Slashdot Mirror
New VP8 Codec SDK Release Improves Performance
An anonymous reader writes "Google released a new version of the VP8 codec SDK on Thursday. They note a number of performance improvements over the launch release including 20-40% (average 28%) improvement in libvpx decoder speed, an over 7% overall PSNR improvement (6.3% SSIM) in VP8 'best' quality encoding mode, and up to 60% improvement on very noisy, still or slow moving source video. In other WebM news, Texas Instruments has a demo of 1080p WebM video playing on their new TI OMAP 4 processor, in both Android and Ubuntu."
I hope other hw manufacturers follow!
They may have managed to increase performance, but the real question is have they increased the actual output quality (without having to tweak the crap out of it):
http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377
Also, I thought we've determined that PSNR is NOT a very good measure on the quality of a codec...
From the complete lack of comments am I right to think that - after H.264 became eternally free for streaming - no one cares about VP8 anymore?
Because the people in control of mp4 are pricks.
When i read the stuff you wrote, i begin to ask myself... did he really not read the article?
MP4 is not free. Its encumbered by patents.
WebM/VP8 on the other hand, Google says its not encumbered by patents and the MPEG people say it is patent encumbered.
Until such time as the MPEG people can show proof that WebM/VP8 is in fact patent encumbered, I not inclined to believe them.
This is /., so my pedantry is fairly mandatory, but what the fuck do you mean by mp4? MPEG4 video? The MP4 container?
What?
H.264 isn't free. Never has been and never will be. It's only free to end users, not to the people that actually produce the software. Meaning that after you paying via the copy of the software you use, they're magnanimously choosing not to charge you again for the streaming.H.264/MPEG-4 AVC - Patent licensing
both mp4 and mkv is only containers, it doesn't have any content. Newsflash WebM uses mkv containers. Sure they don't use that suffix, but its only a name.
Because MKV and MP4 are containers, whereas VP8 is a codec... I'm more than half convinced that you're just trolling.
MKV and mp4 are containers, not CODECs (and neither are they encoders or decoders).
Firstly, perhaps you should learn the difference between codecs (SP, ASP, AVC/h.264, VP8, etc) and container formats. You can put MPEG-1 content into an MP4 or MKV file but it doesn't change what's actually played. Secondly, WebM uses the Matroska container format.
It will be when the patents expire. That is, unless patent duration goes the same way as copyright...
Everyone? FireFox can't use it, because it requires a "paid" license and they're a "free" browser.
Yes mpeg4 and mp4 are both patented. Neither is free and there is a difference.
SP and ASP aka mpeg4 part 2. AVC/h.264 aka mpeg-4 part 10. SP and ASP are not different codecs. They are different profiles of the same codec. If a decoder supports ASP then it probably will support SP.
That they didn't make the announcement on no royalties until AFTER WebM hit the scene. Before that, there weren't royalties, but it was a "grace period" thing that they could rethink the license terms every 5 years. They can still do that with regards to license costs for encoders and decoders.
That this happened after WebM came out is not a coincidence. They finally had some competition. The plan was likely to try and make AVC the one and only standard, then start charging more streaming royalties (there were streaming royalties when it first came out). However they realized if they kept that ambiguous, WebM might take over.
Also initially I think they figured they could brow beat Google in to playing along, because they are under the belief they have patents that cover all video compression. However you know Google did their homework both before they bought On2 and after they got the technology and before they released WebM. They checked, and Google is precisely the organization that is good at the data mining and searching needed to determine if any patents applied. They likely either found that none did, or that if any did they were subject to prior art, or that Google had patents that they could use against AVC.
Whatever the case, AVC is now free to stream forever, but not completely free. So now we have two choices and that isn't a bad thing. For commercial software/hardware, AVC is probably the better choice since it seems to be higher quality. You buy the license, life is good. For free software, WebM is the way to go as the license is explicit that you can do as you please, no royalties.
The thing is, it doesn't matter what you think. MPEG LA isn't going to sue you for using VP8.
It matters what the companies that want to use it think, and they think they're going to get sued, and have actually been threatened by MPEG LA. Therefore, for them, they don't want to take the risk of getting sued (in this economy, that may well be reasonable,) so even if VP8 doesn't infringe a single patent, it might as well infringe all of them.
...did you really read the article?
