Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 11th Jan 2011 22:21 UTC, submitted by Kroc
Google The WebM project - a VP8 video stream and a Vorbis audio stream wrapped in a Matroska container re-branded as a WebM container - launched by Google, openly supported by every major chip maker, is going to be the major codec for Google's Chrome web browser. Yes, Google is dropping H264 support from the Chrome web browser.
Thread beginning with comment 457056
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Not that happy
by vaette on Tue 11th Jan 2011 22:38 UTC
vaette
Member since:
2008-08-09

Well, I think I'll be a bit alone with this opinion in this forum, so lets get it out of the way:

Not that happy about this. WebM is still very inferior to h264 quality-wise. h264 is also better supported by devices by far, and the licensing changes the WebM announcement forced on the MPEG LA kind of resolved most issues the way I see them. Sure WebM is a more "pure" alternative. However, I can't imagine that Google has any chance of killing the widespread use of h264 either way, so this really just brings a lot of fragmentation that I am not at all looking forward to living through. A headache in the making for both techies and users.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Not that happy
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 11th Jan 2011 22:42 in reply to "Not that happy"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I'd rather have a headache now and get it over with, than having the MPEG-LA (a confirmed patent troll, I might add) explore my anus a few years from now.

I am very much in favour of keeping my anus unexplored, so I'm VERY happy with this move.

Reply Parent Score: 30

RE[2]: Not that happy
by Lennie on Tue 11th Jan 2011 23:06 in reply to "RE: Not that happy"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I'm with you, like the analogy too :-)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Not that happy
by kaiwai on Wed 12th Jan 2011 02:53 in reply to "RE: Not that happy"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I'd rather have a headache now and get it over with, than having the MPEG-LA (a confirmed patent troll, I might add) explore my anus a few years from now.

I am very much in favour of keeping my anus unexplored, so I'm VERY happy with this move.


But it is all very nice to have the ability to play back but if it is like pulling teeth when it comes to encoding then the whole exercise is a giant waste of time. There needs to be a 'Media Foundation' and 'QuickTime' plugin so that encoding can be as easy as choosing from a drop down menu rather than using some fuglified application from some random developer on some random website that Joe Sixpack would never think of visiting.

For me, I'd like to see WebM make inroads but if it requires me to jump through 1000 hoops just to get my video encoded then bugger that for a joke I'll stick with the built in h264 encoder that comes standard with Mac OS X and call it a day.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Not that happy
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 12th Jan 2011 06:19 in reply to "RE: Not that happy"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

I'd rather have a headache now and get it over with, than having the MPEG-LA (a confirmed patent troll, I might add) explore my anus a few years from now.

I am very much in favour of keeping my anus unexplored, so I'm VERY happy with this move.

Why can't there be a "Funny/Insightful +2" moderation?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Not that happy
by Karitku on Wed 12th Jan 2011 14:21 in reply to "RE: Not that happy"
Karitku Member since:
2006-01-12

I'd rather have a headache now and get it over with, than having the MPEG-LA (a confirmed patent troll, I might add) explore my anus a few years from now.

I am very much in favour of keeping my anus unexplored, so I'm VERY happy with this move.

Indeed it's much healthier to get ass raped by Google because after that atleast the giant ad is blocking the hole.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: Not that happy
by tomcat on Wed 12th Jan 2011 22:48 in reply to "RE: Not that happy"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

I'd rather have a headache now and get it over with, than having the MPEG-LA (a confirmed patent troll, I might add) explore my anus a few years from now. I am very much in favour of keeping my anus unexplored, so I'm VERY happy with this move.


You assume that it's going to resolve the issue -- or lead to an eventual resolution. I don't think so. It's just going to fragment the Web. Many people will use h.264, regardless, your content won't run, and there will be much lamentation and gnashing of teeth.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Not that happy
by Kroc on Tue 11th Jan 2011 22:42 in reply to "Not that happy"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Resolved what? They didn’t change a thing.

