Slashdot Mirror


YouTube Revamp Imminent?

An anonymous reader writes "YouTube's latest blog post indicated that some changes are on the way. Google has opened up a call to submit and vote on ideas. HTML 5 open video with Free formats has dominated the vote, maintaining over twice as many votes as the next-highest item almost since the vote opened up. You may vote here (Google login required). Perhaps we don't even need to since their blog post comes suspiciously soon after their revised merger with On2. Could these improvements be a completely overhauled YouTube 2.0?"

41 of 297 comments (clear)

  1. HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There seems to be a rather loud outcry for HTML5 in the idea list. Many of the top ten ideas use that phrase and nothing else of substance.

    There's only one problem. It ain't finished yet. So we've got the same problems 801.11n had a few years ago. It's hard to implement a moving spec.

    This is like the open source proponents who mentioned Ogg Vorbis a few years ago as a solution to DRM, and it's clear now that DRM-free watermarked MP3 is the winner in the marketplace today. Even worse, it's the same people behind it... Ogg's video spec 's used to be called out by name for being used in HTML5 and that's still under debate. Open Source fans including Mozilla support it, while owners of other video codecs of course think they shouldn't be locked out.

    So... really, HTML5 doesn't solve Google's problems with YouTube. Using HTML5 without calling for a codec is like an incomplete function call. You need to say which codec you want YouTube to use, or we could just see HTML5 + Flash on YouTube while other sites use other codecs....and not make much of a change.

    Standards are good... but we're still in a format war over HMTL5 that makes it nearly impossible to implement it right now.

    1. Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Open Source fans including Mozilla support it, while owners of other video codecs of course think they shouldn't be locked out.

      Isn't it ironic that owners of other video codecs who are renowned for locking the public out of their formats, by keeping them secret, or trying to charge fees for their use, now don't "want" to be locked out?

      If they want their codec to be one included by an open standard such as HTML5, then the absolute requirement should be that they open their codec's specifications and make implementation of the codec gratis of any royalties, and just as free and open as the HTML recommendation.

      I don't want to exclude any codec who will do that.

      But the standards bodies owe it to the internet to exclude any codec who refuses to do that, and to recognize the popular codecs who will do that, by choosing the most suitable ones for inclusion as a critical element for video-enabled HTML5 renderers.

    2. Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is like the open source proponents who mentioned Ogg Vorbis a few years ago as a solution to DRM, and it's clear now that DRM-free watermarked MP3 is the winner in the marketplace today.

      A lot of the reason why people wanted OGG so badly is because OGG easily worked on Linux. In the days before Ubuntu, Fluendo and easy codec installation, finding, installing and using an MP3 codec was generally difficult and legally questionable. Now that it is really easy to install an MP3 codec in most Linux distros, people have toned down on the OGG evangelism for music.

      Ideally, HTML5 standards would use an open, patent-free standard for use with video. The point of standards is to allow different systems to communicate effectively, the fact that it is open is a requirement of any standard meant for benefiting users. Right now, Theora is about the only major codec that seems to fit the bill.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. by Vyse+of+Arcadia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Standards are good... but we're still in a format war over HMTL5 that makes it nearly impossible to implement it right now.

      I think that, given Youtube's weight, any codec Google chose would probably win the format war.

    4. Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is like the open source proponents who mentioned Ogg Vorbis a few years ago as a solution to DRM, and it's clear now that DRM-free watermarked MP3 is the winner in the marketplace today.

      Missing the point. Vorbis is not, and never was, about DRM. It's about having a patent-free codec. It's about having a format that works out of the box on something like Ubuntu, legally, anywhere in the world.

      Contrast with MP3 -- it's actually very likely not legal to include mp3 support in open source software at all, at least if you're going to keep it free (as in beer).

      The only technical reason to prefer MP3 to Vorbis is device support. The way to improve device support is to raise awareness about these issues and get people to actually use Vorbis.

      Even worse, it's the same people behind it...

      Who?

      that's still under debate.