MKV, MP4 = Container
and
ericdano = not well informed or a troll
I just kept it simple enough for you to understand.
But it doesn't need to. For one, all you have to do is be "good enough". This idea that every last bit has to be wrangled out of codecs is silly these days. Storage and bandwidth are cheap. So long as it is good enough, meaning performs like similar codecs (AVC, VC-1 and so on) it is fine. Remember that streaming Flash video was VP6 for a long time, and much of it still is.
However what it offers is a free option, truly free. Encoders, decoders, streaming, all have no royalties and never will. That is important. If you think AVC is free just because of x264 all that means is you aren't doing your homework. Go have a look, you have to pay to have encoders and decoders.
WebM is useful, if for no other reason than it puts pressure on MPEG-LA not to be dicks about patent licensing. However that aside, it may well be the smart choice for streaming out web based video (once it gets integrated in to browsers) since you don't have to worry about issues in the future.
Can you believe we still have 7 years before the mp3 codec becomes royalty free? Still need to pay for the content though....
So you'll notice that WebM is getting built in to hardware, just like AVC. Means soon portable/embedded devices will be able to decode it too. Ok so just another format right? Well sort of. You have to pay per decoder (up to a maximum) for AVC and VC-1 and so on. You don't for WebM. So a company is developing really cheap devices, they don't want to pay that royalty. It adds unit cost. Maybe they decide not to, and instead use WebM because it doesn't cost anything. Sure it saves only a few bucks per unit in licensing but that can add up to $5-10 when you are talking sale price and that can be a big deal in cheap devices. Maybe they sell streaming kiosk/info devices that are $40 where the best a competitor does with AVC is $50 or $60.
There is no doubt AVC is here to stay. It has good quality, never mind the massive installed base and standards behind it. Professional (and consumer) cameras are using it for shooting video in the form of AVCHD and AVC-Intra. Blu-Rays are by and large encoded in it these days (you have a choice of MPEG-2, VC-1 or AVC) and so on. It isn't going to die. However WebM may become preferable when cost is key. No encoder, decoder, format, stream, or any costs of any kind ever for any application. That's worth something.
If I ran a video website, I'd seriously think of looking at moving to it once browsers got support. It would ensure that I don't get fucked with fees at some point in the future.
One year, in fact. The MPEG-1 Audio Layer 2 and 3 algorithms were all published in 1991. Patents last at most 20 years, so the last ones will be expiring in 2011.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Because mp4 over the web is only free for recipients.
Because mp4 isn't a web standard ... web standards are required to be royalty free for everyone.
Because users of Firefox, Opera, IE9, Chrome, Chromium, Konqueror, rekonq, midori, Arora and others will be able to play your WebM video, when they wouldn't if you had used H.264.
Because users of low-powered web devices such as tablets and phones will be able to play your video (even up to 1080p full HD resolution), when many such users wouldn't be able to if you had used mp4.
Because, basically, if you use WebM it will be available and free to use (even for you), but if you use H.264 it will cost more in performance, it will cost money to provide the video, and a good percentage of the potential audience will not be able to play it.
Firefox can use it. They can decode it using the codec framework of the OS (DirectShow, Quicktime, GStreamer), they could pass off the decoding to a plugin or let the decoder hardware that every GPU released in the last couple of years comes with do it.
As long as they don't distribute (more than 100k) decoders (per year) there is no cost involved and there is no reason for them to distribute decoders at all.
New operating systems come with them, there are free and legal downloads for old operating systems and they are available with GPUs.
The only case where you don't have a free decoder is when you are running Linux on old hardware. In that case you can buy one from Fluendo.
In reality if you are running Linux you probably have ffmpeg anyway so it's not really a problem.
Of course Mozilla said using system codecs is a horrible security risk so they won't do it. Makes one wonder why that's what they've been working on for Fennec, their mobile browser.
Google follows a really interesting pattern. As far as I can tell, all their software is reactive, rather than proactive.
It is the result of saying "Everyone's using X, but it sucks. We can do it better." They then take a very methodical, PhD-oriented approach to solving the problem. A few parts innovation, many parts simple engineering.
Now they have 10000 employees, but the basic formula hasn't changed. Is there software that Google has made that hasn't been a direct response to an existing product?
