12 ms·

Well i don't know. What i see : Adobe is gonna support webm. So having only one format is gonna be possible. Browsers who supported or were gonna support H264

Well i don't know. What i see : Adobe is gonna support webm. So having only one format is gonna be possible. Browsers who supported or were gonna support H264 : - Safari (5% market share) - IE9 (0% market share right now, probably around 15% in 3 years) - Chrome (around 13 %) Browsers who supports Webm : - Firefox (30% market share) - Chrome - IE9 will probably support it via codecs which is better than nothing The big deal breaker i see is the mobile devices who natively support H264. But as a long term move i can only approve what google is doing. Also : > People will add WebM encoding to their already complicated video workflows Most people video workflow is youtube/vimeo/dailymotion video workflow. All of which seems ready to support webm.

dev_jim 16y ago
> The big deal breaker i see is the mobile devices who natively support H264 You kind of buried this but this is the true deal breaker. There aren't (and probably won't be) hardware WebM decoders. And Firefox doesn't support WebM yet. You'll have to wait on version 4 (0% market share right now as you said for IE9).
- Raphael_Amiard 16y ago
  > You kind of buried this but this is the true deal breaker. Well i mentionned it. I'm at least partially intellectually honest :) > Firefox doesn't support WebM yet. You'll have to wait on version 4 (0% market share right now as you said for IE9) That's totally true, but from experience and statistical evidence, i think firefox users are more inclined to upgrade their browser than IE user are. > There aren't (and probably won't be) hardware WebM decoders. I don't think that's true
  - dev_jim 16y ago
    > That's totally true, but from experience and statistical evidence, i think firefox users are more inclined to upgrade their browser than IE user are Very true. Our site has had for a while only a couple percent of non 3.5+ Firefox traffic.
  - sigzero 16y ago
    There are hardware decoders but nobody uses them at this point. It will be a very long very painful process. I am not sure whether it is good or bad.
- patrickaljord 16y ago
  > There aren't (and probably won't be) hardware WebM decoders. The very article states that there are hardware WebM decoders, not only that but Google is licensing the technology for free as in zero dollars: http://blog.webmproject.org/2011/01/availability-of-webm-vp8-video-hardware.html http://blog.webmproject.org/2011/01/availability-of-webm-vp8...
  - ot 16y ago
    But it is not sure whether Apple will adopt them. Could the competition with iPhones have influenced this decision?
  - rabidsnail 16y ago
    Licensing isn't the (only) issue for asics. Hardware decoders are only reasonably priced if they're being produced at scale. If I'm a device manufacturer and I have a choice between getting h.264 for free because it's on the SoC I'm using and paying multiple dollars (!) for a WebM decoder, not to mention wasting valuable board space and paying for it to be soldered on, which do you think I'll choose?
    - lukeschlather 16y ago
      Presumably the next Android Dev phone will have a SoC that supports WebM... otherwise yes this move is toothless.
    - trotsky 16y ago
      Someone else's SOC?
      - rabidsnail 16y ago
        Yes. The only smartphone makers that I can think of that design their own chips are Apple and Samsung.
        trotsky 16y ago
        To clarify, I meant choose option C) a SOC that supported my requirements.
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  There are already hardware WebM decoders, in fact they've just announced hardware encoders too. They link to a relevant announcement in the linked blog post: http://blog.webmproject.org/2011/01/availability-of-webm-vp8-video-hardware.html http://blog.webmproject.org/2011/01/availability-of-webm-vp8... And the update rates of Firefox and Chrome and totally different from IE, especially since version 9 doesn't support XP.
- bane 16y ago
  There aren't _(and probably won't be)_ hardware WebM decoders. http://googland.blogspot.com/2011/01/g-availability-of-webm-vp8-video.html http://googland.blogspot.com/2011/01/g-availability-of-webm-... The Oulu team will release the first VP8 video hardware encoder IP in the first quarter of 2011. We have the IP running in an FPGA environment, and rigorous testing is underway. Once all features have been tested and implemented, the encoder will be launched as well.
- ajb 16y ago