      Actually, the debate is pretty much over. HTML5's <video> tag specifies codec and format precisely as much as HTML4's <img> tag specifies image format -- that is, not at all.

      HTML5 doesn't solve Google's problems with YouTube.

      Which problems would those be?

      Using HTML5 without calling for a codec is like an incomplete function call.

      Wow, even worse than BadAnalogyGuy. Really?

      You need to say which codec you want YouTube to use,

      No, I really don't.

      I mean, yes, it might help to do so -- but that's unlikely to get anywhere. There currently isn't a free video codec that matches the proprietary ones, technologically, and even if there was, it seems incredibly unlikely that YouTube would go to the trouble of transcoding all of their video -- again.

      If YouTube were to implement HTML5 support with, say, h.264 in an mp4 container, they'd have to do no transcoding, probably not even re-encapsulating. It would Just Work on Chrome and Safari, and there's no technological reason it couldn't work on Firefox -- only political assholes who refuse to implement such support, even in countries which don't respect software patents. If IE ever decides to support HTML5 at all, I very much doubt that Microsoft doesn't have h.264 licenses. Only Opera really has an excuse here.

      Now, technically, if they went with Theora, it could be supported everywhere -- every browser which supports HTML5 supports Theora out of the box, except Safari, and it's trivial to install a QuickTime plugin. But the question then becomes whether it's worth it for Google to do HTML5 at all, if they have to transcode everything to get the best browser coverage.

      we could just see HTML5 + Flash on YouTube while other sites use other codecs....and not make much of a change.

      Surely you're joking.

      There may be legal hurdles, but any browser that wants to could simply hook into a third-party codec library. On Windows, that's DirectShow. On OS X, it's QuickTime. On Linux, it's GStreamer, Xine, or ffmpeg. All of these support every codec that's even being considered for HTML5, and many more.

      It would basically make it as easy to embed videos as it currently is to embed images. After all, <img> doesn't specify a format -- why aren't you waging a "codec war" about image formats?

      It would also get us the ability to use purely open source software for our web browsing again, or at least for our YouTube -- no need for Flash. It'd also give us the ability to right-click and do something like "save video as", or click+drag a video to our desktop, or email. It'd also greatly simplify anything else which just wants the video -- for example, any sort of set-top box, etc, now only needs a web browser, or even just something that can scrape the YouTube HTML, instead of a web browser and a Flash port.

      Do you honestly believe that HTML5, even without specifying a codec, would change nothing? Do I have to explicitly

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    5. Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. by mysidia · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Is Ogg not done?

      A format that is in constant flux, is not stable, and not ready yet.

      Only a mature version of the spec should be used, one that the software industry already has positive implementation experience with.

      Of course HTML5 should mention a specific minimum base version of the Ogg spec.

      Renderers may support future versions of Ogg that validated by the W3C, but the renderer implementation must be backwards-compatible (able to read Ogg files made using an encoder that followed the old version).

      And changes must be forwards compatible, so that a file encoded in the new format can still be properly played by a browser implementing the minimal version of Ogg, at a similar quality level.

    6. Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. by LostCluster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Now, technically, if they went with Theora, it could be supported everywhere -- every browser which supports HTML5 supports Theora out of the box, except Safari, and it's trivial to install a QuickTime plugin. But the question then becomes whether it's worth it for Google to do HTML5 at all, if they have to transcode everything to get the best browser coverage.

      There we are. You need to tell YouTube to use Theora. As somebody else posted, if YouTube picks a codec, that codec will have enough support to win the format war that's currently raging. If you want to endorse HTML5 go ahead, but please tell them about Theora because that's much more important to them.

    7. Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's only one problem. It ain't finished yet. So we've got the same problems 801.11n had a few years ago. It's hard to implement a moving spec.

      Apparently not. For those too lazy to follow link, its an addon for Chrome (dev version) that makes youtube videos run in HTML5. It cuts cpu usage in half too.

