Regd. the GIF/PNG issue being thrown around here.
A more relevant comparison would probably be MP3/Ogg.
We all know which one survived there...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Regd. the GIF/PNG issue being thrown around here.
A more relevant comparison would probably be MP3/Ogg.
We all know which one survived there...
What makes anybody think VP8 is competing against Apple? Other than irrational fear and hatred? From what I have read, it is fairly similar to H.264, so if it becomes popular on the web and starts gaining hardware support, it should be fairly easy to add support for it. I doubt Apple or Microsoft cares one way or another. They may find it annoying that codec world is being muddied up, but in the end it is just a shrug. This somehow matters only for Mozilla. That is all. This nothing like HTML5 vs. Flash. Android 2.2 support for Flash is a bigger deal for iPhone OS, not VP8.
Ummm...
HTML5 is pretty much not "not ready for primetime". Its supported by every current major browser, except 1, whose makers have also stated they are fully committed to supporting it in their next version.
Flash (effectively closed standard, patent-encumbered, controlled by single company, lots of support in desktop, no support in mobile) ->
HTML5 (completely open standard, patent-free, controlled by many firms, lots of support (but not complete) support in desktop, lots of support in mobile)
H.264 (open standard, patent-encumbered, controlled by many, lots of support in desktop, lots of support in mobile) ->
VP8 (open standard, claimed to be patent-free but also claimed to be violating patents by others, controlled by single firm, no current support in desktop, no current support in mobile).
Yeah, I fail to see the analogy.
Yeah I agree. Its rather foolish to dismiss Linux as a major player. Most of our large data servers (expensive!!!) are Linux based.
Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind...
The web pretty much runs on Linux, any critical service out there runs on Linux. Linux is slowly but surely entering the desktop segment thanks to Ubuntu.
Chrome, based on a open source project called Chromium, is the fastest growing browser out there, Android is the fastest growing mobile OS out there.
Mozilla Firefox was at one point the strongest alternative to IE and it pretty much saved the web from a half-assed and monopolized browser.
Apache is the most used web server out there and it played a key role in the growth of the world wide web. MySQL and PHP go in there as well.
OS X is based on parts of FreeBSD and NetBSD. WebKit is a fork of KHTML.
I could go on... So yes, it works.
Not the most accurate comparison. You are comparing a markup language to a Turing-complete language. HTML5 on it's own cannot accomplish the things you can do on ActionScript.
HTML5 ready for primetime?
Call me when its a standard. HTML5 has been plagued by delays for the past few years. It will have its place but the analogy being, Steve is forcing something upon the masses that is not even completed.
It's just ignorance. I would guess that most Apple fans aren't that ignorant and those of us who work in the industry make up our own minds independently of whatever Jobs is saying at the moment.
At the moment, Jobs says Google is bad, so Google must be bad. If Jobs changes his mind at some point, Google will be great again.
A lot of very vocal people on this site don't know much about standards, software, development, etc. That doesn't mean that those of us who make a living that way and like Apple's products don't exist.
It is you, who is getting blinded by the FUD spread by Jobs and a couple of pissed x264 developers, whose baby is suddenly becoming irrelevant. BTW, similar FUD can easily be written about H.264.
Google did a great service for the web, at the cost of $140 million.
On the other hand, lately Jobs is seen as a greedy, ruthless, weird creep, so he is unhappy with the good press Google is getting (and the Android competition for Jobs' cash cows - the iPhone and the iPad.
Plus, Apple is heavily invested in H.264.
So, while Jobs can't really come out and say "I hate Google and the free WebM," he spreads FUD by linking to some more FUD.
Of course, the religious idiots who worship Him lap this up and go to the fog of war, without ever questioning His motives.
Bottom line, be happy and say thanks to Google for making $140 million present to the open web, and have some trust in their legal team.
(I am sure in the background Jobs, as part of MPEG-LA, is pushing for a lawsuit, but that was to be expected, regardless of the merits. There is a patent troll hidden in the Apple).
vp8 will have absolutely zero affect on h.264, the difference between html5 video on monday and html5 video today (or more accurately in a few months) is i can choose vp8 over theora to support firefox and opera, while using h.264 for everything else. that's it. a two encode (minimum) solution is still the reality. the codec "war" is being driven by fourth generation personal computing e.g. handheld, wireless, internet connected devices.
there are hundreds of millions of fourth generation pcs in the market today that support h.264 hardware decoding. every day that passes before mobile device makers ship vp8 acceleration is another million or so devices sold. it will take years for vp8 accelerated hardware to reach half the market share of h.264. h.264 hardware development has been going on for nearly a decade, that's years worth of real world experience and driving manufacturing and development costs down that vp8 will not be able to match initially. furthermore it makes very little sense for mobile device manufacturers to ship vp8 hardware acceleration at the expense of h.264. devices will most likely ship with both making it a zero sum game for vp8.
h.264 simply has too large a head start to be troubled by vp8. if google is smart, which they are, they would be focused on next generation mobile devices that will come about when we get ultrahigh band wireless in a decade or so. the codec for fourth generation personal computing has already been decided.
oh and btw, png beat out gif because it was the superior format, it had nothing to do with patents. the fud surrounding that issue is mindboggling - there was never an instance where displaying a gif was ever under threat of licensing fees, it was always about the creation of the image. so photoshop or server side image generating software that output gif were required to pay the license fee.
there are hundreds of millions of fourth generation pcs in the market today that support h.264 hardware decoding. every day that passes before mobile device makers ship vp8 acceleration is another million or so devices sold. it will take years for vp8 accelerated hardware to reach half the market share of h.264. h.264 hardware development has been going on for nearly a decade, that's years worth of real world experience and driving manufacturing and development costs down that vp8 will not be able to match initially. furthermore it makes very little sense for mobile device manufacturers to ship vp8 hardware acceleration at the expense of h.264. devices will most likely ship with both making it a zero sum game for vp8.
h.264 simply has too large a head start to be troubled by vp8. if google is smart, which they are, they would be focused on next generation mobile devices that will come about when we get ultrahigh band wireless in a decade or so. the codec for fourth generation personal computing has already been decided.
oh and btw, png beat out gif because it was the superior format, it had nothing to do with patents. the fud surrounding that issue is mindboggling - there was never an instance where displaying a gif was ever under threat of licensing fees, it was always about the creation of the image. so photoshop or server side image generating software that output gif were required to pay the license fee.
