Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 28th May 2010 11:40 UTC
Intel One name was conspicuously absent from the list of companies backing Google's WebM project and the VP8 codec. Despite other chip makers and designers being on the list, like AMD, NVIDIA, ARM, and Qualcomm, Intel didn't make an appearance. Yesterday, the company made its first careful commitment to the WebM project.
Thread beginning with comment 426982
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Theora gone but not forgotten
by Preston5 on Fri 28th May 2010 13:24 UTC
Preston5
Member since:
2010-03-19

Three months ago, the majority of OSnews readers wanted Theora mandated as the required codec for the video tag in HTML5. With the announcement of WebM, the 'virtues of Thusnelda' have been forgotten.

I'm surprised Theora supporters aren't saying that Thusnelda is better than VP8.

Reply Score: 2

merkoth Member since:
2006-09-22

No, everyone knew that on the technical front Theora was inferior than h.264. The main "virtue" of Theora is its openness and the fact that it doesn't put your rear end up to sale to the MPEG-LA. WebM and VP8 bring the same "virtue" but are also technically stronger, making it a better alternative at the moment.

Or maybe this is just flamebait and I shouldn't have answered.

Reply Parent Score: 5

merkoth Member since:
2006-09-22

Inferior "to", dammit.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Preston5 Member since:
2010-03-19

It wasn't flame bait, but an observation. I had written an article a couple months ago about why I think Theora wasn't on par with H.264. Those who disagreed always pointed to unreleased builds (Thusnelda) as the saviour, and even claimed it was better than H.264.

Two months later ... not one mention of Thusnelda. It as if Theora didn't exist. Seeing that Theora does not have the corporate backing like VP8, it is no surprise that Theora has gone down the memory hole.

Now we know why companies use H.264 and why it remains popular. You can't go about standardizing your systems around a format loses mindshare at the drop of a hat.

Reply Parent Score: 2

dragSidious Member since:
2009-04-17

I'm surprised that even with the Theora drama going on for months and month you completely fail to understand the point of anything being discussed.

The point is that we need a open codec for the web that anybody can use for anything.

You don't pay royalties for JPEG, do you? Do you pay royalties for PNG or HTML text? Were you around when people tried to get royalties for GIF?!

No, of course, nobody pays for image formats or text formats anymore. The system could not work if all of a sudden when you used more then 300 images larger then 1024x768 all of a sudden you had to pay 100,000 dollars to the 'JPEG-LA' group or risked getting sued for patent infringement.

Theora/Vorbis/Ogg was the best that was available and now Vp8 is around and is better so now people want Vp8/Vorbis/WebM to be acceptable on the web.

If you tried to understand the issues you would not be surprised at all by the turn of events. In fact you could of predicted everything that has happened with great accuracy.

People will keep supporting Theora because it's been around and that gives something to fall back to if Vp8 hit the skids.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Three months ago, the majority of OSnews readers wanted Theora mandated as the required codec for the video tag in HTML5. With the announcement of WebM, the 'virtues of Thusnelda' have been forgotten.

I'm surprised Theora supporters aren't saying that Thusnelda is better than VP8.

Because in terms of company support, VP8 has much, much better chances of succeeding than Theora. It's just a fact.

Theora was the best option for the web yesterday, because it was the sole royalty-free codec. Now it's VP8, because of Google's backing that may kick some butts at the MPEG-LA when it goes into patent trolling because they see that the superior format is starting to win. Xiph and the open-source crowd can't do that.

About those who criticize the honesty of theora backers, I have just one question : if the situation was absolutely reverse, ie ON2 invented H.264 and MPEG-LA backed a patent-encumbered VP8 the "official" standard, how many current H.264 backers would explain that VP8 is a technically superior format, through exactly the same encoding tests that we see now where people argue that H.264 is superior ?

Edited 2010-05-28 21:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


About those who criticize the honesty of theora backers, I have just one question : if the situation was absolutely reverse, ie ON2 invented H.264 and MPEG-LA backed a patent-encumbered VP8 the "official" standard, how many current H.264 backers would explain that VP8 is a technically superior format, through exactly the same encoding tests that we see now where people argue that H.264 is superior ?


I haven't seen anyone here pushing H.264 for political reasons.

If anything the debate here has been Theora advocates vs people who want whichever codec has the best quality. No one here has a vested interest in H.264. Of course the ideal would be a completely unrestricted codec that provides the best quality but such a codec doesn't exist.

My opinion is that the W3C should specify two codecs, H.264 and VP8. There should be a codec built into browsers that can be used for commercial purposes without the permission of MPEG-LA.

Reply Parent Score: 2