      Seems to me the best way to proceed is for someone to just do it, and let everyone else try to catch up. Its not like people will stop using youtube.

    8. Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ok, so how is it going to help Firefox and an open web by implementing that support?

      The same way it helps Firefox to implement GIF. Yes, PNG is better, but showing an image, even with questionable legality, is better than showing a "broken picture" icon -- and on the creator side, the more codecs which are supported, the more of a chance people have of just being able to dump their videos on a fileserver and expect people to be able to stream them.

      First off, how does it decide which version to download?

      Use the native libraries.

      What happens if someone downloads Firefox and gets sued because of the patented codecs?

      That's not going to happen -- worst case, Mozilla gets sued. I don't think you can sue a consumer for doing that.

      And again, use the native libraries. On Windows and OS X, you'll have those proprietary codecs out of the box. On Linux, users will either install them (Medibuntu) or they won't.

      If we set a good, patent free standard, their web browsers can have it built in without having to pay for a costly license thus increasing the use of the standard.

      Two problems:

      First, you aren't going to set a good, patent free standard. A good patent-free codec doesn't exist (sorry, but theora is technically inferior). And Apple has actually said they won't support it, Microsoft doesn't, and there isn't any hardware support.

      What's going to happen is, if you refuse to play ball, you will lose, and Firefox will lose market share because of it.

      Second, even if you somehow did, it'd still be nice to be able to use old images in their native format. If I've got a Gif for whatever reason, why should I have to convert it to PNG? At least that's lossless -- what if I have a jpeg, should I be forced to convert that to PNG? And what happens when the next shiny new codec comes along?

      Think about images, there are a lot of images that would be great as an SVG, but due to some browsers not supporting it (like IE) it has little use.

      So?

      Really, who cares? Google Wave doesn't support IE. If IE users really need modern technologies, they can install Chrome Frame.

      If the video codec specified that videos should be a in a free format, IE would almost have to use a free format if it supported HTML5, or miss out on video sites coded to the standard.

      Yes, but you are thinking about this backwards.

      Think of it from Google's perspective. You're apparently hoping that Google will spend thousands of dollars (millions?) on extra hardware to re-encode their videos (again!), as well as extra storage to get the same quality in Vorbis, and then drop their Flash support, thus forcing everyone to upgrade.

      Do you really think they'd take that gamble?

      I mean, if it works, every YouTube user is forced to upgrade to a modern browser. But that's not going to happen everywhere (corporate environments), and everywhere else, you're gambling that the users will want YouTube badly enough to switch browsers, versus just switching to blip.tv, vimeo, dailymotion, revver, etc. Even if it works, it's still likely a significant hit in marketshare from users who either can't or won't make the switch.

      The only way I can see them doing that is if something even crazier happens -- Microsoft supports HTML5 out of the goodness of their heart. But having good support for web standards in IE is actually counter to Microsoft's interests -- the stronger the Web is as a platform, the weaker Windows is.

      Think of it in terms of actual corporations and dollars. It doesn't work.

      Now, suppose the situation were different. If you can actually come up with a patent-free format which is technically better than the proprietary ones, I can definitely see Google taking that gamble, because that actually saves them money in the long term. And

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    9. Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. by tepples · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There currently isn't a free video codec that matches the proprietary ones, technologically

      Sure, Theora is no H.264, but it handily beats the H.263 that YouTube currently uses for downlevel Flash Players and comes close to MPEG-4 ASP (e.g. DivX, Xvid).

      there's no technological reason it couldn't work on Firefox -- only political assholes who refuse to implement such support

      You appear to have just called the members of MPEG-LA "political assholes".

      even in countries which don't respect software patents.

      How much would it cost to move Mozilla Corporation and Mozilla Foundation out of the United States?

    10. Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. by jonwil · · Score: 4, Interesting

      With Google's purchase of ON2, maybe the answer is for Google to release for free On2 VP6 or On2 VP7 or something and then make that the primary non-flash codec for Google.
      Google can then make VP6 or VP7 or whatever (whichever one is file-size and quality competitive with h.264) the main codec for YouTube.

