Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
WebM vs H264?
- Thread starter kristoffer4
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It is uncertain. By no means do I know how well MPEG LA's claims stand up; but in that respect I'm typical of a content provider. That and WebM being pretty immature in spec and encoder support means I'm not going to jump ship, but instead stick with H.264 via Flash.
Hours after Google introduced WebM :
http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2010/05/19/microsoft-to-support-vp8-in-internet-explorer/
Good enough for you ?
Same can be said of H.264. By having a license fee attached, it completely defeats the purpose for open source implementations of HTML5 that can't afford to pay for it. Hence you fall back to Flash.
WebM doesn't prop-up anything, all vendors are free to implement it. Apple's refusal to do so and Microsoft's half-assed implementation will be what props-up Adobe's Flash and defeats the purpose of the <video> tag, make no mistake.
Uh ? No, where did you get you'd need Flash to view WebM ? Google isn't implementing WebM over Flash at all. You're just making stuff up. WebM will work on Internet Explorer through the <video> tag as long as the user has the codec installed. If he doesn't, Google is planning on making a plug-in which will enable WebM not through Flash (all plug-ins aren't Flash) but through the <video> tag.
Apple needs to stop trying to protect it's racket with the MPEG-LA and start implementing the free technologies that will free the web from the control of commercial interests.
By your definition of uncertain, so his H.264 then since anyone can come forward with a patent on it and not participate in the MPEG-LA's patent pool and sue everyone and anyone for their own license fees.
Again, the MPEG-LA claims are pure FUD. This is business as usual. You do know what FUD means right ? Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. That fact that you say WebM's legality is uncertain means you're spreading the same peanut butter.
Yes, you're right, I even made up the quote and the article and the website containing it. Should I expect an apology for your post attacking me ?
Last edited:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8C148)
I thought the plugin-fest was supposed to be over. Does Google want to take us back to 5 years ago?
This company keeps making more and more bizarre decisions, LOL. They want a share of the Apple pie and are willing to do whatever it takes to differentiate themselves. Not necessarily to anyone's actual benefit. But what exactly can you expect from an advertising company?
I thought the plugin-fest was supposed to be over. Does Google want to take us back to 5 years ago?
This company keeps making more and more bizarre decisions, LOL. They want a share of the Apple pie and are willing to do whatever it takes to differentiate themselves. Not necessarily to anyone's actual benefit. But what exactly can you expect from an advertising company?
ummm reading from the system library of codec are not plug-ins. What it means is by default IE9 will basically install H.264 into the system library to read from. VP8 (aka WebM) will be on almost everyone computers and if it is anything like MS standard practice it will be first time they need VP8 in IE they will be promoted to download it from MS and it will install. On top of the VP8 will be in many of the large codex packages out there. Big ones like K-Lite I believe already have it in there and so not an issue. Already in most people library as it stands.
There is a difference between a plug-in and accessing information out of the system codex library. Also a huge difference between installing more info in the codex library and a plug in. It might be over your head but this should help explain the difference and why it is NOT A PLUG IN there for completely killing your and LTD argument.
Actually, no. Microsoft's blog post on the subject is referencing Internet Explorer's plug-in architecture. Microsoft has not announced support for WebM at all. Anyone is free to use the IE plug-in architecture. Apple uses it for QuickTime player.
So, again, in practicality since Microsoft and Apple are not going to support WebM natively you'll be using Flash on Internet Explorer and Safari to view WebM content provided you didn't explicitly install the WebM codec to your system library from Google.
http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplatform/tag/webm
That's the very definition of propping up Flash support. Why install an optional codec when Flash player supports it? Most people aren't going to realize that they don't have the WebM codec installed because Flash player will load WebM content and it's already installed on their computer.
No, but Adobe is going to implement WebM in Flash player. Therefore making Flash player the default player for WebM content (since it's already installed).
Most consumers are not going to actively seek out the Google WebM codec package (if Google even provides one) to install to their systems if Flash loads the content.
By the way, Google has already announced they'll be putting out plug-ins for Safari and Internet Explorer.