That said, I think there's definitely a case to be made that Google is the software industry's first adult. Software's awkward adolescent foibles are on their way out. No more 90s, no millions and millions of VC dollars being spent on Pets.com, no more Netscape and Microsoft working furiously on really terrible codebases adding incompatible nonstandard crap to the internet. No more Myspace, no more Geocities. No more paperclips bouncing around asking me if I'm writing a letter; I'm using Google Docs now.
Google approaches software the way a civil engineering firm would approach a skyscraper: they are actual engineers. They collaborate with academia. They write papers. They sit on the W3C and help create standards. They have architects, PMs, devs, testers, and even lawyers to support their projects.
In a way, this is a sad thing. It was a magical time, when a university student in Finland could just sit down, write a simple OS for x86, and watch half the internet run on it a few years later. When a kid from Texas could create a whole new genre of games in a few thousand lines of C. Sometimes I worry that I was born a couple years too late.
Halfway through my CS degree, I hope that the era of cowboy coders isn't entirely done. It would be a terrible shame if CS became just another engineering specialization. At the same time, Google's professionalism is a breath of fresh air.
A great deal more companies and people have been threatened by MPEG LA over their use of H.264 than WebM.
In fact, I haven't heard of a single case of use of WebM resulting in someone having to go to court. That is miles form the situation with H.264.
H.264 is "free" only for users. This is not the case for every other party involved in web video.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC
"On August 26, 2010 MPEG LA announced that H.264 encoded internet video that is free to end users will never be charged for royalties. All other royalties will remain in place such as the royalties for products that decode and encode H.264 video. The license terms are updated in 5-year blocks."
If it is, wow. If it isn't, what's the point?
It is "free" in that sharing a file that has been encoded is free. Encoders are most certainly not "free." Decoders are not "free." So "everyone can use it for free" is simply wrong.
Learn to love Alaska
wrapper != codec
They are different codecs, just like Word 97 and Word 2007 are different file formats. They're related and often interoperable, but they're quite distinct and it's not unreasonable to address them as individual formats no matter their common naming or heritage.
Where are my mod points when I need 'em? D:
"The body may heal, but the mind is not always so resilient." -- Deus Ex: Human Revolution
Firefox couldn't use it for free if Firefox wanted to include an encoder, and at some point that's quite likely to happen.
The OMAP4 platform looks really interesting. A couple of day ago a system on a chip, based on OMAP4 became available on pandaboard.org. It can be seen as the successor of the (OMAP3 based) beagle board. The pandaboard has a dual core ARM proc, 1 GB ram, WiFi and Ethernet. I ordered one and planning to use it as a media thing and multi purpose server (web, file, dns, ...) .
Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with pandaboard in any way, just want want to let you know these things are available.
> Firefox can use it.
Hardly the point. Firefox won't use it because H.264 is only free to end users, and it is not free at all to anyone else in the chain.
For Mozilla to support H.264 in Firefox would be to go against Mozilla's manifesto:
http://www.mozilla.org/about/mission.html
Therefore, because H.264 is not free for everyone in every role, Mozilla won't support it.
(Opera won't support H.264 either, but that is just a decision based on costs).
Anyway, because Mozilla won't support it, WebM will always have far better support than H.264.
100,000 decoders per year?
http://gigaom.com/2010/05/27/firefox-downloads-active-user-metrics/
> Firefox’s daily downloads fluctuated between 1.39 million and 1.81 million — averaging out at about 1.5 million downloads a *day*.
Great, we can distribute for about 2 hours on January 1, and then go home for a year, having exhausted our license.
Fennec gets WebM just like Firefox does.
There's a third party (a cell phone vendor) which is sponsoring support for GStreamer at this time. Mozilla is or has done code reviews but is *not* driving this feature. It's also unclear whether such a feature could be enabled in a product which has Mozilla's official branding.
Are you actually claiming that codecs (or system codecs) aren't security risks? Which rock have you been hiding under? ... ... Use Registry Editor at your own risk. For information about how to edit ... A codec can consist of two components: an encoder and a decoder. ...
... ... ... ...
1.
Microsoft Security Bulletin MS10-062 - Critical: Vulnerability in
14 Sep 2010
www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms10-062.mspx - Cached
2.