    11. Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. by bennomatic · · Score: 3, Funny

      You appear to have just called the members of MPEG-LA "political assholes".

      Was that wrong? :)

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    12. Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh come on. What on earth speaks against this:
      <video>
          <source="elephanteatspoop.ogv" type="video/ogg" />
          <source="elephanteatspoop.mp4" type="video/mp4" />
              Get a decent browser.
              <object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" ...>
                    <param name="src" value="player.swf?file=elephanteatspoop.mp4" />
                        No video for you.
              </object>
      </video>
      Usable right now, plays in almost all browsers. Of course you can always make it more complicated to include edge cases, but I don't like that. It's good to push people to update their browsers and get rid of opaque insecure plugins.

    13. Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. by Shimmer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Using HTML5 without calling for a codec is like an incomplete function call.

      That doesn't make any sense to me. The <IMG> tag doesn't specify a particular format (JPEG, GIF, PNG, etc.). Why should the <VIDEO> tag specify a format?

      --
      The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
    14. Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. by moosesocks · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, people who know a thing or two about video codecs tend to dislike Ogg because it isn't a particularly good codec. Its original owners, On2, open-sourced the product, because it was a 10-year-old technology that couldn't compete with any modern product.

      Coincidentally, the internet's benevolent overlords, Google, are in talks to purchase On2, who own the IP to a few codecs that are considerably more modern than Theora (supposedly competitive with H.264 and VC-1). The idea of Google open-sourcing its newly-acquired property is certainly within the realm of possibility, especially if they can squeeze it into the HTML5 spec.

      If YouTube only offers HD content using the new codec, there will be significant impetus for users to switch to HTML5-compliant browsers, or install plugins that enable similar functionality.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    15. Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. by pclminion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Done?" I don't think you understand this "technology" thing.

    16. Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. by fedcb22 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ogg isn't a codec. Theora is the codec here... Ogg is merely a container format, designed to be used with Theora as video and Vorbis as audio.

  2. Google talk by LostCluster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Google seems to have a policy of talking about new ways to do things, and not making changes suddenly. Afterall, YouTube is the dominant video sharing site right now, and they don't want to let an open source format make them risk their status. So, it looks like HTML5 is going to get a good kick from Google telling them "Hey, we'll use whatever you tell us... but you've got to finish the spec first!" We'll see what this does to that.

  3. Youtube is stunningly bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At all things interface.

    1) YouTube: look up the term "aspect ratio". One would think somebody at Google would have heard of this. Many of their videos are uploaded in the wrong ratio. Let us override the specified ratio so we can watch videos in the correct proportions.

    2) Multiple monitor support. It turns out that some people these days have more than one monitor. Some of these people might want to do something else with their computers while using one to watch a full screen video. So don't minimize the full screen video unless we tell you to. Bonus points for supporting more than one screen of video.

    3) The More From and Related Videos boxes should scale to take advantage of big screens, both horizontally and vertically. Since often one is searching for other videos in a series, put them in some kind of order-- alphabetical would be a nice option.

    1. Re:Youtube is stunningly bad by MadUndergrad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Adobe Flash is a Youtube issue.

  4. Any move away from flash video is fine by me by AbRASiON · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I loathe it with all my being, please for the love of god do this, somehow!

    1. Re:Any move away from flash video is fine by me by maxume · · Score: 5, Funny

      Have you considered drinking?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Any move away from flash video is fine by me by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You get the point. Flash is a patent-encumbered format that is slowing down the growth of YouTube... new players are coming out that don't want to implement flash such as TiVo and iPhone, so YouTube has got to re-encode videos to play on this, and that's a mess they'd rather have a better solution to.

      So, really it's a codec war. If there's something more universally accepted than flash... please stand up.

  5. Google I love you. by starbugs · · Score: 3, Interesting

    YouTube usable without flash.
    My only reason for using a proprietary OS.

