5 ms·

"# 10 [...] If Apple were to switch to WebM and drop H.264 tomorrow, would you then herald it as a great move?" I bet it would help, but I don't see Apple doin

"# 10 [...] If Apple were to switch to WebM and drop H.264 tomorrow, would you then herald it as a great move?" I bet it would help, but I don't see Apple doing that anytime soon. Currently, Apple uses PowerVR and nVidia chips for hardware decoding in iDevices and Macs, and those companies have already shown interest in building chips that offer WebM support. But Apple would have to find some way to support WebM hardware decoding on current devices, something like a Rosetta layer for video playback. If Apple were to only include full support on new devices, it would feel the wrath of the entire tech press, not to mention organizations like Consumer Reports and Greenpeace. Apple only risks that kind of bad press when it's about a technology they've authored themselves.

raganwald 16y ago
I though that question was disingenuous. Gruber's big support was for Apple dropping Flash and supporting H.264. It's dangerous to argue about being "less" or "more" open, but I'm going out on a limb and saying that going from Flash to HTML5+H.264 is moving in the correct direction. Moving from HTML5+H.264 to HTML5+WebM, or perhaps to supporting both, wouldn't be inconsistent with the switch from Flash to HTML5+H.264 they made with iOS.
WiseWeasel 16y ago
I doubt Consumer Reports or the tech media would have much to gripe about WebM hardware decoding support being added to new iDevices, since there is no compelling WebM-exclusive content to which current device owners would be deprived access, (we'll leave Greenpeace out of this, as it's often difficult to rationalize their behavior). There is little risk to Apple's reputation with their customers by hedging their bets and including WebM support; only potential increased component costs, less optimal power consumption and patent litigation. On the latter, I'd estimate the risk that the MPEG LA would go after an MPEG 4 licensee (and member of the MPEG organization) for violating the patents they have already licensed to be fairly slim; one might expect them to focus more on non-MPEG-licensed vendors distributing WebM decoders and encoders. So if the power usage and component costs are reasonable, there should be little obstacle for Apple.
- Samuel_Michon 16y ago
  The author's proposal is that Apple adopts WebM and drops all support for h.264. That would mean that (amongst other things) all video content from the iTunes Store would have to be reencoded for WebM and the YouTube app on iOS would stream WebM instead of h.264. But that way, older Apple products won't have access to the majority of online video, or if Apple provides software decoding, battery life will suffer significantly. I can't imagine Apple even considering such a move, but if they did, don't you think the press would have a field day?
  - WiseWeasel 16y ago
    The article's author was simply trying to make a point, not implying that Apple was in any way likely to actually drop support for h.264. The post I was responding to never addressed the possibility that Apple might do such a thing. Let's get real here.
pluies 16y ago
If Apple were to only include full support on new devices, it would feel the wrath of the entire tech press, not to mention organizations like Consumer Reports and Greenpeace. Not really, no. For example, h264 is hardware-accelerated on newer Macs (nVidia 320M / 330M), but not on the "old" nVidia 8600M-based Macs. The technical requirements are met (a 8600M is more powerful than a 320M), but Apple just won't release codecs.
- msbarnett 16y ago
  I think he had the millions of iDevices in mind in that sentence. A driver update isn't going to suddenly make iPads play WebM in hardware.
  - jarek 16y ago
    The point is that no one important is apparently objecting to lack of Apple back-support even when it's something something (relatively) simple like an x86 driver update for (relatively) expensive Mac hardware. There is no evidence they would take offense at lack of a firmware upgrade for comparatively cheaper iOS devices.
    - msbarnett 16y ago
      There's a world of difference between playing h.264 in software on an older mac and what playing WebM in software (or not at all) would do to iOS devices.
      - jarek 16y ago
        A firmware upgrade could conceivably allow iOS devices to play back WebM in 'hardware' just as they currently play back h.264 in 'hardware'.
        demallien 16y ago
        No. Just no. Dedicated hardware is fast and efficient because it trades off flexibility for speed/power efficiency
vetinari 16y ago
Current PowerVR and NVidia chips support decoding VC-1 and WMA. Do you see this functionality enabled in Apple products? Why do you think they are going to enable WebM parts? Similarly, Vorbis has been there for years. Why do you think Apple never supported it?
- Samuel_Michon 16y ago
  "Why do you think they are going to enable WebM parts?" I don't. I think Apple will resist WebM for as long as they can. With h.264 support coming to Internet Explorer, I reckon Apple thinks h.264 is going to retain the majority of web users. "Vorbis has been there for years. Why do you think Apple never supported it?" Apple was the first to offer video on the desktop, I think they still consider themselves the authority. They have always preferred proprietary codecs (ALAC, AAC, h.264) over FOSS (FLAC, Vorbis, Theora), probably to keep control of their IP. I doubt that's going to change anytime soon.
  - WiseWeasel 16y ago
    The reason Apple "prefers" proprietary standard formats managed by standards bodies to open source codec projects is that the former actually have a chance at widespread industry device and software support, while the latter do not.