Microsoft Security Bulletin MS10-055 - Critical: Vulnerability in
The Cinepak codec is a media encoder and decoder supported by the Windows
www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms10-055.mspx - Cached
3.
Microsoft Security Bulletin MS10-052 - Critical: Vulnerability in
Vulnerability Severity Rating and Maximum Security Impact by Affected
www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms10-052.mspx - Cached
Vulnerability in Microsoft MPEG Layer-3 Codecs Could Allow Remote Code Execution (2115168)
http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/b/bloggingwindows/archive/2010/05/19/another-follow-up-on-html5-video-in-ie9.aspx
> Codecs have been a source of security and reliability issues (link1, link2, link3, link4) for some users.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/05/03/follow-up-on-html5-video-in-ie9.aspx
> We’ve read some follow up discussion about support for more than the
> H.264 codec in IE9’s HTML5 video tag.
> For web browsers, developers can continue to offer plug-ins (using NPAPI
> or ActiveX; they are effectively equivalent in this scenario) so that webpages
> can play video using these codecs on Windows.
> A key motivator for improving the codec support in Windows 7 was to reduce
> the need that end-users might have to download additional codecs.
> The security risks regarding downloadable codecs and associated malware
> are documented and significant.
> By building on H.264 for HTML5 video functionality, we provide a higher level
> of certainty regarding the security of this aspect of browsing and our web platform.
The general understanding of the post was that while one could install codecs for use w/ WMV and friends, and one could install plugins which provide codec support, one wouldn't generally be able to add random crappy codecs to the browser by installing them into the system, and Microsoft is indicating that this is a good thing (and it is!).
Do we REALLY have to do this every single time someone talks about codecs? When was the last time you saw a RM file in an MP4 "container"? Or how about an ASF in a MKV? lets be honest guys, this is that same kind of pedantic bullshit we get with "Linux is a kernel" when someone talks about Linux as a platform. Newflash: Sure you CAN put different things in, but NOBODY actually does, at least not enough to even make a micro blip on the radar. when we are talking about the 99.9995% of MP4 files out there we are talking DivX and its derivatives, just as when we are talking MKV 99.9995% of the time we are talking H.264 with AAC. If WebM actually gains any traction at all we might be seeing WebM with AAC, but so far I haven't seen folks tripping over themselves to switch, anymore than I saw MP3 player manufacturers jump to switch to Vorbis even though it isn't patented and MP3 is.
So can't we just accept MP4 is DivX style video, MKV is H.264, and Linux is a platform for purposes of discussion and be done with it? does anyone actually think a dozen "X is a container" posts help or drive the discussion forward in ANY way? And frankly it really doesn't matter what we in the USA have to jump through with regards to patents, because all the stuff that uses them is made in China now and they don't play our little reindeer games. That is why Chinagrabber is full of MP3/MP4 players and set top boxes that play MKV. Does anybody here HONESTLY think that if you put an ASF or RM into any of those above MP4 and MKV players they will actually play? The public don't care if it is a "container" or not, they just want the video to play. If it says Mp4 on the box it plays DivX or the various DivX knockoffs like Xvid, and if it says MKV it plays H.264 and AAC. Is that really so hard to accept?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Google instant sucks and serves no useful purpose.
Google jumped the shark with this annoying feature that is enabled by default.
You may have noticed, that the auto completion censors 'sucks', and other words.
For that, I say:
'google instant annoying'
At one point in the video he says "TI has long been a supporter of the open source community".
Just append ", unless of course you are hacking our devices".
I hope that the era of cowboy coders isn't entirely done
Judging from the world *outside* Google, it's cowboys all the way down.
Or, you've already made a start on the path to working *inside* Google, with your degree. Good luck!
you had me at #!
The outcome of patent trials isn't 100% dependent on pesky facts, people can win and get injunctions because the other guy's lawyer was having a bad hair day or because the judge was too busy playing with his penis pump or any number of "human factors".
No sig today...
Or at least ... not yet. Not until there's a billion users and the whole web depends on it.
No sig today...
Well, MKV has been around for a while, and having an Xvid file within MKV was very common before being used to encapsulate h264. I really don't care what the public think when the discussion becomes technical. Being accurate never hurts, and if you want to look dumb when trying to have a tech conversation about digital video that's your problem...
So Android (no GNU there) is a micro blip on the radar? Where do you get your data, so I can avoid it?