And this being royalty free, open specced and open sourced prevents ... what exactly ? Apple's DRM on iPods and their music couldn't be implemented elsewhere, ever. That's because it wasn't open.
Again, you care about H.264 ubiquity because you're scared VP8 won't see support, yet it doesn't have any barriers except manufacturer laziness. Not like the DRM schemes you're pointing to.
However, H.264 does put up a barrier to its adoption by organisation like Mozilla. Royalty fees. That is a true market problem.
It's not facts, it's FUD. It's FUD that's been spewed since Theora was first released. In 10 years, MPEG-LA still has to go after Theora, not just say they will.
There are no facts until a case has gone through court and it's been established as fact by a Judge or Jury.
Apple is just spewing forth the same FUD MPEG-LA has. "We're assembling a patent pool". Stop bluffing and show us your hand.
Which is a way better situation than their support for SVG, which wasn't even possible for a user to install on his own.
Okay, lets assume it is indeed FUD. Nothing else.
And Yes, you can say the same FUD against H.264. The point is, I would response to the H.264 FUD by saying "Dude, Blu Ray uses it. iTunes uses it. Youtube uses it. Chrome uses it. Safari uses it. iPods use it. iPhones use it. iPads use it. Zunes use it. The Zune Marketplace uses it. Vimeo uses it. Flash uses it. Dailymotion uses it". If anyone had to sue it, they would have done so by now.
On the other hand, how would you respond to the FUD against VP8? "Dude, Google says I'm good". The FUD creators would respond "Sure, but they aren't confident enough to indemnify you for it." Secondly, most such lawsuits never even come to a decision if one is initiated. They will be settled far before that. So even if it isn't violating patents, it will cost you, especially when you have people like Larry Horn after you.
And if you don't believe that second scenario, don't forget that HTC is paying MSFT more for using Android than they are Google.
seriously? Thank you for telling me how much it sucks
I can't believe I got anything done using only linux for over a year.Thats assuming it is "royalty free". The whole point of this article is that despite Google saying so, it might not be.
Again, it would be preferable if you would respond to this article by pointing out why you have reason to believe it is wrong, as opposed to assuming it is wrong, and then criticizing folks who make comments based on the assumption that it is right.
While I agree that there is no guarantee it wont be sued in the future, its laughable to suggest there isn't money in doing so right now. A majority of video on the internet now is delivered using H.264 (yes, even Flash uses it). Blu-Ray uses it. iPods, Zunes, and Android phones have H.264 decoders.
It can't be a better time to sue H.264.
What patent pool is Apple gonna assemble? They have one patent relevant to it. Ultimately it's the MPEG group that can take action (or not). It's up to them.
Closing your eyes to a potential problem won't make the (potential) problem go away.
This is precisely what the MPEG-LA wants. You are now afraid, uncertain and doubtful. They have been victorious over your mind with their FUD. Congratulations, you've just succumbed to IP terrorism.
It is royalty free until a court of law says otherwise. There is no assumption.
That's exactly what I'm saying, there is no problem to close our eyes to until someone comes forward. Until then, if you run off scared, you're just getting influenced by FUD, Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.
If we followed your line of thinking, nothing would ever get produced. CUPS ? Might be patent encumbered. AAC ? Might be patent encumbered. iTunes music downloads ? Oh might be patent encumbered.
It's ridiculous to cave in to FUD, especially from an organisation known for having used the same FUD tactics for over 10 years. 10 years of "we're gonna sue Xiph any day now over Theora!".
He never said otherwise. The open sourced project that heads Chrome development is called Chromium. That is the browser itself. The rendering engine is webkit, but a rendering engine doesn't a browser make.
LOL. In truth, you can actually chose Flash, to reach a lot more people than you can with H.264.
Also, until IE9 comes in and gathers acceptance, H.264 has scant native support. In practice, soon WebM will be supported natively by a larger audience (Firefox and all the other Mozilla browsers, Chrome and Opera).
apple is also paying MS for iphone OS patents and features
that's the way tech works. competitors license from each other and work together.
I think Jobs point is that when you have to choose between two formats, both of which are likely encumbered by patents, it's better to choose the technically superior one, which is H.264.
WebM has severe quality issues versus H.264. If both of them have patent issues, it's best just to chose the format with better quality, which is essentially what Jobs is saying.
I'm pretty sure Apple doesn't own that many patents for H.264, or any at all.
H.264 is already supported by Chrome, Safari, and will be by IE9.
WebM is supported by Firefox, Chrome, and Opera.
IE9 will only support WebM if the user downloads support on their own.
This gives the large majority of user share to H.264.
Firefox chrome opera IE9
vs
Chrome Safari IE9.
I'm sorry, but that gives the advantage to VP8/WebM.
Sorry but unless a website says explicitly that you MUST install the VP8 codec the average IE9 user won't bother installing it. Giving the advantage back to h.264