Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Jobs Responds to Google's WebM Video Standard Announcement as Patent Questions Begin to Surface

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
68,200
38,989



125635-webm_logo.jpg


With Google's announcement earlier this week that it is releasing a new open source, royalty-free video format known as "WebM" to compete with the Apple-backed H.264 standard, observers have wondered what Apple's response will be. Google's inclusion of several other prominent industry players including Mozilla and Opera has suggested that Apple may find itself under pressure to adopt the standard as it gains traction.

The Register reports that one of its readers emailed Apple CEO Steve Jobs to ask about his thoughts on Google's announcement of WebM, which utilizes the VP8 video codec acquired by Google when it purchased On2 Technologies earlier this year.

Jobs reportedly simply responded by sending a link to a lengthy and technical blog post from an independent developer working on an open source x264 project for encoding video in the H.264 format preferred by Apple. In short, developer Jason Garrett-Glaser calls VP8/WebM "a mess" and "not ready for primetime", with Google even having declared the standard "final" despite a number of flaws already discovered in it. In addition, while appearing to be a significant upgrade over the Theora format previously preferred by Mozilla and Opera, the new format on the whole does not seem to be any better than H.264.

Larger questions, however, are arising over the patent picture with respect to VP8/WebM. One of the format's main selling points for Google has been the fact that it is open source and royalty-free. This is in contrast to H.264, for which a group of patent holders (in which Apple plays a small part) oversees licensing and royalties for encoder/decoder manufacturers and content providers. While end users are currently not subject to royalty payments for the H.264 format, there is some concern that such fees could be implemented in 2016 after the current licensing agreement term expires.

Garrett-Glaser raises the issue in his piece about whether VP8/WebM can stand up to any patent tests, as it seems to carry a significant amount of similarity to H.264. Consequently, he calls into question whether Google can truly offer a royalty-free format with it. Digital Daily's John Paczkowski also dug into the issue a bit further and shares comments from Larry Horn, CEO of MPEG LA, the body that oversees the patent pools behind H.264 and other standards.
JP: Let me ask you this: Are you creating a patent pool license for VP8 and WebM? Have you been approached about creating one?

Larry Horn: Yes, in view of the marketplace uncertainties regarding patent licensing needs for such technologies, there have been expressions of interest from the market urging us to facilitate formation of licenses that would address the market's need for a convenient one-stop marketplace alternative to negotiating separate licenses with individual patent holders in accessing essential patent rights for VP8 as well as other codecs, and we are looking into the prospects of doing so.
Click to expand...
Horn's comments suggest that VP8/WebM may become subject to similar licensing and royalty terms as H.264 once certain patent holders come together to assert ownership over aspects of the standard, negating one of the primary selling points of the standard. For its part, however, Google maintains that it has thoroughly vetted the standard and is confident in its ability to offer it as an open source and royalty-free option.

Article Link: Jobs Responds to Google's WebM Video Standard Announcement as Patent Questions Begin to Surface
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2010/05/21/jobs-responds-to-googles-webm-video-standard-announcement-as-patent-questions-begin-to-surface/
Stop the FUD and bring on the actual lawsuits. Let the courts settle it. Using the media to fight your war for you only means you're running scared.
 
Yeah Mr.Jobs guess you felt great sticking your
chest out in a attempt to bash and bully Adobe....

haha go Google
 
The nonsensical open-zealot (note, these aren't the same as open-source advocates, who form the majority, and are reasonable) dream is that they will have an open-source, royalty free codec.

The only way this is possible is if this codec excludes any of the advances invented by pretty much any A/V firm (the only exception being On2) in the last 15-20 years.

Is it even possible to develop a decent codec under these conditions?

Also, the only reason Ogg Theora hasn't faced these issues yet, is because it never became popular, and was unlikely to ever become popular.
 
Go google!

As much as I dislike the google's data mining policies I do love their attempt to free the video on the net from the patent shackles.

Hopefully in several years we would be able to include the video into web pages as easy and royalty free as images today...
 
MorphingDragon said:
Raw Video with Linear compress.

Youll end up with something like FLAC or Apple Lossless AAC.
Click to expand...

True. But those files would be half the size of the raw video files, in that case.

That will not work on the web (and note, the problem is not just bandwidth, which will probably get mitigated in a few years, but storage and maintenance costs for sites like Youtube).
 
Macmoney said:
Yeah Mr.Jobs guess you felt great sticking your
chest out in a attempt to bash and bully Adobe....

haha go Google
Click to expand...

