Slashdot Mirror
FSF Announces Support For WebM
An anonymous reader writes "The Free Software Foundation has signed up as a supporter of the WebM Project. They write, 'Last week, Google announced that it plans to remove support for the H.264 video codec from its browsers, in favor of the WebM codec that they recently made free. Since then, there's been a lot of discussion about how this change will affect the Web going forward, as HTML5 standards like the video tag mature. We applaud Google for this change; it's a positive step for free software, its users, and everyone who uses the Web.' The FSF's PlayOgg campaign will be revamped to become PlayFreedom."
frist bizznitches!
A more truthful summary would be:
"The FSF has decided to try and ride Google's coattails by announcing their support for WebM and rebranding their completely ineffectual PlayOgg campaign in a way that won't actually help Google a bit."
With friends like these...
Going to another corporate shill of a codec is not an improvement.
The FSF seems particularly misguided or unaware of the larger context it is working in. Google's position on WebM, realistically, means that Flash's dominance on the web is going to be prolonged. After all, it's not likely anybody is going to seriously adopt WebM while Google continues to support Flash.
So, while theoretically the FSF should be about freedom of the user and the community, the actual implication of their stance is to bolster proprietary formats (Adobe Flash) and monopolistic control of the internet (Google).
... and then they built the supercollider.
...everything the FSF supports is massively successful.
It doesn't matter how this free / not free debate goes. One is a formal ISO standard, the other is whatever Google decides. How that makes H.264 somehow not open escapes me, but...
If I'm engineering a hardware codec, I want the standard that's set down in stone, just like my design is going to be (well, silicon, but you know what I mean).
so where do i get a chip that plays webm?
it's open but a crap product without hardware support, awesome
Here's what we don't see. There is a battle going on, and it has nothing to do with which codec to use. The real battle is between Apple and Adobe. Apple wants to control everything on iOS (and everywhere else...can anyone say AppStore?), so Flash doesn't play so nice on those 64bit gizmos eh? Flash has embedded itself into the web because of video. Sooo...how do you beat Flash, in comes the MP4 wrapper for H.264 encodings (and Apple's on the patent bandwagon). Google is drawing a line firmly between them in many ways: Google Apps, Android, Chromium Tablet...and now they've closed the door on H.264 moving to WebM. Adobe will make the switch...why? Because f4v flopped, Flash Media Server bows down to MP4 encoding, which makes it an open target against Apple who doesn't support Flash on their cool little gizmos everyone buys. Hrmm...the real battle is over the mobile market and who dominates. Google is using their muscle to push open standards, which I for one will always vote for VS Apple's system (CoCoa, WebKit). We'll see who wins.
I rEead the latest people's faces is conglomerate in the host what the house Workin6 on various Partner. And if
It might just be late, but I have no idea how you are reaching this conclusion. Are you aware that Adobe is one of the companies that has pledged to support WebM?
Are you aware how many mobile devices today can only play h.264 when Flash is not present?
So Adobe is supporting VP8 playback in Flash, it means nothing - because anyone encoding video will say "if I encode in h.264 it will work in all browsers, across all devices". What is the incentive to also encode in WebM/VP8? There is none.
So as stated, what will happen is that web producers will go back to using crappy flash video players on the web for everyone except mobile users, who will get straight-up video without a horrible wrapper.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The original post was asking WHERE he get a chip that plays WebM, not WHEN. As there are not even any chips to be had WebM looks to have a very long and hard road ahead to gain any traction - even (or especially?) with Google pushing it.
The truth is that today if you encode in h.264 it will work in any browser. It will work on iOS devices with hardware accelleration. It will work in Mozilla and Chrome using the Flash player. It will work in Safari and IE directly.
Unless you shut off h.264 support in Flash WebM adoption is simply not going to happen. And Adobe has no interest in doing that, they like just fine how everyone has to come to them for video players now.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The real battle is between Apple and Adobe
That is true from the standpoint of Apple fighting for open technologies backed by large groups of companies (HTML5, h.264) where Adobe is fighting for maintaining control over the stronghold of Web Video, where they are the ones who provide players everyone needs to operate universally.
That's why Google, Apple and Microsoft were together in supporting the video tag. But then Google got greedy, and thought "Why can't I have Adobe's position"? So under the guise of being open, Google is pushing for a standard controlled by them.
The end effect is now the same standoff we had before, where neither Apple nor Adobe can get the upper hand. And that is a shame because when all three were standing together you could actually see a chance of Flash being booted off the internet.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Motherfucker! Mine is more open; no MINE is; no they BOTH are; no NEITHER one is; take THAT; BIFF, BANG, POW, SLAP. I have never seen so much bickering since the last time Democrats and Republicans were in the same room together. The world will end not with a bang, nor with a whimper - it will end with everybody savagely attacking each other over every single issue.
H264 decoding is a one time payment. If google decides to start fucking with webm licesning then we are fucked if we go to webm.