The entire idea of the <video> tag was to NOT have to use plug-ins like Flash player. We were just getting to point where H.264 was installed natively within the two largest desktop operating systems, making the <video> tag possible for the vast majority of consumers.
WebM is going to set that back.
Tell Google that ...
"This is why we're joining others in the community to invest in WebM and encouraging every browser vendor to adopt it for the emerging HTML video platform (the WebM Project team will soon release plugins that enable WebM support in Safari and IE9 via the HTML standard <video> tag)."
http://blog.chromium.org/
Last edited:
What you need to understand is most windows computer will have the WebM codec on them. They will pick it up from somewhere. It will be in all the major codec libraries out there that people do put on their computers. It is safe to say MS will even put it in there optional ones you can download from them. The first time you need WebM you will be able to download it from MS. I know they did this for the 360 for DivX and Xvid support. First time I needed it I was able to download it from low and behold MS. It is safe to say they will do it for WebM as well.
I also willing to bet that most optional video player programs not from MS or Apple will have the codec put in them and it will get install in the codec library so yet again they have other way to pick it up.
Simple truth of the matter is windows computer will have it from somewhere. It is amazing at the number of random codec people pick up. Almost all the major ones out there people have and MS even supplies them.
On my computer the one I had to go digging for and to find was MPEG-2 to play DVDs but that was solved with getting K-Lite and low and behold I have all of them including WebM.
You're not a normal PC user. Most people will just use the fallback Flash player, and any good Web programmer will make sure Flash player is a fallback if there's no native WebM or H.264 codec for the <video> tag.
They won't accidentally "pick up" or actively seek software that supplies the WebM codec. Microsoft won't be supplying the WebM codec. Hell, they don't even supply the DivX/Xvid codec for Windows and it's probably the most popular alternative codec out there.
They didn't supply Divx or Xvid for the 360 either. They supported "MPEG-4 Part 2" which happens to be compatible with Divx/Xvid files because those codecs are "based" (more like pirated versions of) on MPEG-4 Part 2.
Last edited:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.2; en-gb; GT-P1000 Build/FROYO) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)
I don't get how Google is setting things back specifically. What one browser lacks in h.264 playback (Firefox, Opera, Chrome) the others lack in WebM playback (Safari, Internet Explorer).
The way it currently stands is that something has to give if a standard is to be chosen and with Mozilla unwilling (and probably unable) along with Opera to licence h.264, where do we go from here? I think what has happened with Google pushing WebM was inevitable.
Personally, I love the ideoligy that WebM will bring a video format that all users of all OS's and browsers can use totally "free" but the reliance on Flash to fill the gap on unsupported browsers with WebM is a huge disappointment for me. The use of a codec to do so is better and there is nothing stopping Apple and Microsoft from including one but in that situation Google wins by default.
It's a real sh**ty situation right now.
I don't get how Google is setting things back specifically. What one browser lacks in h.264 playback (Firefox, Opera, Chrome) the others lack in WebM playback (Safari, Internet Explorer).
The way it currently stands is that something has to give if a standard is to be chosen and with Mozilla unwilling (and probably unable) along with Opera to licence h.264, where do we go from here? I think what has happened with Google pushing WebM was inevitable.
Personally, I love the ideoligy that WebM will bring a video format that all users of all OS's and browsers can use totally "free" but the reliance on Flash to fill the gap on unsupported browsers with WebM is a huge disappointment for me. The use of a codec to do so is better and there is nothing stopping Apple and Microsoft from including one but in that situation Google wins by default.
It's a real sh**ty situation right now.
While flash is the fall back. The picking up part you will be amazed at how often I have found the random pick up on other peoples computers when I was trying to play a file off a flash drive. My grandparents computer which is the other exterme end of the spectrum from a user like me had Xvid on them which I know is not a standard codec on windows. But they had pick it up from somewhere. I know my parents computer has it but that could easily of been my doing grandparents computer I know I never touch it to get it.
As for not having the codec and figuring out if it is missing that will be IE job and I can promise you that it will tell the user that it is missing the required codec to play the file and then prompt them to go download it from MS.
It will be pick up from somewhere.
