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

[totoum]

Also, pretty much any comparison people make is using x264, far and away the best encoder, that unfortunately lives in a slightly grey world. I'm sure comparing the best vp8 implementations vs the worst h264 (ie. the proprietary) implementations would give a different angle.

EXACTLY

Look no further than the same blog Steve Jobs linked to:

Jason Garett-Glaser did a comparaison of encoders this last summer,here were the results:

http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/quality_chart1.png

VP7 was already well ahead of Apple's H264 encoder (the one most mac users use) and I'm sure VP8 will be even farther ahead.

 

[VoR]

It's not surprising that there's so much attacking of vp8, it's both 'good enough' and even more scary, free. Great for everyone, except for certain members of mpeg-la. Easy to find two different website with different loyalties coming to completely opposite conclusions of a vp8 vs h264 comparison.

As much as I love them and their work, the ffmpeg/x264 guys are getting a little bit tiresome with their vp8 bashing that's been going on as long as I can remember.

The dev blog post that's been doing the rounds seems to be focused on discrediting vp8. I can understand why he feels threatened. He may be one of the most talented x264 contributors about, but he has the most to lose (not monetarily obviously), quoted saying he's 'too dumb to understand the source code' and released the blog so soon after the source release that it must have just been skimmed through, hardly a technical analysis.

I'm looking foward to what vp8 becomes, I think it's SUCH great news that it's free and has loads of potential. Saying all this, I'll still carry on using x264 for encoding my media for the foreseeable future - as long as it does what I want, I can use it freely and it has the better PQ.

 

[totoum]

and released the blog so soon after the source release that it must have just been skimmed through, hardly a technical analysis.

he said in the post

Fortunately, it seems I was able to acquire access to the VP8 spec, software, and source a good few days before the official release and so was able to perform a detailed technical analysis in time for the official release.

Here's what the other side has to say:

You should have seen what VP3 was like when it was handed over to
Xiph.Org. The software was horribly buggy, slow, and the quality was
fairly poor (at least compared to the current status).

Jason's comparison isn't unfair but you need to understand it for what
it is— he's comparing a very raw, hardly out of development, set of
tools to his own project— which is the most sophisticated and mature
video encoder in existence.

So they're not denying that VP8 is a bit of a mess right now,just that it's normal since it's just out of developement.

The x264 said he thinks it's not ready for primetime yet,that doesn't mean he thinks it will never be ready.

He even said a while ago

But, of course, we wholeheartedly support the quest for royalty-free, free-software multimedia formats. There are many use-cases in which being free of patents is more important than compression, quality, performance, or even features.

 

[KnightWRX]

There we go, some real comparison material, not just "B-frames blah blah" biased analysing :

http://www.streamingmedia.com/Artic.../First-Look-H.264-and-VP8-Compared-67266.aspx

 

[totoum]

There we go, some real comparison material, not just "B-frames blah blah" biased analysing :

http://www.streamingmedia.com/Artic.../First-Look-H.264-and-VP8-Compared-67266.aspx

x264 dev said :

It will likely be nearly as good as Mainconcept’s H.264

In the link you give the video is Mainconcept H.264 and it says

I'd say H.264 still offers better quality, but the difference wouldn't be noticeable in most applications

One says "nearly as good" and the other says "the difference wouldn't be noticeable in most applications"

I'd say they pretty much agree

 

[KnightWRX]

One says "nearly as good" and the other says "the difference wouldn't be noticeable in most applications"

I'd say they pretty much agree

Maybe, but the x264 dev wrapped it up in tons of bashing and innuendo and never offered any real world perspective. The article I posted was straight to the point and offered a comparison encode.

And everyone quoting the x264 dev only remember things "too much code seems the same" "no B-frames blah blah" and are bashing VP8 based on this, rather than what actually gets displayed on screen.

I think the comparison I posted, encoded from "not ready for primetime" shows why VP8 is the superior choice to H.264 for the web. Royalty-free with about the same quality (a bit better in certain types of frame, a bit worse in others).

What Google did is a good step forward for the web and freeing it from licensing fees.

 

[totoum]

and never offered any real world perspective. The article I posted was straight to the point and offered a comparison encode.

You might have missed the end of "Addendum A: On2’s VP8 Encoder and Decoder" where he posted videos and screenshot comparaisons

http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=377#comments

Don't get me wrong,I'm on board with webm,like it's been said , it's "good enough" and I'm not scared of there being any patents.