  No, there are hardware webm decoders. Eg: "Broadcom Accelerates WebM Video on Mobile Phones" from http://www.broadcom.com/press/release.php?id=s471536 http://www.broadcom.com/press/release.php?id=s471536 And that's from eight months ago. Broadcom is a huge maker of mobile SOCs; I haven;t checked the others, but I bet they support webm too.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
sdfdfgsdfgh 16y ago
And all the embedded chips in cellphones,m set top boxes and mp3 players are going to support WebM? Thats going to take a while - the lead time on new DSP families isn't quick. And how long before their are optimized open source libraries like ffmpeg and x264?
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  FFMPEG claimed to have the fastest VP8 decoder on the planet back in July: Announcing the world’s fastest VP8 decoder: ffvp8 http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/499 http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/499
- Raphael_Amiard 16y ago
  ffmpeg does already supports webm, and the encoder is quite good from what i gathered, since it's done by the same crew than x264
  - plorkyeran 16y ago
    ffmpeg only has a working webm decoder. xvp8 (the x264-based encoder) hasn't been touched for a few months and is basically vaporware.
    - cookiecaper 16y ago
      In #ffmpeg on freenode: (09:50:48 PM) sjuxax: Guy on HN said this: "ffmpeg only has a working webm decoder. xvp8 (the x264-based encoder) hasn't been touched for a few months and is basically vaporware" (09:50:50 PM) sjuxax: true? ... (09:52:34 PM) Dark_Shikari: not quite true (09:52:42 PM) Dark_Shikari: close, but not quite. (09:52:58 PM) Dark_Shikari: 1) the github tree hasn't been updated (09:53:05 PM) Dark_Shikari: there is more stuff that isn't in the tree yet (09:53:13 PM) Dark_Shikari: 2) Ronald is dealing with his first baby boy, give him some slack (09:53:20 PM) Dark_Shikari: 3) Google just hired him full-time for a year to work solely on xvp8 and later on... (10:12:27 PM) Dark_Shikari: tl;dr: it's kinda vaporware, there's a bit of work done, but it will stop being vaporware in march when Ronald goes to work for Google.
kenjackson 16y ago
IE8 is at 33% share now. IE7 is about 7%. I expect most on IE6 are still on XP. So I'd expect that we'll see similar uptake rates for IE9, if not more given the HTML5 benefit (IE8 doesn't have much clear benefit over IE7 from what I can tell). So I'd say expect IE9 to be closer to 27% in 3 years. Of course this ignores two big questions: 1) Is IE still hemorraging market share? 2) Does IE9 actually reverse the trend of people using Chrome?
- junkbit 16y ago
  Firefox overtook IE in Europe recently (38%), and it wasn't at the expense of Chrome which is higher in the EU than in the US (15% v 12.5%)
- asadotzler 16y ago
  IE 9 won't support XP users (60% of Web-connected PCs) so they will only be able to get a fraction of the IE 7 and IE 8 users to upgrade.
davidedicillo 16y ago
> The big deal breaker i see is the mobile devices who natively support H264 And of coure it's only a coincidence that most of those are the ones competing with a Google product.
danudey 16y ago
The problem is that content providers have yet another option to choose from, but so far one that is supported by almost no one. Firefox will support WebM, and so will Chrome, so to reach those browsers you either need WebM, or Flash. Flash also supports h.264 video, as do most mobile devices (Android, iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, Windows Phone 7, Zune even) and game consoles (XBox, PS3, and afaik the Wii). In fact from what I can tell, the only platform that doesn't support H.264 is Firefox without Flash. Compare that to the massive amount of existing platforms and devices which don't support WebM (and have no hardware WebM decoding), and it seems like moving to WebM makes much less business sense.
- bane 16y ago
  Software decoding video isn't really that big of a deal. Even mobile processors are powerful enough... (yes, it'll consume battery like a dry horse drinks water in a desert)
  - danudey 16y ago
    > (yes, it'll consume battery like a dry horse drinks water in a desert) For mobile devices, that's a huge deal. There are no resources more scarce than battery power on a mobile device.
    - bane 16y ago
      I don't disagree, but Android users seem to get by more or less "ok" without hardware 264 decoding (at least the ones who have devices without hardware decoding). Personally, I just leave my mobile devices plugged in most of the time anyway so they're always topped off, but that's just me.
      - JonnieCache 16y ago
        >mobile devices plugged in most of the time DOES NOT COMPUTE.
        16y ago