Even with only 35% and growing part of the browsers not supporting WebM natively and easily 95% will be able to run it but back to that 35%.
That 35% is all web browsers. Lets go to only the geeks and the nerds and look at those numbers. It is safe to say that you are pushing 80% of that user group in one FF, Chrome or Oprea. That group is what really pushes the standards.
FF and Chrome are going to continue to grow as they both have gone main stream and normal people are starting to really like them and user them.
Again, IE won't be prompting anyone because the fallback code (on the web page) will be Adobe Flash player, which is likely already installed. So, the WebM content will play.
This isn't DivX. Adobe is banking on WebM to drive the Flash player platform forward.
I think we differ in our perception of which company has leverage over the other. By Google/youtube 'doing something,' are you referring to shutting off h264 support and going WebM only? How would that play out for Google, who relies on advertising revenue, shutting off YouTube from a significant chunk of mobile internet users? (My guess is Apple would rather replace the YouTube app with a Vimeo app before implementing WebM support on iOS.) Whether the mobile marketshare changes over time is an open question, but right now iOS has a very large install base.
Perhaps this is personal preference, but I would rather use a plugin-free browser with a consortium-backed codec than a plugin-based browser with a codec promised-by-Google-to-be-open-but-that's-not-100%-settled-yet. All else equal I would still prefer h264 because the encoders (i.e. x264) are superior for now.
Apple does no wrong I guess.
No Apple does plenty of stuff I disagree with (10.6's Expose, my Mac Mini crashing like crazy, lack of a quad-core headless Mac, my list gets longer by the day it seems...). I just think h264+<video> is the smart path for now, because now is an opportune time to diminish reliance on 3rd-party plugins/Flash.
Once WebM's legality gets cleared and gets better encoders (or alternatively if MPEG shoots itself in the foot by charging fees for internet video licensing), then a move to WebM+<video> is warranted. In that scenario Mozilla/Opera/Chrome will have made the right call, so good on them.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether or not I believe the FUD (and I actually believe it really could be nothing but FUD). The question is will Actual Corporations trust that Google is being forthright when they say WebM is unencumbered? Given that Google won't indemnify third parties, it's safe to say that major content providers (Netflix, Amazon, Major League Baseball, Hulu, etc.) with traditional corporate structures will see Google's unbacked promise as inadequate. These providers already have their video patent issues settled by using h264... why would they take on additional risk when they can just stick h264 in Flash Player?
Also, why would MPEG-LA sue now when there are barely any users of WebM? If they're indeed evil like the GIF folks back in the day, they'd wait until WebM were successful, then file a sour grapes lawsuit to maximize damages. I think content providers realize this, which again provides an incentive not to use WebM. It's all about risk minimization. If you were in charge of a company, would you pick the format that would a) incur at most a 10% increase in licensing fees every 5 years, or b) is free for now, but could sink your business if MPEG decided to sue? I don't like the state of video software patents any more than the next person, but this is how corporations think.
That said, I'm also of the opinion that concerns over future h264 license costs are likely FUD as well. Looking at the patent pool members for h264, we have companies like Apple, Fujitsu, Hitachi, LG, Microsoft, Panasonic, Scientific Atlanta, Toshiba, and Sony. In other words, the majority of patent holders are makers of consumer electronics. Charging license fees would greatly diminish the usefulness of these companies' products, so it's hard perceive a lack of collective pressure to keep the h264 standard free for web use.
I'm spreading "fear"?
Nothing's certain; there are only varying levels of uncertainty. H.264 has been in public hands for seven years and WebM is brand new, so obviously there is more uncertainty surrounding WebM than H.264.
Genuine question: what's the compelling reason to switch to WebM when I can stick to H.264 served through HTML5 or Flash?
On what are you basing this implacable judgement of yours? Do you know enough about patent law and codec design to know that MPEG LA couldn't launch a case?
Let's not forget the power of medium-purveyors, i.e., when Apple releases a ground-breaking device, others follow to support it in order to expose those users to their content (hehe, Apple seems the only medium-pureyor able to pull this off.)
