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.
Thread beginning with comment 426181
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

I see lots of people talking about wanting choice, but this isn't giving choice. Leaving both options in place would be giving choice...


Apple has the choice of including support for an open standard.

Calling YouTube switching to an open, royalty-free standard lockin or choice-limiting is the most ridiculous amount of spin I've ever heard in this debate.

And I read DaringFireball, so that says a lot.

Edited 2010-05-23 15:16 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

kittynipples Member since:
2006-08-02

Since when did VP8 become a "standard"? It's been in the public for a week.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

It's a standard because it is standardized... Do I need to copy-paste a dictionary entry, with the different acceptions of the word, or could you stop being anal?

And yeah, WebM is open, so there is no lock to any implementation (heck, it is not even GPL, so you can take it and sell it without owing anything but credits to the creators).

Edited 2010-05-23 17:10 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

"I see lots of people talking about wanting choice, but this isn't giving choice. Leaving both options in place would be giving choice...


Apple has the choice of including support for an open standard.

Calling YouTube switching to an open, royalty-free standard lockin or choice-limiting is the most ridiculous amount of spin I've ever heard in this debate.

And I read DaringFireball, so that says a lot.
"

How do you figure that? 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. Are you THAT one eye'd? Honestly? I'm not the one putting spin on this buddy, for that you need to just look at into the mirror. Irrespective of the openness of VP8 this is categorically a case of someone abusing their market position to force a market's direction. Only a few weeks ago you were wanting Theora to be the standard, now VP8, so I ask you this, how much chance does a codec like Theora have with Google doing this? So it's NOT about choice at all.

Reply Parent Score: 1

dizzey Member since:
2005-10-15

the decoders do not worlk that way. they use a dsp it dosent need to be reprogramed that way. they just need to write library and they can have h264 and vp8.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So, the world should just stick to a patent-encumbered codec because Apple was too short-sighted to think about the possibility of different codecs becoming popular? Are you really that full of Apple?

On top of that, as someone else already pointed out, you present the wrong view on the hardware side. As the CEO of ARM already explained, Cortex-A8 and Snapdragon processors already have the right hardware to accelerate VP8 - you just need to write the correct software. How else do you think Google is going to add VP8 acceleration to existing Android phones with Gingerbread?

As usual, your world revolves around Apple, but that you would be able to twist and turn something like switching to an open and royalty-free codec as anti-competitive is just beyond me. It is borderline idiotic.

Reply Parent Score: 5

dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

I don't think that hardware optimization for a codec goes as far as hardwiring the codec, As it is for general purpose computer codec optimization, there would be some motion estimation helper from various unit in the device, so I don't think that adapting the general code for another codec would be that impossible ( maybe difficult, but hey Apple is pushing the industry to give up flash by saying the transition to HTML5 is trivial, is it turns out not to be ).
I don't even believe the battery/cpu meltdown you predict. So hold on your horses.

However I don't even think that people would update flash to read webM video, as they can already read h264 video, and there would'nt be any webm "killer application" that would motivate people.
I hope you understand the liability of of using 264 codec according to the mpeg-la, and that woudl be a problem for open source browser (both present and future) and alternative operating system (ok most of the people don't care about them, but we do, right ?).

Reply Parent Score: 2

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