dev_jim 16y ago

> The big deal breaker i see is the mobile devices who natively support H264 You kind of buried this but this is the true deal breaker. There aren't (and probably won't be) hardware WebM decoders. And Firefox doesn't support WebM yet. You'll have to wait on version 4 (0% market share right now as you said for IE9).

Raphael_Amiard 16y ago
> You kind of buried this but this is the true deal breaker. Well i mentionned it. I'm at least partially intellectually honest :) > Firefox doesn't support WebM yet. You'll have to wait on version 4 (0% market share right now as you said for IE9) That's totally true, but from experience and statistical evidence, i think firefox users are more inclined to upgrade their browser than IE user are. > There aren't (and probably won't be) hardware WebM decoders. I don't think that's true
- dev_jim 16y ago
  > That's totally true, but from experience and statistical evidence, i think firefox users are more inclined to upgrade their browser than IE user are Very true. Our site has had for a while only a couple percent of non 3.5+ Firefox traffic.
- sigzero 16y ago
  There are hardware decoders but nobody uses them at this point. It will be a very long very painful process. I am not sure whether it is good or bad.
patrickaljord 16y ago
> There aren't (and probably won't be) hardware WebM decoders. The very article states that there are hardware WebM decoders, not only that but Google is licensing the technology for free as in zero dollars: http://blog.webmproject.org/2011/01/availability-of-webm-vp8-video-hardware.html http://blog.webmproject.org/2011/01/availability-of-webm-vp8...
- ot 16y ago
  But it is not sure whether Apple will adopt them. Could the competition with iPhones have influenced this decision?
- rabidsnail 16y ago
  Licensing isn't the (only) issue for asics. Hardware decoders are only reasonably priced if they're being produced at scale. If I'm a device manufacturer and I have a choice between getting h.264 for free because it's on the SoC I'm using and paying multiple dollars (!) for a WebM decoder, not to mention wasting valuable board space and paying for it to be soldered on, which do you think I'll choose?
  - lukeschlather 16y ago
    Presumably the next Android Dev phone will have a SoC that supports WebM... otherwise yes this move is toothless.
  - trotsky 16y ago
    Someone else's SOC?
    - rabidsnail 16y ago
      Yes. The only smartphone makers that I can think of that design their own chips are Apple and Samsung.
      - trotsky 16y ago
        To clarify, I meant choose option C) a SOC that supported my requirements.
ZeroGravitas 16y ago
There are already hardware WebM decoders, in fact they've just announced hardware encoders too. They link to a relevant announcement in the linked blog post: http://blog.webmproject.org/2011/01/availability-of-webm-vp8-video-hardware.html http://blog.webmproject.org/2011/01/availability-of-webm-vp8... And the update rates of Firefox and Chrome and totally different from IE, especially since version 9 doesn't support XP.
bane 16y ago
There aren't _(and probably won't be)_ hardware WebM decoders. http://googland.blogspot.com/2011/01/g-availability-of-webm-vp8-video.html http://googland.blogspot.com/2011/01/g-availability-of-webm-... The Oulu team will release the first VP8 video hardware encoder IP in the first quarter of 2011. We have the IP running in an FPGA environment, and rigorous testing is underway. Once all features have been tested and implemented, the encoder will be launched as well.
ajb 16y ago
No, there are hardware webm decoders. Eg: "Broadcom Accelerates WebM Video on Mobile Phones" from http://www.broadcom.com/press/release.php?id=s471536 http://www.broadcom.com/press/release.php?id=s471536 And that's from eight months ago. Broadcom is a huge maker of mobile SOCs; I haven;t checked the others, but I bet they support webm too.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

sdfdfgsdfgh 16y ago

And all the embedded chips in cellphones,m set top boxes and mp3 players are going to support WebM? Thats going to take a while - the lead time on new DSP families isn't quick. And how long before their are optimized open source libraries like ffmpeg and x264?

