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

[BC2009]

Not Likely

IMO, Google would probably buy any offending patents.

Or use some of the oodles of dirt they have in their databases.

If you read that blog you will see that the patents that are offending are many of the same as those in the H.264 patent pool. Basically, all the folks who pounced on H.264 and said "we patented that" are going to do the same here. There will be another patent pool formed with some royalty-free period decided upon and some distribution of licensing fees thereafter.

If Google wanted "buy any offending patents" they could have done it with H.264 instead of this weaker encoding.

 

[WilliamLondon]

So wait... Steve is calling WebM a mess and not ready for primetime... YET... he's force feeding HTML5 to the masses? Pot, Kettle!

What are you talking about? Are you saying that Apple will refuse to support WebM if it makes it into the HTML5 spec? (and that's a great *BIG* if)

 

[Winni]

Mozilla and Opera are not prominent players.

You must be living in a different reality then. Mozilla Firefox has more than 46% market share in Europe. Microsoft IE 6, 7 and 8 together account for just 42%.

That makes Mozilla a very prominent player here.

 

[FrankieTDouglas]

So I'm assuming Jobs and Apple will support and back this video standard 100%, correct?

After all, it's an open web standard. Jobs heralded this feature in why people should push for HTML5 when he was crusading against Flash.

 

[goMac]

So IE9 will come come package with h.264 codec to dump into the library but that is it and knowing Microsoft they will make an official add on pack that you can download to put VP8 into the library.

Microsoft already said they won't be supplying or packaging a codec, but if the user has a WM codec installed, it will work.

It looks like WebM is going to end up being non-free anyway, and it's worse than H.264, so it doesn't really matter....

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Buying a new PC doesn't kill the old one: that's why there's still so many IE6 users all these years later. If we go with the "when they buy a new PC" concept, and consider how the crowd stretches out their PC purchase for many years (as evidenced by how many still use IE6, etc), it is many years until IE9 can show Microsoft's major adoption of HTML5 + H.264, etc.

On the other hand, if the VP8 plugin is "windows compatible" and made to run in IE versions before 9 (which just makes sense), I would guess that it's availability could drive VP8 acceptance/use growing faster on PCs vs. the pace of IE9 adoption. After all, in this scenario, VP8 could run on IE9, 8, 7, 6, etc, while HTML5 + H.264 (built into IE9- not as a plugin) is going to be IE9+ only.

IE6 is legacy in older work place computers. XP is being phased completely out in the next few years it will all be windows 7 and at least IE8.

Also you need to read up on how IE9 is handling codecs. VP8 would not be a plug in. It would be handled natively by the browser the same way h.264 is handled. IE9 is tapping into the codec library on your computer (same one WMP uses) and if the codec is in there it will play end of story. My understanding of this means that IE9 could play an Xvid file just fine. You just need the codec for it.

IE9 system I think is one of the better ones since it makes it much easier to update for future codecs and what ever other updates come out. It uses the system wide codecs on a computer.

 

[BC2009]

Google is just being contrary

This is a case for Google just to push something contrary to Apple
that is not even better than what Apple is pushing. Google -- stop
listening to your freakin' fans in the Apple v Google fight and just
worry about producing better cutting-edge stuff. There is no sense
in fighting Apple on things that don't matter.

For heavens sake, this VP8 standard looks worse than H.264 and it
looks like the patent trolls will be all over it in no time. These
wasted efforts and big-time "in your face" announcements seem
like you guys are more concerned about having a pissing contest
that producing awesome services.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Microsoft already said they won't be supplying or packaging a codec, but if the user has a WM codec installed, it will work.

It looks like WebM is going to end up being non-free anyway, and it's worse than H.264, so it doesn't really matter....

What they say and what they do are different things. Just like they said they would not make an Xvid one for the 360.....

Oh wait they did go back and make an official one. They will make or at least supply an VP8 codec pack if they do not make one they will take one that some else makes and supply it.

 

[KnightWRX]

It looks like WebM is going to end up being non-free anyway,

Care to link to the Google press release about this ?

 

[WilliamLondon]

Suggest that to the guy or gal who actually invents something, but lacks the deep pockets of a Microsoft, Apple, or Google to take it to market themselves.

What makes you think I would change my position just because of the wealth, or lack thereof, of the individual who invents something?

If someone is able to create something without using any previously attained knowledge (covering the entire span of human existence), come talk to me and I'll consider looking at my position. Until that time, no effing way - how dare anyone exclusively profit off of everything we've achieved prior to now.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

You must be living in a different reality then. Mozilla Firefox has more than 46% market share in Europe. Microsoft IE 6, 7 and 8 together account for just 42%.

That makes Mozilla a very prominent player here.

depends on your source. I have seen those numbers from Firefox but numbers from where you are pulling them even commented on the fact that it is a little more of a technological site so it is going to be little off from the rest of the world.

The numbers I have seen that I think are a bit more valid is firefox at around 25-30%. Still a huge chunk. IE at around 60%.