raganwald 16y ago

I though that question was disingenuous. Gruber's big support was for Apple dropping Flash and supporting H.264. It's dangerous to argue about being "less" or "more" open, but I'm going out on a limb and saying that going from Flash to HTML5+H.264 is moving in the correct direction. Moving from HTML5+H.264 to HTML5+WebM, or perhaps to supporting both, wouldn't be inconsistent with the switch from Flash to HTML5+H.264 they made with iOS.

WiseWeasel 16y ago

I doubt Consumer Reports or the tech media would have much to gripe about WebM hardware decoding support being added to new iDevices, since there is no compelling WebM-exclusive content to which current device owners would be deprived access, (we'll leave Greenpeace out of this, as it's often difficult to rationalize their behavior). There is little risk to Apple's reputation with their customers by hedging their bets and including WebM support; only potential increased component costs, less optimal power consumption and patent litigation. On the latter, I'd estimate the risk that the MPEG LA would go after an MPEG 4 licensee (and member of the MPEG organization) for violating the patents they have already licensed to be fairly slim; one might expect them to focus more on non-MPEG-licensed vendors distributing WebM decoders and encoders. So if the power usage and component costs are reasonable, there should be little obstacle for Apple.

Samuel_Michon 16y ago
The author's proposal is that Apple adopts WebM and drops all support for h.264. That would mean that (amongst other things) all video content from the iTunes Store would have to be reencoded for WebM and the YouTube app on iOS would stream WebM instead of h.264. But that way, older Apple products won't have access to the majority of online video, or if Apple provides software decoding, battery life will suffer significantly. I can't imagine Apple even considering such a move, but if they did, don't you think the press would have a field day?
- WiseWeasel 16y ago
  The article's author was simply trying to make a point, not implying that Apple was in any way likely to actually drop support for h.264. The post I was responding to never addressed the possibility that Apple might do such a thing. Let's get real here.

pluies 16y ago

If Apple were to only include full support on new devices, it would feel the wrath of the entire tech press, not to mention organizations like Consumer Reports and Greenpeace. Not really, no. For example, h264 is hardware-accelerated on newer Macs (nVidia 320M / 330M), but not on the "old" nVidia 8600M-based Macs. The technical requirements are met (a 8600M is more powerful than a 320M), but Apple just won't release codecs.

msbarnett 16y ago
I think he had the millions of iDevices in mind in that sentence. A driver update isn't going to suddenly make iPads play WebM in hardware.
- jarek 16y ago
  The point is that no one important is apparently objecting to lack of Apple back-support even when it's something something (relatively) simple like an x86 driver update for (relatively) expensive Mac hardware. There is no evidence they would take offense at lack of a firmware upgrade for comparatively cheaper iOS devices.
  - msbarnett 16y ago
    There's a world of difference between playing h.264 in software on an older mac and what playing WebM in software (or not at all) would do to iOS devices.
    - jarek 16y ago
      A firmware upgrade could conceivably allow iOS devices to play back WebM in 'hardware' just as they currently play back h.264 in 'hardware'.
      - demallien 16y ago
        No. Just no. Dedicated hardware is fast and efficient because it trades off flexibility for speed/power efficiency

vetinari 16y ago

Current PowerVR and NVidia chips support decoding VC-1 and WMA. Do you see this functionality enabled in Apple products? Why do you think they are going to enable WebM parts? Similarly, Vorbis has been there for years. Why do you think Apple never supported it?

Samuel_Michon 16y ago
"Why do you think they are going to enable WebM parts?" I don't. I think Apple will resist WebM for as long as they can. With h.264 support coming to Internet Explorer, I reckon Apple thinks h.264 is going to retain the majority of web users. "Vorbis has been there for years. Why do you think Apple never supported it?" Apple was the first to offer video on the desktop, I think they still consider themselves the authority. They have always preferred proprietary codecs (ALAC, AAC, h.264) over FOSS (FLAC, Vorbis, Theora), probably to keep control of their IP. I doubt that's going to change anytime soon.
- WiseWeasel 16y ago
  The reason Apple "prefers" proprietary standard formats managed by standards bodies to open source codec projects is that the former actually have a chance at widespread industry device and software support, while the latter do not.