4 ms·

Now if only they can get Apple and Microsoft to support it....

by sketerpot 16y ago

chrischen 16y ago
Dude they control YouTube... That's huge leverage. Not to mention any video startups would be quick to adopt this.
- sp332 16y ago
  Adobe Flash used to control YouTube, and look where that ended up.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - mhartl 16y ago
    Google actually owns YouTube. Adobe never did.
  - chrischen 16y ago
    Not really. Google might have paid for a copy of Flash or Flex to build the player, but other than that they don't pay any licensing fees to Adobe since they don't use Flash media server.
eklitzke 16y ago
Well, it seems like Google can easily add the codec support to WebKit, in which case it would be hard for Apple not to support it -- they'd have to explicitly disable that code. That seems unlikely given that Apple has really been pushing HTML5 forward, and it's no work from them for a cool feature. Obviously getting Microsoft to add codec support is another issue altogether, but it seems plausible that it could be done. Since Google would own all of the IP, they can sign some patent contract with Microsoft promising that yes, this really is open, and no, they won't ever sue Microsoft over implementing the standard. If that were the case it would make the VP8 codec the most promising among the alternatives for Microsoft, since it would be free and its IP status would be certain and guaranteed. It seems like the question hinges on whether or not Microsoft plans to add <video> support at all, and since they've made vague claims supporting HTML5 and these new fangled web standards, it seems plausible that some version of Internet Explorer could support the codec in the future (even if it takes them a while).
- lambda 16y ago
  Er, Google just controls the Chrome and Android ports of WebKit, not the Mac, Windows, or iPhone ports. They all have their own media frameworks which are separate; the Mac and Windows Safari ports use QuickTime, and thus support whatever codecs QuickTime supports (so, you can install a Theora plugin, and presumably VP8 once it's released), while Chrome uses a modified version of ffmpeg, and I'm not sure what the iPhone or Android ports use.
ZeroGravitas 16y ago
Getting Adobe Flash to support it would be a much cooler business hack, and would probably force Apple and Microsoft's hand in to the bargain. (And they have been cosying up recently)
- philjackson 16y ago
  To be honest it's getting away from flash which makes this exciting for me. Wrapping VP8 in Flash would be the equivalent of putting granite wheels on a Ferrari.
  - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
    No, it would be like if you wanted to put really nice wheels (VP8) on your Ferrari (Chrome) but those wheels won't take you far if the roads haven't been upgraded (widespread usage of VP8 on websites). So you upgrade the tires of all of the crappy cars (IE6,7,8 and probably 9) for free and without them having to do anything (Flash auto-update to VP8) and then people start upgrading the roads (websites using VP8). Most people have still got crappy cars, so they might not notice any improvement but it makes a big difference to everyone else trying to make better cars and roads (the open web). Giving up on the car metaphor, it's Flash support for H.264 that makes it viable for 85% of the market. Adobe can win it for VP8 if they want to, but I think Google can do it with out them too, it'll just take longer.

Now if only they can get Apple and Microsoft to support it....

chrischen 16y ago

Dude they control YouTube... That's huge leverage. Not to mention any video startups would be quick to adopt this.

sp332 16y ago
Adobe Flash used to control YouTube, and look where that ended up.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- mhartl 16y ago
  Google actually owns YouTube. Adobe never did.
- chrischen 16y ago
  Not really. Google might have paid for a copy of Flash or Flex to build the player, but other than that they don't pay any licensing fees to Adobe since they don't use Flash media server.

eklitzke 16y ago

Well, it seems like Google can easily add the codec support to WebKit, in which case it would be hard for Apple not to support it -- they'd have to explicitly disable that code. That seems unlikely given that Apple has really been pushing HTML5 forward, and it's no work from them for a cool feature. Obviously getting Microsoft to add codec support is another issue altogether, but it seems plausible that it could be done. Since Google would own all of the IP, they can sign some patent contract with Microsoft promising that yes, this really is open, and no, they won't ever sue Microsoft over implementing the standard. If that were the case it would make the VP8 codec the most promising among the alternatives for Microsoft, since it would be free and its IP status would be certain and guaranteed. It seems like the question hinges on whether or not Microsoft plans to add <video> support at all, and since they've made vague claims supporting HTML5 and these new fangled web standards, it seems plausible that some version of Internet Explorer could support the codec in the future (even if it takes them a while).

lambda 16y ago
Er, Google just controls the Chrome and Android ports of WebKit, not the Mac, Windows, or iPhone ports. They all have their own media frameworks which are separate; the Mac and Windows Safari ports use QuickTime, and thus support whatever codecs QuickTime supports (so, you can install a Theora plugin, and presumably VP8 once it's released), while Chrome uses a modified version of ffmpeg, and I'm not sure what the iPhone or Android ports use.

ZeroGravitas 16y ago

Getting Adobe Flash to support it would be a much cooler business hack, and would probably force Apple and Microsoft's hand in to the bargain. (And they have been cosying up recently)

philjackson 16y ago
To be honest it's getting away from flash which makes this exciting for me. Wrapping VP8 in Flash would be the equivalent of putting granite wheels on a Ferrari.
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  No, it would be like if you wanted to put really nice wheels (VP8) on your Ferrari (Chrome) but those wheels won't take you far if the roads haven't been upgraded (widespread usage of VP8 on websites). So you upgrade the tires of all of the crappy cars (IE6,7,8 and probably 9) for free and without them having to do anything (Flash auto-update to VP8) and then people start upgrading the roads (websites using VP8). Most people have still got crappy cars, so they might not notice any improvement but it makes a big difference to everyone else trying to make better cars and roads (the open web). Giving up on the car metaphor, it's Flash support for H.264 that makes it viable for 85% of the market. Adobe can win it for VP8 if they want to, but I think Google can do it with out them too, it'll just take longer.