3rd place right now is google Chrome at around 7% and growing. Safari is in 4th at less around 4.5% (where it has been for the past 6 years)

Either way Firefox is main stream. Chrome is stealing users from IE.

Care to link to the Google press release about this ?

Only ones I can find is MPEG-LA plans on suing and trying to charge fees for it.

 

[KnightWRX]

Only ones I can find is MPEG-LA plans on suing and trying to charge fees for it.

And again for those just tuning in : They have been saying that for 10 years now. Xiph is still waiting on that lawsuit.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

IE6 is legacy in older work place computers. XP is being phased completely out in the next few years it will all be windows 7 and at least IE8.

That's all fine & good, but if we are going to allow a "next few years" flexibility to how quickly any standard gets adopted, we might as well rail against everything that Jobs seems to dislike or is falling out of favor.

The point being made was a pro-Apple point: that because Microsoft has recently endorsed HTML5 + h.264 + javascript as a part of its plans for IE9 (an apparent victory for Apple in it's bash of Flash), while less enthusiastically endorsing VP8 with "it will be a plugin" that this made it a battle of Google vs. Apple + Microsoft, and thus H.264 would be the clear winner.

The key assumptions there is that IE9 would be mass adopted by the PC crowd, and that the average Joe wouldn't download a video player plugin, so Apple's favored H.264 was clearly the winner. However, the average Joe is well-trained to download plugins, and IE9 won't be mass adopted as evidenced by the distribution of IE6 & IE7 still in heavy use vs. the "new & improved" IE8.

I appreciate the desire for a unified video codec, but I can also appreciate that that doesn't have to automatically be the one that Apple favors. I can also appreciate that after the massive "open" argument Apple has just made against Flash, there is some hypocrisy at play should Apple not reasonably endorse a codec that could be more "open" than h.264. I think Google made a great play here- pitting Apple's recent PR bash of Flash "closed standards" against Apple's controlling mentality of wanting to favor what it wants to favor. The correct thing to do is for Apple to support VP8 for its (apparently greater) openness, and then let the public decide if it favors h.264 vs. VP8 vs. the next "open" standard that comes along.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

What makes you think I would change my position just because of the wealth, or lack thereof, of the individual who invents something?

If someone is able to create something without using any previously attained knowledge (covering the entire span of human existence), come talk to me and I'll consider looking at my position. Until that time, no effing way - how dare anyone exclusively profit off of everything we've achieved prior to now.

Then in your world, the incentive to advance is significantly weaker. Our system- flawed or not- revolves around actions motivated by profit. If actions have little chance of delivering a positive return, the motivation to take such actions is diminished or extinguished.

There is little reason for R&D in your world. Let someone else eat that expense, then rip off their ideas and sell their creation as cheap as possible. Do that often enough, and R&D expenses get smaller and smaller.

I appreciate the view that the patent system is flawed. I even agree. Abolishing it though doesn't work in a society driven by the pursuit of wealth. Evolving it could work wonders though.

 

[addicted44]

And again for those just tuning in : They have been saying that for 10 years now. Xiph is still waiting on that lawsuit.

Who uses Xiph? Honestly, the cost of filing the lawsuit would be more than what they get out of it.

Youtube, OTOH, will be a huge target. When YouTube adopts VP8, and an MPEG-LA member doesn't sue it, I will believe you.

 

[inlovewithi]

What are you talking about? Are you saying that Apple will refuse to support WebM if it makes it into the HTML5 spec? (and that's a great *BIG* if)

I don't think it's a big if. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all it matters is if the browser chooses to support it, and so far all but Safari will.

 

[inlovewithi]

This is a case for Google just to push something contrary to Apple
that is not even better than what Apple is pushing. Google -- stop
listening to your freakin' fans in the Apple v Google fight and just
worry about producing better cutting-edge stuff. There is no sense
in fighting Apple on things that don't matter.

For heavens sake, this VP8 standard looks worse than H.264 and it
looks like the patent trolls will be all over it in no time. These
wasted efforts and big-time "in your face" announcements seem
like you guys are more concerned about having a pissing contest
that producing awesome services.

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.

 

[WilliamLondon]

Then in your world, the incentive to advance is significantly weaker.

There is little reason for R&D in your world.

Advance? What do you mean by that? I don't truly understand what is meant by that. Can you imagine if the wheel were patented? Where would we be now? Do you think we wouldn't have advanced to where we are now? The patent system is new (relatively) - your argument is invalid, we have advanced without the system, and we would again.

R&D - you are utterly wrong here. There are people whose minds are geared toward research and will always research life in the most interesting ways. To think that without funding (btw, I think you are limited to a profit-based existence, one to which I am not shackling my mind) that research would disappear is wrong.

I don't think it's a big if. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all it matters is if the browser chooses to support it, and so far all but Safari will.

Yes, it's true, a browser can choose not to support the HTML spec, but Safari isn't one of them, and I don't believe will ever be one of them. Look to Microsoft for browsers that don't support standards.

 

[pdjudd]

Yes, it's true, a browser can choose to support the HTML spec, but Safari isn't one of them, and I don't believe will ever be one of them.

