51 ms·
Integrating Opus and/or VP9 into WebM removes one of the selling points they used to promote the format. WebM wasn't supposed to be a generic container format h
by doublec 14y ago
Integrating Opus and/or VP9 into WebM removes one of the selling points they used to promote the format. WebM wasn't supposed to be a generic container format holding different codecs. It was specifically tied to Vorbis/VP8 to ensure everyone advertising WebM support would be able to play the files.
If they decide to add these additional codecs then there will be some players that can play some WebM files but not others. If that was the direction they wanted to head then they could have just stuck with Matroska for the container format.
- fosap 14y agowebm is a defined subset of mkv. And it stays that way. Only a small, finite number of codecs have to be implemented (so far vp8, vp9, vorbis, opus).
- doublec 14y agoThe defined subset included the particular codecs that would only be supported. Implementers who got on the WebM train agreed to VP8 and Vorbis. They may not be keen to do VP9 or Opus. There's no "have to be implemented" for these two formats. This means there will be fragmentation which WebM was supposed to avoid.
- wmf 14y agoGoogle can solve this by defining some interoperability profiles like WebM = only VP8+Vorbis and WebM2 = only VP9+Opus. Or they could give a completely different name to VP9+Opus since WebM is not a popular name anyway. The ITU/ISO camp has the same problem but worse, since MP4 may contain MPEG-4, H.264, or H.265.