++ :)

So far for SJ as a promoting power behind "Open Standards".

All what is missing now is a "Flash Alternative" from Apple. Then everything would be even more clear.
 
Not ready for primetime? You mean like Safari on the iPhone? Something like that, Steve? Psssst, your ego is showing again, Stevey. Go Google, put Apple in their place. Good job.
 
Don.Key said:
++ :)

So far for SJ as a promoting power behind "Open Standards".

All what is missing now is a "Flash Alternative" from Apple. Then everything would be even more clear.
Click to expand...

Are you guys reading the same article I am?

This article is basically saying that VP8 is most likely in the EXACT SAME situation as H.264.

While the article may be wrong, these comments sound nonsensical as a response to this article.
 
Nothing about this sounds better.

It doesn't seem to be better technically, so there's no advantage there. Google doesn't seem to be too concerned about hardware support for it, saying that doing it in software is good enough, so we'll see if anything happens there or not. And lastly, there really do seem to be many similarlities to patented things. So even if you DO win the legal game in the end, you're probably at least promising yourself some time in court which is bound to be more expensive than H.264's fees, which really aren't all that much to begin with.
 
KnightWRX said:
Stop the FUD and bring on the actual lawsuits. Let the courts settle it. Using the media to fight your war for you only means you're running scared.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The US is already far too litigious as it is, especially in commercial disputes. I'm fed up with frivolous lawsuits and having watched one major ruling after another become overturned I dispute your contention that anything is ever truly "settled" in court. Even the Supreme Court can be overruled by NAFTA, which is even more opaque and less predictable than the SCOTUS is.
 
Has "free" and "open" ever won? Hasn't worked for Linux yet.

Google is promising a lot but hasn't delivered yet. Perhaps this will push clarification for h.264 post 2016 and VP8 won't matter.
 
Small White Car said:
Nothing about this sounds better.

It doesn't seem to be better technically, so there's no advantage there. Google doesn't seem to be too concerned about hardware support for it, saying that doing it in software is good enough, so we'll see if anything happens there or not. And lastly, there really do seem to be many similarlities to patented things. So even if you DO win the legal game in the end, you're probably at least promising yourself some time in court which is bound to be more expensive than H.264's fees, which really aren't all that much to begin with.
Click to expand...

Quote from that article "The company [Google] states it has done its due diligence during the On2 acquisition and the open sourcing of the VP8 codec. "We have done a pretty through analysis of VP8 and On2 Technologies prior to the acquisition and since then, and we are very confident with the technology and that's why we're open sourcing,"

Well, if that's the case, why aren't they indemnifying users of the codec? Basically, Google doesn't want to admit that it got scammed for 140+ mn by On2. More and more, this seems like a diversionary tactic.
 
I'm glad Google is behind this new open video standard. In contrast to Theora, they have the resources to improve it technically and, most importantly, throw some money around on patent claims and such.

As for H.264: It's a fine standard, it has the potential to become very popular, but I'm afraid it will end up the same way the .GIF format did.
 
This really is more about posturing between Apple and Google than the details and specifics of the relative benefits of VP8 and H.264.

Apple is more about the ecosystem than the standard itself. It has developed a following for its H.264 preference and has made commercial products available to a wide audience in the format, both free and paid, and third parties have climbed on board.

Apple also has the draw that they have demonstrated an actual successful vision of developing a hardware platform for content sellers to seamlessly plug into, and if Apple says H.264 makes that vision work better and faster, why not?

The main resistance comes from the format providers married to existing Flash, Silverlight, AVI and MPEG formats, which each have a use, but lack the focus needed for smaller and less capable devices to appear on their face to be "magical."

Rocketman
 
addicted44 said:
Are you guys reading the same article I am?

This article is basically saying that VP8 is most likely in the EXACT SAME situation as H.264.

While the article may be wrong, these comments sound nonsensical as a response to this article.
Click to expand...

And besides, having a patent free video codec wont hurt Apple one single bit, in fact they will benefit from it like everyone else.
 
I hope Google checked this very carefully.

I'd absolutely welcome this codec even it was inferior to h264 in some quality respects as long as it helps to make sure that non profit organizations, individuals and small companies will be able to freely publish video in the future and not only large media corporations (that can pay the bill for h264). Yes, some patent owners of h.264 want fees for everyone who publishes video with this codec in the future. This really affects free speech.

Christian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back