6 ms·

Instead, Chrome "won" the browser wars and pushed a different, incompatible format -- VP8 -- which [1] they bought from a private company on the world; a format

Instead, Chrome "won" the browser wars and pushed a different, incompatible format -- VP8 -- which [1] they bought from a private company on the world; a format they quickly deployed across Google properties, but took years to document. Further, they claimed VP8 infringed no patents but refused to indemnify users against patent suits; the MPEG LA began forming a patent pool on behalf of companies that claimed to hold patents on the techniques in use in VP8 and the situation didn't clear up until 2013, when Google essentially paid the license fees for everyone and agreed to sublicense these out [2]. They continued evolving the bitstream with incompatible revisions, which haven't even been finalized [3]. Nonetheless, this VP9 is widely deployed in Google properties today. In the future, a consensus codec AV1 developed by a consortium of companies will be ready for public consumption; this codec descends from VP9 while incorporating significant enhancements from Cisco and Xiph.Org. The participant companies are numerous and include big chipmakers and content delivery networks, banding together to perpetuate a royalty-free video codec that mounts a competition against MPEG's efforts, whose rules don't exclude techniques that are patented. Until AV1 is ready and good, MPEG formats form a superior choice on technical merit, as well as rigor in documentation should you choose to make an independent implementation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VP8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VP8 [2] https://techcrunch.com/2013/03/07/google-and-mpeg-la-sign-licensing-agreement-covering-googles-vp8-video-codec-clearing-the-way-for-wider-adoption/ https://techcrunch.com/2013/03/07/google-and-mpeg-la-sign-li... [3] https://www.webmproject.org/vp9/ https://www.webmproject.org/vp9/

reggieband 9y ago
To be fair, VP9 and WebM both may as well be considered de-facto proprietary formats. Chrome is almost certainly the majority browser and youtube is likely to be the most used video platform. Sending video from youtube to Chrome is probably the main use-case for that protocol. I'm not even aware of any commercial video platforms that offer VP9 as anything more than a novelty option (although maybe Anvato will now that they are slowly being integrated further into the Google universe). Even DASH is years away from real wide-spread adoption. IMO, video formats will live and die based on hardware support. If your mobile device doesn't come with a AV1 hardware decoder that works with the majority of players out-of-the-box than chances are streaming services won't support it. Apple's advantage with HEVC adoption will be their hardware.
- AgentME 9y ago
  >To be fair, VP9 and WebM both may as well be considered de-facto proprietary formats. What about how they're used makes them "proprietary"? If there's open source implementations of them that aren't patent-encumbered, then that's terrific.
  - mastax 9y ago
    I think the point is that they can be useful formats even if they aren't adopted outside of Google simply because YouTube -> Chrome is a large portion of internet video. Most other video formats are seen as failures if not widely adopted.

reggieband 9y ago

To be fair, VP9 and WebM both may as well be considered de-facto proprietary formats. Chrome is almost certainly the majority browser and youtube is likely to be the most used video platform. Sending video from youtube to Chrome is probably the main use-case for that protocol. I'm not even aware of any commercial video platforms that offer VP9 as anything more than a novelty option (although maybe Anvato will now that they are slowly being integrated further into the Google universe). Even DASH is years away from real wide-spread adoption. IMO, video formats will live and die based on hardware support. If your mobile device doesn't come with a AV1 hardware decoder that works with the majority of players out-of-the-box than chances are streaming services won't support it. Apple's advantage with HEVC adoption will be their hardware.

AgentME 9y ago
>To be fair, VP9 and WebM both may as well be considered de-facto proprietary formats. What about how they're used makes them "proprietary"? If there's open source implementations of them that aren't patent-encumbered, then that's terrific.
- mastax 9y ago
  I think the point is that they can be useful formats even if they aren't adopted outside of Google simply because YouTube -> Chrome is a large portion of internet video. Most other video formats are seen as failures if not widely adopted.