Interestingly enough, the content has much less influence on users than the medium on which it is being viewed: Apple/iOS devices in and of themselves draw the crowds - the hardware design, the UI, etc. Flash for instance, is unsupported, yet iOS devices are obviously enjoying blockbuster success and drive the industry. The App Store is a huge draw, granted, but Apple devices are themselves objects of desire - codec or no codec.
Apple can make their own decisions, with or without playing nicely with Google, and remain confident that consumers will fall all over themselves to buy, as they are doing now. Apple's upcoming quarterly result will speak for itself, as has been pretty much the case for so many quarters now I've lost count.
Google is simply muddying the waters, NOT in order to provide users with anything of real value, but in order to further their two goals: 1) to disrupt the mobile space, in order to achieve 2) the dissemination and viewing of ads on their devices. Google's chief aim is not to provide a superior user experience, unfortunately, and virtually every design decision they have made demonstrates this reality in spades, from licensing their OS to everyone, to button-festooned remote for their failed TV venture, to trumpeting the "open" standard for its own sake, regardless of the impact on the user. Then, of course, are the privacy issues associated with Google's nature as an advertising company.
With h.264 35% and growing of the browsers out there would have to deal with plug-ins.
As for browser that 35% has I willing to be 90% of the people who are anti plug in it. So yet again that 35% carriers a lot more wait than the rest.
The 5% of safari users opinions do not really matter as they are going to follow Apples though on it.
Remember for the browsers they have would have to pay 5mil + what ever the increases is each year because the browsers are a decoder. MPEG-LA will demand money from them. Mozilla on principle will not pay that fee. It looks like Google has choose to follow suit.
Now lets look at WebM. 95% of the browsers will be able to use it. Mobile community Apple is losing market share in mobile web so yet even there becoming a minor player. Everyone else can play WebM but Apple.
This is turning into a Gif vs PNG all over again. At least this time MS is not blocking full support of WebM as all the user has to do is download the codec and you can sure as hell bet MS is going to make sure that it is possible.
So in other words, you're counting on Apple leveraging their market position to push their favored standard?
Ultimately it is a codec, not anything that will allow or prevent Apple from offering a "superior user experience".
You as such a proud HTML 5 proponent, I thought would be behind VP8 all the way. "Open web" and all...
Last edited:
Where are you getting this nonsense from? Worldwide iOS devices count for nearly 200 million today. Besides, the global web is split between iOS and Symbian.
http://www.netmarketshare.com/opera...e.aspx?qprid=9&qpcustom=iOS,Android&sample=45
The iPhone moving to Verizon means even greater share.
iOS vs Everyone else. Everyone else but iOS is going to support WebM. Face the facts iOS is going to be in the minority at the end of the day.
But you understanding that is well impossible since you understanding why Apple is in the wrong is like well trying to divide by Zero.
I love how you have no problem with MPEG-LA going to screw us all in the end. Face the facts Mozzilla and Chrome are not going to support h.264 any more and those are the 2 biggest players to the geek crowd and they are quickly becoming big players in the every day crowd.
Safari is well worthless in that world. Opera opinion is worth more than Safari's
The lack of a provider based plugin and the dependance on every web browser developer getting H.264 correctly will just end up with each browser complying to different standards. In other words, a huge mess.
Plugins ensure that every browser gets the same experience. After all, we all know what happens when a product is 'whored' out to different companies don't we? That's why we have one company that makes our computers and one company/organisation/whatever that makes a lovely video format.
It's not that difficult to use Safari without plugins at the moment, and go use Chrome if I run into a Flash video or WebM+<video>. As I stated in my previous post, I prefer using a plugin-free browser that supports h264+<video> as my main browser: it's less prone to crashing, uses hardware-accelerated decoding, and looks/sounds better than WebM. I think this is a better approach than relying on plugins and Flash player. There's nothing inherently right or wrong about it... that's why I said it's a personal preference.
Mozilla and Google are free to take that stand against patent licensing. Yet, no matter what percentage of the browser market will theoretically be able to play WebM in the future (be it via <video> or plugins), that still doesn't answer the question of content provider inertia I posed earlier. With superior quality and vastly decreased risk of patent suits, why would anyone move away from h264?
