2 ms·
WebM is a relatively new entrant into the encoding field, Only getting opened up in the last 8 months. Ogg has always been a fairly significantly worse codec th
by mikeryan 16y ago
WebM is a relatively new entrant into the encoding field, Only getting opened up in the last 8 months. Ogg has always been a fairly significantly worse codec then H264. "Even the 1mbps Ogg Theora clips are not on par with the 468 kbps h264 clips."[1]
Considering that MS and Apple have been working in video for a long time now they chose the codec with the best available experience for their users (who aren't the ones picking up the licensing fees).
[1] http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/02/ogg-theora-vs-h264-head-to-head-comparisons.ars http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/02/ogg-theora-v...
- buster 16y agoI must say that the ogg video samples i have seen are not as good as the h.264 samples. But good enough for probably 90% of internet video. Anyway, i think WebM comes very close already (i actually don't see differences): http://www.quavlive.com/video_codec_comparison http://www.quavlive.com/video_codec_comparison Instead of embracing the patent encumbered codec we should be thankful for Google to actually buy a codec (VP8) and release it _for free_. I couldn't imagine this from any other company. Still many people just want their h.264 no matter what. It's bad for a free and open internet, that's my belief.
- jarek 16y ago> Still many people just want their h.264 no matter what. Then they can use a browser whose creators decide to pay for the license.
- lukeschlather 16y agoOgg is not a codec. (Seriously, I was unsure if the OP was talking about Ogg the container or Vorbis or Theora.)
- mikeryan 16y agoyeah I know - neither is WebM, I'm just sticking with the idioms currently being used.