Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 23rd May 2010 09:41 UTC
Benchmarks Now that Google has opened up VP8, the big question is obviously how it'll hold up to H264. Of course, VP8 already wins by default because it's open source and royalty free, but that doesn't mean we should neglect the quality issue. Jan Ozer from StreamingMedia.com has put up an article comparing the two codecs, and concludes that the differences are negligible - in fact, only in some high-motion videos did H264 win out. As always, this is just one comparison and most certainly anything but conclusive. Update: Another comparison. I can't spot the difference, but then again, I'm no expert.
Permalink for comment 426327
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
BallmerKnowsBest
Member since:
2008-06-02

They can support the codec without hardware acceleration and the iPhone gets horrid battery life playing YouTube stuff, or they reprogram the DAC to give VP8 hardware acceleration and the iPhone's battery goes into meltdown playing content from the iTunes store.


Wow, Apple uses DSPs that are only capable of supporting a single codec? Let me guess - they had the opportunity to get more flexible DSP chips, but Steve didn't like the color they came in (it clashed with the logic board, so tacky!).

Irrespective of the openness of VP8 this is categorically a case of someone abusing their market position to force a market's direction.


Reality check: the entire universe doesn't revolve around Apple. The release of WebM actually helps nearly every Google competitor, except for companies with a vested interest in locking customers into a particular video format (for instance, Apple).

No one else is getting all whiny and defensive over WebM, I don't see Palm, Microsoft, Nokia, Adobe, nVidia, ARM, etc (or their advocates) crying about it. Should Apple get special treatment because their h.264 lock-in agenda has been undermined?

Only a few weeks ago you were wanting Theora to be the standard, now VP8


Uh, it's called being sensible. Let me spell it out for you: WebM has the exact same virtues as Theora, and an infinitely better chance of succeeding. So you're criticizing Thom for supporting a codec based on merit, rather than being a blind Theora fanboy.

so I ask you this, how much chance does a codec like Theora have with Google doing this?


Buwahahahahahaha! What chance did it have before? Oh, and who can we thank for that?

It's amazing that you accuse Google of anti-competitive behavior and then mention Theora, which Apple has done more to hinder than anyone else (by refusing to even allow 3rd parties to support it on the iDevices).

Tell me, what sounds more like anti-competitive behavior:

Google releasing a royalty-free codec, that Apple or anyone else can implement so long as they don't try to pull an SCO.

- or -

Apple holding back the adoption of a royalty-free codec (Theora) by refusing to support it & lobbying against its standardization by the W3C, in favor of a codec that Apple just happens to have a financial interest in via their membership in the MPEG-LA.

Reply Parent Score: 4