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 426260
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
smitty
Member since:
2005-10-13

I understand what you're trying to say here and you have a couple of good points, but you're missing some important stuff as well.

Google is already restricting Youtube to a single format, so switching doesn't restrict anything further. In fact, I'd guess they'll probably keep a 360p copy around in h264 just for compatibility, at least for a while. They can get away with saying you'll need VP8 support if you want the higher resolutions.

Also, I can guarantee you that Google themselves would write the VP8 acceleration code if Apple allowed them. Heck, Apple could just allow Flash to run on their phones, and that would be taken care of for them by Adobe. Also, isn't that kind of the point of writing a mobile phone OS? What are we paying Apple to do, if it isn't to enable content support in their OS? No one is stopping them from implementing the support, just like we expect them to ship the phone with a browser that can view most websites on the internet without problem. So I think that argument is fairly weak.

Where I think you do have an argument is that Google has the power to change things maliciously, and that would indeed be bad. I just don't think they are here.

Reply Parent Score: 3