Umm.. Safari does indeed support HTML and there is no sign that they are going to support a different page layout version.

 

[ChrisA]

Has "free" and "open" ever won? Hasn't worked for Linux yet.

What do you mean? BSD Unix is free and open. Apple picked up and re-branded it as Max OS X. Yes free and open didwell there.

Also Google took Linux and used it inside Andriod. Those linux based phones sold more then Apples phones with BSDbased code inside. It is really a battle oftwo open source derived products.

 

[KnightWRX]

Who uses Xiph? Honestly, the cost of filing the lawsuit would be more than what they get out of it.

Yes, I'm sure Atari is really poor. They've used Theora for the Ghostbusters game for quite sometime.

Ubisoft is also a non-target, they don't make any money at all off all their very popular game franchises, that is why they aren't getting sued for HOMM V and its use of Theora video.



Seriously, at least make sure that no one actually uses what you claim no one does before making such claims.

Youtube, OTOH, will be a huge target. When YouTube adopts VP8, and an MPEG-LA member doesn't sue it, I will believe you.

Done, as of the 19th : http://www.youtube.com/html5

We support browsers that support both the video tag in HTML5 and either the h.264 video codec or the WebM format (with VP8 codec).

So where's the lawsuit ? Thank you for believing me now. Let's not let the terrorists win by caving in to FUD. Again, Xiph is still waiting on that lawsuit.

 

[WilliamLondon]

Umm.. Safari does indeed support HTML and there is no sign that they are going to support a different page layout version.

Caught me - typo, and fixed in my post. My comment was supposed to be "browsers can choose *not* to support the spec..." (the "not" was omitted)

Safari does choose to support it is my point, where others do not.

 

[KnightWRX]

Caught me - typo, and fixed in my post. My comment was supposed to be "browsers can choose *not* to support the spec..." (the "not" was omitted)

Safari does choose to support it is my point, where others do not.

Most browsers these days support the W3C standards. Those that don't are usually known as Older Versions of IE. And even IE6 has support for up to some level of the spec as far as CSS/DOM/HTML are concerned.

However, the point you're arguing is moot. H.264 and VP8 won't be part of the spec. The W3C has decided to leave the video format unspecified as the spec does for IMG. Which makes plenty of sense.

 

[Arnia]

Just to take a step back from the litigation argument for a second, let's try and look at the other aspects discussed in the article; the compression rate.

The article argues that the compression for VP8 is significantly (15-25% for best-case-in-the-future and 40-60% for present) worse at the same quality. Even taking the future figure, and bearing in mind that there is some flexibility about how much degradation in quality is acceptable, this seems to warrant some further attention. So, let's do a bit of a back of the envelope maths.

What we're looking is to see under what conditions (utterly ignoring financial risks due to the possibility of litigation over VP8) we can state on VP8 being the best choice for web video out of the two. Now, for a single video of length t, VP8 is better when its cost of distribution is lower;

t*c_v*b <= t*c_h*b + l

where c_v is the compression rate (in MB/s say) for VP8, c_h the same for h.264, b is the bandwidth cost (in $/MB say) and l is the licensing cost (in $).

Now videos aren't all the same length (and can be modelled as a random variable that follows a probability distribution) and the licensing cost is predicated upon the probability of the MPEG-LA charging for content so let us replace these figures with their expectations (averages) T and L (note, the number of videos being shown is irrelevant in this rough calculation because it cancels all the way through, but if L or b were modelled as depending on n then it would be relevant);

T*c_v*b <= T*c_h*b + L.

A bit of rearranging shows that VP8 is the financially best position under this simple model when;

T*b*(c_v - c_h) <= L.

Assuming the 15% figure for compression discussed above, this becomes (by substituting 1.15*c_h for c_v);

0.15*T*c_h*b <= L.

If we were to work this out properly I'd probably use a Gamma distribution for T, and take the maximum entropy estimate of L of half the licence cost per video (that is, the probability times by the cost).

Granted this is very rough (and ignores all manner of things such as the costs of moving from h.264 to VP8 and the financial risks entailed by the *possibility*, rather than certainty, of legal action) but it gives us a starting point of something relatively objective as a criterion for the decision between the two rather than arguing in circles. Now, could we work on estimating these numbers?

 

[VoR]

x264 is certainly a fantastic encoder, much better than any of the proprietary h264 encoders, - but the endless bashing of vp8 by their devs is getting a little tiresome now. However, it's understandable why they feel so threatened by it.

A patent free (assuming it can stay that way) codec like vp8 is such great news. The source is completely open now, it only has the potential to get better - it's not so far off, I'm hoping it'll match x264 in perceived video quality in the future, and concentrate less on PNSR benchmark graphs

Anyway, the comments that the blogging x264 made about himself on the source code says it all Far too little time between the release and the quite obvious blog attempt to discredit vp8 to take it too seriously - Maybe SJ should have thought about it a little more (or was he just 'forwarding' someone else's opinion?) before commenting.