Youtube isn't exactly "small" and uses MP4 with H.264, so no.
Anyone who wants to sell a decent device in the US as opposed to $5 player needs to pay royalties to the MPEG-LA, regardless of where it was built.
Dilbert RSS feed
Wait, what? Chrome will support both, IE only H.264.
Dilbert RSS feed
Wow.
What Microsoft is saying is that they are going to provide codec support so every application on the planet doesn't have to reinvent the wheel and that endusers don't have to download codec packs from 3rd parties!
Mozilla could use the provided codec frameworks on each platform to provide h.264 support. The reason they will not is simply one of politics.
Choice is a good thing so let the endusers decide. First time they got to play and h.264 video give them the choice of using the internal codec frame work or not. And in a security warning if you wish.
If not I see a lot of folks going with Chrome.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Google Search was not simply a re-invention of AltaVista. It is a vast improvement.
GMail was not simply a re-invention of Hotmail. It was a vast improvement.
etc etc. The term "re-invent the wheel" implies you are doing something identical via a new method. That is not what Google does. They make bigger, better wheels.
If you think about how the 'incumbents' in the software industry work - their business models are not about technology or product quality, but about first capturing a monopoly (by any means available), then trying to hang on to it for as long as possible (by any means available).
Like a skyscraper shadowing a garden, this has the effect of making it almost impossible for small players to sprout or survive very long. The resources - sunlight, nutrition in the metaphor - just aren't enough.
However if an upstart can somehow beat that, growing sufficiently large while not being crushed, then they can occupy a viable niche, having resources to fight off the attacks of the other larger players (which include, as somebody commented above, doing due diligence upfront and being able to afford legal defences).
I agree that the jury is still out on whether this is long-run good for the end user. Will Google become just another complacent, evil monopolist?
you had me at #!
When was the last time you saw a RM file in an MP4 "container"? Or how about an ASF in a MKV?
No one has ever seen any of that since RM, MP4, ASF and MKV are all containers.
. when we are talking about the 99.9995% of MP4 files out there we are talking DivX and its derivatives, just as when we are talking MKV 99.9995% of the time we are talking H.264 with AAC.
When people say DivX they generally mean a file using the avi (or divx) container containing ASP video and MP3 audio. Nobody with any clue conflates DivX and MP4. MP4s generally contain AVC video and AAC audio. DivX doesn't use either of those. DivXHD uses them, but they use the MKV container and it's use isn't widespread.
Going to MKVs I suspect the majority of them use AC3 for audio. AAC is probably the second most popular audio choice followed by DTS.
If WebM actually gains any traction at all we might be seeing WebM with AAC
This is unlikely. The only codecs the WebM container supports are VP8 and Vorbis. Since it is based on MKV it can be easily extended to support other formats, but I don't see Google doing this.
As a further note Xvid isn't a DivX knockoff. Both are implementations of the MPEG4 ASP standard. Both were derived from the same opensource codebase. Xvid was widely considered to be the superior implementation while it was still in development.
Conflating containers with formats only creates ambiguity and therefore problems. There are plenty of players that support AVC and AAC. There are more players that support those two formats in a MP4 container than in a MKV container. This is a minor hassle since switching containers is easy. If you think that because it says MP4 on the box it will play DivX style video than you can easily get yourself into trouble. Such a player might play a DivX (ASP/MP3/AVI) or DivXHD(AVC/AAC/MKV) file, but there is no guarantee it will.
Wait, what? Chrome will support both, IE only H.264.
IE 9 will support WebM, but needs 3rd party decoder to do it. H.264 will be supported out of box.
Important politics. They want an open web. Supporting web video through a proprietary codec goes against that goal. It amazes me how many miss that point.
I'd like to add that watching H.264 content is free for end-users at the moment as long as they are using a licensed decoder.
If you purchased (say) Final Cut Studio from Apple to make a movie, television show, ad, or other "commercial" video, you have to buy—on top of what you paid for the software—a licence from the MPEG to legally make that video:
15. H.264/AVC Notice. To the extent that the Apple Software contains AVC encoding and/or decoding functionality, commercial use of H.264/AVC requires additional licensing and the following provision applies: THE AVC FUNCTIONALITY IN THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED HEREIN ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (i) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AVC STANDARD ("AVC VIDEO") AND/OR (ii) DECODE AVC VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND/OR AVC VIDEO THAT WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO. INFORMATION REGARDING OTHER USES AND LICENSES MAY BE OBTAINED FROM MPEG LA L.L.C. SEE HTTP://WWW.MPEGLA.COM.
