Google's WebM video standard - Help or hindrance?
Summary: Google has announced a new multimedia codec called WebM which the search giant is pitching to become the standard for web video. But is this new codec a help or a hindrance?
Google has announced a new multimedia codec called WebM which the search giant is pitching to become the standard for web video. But is this new codec a help or a hindrance?
The WebM codec combines the VP8 video codec with the Ogg Vorbis audio codec and the Matroska container format. The idea is to deliver high quality video that can adapt to varying bandwidths. Also, since it make efficient use of bandwidth, it will save content publishers cash.
Well, that's the idea.
The problem is that there are already two competing HTML5 codecs - Ogg theora and H.264. This means that Google is not only foisting a new codec on users, it's giving developers yet another choice.
It's also going to need support from web browsers. But that doesn't seem to be a problem. Both Firefox and Opera will support the format, as will Chrome I guess. And Microsoft has says that it will support WebM, but users will need to download and install the codec plugin. No word on support on mobile platforms yet.
Another issue here is patents. While WebM is open source, portions of the code could attract patent disputes. So far Google hasn't made any mention of this and there isn't, as yet, any offer on the table of indemnity for users.
Also, not everyone has gushing praise for the new codec. Jason Garrett-Glaser, the principal developer of the x264 codec, an open source codec compatible with H.264, has written a lot on VP8 already. Some of the points in his summary are worrying:
VP8, as a spec, should be a bit better than H.264 Baseline Profile and VC-1. It’s not even close to competitive with H.264 Main or High Profile.VP8, as an encoder, is somewhere between Xvid and Microsoft’s VC-1 in terms of visual quality. This can definitely be improved a lot, but not via conventional means.
VP8, as a decoder, decodes even slower than ffmpeg’s H.264. This probably can’t be improved that much.
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.
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.
My feeling about WebM is that if it hadn't had a big name behind it (and when it comes to the web, they don't get much bigger than Google), WebM would have attracted a yawn and we'd have all moved on.
Google can give WebM credibility, but when it comes to issues such as performance and patent infringement, even Google with all its might, cash and brainpower might not be able to wave a magic wand over these issues. Also, it introduces yet another format, which on the desktop isn't a problem, but for mobile users it could result in more fragmentation and frustration.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
My take, it goes no where.
Another evil attempt to hijack standard
Adrian, you fall too easy for the FUD
Infringement and poor performance claims are very old FUDster tactics
I will believe in those claims the day I see them materialize into something that goes beyond pure FUD.
Meanwhile I hope to see Google start work with hardware vendors to get hardware accelerated support for WebM.
RE: Google's WebM video standard - Help or hindrance?
Have you read over the WebM spec? Have you done any kind of analysis on it? You're welcome to argue specific points if you have any specific points of your own. But to outright call someone's analysis FUD without providing anything constructive isn't contributing anything of use.
While I'm not fond of Google, am an iPad user and prefer h.264 for all my video output, I do agree that it would be nice to see if Google can get hardware support for the codec.
Having said that, I think that we're not really getting anywhere in this html5 video codec "war". We now have 3 different codecs that different groups are backing. Hopefully all browser developers will implement the video tag "properly" so that they will at least support alternate codecs, even if you have to install them separately.
Would you care to give us a pointer to the analysis you made?
While I have many good reasons to trust Google's judgment I have none to trust yours.
Your word alone is not enough, please provide some support or I'll be free to dismiss your opinions as of no more value than those of Loverock Davidson and others.
OS Reload... you're the one
It's up to you to provide proof to back up YOUR claims and biased opinion (not facts, from your posts so far).
The onus of proof lies with the prosecution
RE: Google's WebM video standard - Help or hindrance?
Just because Google says something is "good" doesn't automatically mean that it actually is.
And as for trusting Google ... you should tread carefully here! Google's latest outing (collecting home routers' mac addresses & GPS locations via drive-by scans) should scare the Dickens out of all of us.
OS Reload... try reading the article
You're the one calling such claims and articles FUD. It's up to you to provide proof why it's supposedly FUD. They've made their case (or presented their views), now you try to make yours. We'd all love to hear your "expertise" on the subject and not fanboism.
I'd trust the video expert Jason Garrett-Glaser before the (new MS) evil Google or yours.
On possible patent issues
h.264 may not be free but at least you know where you stand and who the "enemies" are. If Mozilla and Opera go full out on WebM and decide to make that their standard of choice, and then one day there are patent issues, won't they have many more issues then they would if they just sucked it up and went with h.264?
I could be wrong. Just my thoughts.
I haven't seen Apple announce any form of indemnification either
And yet that doesn't seem to stop people from buying their products.
Apple is being actively sued by at least two competitors while WebM is not.
As someone would say: Cue the double standards.
You Don't Really Know
Just because the codec has a patent pool doesn't mean that there aren't other patents out there. In fact, I'm fairly certain VP8 has been through the wash to determine that it doesn't violate h.264 pool patents. It doesn't mean anything. Either format could have trolls lying in wait. We can't know.
Anything but
h.264 is a glaring example of the utter corruption of our system that are software patents. Microsoft and Apple and friends (MPEG-LA) are perfectly willing to harm the people if they can bolster the bottom line or gain some sort of competitive advantage. Understand that they could care less about your freedom or any moral or ethical considerations. Profit any way possible within the letter of the law is their sole motivation. When they can't around the law they just buy a few more congresscritters and have it changed to benefit them (usually to the detriment of the people) Of course there are no shortage of personally corrupt people who support this injustice.
Anyone who loves freedom should vehemently oppose h.264 and software patents in general.
Help: Unencumbered Video Codec for Everyone.
You might want to check out this other page...
What's up with Google? Introducing new standars left and right...
Are you serious?
Deprive others of oxygen? How? By contributing toward international standards? By releasing spec and reference software (nearly public domain)? So, those evil Internet engineers must have been trying to cut off the oxygen of .. who? ... when the introduced DNS servers, TCP stacks, and the like.
No, this is nothing like MS in the 90s. MS didn't want standards. MS wanted everyone on their platform. Google wants everyone on the Internet, all using the same standards, with all devices well supported. It's not philanthropy: they want a larger advertising market. In order to get that market, though, they have to break down walls and promote a more useful web experience. Apple is on board with HTML5. So is MS. So is Opera. So is Mozilla. Basically, it's everyone.
VP8 (WebM) contributes by lowering the barrier to entry for video. Instead of a huge number of different video formats, we're going to end up with h.264 and WebM (Xiph, the OGG folks, are already on board for WebM), just like we ended up with JPEG and PNG for graphics. We should also be seeing a huge uptake in SVG in the next few years. I believe Adobe is even going to go the HTML5 SVG route, and use their developer tools to put them on the top of that mountain. If you watched I|O the first day, then you know what I'm talking about.
Patent Issue?
My 2 cents