Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 11th Nov 2010 22:36 UTC, submitted by lemur2
Google Earlier this year, Google finally did what many of us hoped it would do: release the VP8 codec as open source. It became part of the WebM project, which combines VP8 video with Vorbis audio in a Matroshka container. The product manager for the WebM project, John Luther, gave an update on the status of the project - and it's doing great.
Thread beginning with comment 449703
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
It isn't cheerleading at all.
by westlake on Fri 12th Nov 2010 07:18 UTC
westlake
Member since:
2010-01-07

Not that the parent post is necessarily meant as support for H.264 (although it sure reads as though it is), a number of posters do often submit cheerleading posts to forums such as OSnews in apparent support of h.264. This is something I have never understood

H.264 has a life beyond the web.

In studio production. In cable, sattelite and broadcast distribution. In industrial and security video. In home video.

There are about 30 H.264 licensors and 900 H.264 licensees. Most are Asian. They include global giants in manufacturing like JVC, Mitsubishi, Panasonic, Samsung. Sony. Toshiba.

Google is big. But it ain't that big.

For a company the size of Mitsubishi, the cost of licensing H.264 is no more significant than the price of a single diet soda sold from the vending machine downstairs.

Reply Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Not that the parent post is necessarily meant as support for H.264 (although it sure reads as though it is), a number of posters do often submit cheerleading posts to forums such as OSnews in apparent support of h.264. This is something I have never understood

H.264 has a life beyond the web.

In studio production. In cable, sattelite and broadcast distribution. In industrial and security video. In home video.

There are about 30 H.264 licensors and 900 H.264 licensees. Most are Asian. They include global giants in manufacturing like JVC, Mitsubishi, Panasonic, Samsung. Sony. Toshiba.

Google is big. But it ain't that big.

For a company the size of Mitsubishi, the cost of licensing H.264 is no more significant than the price of a single diet soda sold from the vending machine downstairs.


None of which makes H.264 a good choice for a web video codec.

Whereas the fact that H.264 is not royalty free means that it does not comply with patent policy for web standards.

http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/

WebM overcomes the deficiencies of h.264 as a web codec.

Therefore, the question must remain, why are there cheerleaders for h.264?

Reply Parent Score: 3

Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Cheerleaders, certainly, but what I see more often than that is the blind general acceptance of H.264. The fact that Slashdot could report on burgeoning HTML5 video support and turn a blind eye to the issue of H.264 is just stunning. It seemed as if OSnews was the only news site actually _questioning_ Appleā€™s use of H.264 video in HTML5, we were reporting on it in various forms for weeks. It even lead to this letter from us: http://www.osnews.com/story/23235/A_Statement_Regarding_OSNews_Bias

Reply Parent Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

None of which makes H.264 a good choice for a web video codec.

Whereas the fact that H.264 is not royalty free means that it does not comply with patent policy for web standards.

http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/

WebM overcomes the deficiencies of h.264 as a web codec.

Therefore, the question must remain, why are there cheerleaders for h.264?


Because here I am waiting for a WebM plugin for Quicktime or a WebM encoder for Mac OS X as to allow me to encode my uncompressed videos into WebM videos. I'd use it if the WebM advocates provide it - the operating system vendors have already decided, if you want the WebM presence to improve then provide plugins, encoders and so forth for those of us on such platforms. Those of us who are happy with h264 do so because you've failed to provide an easy and accessible alternative to h264.

Reply Parent Score: 2

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Interesting that you appear to be throwing in the towel for h264 regarding it being a web codec and then defending it in a lot of areas where WebM is likely to encroach in the coming years.

Even more interesting is you telling us how cheap it is for companies to license. A per-device royalty for each device is a pretty significant cost for any company, let me tell you.

The h264 bubble that MPEGLA had to keep intact has burst and there'll be no containing it.

Reply Parent Score: 3