This is similar to Nikon announcing that they will not charge you if you put your pictures up on Flickr, or HP promising that they will never charge you additionally if you photocopy something that you printed on a LaserJet. http://shaver.off.net/diary/2010/08/27/free-as-in-smokescreen/

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Not that happy
by vaette on Tue 11th Jan 2011 23:00 in reply to "RE: Not that happy"
vaette Member since:
2008-08-09

Charging royalties by views is a model they use in other situations, and is the one that they made an indefinite promise not to apply to free internet content. Of course you know that already and are just being disingenuous linking a post gasping at the idea that MPEG LA is charging by view at all. Codec licenses is still an issue, but it is not nearly as problematic as the looming threat of per-view royalties, which is what MPEG LA did change.

Either which way, you can do your battle cries about freedom all you want, I still consider this more trouble than it is worth. Google could have let WebM compete on its own merits.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Not that happy
by segedunum on Tue 11th Jan 2011 23:04 in reply to "Not that happy"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

1. For web video at the moment it's only important that it looks good enough. However, it has improved a great deal and will continue to improve as encoders and decoders get better. I haven't been able to tell any difference just when watching.

2. WebM now has a lot of device support that many squealed that it wouldn't have, and that's just in the space of a few months. Having the same video format everywhere, and on the web without converting, is a big advantage.

3. The MPEG LA didn't resolve anything. WebM is royalty free from the ground up, now and in the future and YouTube will support it natively. No brainer.

4. It isn't going to fragment anything. WebM will be the internet video format that HTML5 desperately needed. Anybody who doesn't like it will either have to convert or give up. Apple is going to be crushed between YouTube on the one hand and Flash on the other.

5. Whoever controlled YouTube was always going to be able to dictate the video format for the web.

Reply Parent Score: 10

RE[2]: Not that happy
by MollyC on Wed 12th Jan 2011 00:08 in reply to "RE: Not that happy"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

I find it hard to believe that WebM doesn't violate numerous patents. My understanding is that it's nearly impossible to develop a video or audio codec without running afoul of patents.

Now, Google's stance has been, "We don't need to license patents - we can't be sued for patent violation as long as we don't actually SELL the software that is doing the violating, so there!!". Which means that patent holders go after those that make money by selling goods/services that use Google's software, rather than going after Google itself. But I'm not sure whom those patent holders would go after in YouTube's case. Sellers of GoogleTV hardware would come to mind, but that's slim pickings. I think the H.264 patent holders will have to go after Google itself, and challenge the notion that Google can be sued for patent violation only if they actually sell the software in question.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Not that happy
by Soulbender on Wed 12th Jan 2011 01:45 in reply to "Not that happy"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Change is painful, deal with it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Not that happy
by dvhh on Wed 12th Jan 2011 03:05 in reply to "Not that happy"
dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

Define very inferior and quality,

As far as I know mp3 is considered to be very inferior compared to other "modern" audio codec. And yet you cannot deny its success.
My guess is that it only needs to be good enough and provide the right tools at the right price to be accepted by the media producer, and then the consumers.

Professional can still rely on h264 as I care. But google got the right tools to spread webm to the consumers.

Wild guess from my part, what if google were to lock out iDevice from youtube (the ones that are restricted to h264).

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Not that happy
by sj87 on Wed 12th Jan 2011 14:27 in reply to "Not that happy"
sj87 Member since:
2007-12-16

Well, I think I'll be a bit alone with this opinion in this forum, so lets get it out of the way:

Not that happy about this. WebM is still very inferior to h264 quality-wise. h264 is also better supported by devices by far, and the licensing changes the WebM announcement forced on the MPEG LA kind of resolved most issues the way I see them.


Hah, no! The only aim of the change in the licensing policy is to get the ignorant people - like you - stay with the H.264. If WebM dies, they just go back to the old ways - and that's the best-case scenario.

Edited 2011-01-12 14:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3