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/finalcutstudio2.pdf
Ditto for iMovie in the iLife suite: http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/ilife09.pdf
So yes, if you're just making a movie of the kid for the grand-parents, you're fine. If you want to do anything more and make some cash, be prepared to fork over some cash.
To the OP: How is that "free"?
From TFA, "TI has long been a supporter of the open source community ........." My ass!
Actually, due to a hole that existed in patent applications before 1995, some of the patents don't expire until 2017: http://www.tunequest.org/a-big-list-of-mp3-patents/20070226/
The details are trivial and useless; The reasons, as always, purely human ones.
Ok there an easy solution to that, don't use Firefox.
This idea that a CODEC is somehow different that all the other DLLs that Firefox leverages on a Windows system is laughable. It amazes me how many people don't get that.
Firefox loads *many* proprietary DLL's on Windows systems (and the OS/X equivs) in order to render web content.
You've turned it into a religion ONLY in the case of CODECS. Why are CODECS special?
"His name was James Damore."
Everyone? FireFox can't use it, because it requires a "paid" license and they're a "free" browser.
Their only substantial source of funding, AdSense.
Canonical found a way to get H.264 support into its OEM distribution - because Canonical knows that Linux is in desperate need of OEM support. Chrome supports Flash - because Google is also interested in market share this morning - and not in the nebulous WebM future.
It doesn't matter that Firefox uses proprietary DLLs to render web content, because there are no restrictions or fees on its use. That is the difference. As soon as you use the H.264 codec to create or render content, you have to pay royalties.
while they're not all free, the ones from google are, aren't they?
also the ones in ffmpeg
I understand it.
But the statement that Firefox can to use h.264 is a flat out lie.
They can use it and they can use it without a paying a cent. The can just use the already installed codec system for each of the OSs. In fact that would be the correct way from the stand point of code reuse and software components.
It is silly to have 5 different programs on one OS all implanting h.264.
Firefox can implement h.264 they have chose not to to make a political statement! To put in any other way is a lie. And I do not care how important you think it is to make that statement it should not be wrapped with a lie.
What amazes me is how many people miss that point and are okay with that lie.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
It seems at least 2012. However patente trolls could sue over mp3 as far as 2017: http://www.tunequest.org/a-big-list-of-mp3-patents/20070226/
Anyone who wants to sell a decent device in the US as opposed to $5 player needs to pay royalties to the MPEG-LA, regardless of where it was built.
Oddly enough, enforcement seems to be very lax. Until recently licensing fees for DVD players would typically add up to $20-$30 per unit, yet it wasn't that hard to find $40 DVD players for sale here. There's no way a $40 retail price could support $20 worth of licensing fees, So they were clearly ignoring them, yet you could find such products in stores like Target and Walmart, not to mention amazon and all the other big-name online places.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
That's great, except platforms without h.264 would just be SOL. Mozilla wants a browser that will work about the same on every platform they support.
ffmpeg was already a lot's of faster than the original sdk : http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/499
When they say they can't use it, they mean they can't ship it with their web browser.
Here you make the mistake again. There's a difference between "implement" and "support". Implementing H.264 would mean shipping code that decodes it. Supporting it would mean the former or using codecs installed on the system.
They have never said they can't leverage the installed codecs. They've said it's not the way to go for several reasons.
Mozilla has said time and time again they can not support H.264. They simply will not do it so they can make a political statement.
IMHO this will be the end of the mainstream FOSS browser.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
You're funny. It's not like web browsers are only used for video. Furthermore, the world's most popular web video site is moving to WebM, not H.264.
Couldn't this post have started "Google releases improved video codec ..." or whatever a PNSR improved VP8 is? Really, just a hint at the topic in the first sentence would improve slashdot 'readability'.
Nuff said.
It doesn't matter that Firefox uses proprietary DLLs to render web content, because there are no restrictions or fees on its use.
There is no difference between FLASH doing it and a CODEC doing it. They are BOTH proprietary binary DLL's and H.264 carries the same restrictions and fees in both cases.
