6 ms·

This is a great post and clarified quite a few confusing points of the discussion for me. One area that unfortunately it didn't really cover was the impact of

by mryall 16y ago

This is a great post and clarified quite a few confusing points of the discussion for me. One area that unfortunately it didn't really cover was the impact of widely available hardware and GPU-accelerated decoding for H.264. Surely the millions of non-PC devices being sold with H.264 support (even baseline) will have some effect on the outcome of the new video format war.

vetinari 16y ago
Not really. The upcoming generation of mobile devices will have hardware support for VP8 and the users upgrade these devices very often.
- ghshephard 16y ago
  Why would a hardware vendor add VP8 Support? I can think of two reasons not to: o They run the risk of patent infringement o H.264 is already playable everywhere, universally, either natively (and with hardware support) or with Flash.
  - spiffworks 16y ago
    Well, the tegra2, which is the reference platform for Honeycomb, has vp8 support in hardware. Texas Instruments announced full support for vp8 in all their future DSPs and media processors and Imagination Technologies, the people who make the GPUs on the iPhone have committed to vp8 support in their next generation GPUs. It is very likely that for the iPhone6, apple will be able to add webm support at little extra cost to itself, and no patent threat, since they are already MPEG-LA licensees. Same goes for all the other manufacturers- they are already MPEG-LA licensees and safe from the vast majority of patent threats. Other than that, I would love to see a patent troll try and go after TI or Nvidia.
    - eddieplan9 16y ago
      That's very good point. Same goes for all the other manufacturers- they are already MPEG-LA licensees and safe from the vast majority of patent threats. So all those implementing WebM still needs to license H.264 to be safe from patent threat, and all those implementing WebM almost all have implemented H.264. WebM is only an addition to H.264. So the question for Google is always why dropping H.264 and never why adding WebM (since it is always there).
- eelco 16y ago
  Very often? Have you seen how many people are still using iPhone 3Gs (not 3GSs!) That's about two and a half years old.
  - Locke1689 16y ago
    I still am. I know a couple people who still are too (the 3G iOSv4 wouldn't have needed an update if the market share weren't significant).
  - antimatter15 16y ago
    I'm still using my iPhone 2G and 3G
- mryall 16y ago
  I'm not sure how you can say that with such confidence. Hardware support for a particular codec comes from a high level of demand for use of that codec. Demand comes from content producers and consumers. If Microsoft, Apple and the other consumer hardware vendors are committed to H.264 and the only major producer that is serving VP8 (YouTube) is also serving H.264, I'm not seeing where this demand is going to come from.
protomyth 16y ago
The amount of money in infrastructure, cameras, and expertise invested by the film industry (studio to journeyman) is a rather large barrier to overcome. Trusting an industry group versus one company will not help adoption.
- magicalist 16y ago
  "trusting" one company has little to do with it since you already have an irrevocable license to the vp8/webm patents. the infrastructure argument is much stronger.
  - protomyth 16y ago
    I am still trusting the word of one company versus something that has been vetted by a lot of companies and been found beneficial for multiple parties from multiple parts of the use chain. Patents are not the only issue. Would a person believe Microsoft's good intentions if it was WMV instead of WebM?
    - antimatter15 16y ago
      VC-1 was Microsoft's attempt at a royalty-free codec, and I don't see any reason not to use it (at the time it was published, before the patent pool was created). It's more than just intentions, all the patents owned by On2 have been made irrevocably royalty-free.
      - kierank 16y ago
        Only for Google's implementation and not any others... This is the key point that everyone's missing.
        sorbus 16y ago
        That's a pretty huge key point. Do you happen to have a citation? The relevant granting of rights (the VP8 Bitstream Specification License[1]) doesn't seem to say anything about that: "a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer implementations of this specification ..." [1] http://www.webmproject.org/license/bitstream/ http://www.webmproject.org/license/bitstream/

by mryall 16y ago

vetinari 16y ago

Not really. The upcoming generation of mobile devices will have hardware support for VP8 and the users upgrade these devices very often.

ghshephard 16y ago
Why would a hardware vendor add VP8 Support? I can think of two reasons not to: o They run the risk of patent infringement o H.264 is already playable everywhere, universally, either natively (and with hardware support) or with Flash.
- spiffworks 16y ago
  Well, the tegra2, which is the reference platform for Honeycomb, has vp8 support in hardware. Texas Instruments announced full support for vp8 in all their future DSPs and media processors and Imagination Technologies, the people who make the GPUs on the iPhone have committed to vp8 support in their next generation GPUs. It is very likely that for the iPhone6, apple will be able to add webm support at little extra cost to itself, and no patent threat, since they are already MPEG-LA licensees. Same goes for all the other manufacturers- they are already MPEG-LA licensees and safe from the vast majority of patent threats. Other than that, I would love to see a patent troll try and go after TI or Nvidia.
  - eddieplan9 16y ago
    That's very good point. Same goes for all the other manufacturers- they are already MPEG-LA licensees and safe from the vast majority of patent threats. So all those implementing WebM still needs to license H.264 to be safe from patent threat, and all those implementing WebM almost all have implemented H.264. WebM is only an addition to H.264. So the question for Google is always why dropping H.264 and never why adding WebM (since it is always there).
eelco 16y ago
Very often? Have you seen how many people are still using iPhone 3Gs (not 3GSs!) That's about two and a half years old.
- Locke1689 16y ago
  I still am. I know a couple people who still are too (the 3G iOSv4 wouldn't have needed an update if the market share weren't significant).
- antimatter15 16y ago
  I'm still using my iPhone 2G and 3G
mryall 16y ago
I'm not sure how you can say that with such confidence. Hardware support for a particular codec comes from a high level of demand for use of that codec. Demand comes from content producers and consumers. If Microsoft, Apple and the other consumer hardware vendors are committed to H.264 and the only major producer that is serving VP8 (YouTube) is also serving H.264, I'm not seeing where this demand is going to come from.

protomyth 16y ago

The amount of money in infrastructure, cameras, and expertise invested by the film industry (studio to journeyman) is a rather large barrier to overcome. Trusting an industry group versus one company will not help adoption.

magicalist 16y ago
"trusting" one company has little to do with it since you already have an irrevocable license to the vp8/webm patents. the infrastructure argument is much stronger.
- protomyth 16y ago
  I am still trusting the word of one company versus something that has been vetted by a lot of companies and been found beneficial for multiple parties from multiple parts of the use chain. Patents are not the only issue. Would a person believe Microsoft's good intentions if it was WMV instead of WebM?
  - antimatter15 16y ago
    VC-1 was Microsoft's attempt at a royalty-free codec, and I don't see any reason not to use it (at the time it was published, before the patent pool was created). It's more than just intentions, all the patents owned by On2 have been made irrevocably royalty-free.
    - kierank 16y ago
      Only for Google's implementation and not any others... This is the key point that everyone's missing.
      - sorbus 16y ago
        That's a pretty huge key point. Do you happen to have a citation? The relevant granting of rights (the VP8 Bitstream Specification License[1]) doesn't seem to say anything about that: "a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer implementations of this specification ..." [1] http://www.webmproject.org/license/bitstream/ http://www.webmproject.org/license/bitstream/