Your argument also assumes ready uptake of the WebM codec/plugin via deliberate action by the consumer. Perhaps YouTube really does have that clout, where if they turn the switch to WebM only, people will download the 'YouTube' plugin just to watch stuff on it again. Then again, how many general consumers, upon seeing the WebM video not play the first time, will just close the window and give up on it rather than going through the process of installing the plugin? The idea central to YouTube's initial success was that it 'just worked;' my guess is that a decent-sized group of consumers will just move on and use something h264-based (i.e. something that works out-of-the-box with their Windows 7 PC or Mac). Again, an open question, but I don't think WebM uptake by the general public is 100% assured at this point.
Content providers want to reach current customers, not theoretical future customers (this is why the transition away from Flash has been so protracted). Will iOS become a "minor player" in the future? Smaller, perhaps, but not "minor" at least for several years, and that's if Android continues its growth pattern. Also, iOS being "minor" in marketshare is not necessarily the same thing as being "minor" enough for content providers to stop targeting what is currently a platform with tens of millions of devices. Times can change, but vast majority of iOS devices would have to disappear suddenly for providers to stop targeting them anytime soon.
Lastly, 'everyone else' in the mobile scene may be able to 'play' WebM in the future (again, a hope not a guarantee), but how many handsets will be able to decode it in hardware? Currently we have tens of millions of h264-capable mobile devices in the market. How long will it take Android to catch up to that? In the meantime, many current and near-future phones will play WebM in software... as the head of a content provider, would you want your service to be associated with the video format that kills battery life on people's phones?
You don't know how Windows works obviously. System codecs are not Internet Explorer plugins. We can't discuss this if you don't know the difference.
System codecs are used by all Windows applications. Think of something like installing DivX support or a codec pack like CCCP. These are not Internet Explorer plugins.
Microsoft has basically said they will support any system codec installed for their <video> tag which means Internet Explorer will not require special plug-ins.
I don't need to reply to the rest of your post since you obviously don't understand this distinction on how Windows works.
On MPEG-LA's constant attacks on VP3, also known as Theora. This is nothing new. 10 years of "VP3 is infringing on our patents, we'll sue! you'll see". We'll, we're still waiting. Hence why buying into the MPEG-LA's FUD and spreading it (you claimed VP8 was uncertain, that certainly sounds like the U in FUD to me...) is disingenious. This isn't the first time they've pulled these tricks to promote their paid stuff over the Free alternatives.
Does it *really* make a difference? It makes no difference to Joe Sixpack if he's installing a plugin or a codec. He has to click through a few incomprehensible dialogs or screens or both, so he could get the uTube thingy to play. Some will go through the motions as you stated - maybe even a majority - but many more won't.
The webM codec will need to become as ubiquitous as Flash - being preinstalled in a massive majority of pre-built computers on the market - to reach this kind of mass market.
But based on current circumstances, h.264 will still be even more ubiquitous still - being *built-in* into Windows 7 and OS X - no pre-installation by manufacturers required. Being pre-loaded into the OS itself also means h.264 is on every computer that has those OSes - corporate computers, self-built computers, you name it, markets that consumer electronics generally don't reach.
This will only change if Microsoft decides to put webM in as a "urgent" update instead of an optional one (as they had done with IE7, if I recall correctly).
Fear tactics, perhaps. But there's some truth behind the threats. The fact is, the marketshare for Theora is negligible, and it's backers are mostly penniless. A lawsuit now will do nothing but generate bad press. Their threats are mostly aimed at large corporations, in case they are contemplating adopting and pushing Theora - large, rich corporations ripe for large damages.
As webM is being pushed by Google - a such large and rich corporation - this will be the true test for MPEG-LA. If they sit and do nothing, we will then know that their threats are empty. Otherwise... well.
What I'm saying is, don't rely on the example of Theora too much - the circumstances are too different.
Time will tell. It does not matter to me, really, which format wins. Both are adequate for the web, and whoever wins will most likely see it's support added to OSes left and right - including iOS. As long as Flash dies in a fire.
My main worry is, if neither wins. That is where Flash will win, and we all lose.