ZeroGravitas 16y ago
FFMPEG claimed to have the fastest VP8 decoder on the planet back in July: Announcing the world’s fastest VP8 decoder: ffvp8 http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/499 http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/499
Raphael_Amiard 16y ago
ffmpeg does already supports webm, and the encoder is quite good from what i gathered, since it's done by the same crew than x264
- plorkyeran 16y ago
  ffmpeg only has a working webm decoder. xvp8 (the x264-based encoder) hasn't been touched for a few months and is basically vaporware.
  - cookiecaper 16y ago
    In #ffmpeg on freenode: (09:50:48 PM) sjuxax: Guy on HN said this: "ffmpeg only has a working webm decoder. xvp8 (the x264-based encoder) hasn't been touched for a few months and is basically vaporware" (09:50:50 PM) sjuxax: true? ... (09:52:34 PM) Dark_Shikari: not quite true (09:52:42 PM) Dark_Shikari: close, but not quite. (09:52:58 PM) Dark_Shikari: 1) the github tree hasn't been updated (09:53:05 PM) Dark_Shikari: there is more stuff that isn't in the tree yet (09:53:13 PM) Dark_Shikari: 2) Ronald is dealing with his first baby boy, give him some slack (09:53:20 PM) Dark_Shikari: 3) Google just hired him full-time for a year to work solely on xvp8 and later on... (10:12:27 PM) Dark_Shikari: tl;dr: it's kinda vaporware, there's a bit of work done, but it will stop being vaporware in march when Ronald goes to work for Google.

kenjackson 16y ago

IE8 is at 33% share now. IE7 is about 7%. I expect most on IE6 are still on XP. So I'd expect that we'll see similar uptake rates for IE9, if not more given the HTML5 benefit (IE8 doesn't have much clear benefit over IE7 from what I can tell). So I'd say expect IE9 to be closer to 27% in 3 years. Of course this ignores two big questions: 1) Is IE still hemorraging market share? 2) Does IE9 actually reverse the trend of people using Chrome?

junkbit 16y ago
Firefox overtook IE in Europe recently (38%), and it wasn't at the expense of Chrome which is higher in the EU than in the US (15% v 12.5%)
asadotzler 16y ago
IE 9 won't support XP users (60% of Web-connected PCs) so they will only be able to get a fraction of the IE 7 and IE 8 users to upgrade.

davidedicillo 16y ago

> The big deal breaker i see is the mobile devices who natively support H264 And of coure it's only a coincidence that most of those are the ones competing with a Google product.

danudey 16y ago

The problem is that content providers have yet another option to choose from, but so far one that is supported by almost no one. Firefox will support WebM, and so will Chrome, so to reach those browsers you either need WebM, or Flash. Flash also supports h.264 video, as do most mobile devices (Android, iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, Windows Phone 7, Zune even) and game consoles (XBox, PS3, and afaik the Wii). In fact from what I can tell, the only platform that doesn't support H.264 is Firefox without Flash. Compare that to the massive amount of existing platforms and devices which don't support WebM (and have no hardware WebM decoding), and it seems like moving to WebM makes much less business sense.

bane 16y ago
Software decoding video isn't really that big of a deal. Even mobile processors are powerful enough... (yes, it'll consume battery like a dry horse drinks water in a desert)
- danudey 16y ago
  > (yes, it'll consume battery like a dry horse drinks water in a desert) For mobile devices, that's a huge deal. There are no resources more scarce than battery power on a mobile device.
  - bane 16y ago
    I don't disagree, but Android users seem to get by more or less "ok" without hardware 264 decoding (at least the ones who have devices without hardware decoding). Personally, I just leave my mobile devices plugged in most of the time anyway so they're always topped off, but that's just me.
    - JonnieCache 16y ago
      >mobile devices plugged in most of the time DOES NOT COMPUTE.
      - 16y ago