    1. Re:Google I love you. by ianare · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What do you mean? I'm watching youtube on my open source OS right now.

    2. Re:Google I love you. by some_guy_88 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Also. Totem, the default movie player in Ubuntu, comes with a plugin to search and watch YouTube videos out of the box. No flash required (although I think you need to install a codec).

  6. I'm curious by Whuffo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How many of you logged in and voted? Out of those, how many looked at the address bar to determine if you were on a Google site?

    1. Re:I'm curious by afidel · · Score: 3, Informative

      The linked site was not a Google URL, the login page was a Google page with proper SSL certificate (and yes I did check to see if any of the obvious fake SSL cert techniques had been used)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  7. I have an idea by ClosedSource · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What about improved content? Junk is still junk even if delivered via open standards.

  8. Youtube quality police ? by freaker_TuC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's their job to get all content online ; It's your job to filter through all the junk ... .. Not theirs .. We don't need a Youtube quality police; just like we don't need any fashion police.

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  9. Ogg is out for technical reasons by gig · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google already said that they can't do YouTube in Ogg because the Internet does not have enough bandwidth. The back end of YouTube is MPEG-4 H.264. No matter what format you upload your video in, it's converted to H.264 and that is the primary copy. The upcoming YouTube redesign has also been revealed to be essentially porting the mobile version of YouTube to the desktop. That means HTML5 and MPEG-4, which is what mobiles all use.

    An ISO MPEG-4 audio video player is already built into EVERYTHING, there is no opportunity to change it now. Blu-Ray, set-top boxes, smartphones, iPod and other media players, GPU's, Adobe Flash, Apple QuickTime, iTunes, game consoles, Safari, and Chrome all have H.264. If you don't publish MPEG-4, you might as well send your video encrypted with AES-256 and don't send the key. Nobody can play it if it's not MPEG-4. Ogg is a hobbyist format, suitable for ripping your CD/DVD onto a Linux box and watching them yourself, not suitable for sharing. Sharing requires that you use the community codec, which is what MPEG is all about for 20 years now.

    Also, aside from the players, there is the whole professional toolchain of cameras, recorders, editing suites, encoders, servers. All of it is MPEG-4 because it's the standardization of QuickTime and that was already built into all the tools. Tools that supported proprietary QuickTime were upgraded fairly easily and quickly to support open ISO MPEG-4. Audio video is bigger than the Web. Audio video standardization is more successful than Web standardization. The idea that the W3C is going to tell Pixar and Dolby and such how to make audio video is insane. Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web, not the entire world.

    And if we want to close one eye to professional content producers, we can open the other to amateurs who have, for example, a Flip camcorder that creates MPEG-4 H.264, or an iPhone camcorder that creates MPEG-4 H.264 and emails clips right from the iPhone. Users are not going to do a round trip through a PC so they can convert that MPEG-4 to Ogg before they share it. Especially not when all their video players have H.264 in their hardware already. That is why an iPod can play more hours of MPEG-4 H.264 than many laptops: the iPod has an "MPEG-4 CPU" so to speak, a dedicated chip that decodes the video with maximum efficiency. It doesn't have a big general purpose CPU like a PC. Multiple codecs is an AUTHORING side thing, not a consumer side thing. You use various codecs on a workstation to get your editing done, you don't demand that the consumer have a dozen codecs in their video player, it's not practical. The community agrees on one consumer codec and we all use it, just like CD/DVD, and everybody wins. Not the Linux community, the free software community, or the Web community ... the audio video community: MPEG.

    This whole debate happened 10 years ago already. You're way too late to change the consumer audio video standard to something other than MPEG-4 H.264/AAC. And you certainly can't change it to something that isn't at least technically superior. Consider that Adobe Flash was the de facto HTML4 video player that is being replaced by the audio and video tags and associated JavaScript API's in HTML5. The video codec in Flash is ISO MPEG-4 H.264/AAC for some years now. The Web is already an ISO MPEG-4 player in HTML4. It will continue to be in HTML5 because that's the format all the video is stored in. Including YouTube, iTunes, Blu-Ray, and all the movies people are shooting with their camcorders.