It's just that people make it seem like the x264 dev is on a crusade against webm when to me that doesn't seem to be the case.

Of course Steve Jobs linking to it didn't help

 

[macUser2007]

EXACTLY

Look no further than the same blog Steve Jobs linked to:

Jason Garett-Glaser did a comparaison of encoders this last summer,here were the results:

http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/quality_chart1.png

VP7 was already well ahead of Apple's H264 encoder (the one most mac users use) and I'm sure VP8 will be even farther ahead.

Good catch.

Apple's H.264 encoder is considerably worse that even the VP7 encoder.

Does this mean that Apple is lazy?

Or is it proof that Steve Jobs is full of BS and spreading FUD?

 

[goMac]

There we go, some real comparison material, not just "B-frames blah blah" biased analysing :

http://www.streamingmedia.com/Artic.../First-Look-H.264-and-VP8-Compared-67266.aspx

Squeeze is not the best encoder to be using. It's telling that even Squeeze's H.264 edged out VP8.

In fact, most the reason it probably looked the same is because they were using the same encoder for both.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

I think the comparison I posted, encoded from "not ready for primetime" shows why VP8 is the superior choice to H.264 for the web. Royalty-free with about the same quality (a bit better in certain types of frame, a bit worse in others).

What Google did is a good step forward for the web and freeing it from licensing fees.

Assuming that it actually is royalty-free.

What will Google do if patent trolls sue small content producers for patent infringement? I'm not trying to spread FUD-- I just don't trust patent abusers.

 

[KnightWRX]

Assuming that it actually is royalty-free.

What will Google do if patent trolls sue small content producers for patent infringement? I'm not trying to spread FUD-- I just don't trust patent abusers.

You're not trying, you are spreading FUD. We went over this already. What if scenarios can apply to every. god. damn. codec.

Until there's an actual patent problem, anyone that claims VP8 is not royalty-free or might not be royalty free is just spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

 

[BC2009]

Are you dense?

The world doesn't revolve around Apple. It might seem that way to you since you probably only visit Apple sites, but if you go to a regular tech site, they don't talk about this in relationship to Apple, since why would they? The only mention is of lack of support so far from Safari.

I think you missed my point, and despite your incorrect assumptions and rude way of stating them, I will endeavor to clarify.

If you read my post I think you will see that my problem with Google right now is that THEY seem to think that the world revolves around Apple. Do we really need yet another way to encode video? If VP8 were better I'd be right on the Google bandwagon and saying "let's ditch H.264" -- or even if VP8 were equivalent and patent/royalty-free I'd be screaming "woo-hoo!" -- but the problem is that it is NOT better (probably a wash -- take the time to read some in-depth analysis on some "regular tech sites") and in all likelihood will have an equivalent patent pool created against it as well. So let's not go through all the trouble of switching to yet another format that in all likelihood will not be royalty free. Instead let's worry about things that matter, because the world does NOT revolve around Apple -- though Google seems to think so.

Personally, I would like Google to spend their resources doing what they do best: making the web an awesome place with cool tools and services. I think their android efforts are cool because they are pushing the envelope in areas where Apple has chosen to delay and I think this only helps the consumer. But I think that their "Chromium OS" (and the cartoon they made for it) are a waste of time. I also think their "me too" efforts with Google Wave are annoying (especially when it hijacks your contacts from GMail). When Google just does something to have their own version of it then in my opinion its a waste of time. Microsoft does this same thing too often. What's worse is that recently it seems Google's me-too efforts are becoming "me-too-but-must-be-different-from-Apple". When Google innovates I think its amazing. Google will continue to succeed if they stick to innovating, but Google will fail if they try to make their own different version of everything everybody else is doing. Why? Because they will be exposed on too many fronts -- its like playing Risk, holding Europe and trying to attack the US, Africa, and Asia all at once -- you get spread too thin.

So in my opinion video encoding is one area where Google should ditch VP8 and just ride the H.264 current and then worry about a replacement when a truly better (and hopefully royalty-free) replacement exists.

 

[msheredy]

Except when the consortium charges fees, and potentially can charge even more fees from a broader audience at any time. H.264 is a ticking time bomb.

This is where that saying, "You gotta pay to play" comes from. Not only that but I could give a rat's azz if they charge companies a fee to use it, as I said before, "You gotta pay to play."