even really started.

now microsoft, mozilla, google, opera all pledged support for VP8, firefox 3.6.x, google chrome 5, opera 10.5.x, IE9 will all support the codec by year ends, with google throwing in Youtube.

Source?

The last I checked, Microsoft said they were only interested in supporting H.264 in IE9 ...

 

[clevin]

1) "How can anybody be against this move"?
Because it's not proven that this codec is actually patent free and won't face suits from the real patent owners. There's no solid patent review or court review that says it does not have infringe on any patent.
H.264, we already know who owns it and who has patents on it. We know when the royalties is going to start, etc.

We don't know exactly what's the story on this VP8 codec. That's why certain people are not going to support this until they know for sure

2) "No HW Support?"

It's finally open sourced just now, meaning any company can start adding support however they want to. You can't have HW support first and then software. H.264 didn't have HW support in the beginning either, it took years to have the same support. If this open and "free" video codec is what Google says what it is, it'll gain the HW support faster and will overtake H.264.

This codec can be improved by the companies themselves without the actual original company's permission. Something even Apple will love since it'll give them full total control over the source code of the codec.

3) "Apple not on the list?"
Apple is probably being cautious about this as I would be since there's no patent review that shows VP8 does not infringe on any patent. They won't add support for this for another year or two, they'll be the last company to add support. Just like everything else, Apple waits for the mature technology to catch up before adding full support.

4) "Apple looks bad if they don't support this"
Apple doesn't give a crap what we think. Apple is a business that decides in terms of profit, not what we like or if its something open source.

Adding support to something that has no HW support, nonexistent or small source of video encoded in this format, makes no sense for Apple to start supporting it now. They'll add support when it makes sense, not the other way around.

what a bunch of FUD and talking points straight from apple's lame-a$$ excuses against Ogg all along.

 

[clevin]

Source?

The last I checked, Microsoft said they were only interested in supporting H.264 in IE9 ...

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft...orer-9-after-all/6264?tag=mantle_skin;content

 

[musiciscool]

google google everywhere....

I especially like the part where Google gets into television...
It's soooo awesome that Big Brother, I mean GOOGLE; is going to monitor the television I watch in addition to the web sites I visit, the street I live on via satellite, my gps location, my email, my cell phone conversations... and their kindly CEO's response is "if you want privacy, you have something to hide". Nice. Google is a pack of pigs with a new motto... "All Animals Are Equal, but some are more Equal than Others".