    In short, Ogg is out for technical reasons: it requires too much bandwidth, it doesn't exist in the players, it doesn't exist in the cameras, it doesn't exist in the editing tools, it is not in the game at all.

    1. Re:Ogg is out for technical reasons by Urza9814 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Half of your argument is that things are recorded in MPEG-4 and people aren't going to convert before uploading. But that doesn't matter. Youtube _already_ converts your video when you upload if it's in the wrong format. Hell even if it's in the right format I think they still convert it to make sure it's the right size and bitrate and such. So why does it matter if they're converting MPEG-4 into MPEG-4 or MPEG-4 into Ogg?

    2. Re:Ogg is out for technical reasons by LostCluster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The resulting file size. YouTube already helped spark Internet speed increases because we were "clogging the tubes" with MPEG-4 video implemented in Flash. Ogg's file size is larger, so it requires more bandwidth. Do you want more usage caps?

    3. Re:Ogg is out for technical reasons by tsj5j · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The above author clearly did not read the post fully, for it's clearly not "half-his-argument". The main argument is that Youtube probably can't/won't convert their existing video collection, which is likely t be huge. The second argument is that many viewing devices only support H264. The third argument is that OGG uses more space and hence bandwidth, increasing pressure on ISPs and depleting your bandwidth cap faster. The fourth argument is that it's already a standard adopted by many commercial devices, with shooting devices being one of them. Well, sure, YouTube can convert them all, but isn't that a huge waste of CPU cycles on their part? No point insisting on a format that cannot deliver in performance, compatibility and popularity.

  10. DMCA Reform by DarkHelmet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about calling for reform of the DMCA system on YouTube?

    Currently, it's possible for a content creator to have his or her video taken down for copyright infringement from what is functionally an anonymous party. While YouTube's DMCA claim form DOES ask for name, phone number and address, none of these items are verified before YouTube goes ahead and takes these videos down.

    Because of this, there's a lot of False DMCA action on the site from people who are only interested in suppressing others viewpoints.

    Since people on slashdot for the most part care about Freedom of Speech, I urge you all to upvote the DMCA reform issue on there.

    Thank you.

    --
    /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
    1. Re:DMCA Reform by LostCluster · · Score: 3, Informative

      Google's doing what the DMCA requires... what would be nice is if they had to provide proof they hold a copyright on something, and therefore reveal their identity so false claims could be taken to court.

  11. Uh oh by the+brown+guy · · Score: 3, Funny

    ""Slashdot -style comment moderation and filtering."
    trreeves, Portland, OR - "

    He must be new here...or have no idea what /. is about

    I suggested More porn...

    --
    Orbis terrarum est non altus satis
  12. They should ditch comments entirely by Nimey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Youtube is a byword for horrifyingly stupid and banal comments. The best Youtube comments still make Slashdot seem like a collection of Nobel prizewinners.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  13. Theora and Vorbis bitstreams are frozen by tepples · · Score: 5, Informative

    And changes must be forwards compatible, so that a file encoded in the new format can still be properly played by a browser implementing the minimal version of Ogg, at a similar quality level.

    And in fact, both Theora and Vorbis have bitstream formats that are frozen in just the manner you suggest. Old decoders can decode new streams, even those produced by the newer "Thusnelda" and "AoTuV" encoders.

  14. The homepage. by Akira+Kogami · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about they fix the bloated, slow-to-load youtube.com homepage and replace it with something clean and simple like the Google homepage?

  15. Parent is a blatant lie. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Informative

    From OGG theora home page:

    The bitstream format for Theora I was frozen Thursday, 2004 July 1. All bitstreams encoded since that date will remain compatible with future releases.

    Theora 1, like MPEG1, MPEG2, MPEG4, H.263, H.264 and so on is fozen and finished. The bitstream will never change.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.