So when are you going to push to remove all support for FLASH in Firefox?
"His name was James Damore."
And I disagree with the reasons for a number of reasons.
Number one reason is politics and I feel politics and tech make for a bad user experience.
But I will take his points one by one.
"2 Only a very small fraction of Windows users have a DirectShow codec for the most important encumbered codec, H.264. Windows 7 will be the first version of Windows to ship with H.264 by default. Even if millions of people have downloaded H.264 codecs "
Windows 7 is growing in percentage very quickly. Even so isn't giving x% of user the ability tp watch h264 better than zero?
"3.DirectShow is underspecified and codecs are of highly variable quality. Many codecs probably will not work with Web sites that use all the rich APIs of , and those bugs will be filed against us. We probably will not be able to fix them. ("
Really so you will have problems with getting h264 under windows 7 working with the microsoft codec?
I some how doubt it.
"4. Many DirectShow codecs are actually malware. ("Download codec XYZ to play free porn!")"
So does Firefox currently prevent that? I don't think so.
"5. DirectShow codecs are quite likely to have security holes. As those holes are uncovered, we will have to track the issues and often our only possible response will be to blacklist insecure codecs, since we can't fix them ourselves. If we blacklist enough codecs, DirectShow support becomes worthless."
Really? And no other part of Windows, Linux, or OS/X has that issue?
A simple solution would be to use DirectShow only for those codecs that you do not have internal support for and create a whitelist of codecs. In this case one for Microsofts H.264.
And
"6. Each new video backend creates additional maintenance headaches as we evolve our internal video code."
Maybe an internal video solution is the wrong way to go.
Every OS right now has a framework for video codecs why not use them?
And of course the dirty little secret is that even when a program implements a codec odds are they going to use the same code base as the one in the OS's codec framework.
The OGG for example. The Directshow codec and Firefox both use the same library supped by the OGG project.
How about this as an option. Give the enduser the OPTION. Yes allow the end user the choice to use Directshow or Quicktime or FFmpeg. Instead of just waving a useless protest sign around.
What is going to happen is very simple. If Firefox will not play the content you want on the web then users will move.
Chrome is a very good browser and IE doesn't suck as much as it once did.
IE will gain the most followed by Chrome IMHO.
Even Firefox diehards will drop back to IE or Chrome when Firefox fails them.
So good bye to the mainstream FOSS browser. Microsoft will have done a great job of helping Firefox commit suicide by political grandstanding.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
You forgot that Flash is a plug-in that doesn't ship with Firefox. Furthermore, it doesn't explicitly support Flash, just the Netscape plug-in infrastructure. Apples and oranges.
It's not worth the maintenance headaches at this point.
You're not presenting a counter-argument, but FUD.
How do you propose that Firefox prevents the download and installation of malware? Does Firefox also need to be a malware scanner now?
Microsoft isn't the only one to offer a H.264 codec.
You just read the reasons why not.
The problems will still exist, and they will be blamed on Firefox. The maintenance will still be a disaster.
Again, you're funny. Refer to my other comment in reply to yours that you're conveniently forgetting about.
You forgot that Flash is a plug-in that doesn't ship with Firefox.
Nobody suggested that CODEC's would ship with Firefox.
Pretty much everyone already has these codecs, and the license to play back video with them.
If you want to take the high road, you've GOT to be consistent.
You hate H.264. Dont try to convince us that this is about some grand Free and Open slant.. when clearly you are just picking and choosing what non-Free and non-Open shit to ostracize.
Pick a theory and run with it. Someone obviously convinced you that H.264 is Bad but you never reconciled 'why' with the rest of your moral makeup.
Why should Firefox support FLASH but not a CODEC? Both are DLL's provided by the end user. Period. Thats it. Let me repeat that. They are BOTH DLL's provided by the end user. One more time. They are BOTH DLL'S PROVIDED BY THE END USER.
"His name was James Damore."
Not fud at all. They said that not all Directshow codecs support everything that HTML 5 needs. They didn't give an example. That is FUD. Does the microsoft H.264 codec support what they need? Yes or no?
Not worth the problems? What a load of garbage. Mozilla doesn't have the the user base to force people to not use H.264. I do hope that WebM does work and gets wide support but I am not holding my breath.
So not pull javascript support out of Mozilla? I mean that causes a lot of bugs as well.
And let's just not support embedded tags.
One place we do agree is that Firefox doesn't need to be a malware scanner. So the argument that some codecs can contain malware isn't valid.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
It's what is being done now, and it's the best option, hence why we're talking about it.
Sorry, but you're just wrong and can't seem to accept that we have reasons other than 'hate'.
You'll never understand as long as you don't look at the bigger picture. Using DirectShow/QuickTime/GStreamer is not an option for several reasons that have been repeated time and again, so we're down to shipping the codec.
They don't need to, because variable quality of DirectShow codecs is pretty much a given.
Even if we were to assume that it did, that wouldn't solve its small installed base.
And where is your example and argument for why this is a load of garbage?
It would break a lot on the web as it is a feature that is widely used. In this case it wouldn't be worth it. It's also a different case because the support is already there instead of waiting to be added.
It's still a valid problem to consider when adding support, and one that's non-trivial to work around.
I don't consider Window 7 users a small installed base. It will grow to be pretty big over time. But what you are ignoring is why not allow the user to decide?
A lot of WinBoxs have Quicktime installed if so allow them to use that for h.264 and default to it on OS/X since every OS/X machine has it.
Allow them to use DirectShow if that is installed and has H.264 support.
Allow them to use FFMeg if they have that installed!
This "we are protecting you and we know what is right for you" crap sounds like the FOSS version of Steve Jobs!
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Because you have a choice in codecs.
blah blah blah blah blah.
.. its a crap argument. Content providers will use good codecs. DUH.
1) Religion.
2) Wrong.
3) Subjective horseshit. You could say that anything is "underspecified"
4) Many plugins are malware too. Pick a theory and stick with it.
5) FLASH is a giant security hole. Arent you going to remove FLASH support?
6) Instead of interfacing with existing decoders, which we think is too hard, we are going to maintain our own decoder.. which any coder will note is obviously harder.. but we wont mention that because most people who read this arent programmers.
Blah blah blah blah blah.
"His name was James Damore."
Over time does not equal now or in one year.
I already explained this.
QuickTime is not part of the Windows OS, so you can't count on it being installed.
Make of it what you will.
That word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
That's a fascinating counter-point you've got there.
Cop-out argument.
You do know that there is more than one implementation of a codec standard, right?
Apples and oranges. The plug-in infrastructure is controlled by the browser. But they have no control over the OS' media framework. One exception is Apple's Safari, which has control over QuickTime. They made a couple changes when they introduced web video. The linked weblog entry even tells you this.
There's no Flash support. There's plug-in support, and Flash is a plug-in. Furthermore, Firefox doesn't ship with Flash, so it's not like it's encouraged.
Yeah, let's conveniently forget that there are is more than one operating system out there with their own media frameworks that have their own quirks and problems that have to be maintained.
You think that taking away the option of choice because you may have unexpected bugs valid?
You think that 40% of the Windows users is too small of an installed base?
Good heavens I make of it what it is. The death of Firefox. Probably not at some point they will cave in because of user demand. Too bad since a lot of people will have left never to return.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Those bugs are actually expected, and you're still forgetting that implementing all this is no easy job, using resources that are better spent elsewhere. Why spend double the effort on one feature, anyway?
Where the heck are you getting 40% from? By now it's more like 20%.
You keep on believing that silly joke despite all the evidence that goes against it. Do you specialise in trolling? It sure looks like it. This will be my last reply. You can have the last word.
Actually I am no troll. I am a long time Firefox user. You really think that the majority of Firefox users care about which codec is "free" as which is not?
We will see but history is not on your side.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Firefox can use it. They can decode it using the codec framework of the OS
What OS? Windows XP and Ubuntu don't come with MPEG-4 AVC and AAC decoders. I seem to remember that Windows Vista Home Basic, Windows Vista Business, and Windows 7 Starter don't either. Mozilla doesn't want to encourage webmasters to use "To play this video, upgrade to Genuine Windows® 7 Home Premium operating system" as the fallback content for a <video> element.
If MPEG-LA members sit on their infringement claim until the user base nears a billion, then sure, they can get an injunction. But any claims of back damages would be estopped by laches if the alleged infringers can show that MPEG-LA members intended to cause harm by delaying suit.