Otoh. The h264 codec is so encumbered with everyone else fighting it that open source developers are going to skate by and only hardware vendors are going to pay h264 costs. Software other than big names like adobe and apple are going to pay.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
If you or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree to the institution of patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that this implementation of VP8 or any code incorporated within this implementation of VP8 constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, or inducement of patent infringement, then any patent rights granted to you under this License for this implementation of VP8 shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/
So the moment that somebody files a suit or have a valid claim you are in the same licensing pool bed as h.264 with the only difference that this format is controlled by a single company. And I really couldn't see anything going wrong that what... . And I always see the same link to a blog for a h.264 so it is automatically discarded as FUD but the matter of fact that it isn't the only source for that argument, even independent observers have stated that WebM may be not royalty free for long as it is unsure if it is not patent encumbered.
And being a webdeveloper that sometimes also deals with video I'm gonna burst a lot of bubbles. I will not be bothered by converting video anytime soon into WebM just for the simple fact that supporting Flash & h264 I can support the whole spectrum. Because it is free (for the time being ?) my software and hardware already supports h.264 so why should I care ? For that couple of cents that I pay more when buying videosoftware licenses ? That is a drop in a bucket... . Streaming is free (as long as your streams are free for consumers)
If WebM gets baked into the standard, that would have a large effect on how we get video on the web (and how free it is).
No it would not.
Because standards that are not born out of pragmatism, rarely get used. They get ignored.
The reality of what will happen is this - content providers (including Google!!) will continue to produce video in h.264.
Google will also produce video in WebM - almost no-one else will. Because why would they when just h.264 encoding works in EVERY browser thanks to Flash (and thanks to direct support of h.264 in IOS devices).
WebM being part of a standard has zero effect without the outside world having a need for it and a reason to uptake. The video tag had a solid reason behind it, you didn't have to expend efforts working with annoying Flash video wrappers. But Google has gone and tossed that down the drain in favor of forcing a standard on the world at a time they lack the power to do so - and in the process KILLED open video on the web by bringing us all back to the dark ages of Flash video players everywhere.
That's why I'm so upset at Google, because if they had waited four years or so THEN they could have forced a transition to an open video format. All they have done right now is muddied the waters. At this point I don't trust Google farther than I can throw them, and being a company I can't throw them at all.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Can Google provide us, h264/mpeg sp accelerated device owners, such as less than a billion feature+ phone owners a software to play WebM?
There should also be some kind of remote chip attachment innovation as satellite boxes, dvr and like billion of devices won't accept "new software" as they do their job on hardware level.
Next, they should replace the satellites as entire industry adopted h264 a long time ago.
I have absolutely no idea which "deeper,evil" plan Apple has on this h264 debacle but let me say, I agree to SJobs and Apple on h264. Even Microsoft who is famous for re-inventing the wheel, didn't push their codec further and added h264 support. Ask them why, because it is superior to anything which is on market today and established. On hardware that is!
Google made Chrome x86 only before any other company on OS X land dared to post a non universal binary except Adobe who uses a lot of shared code between Win/OS X.
They didn't even bother to ship a Symbian player/demo/whatever. They could say "Youtube player, with WebM support" and release update to already established Youtube.
Of course, ARM CPU will choke to death when you get this marvelous idea of doing everything on CPU. Even a netbook with a tegra chipset will lose half of its promised battery life/performance as it will have to fallback to CPU.
The absolute comedy is, we are arguing about it while World's true media distribution giant (Apple) has no intention to re-invent the wheel and they agree to Microsoft on that. Apple has put considerable time&money to H264, it isn't like acquiring some unsuccessful codec company and release their stolen codec trusting to how big you are.
Please realize some of you are talking about open STANDARD and others are talking about open CONTENT !!
No more discussion about wich is more "open", I can't take it anymore !
I'd be keeping quite about support from the idealistic FSF cos its sort of a kiss of death. I mean lets not forget the roaring success their other golden boy, .ogg!
What stops Google from total control?
This is a serious question.
Google owns both WebM and VP8 - their only licensing obligation is to keep some of the source viewable.
Google now defines how VP8 encoded and decoding works and the quality, etc.
Google defines what specific features and version of WebM and VP8 that Chrome will support.
No matter how 'open' WebM and VP8 are now, what Google says and what Google supports is now the 'standard' and will be the single controlling voice for all video on the web.
This is more power than any other company has tried to obtain.
What prevents Google from changing WebM so that in two years, it breaks compatibility with previous versions, rendering hardware absolete?
What prevents Google from defining the quality of the codecs used for their own purposes?
What prevents Google from getting this accepted by the world, and then adding in advertising data and decoders that report information back to Google?
I understand that WebM and VP8 are 'open', but if Google only supports what they want, they are the sole voice in the format and standard, as anything outside their 'supported' guidelines will fail to work in Chrome/Android/etc.
Right now, this looks like another Google project that uses the work of others and then takes control and sells it at a good thing because it was based in open software.
Even Microsoft with WMV turned it over to a standards body to oversee the format that ensures compatibility and consistency - something I don't see Google doing, and WMV is a closed format 'standard' aka VC1. At least we are assured that a VC1 encoded BluRay Disc will always play, as Microsoft can't monkey with VC1 and destroy compatibility or mess up quality, etc.
I am seriously looking for some good answers, as this has me a bit scared to the level of control Google is getting if people blindly accept this.
...run only what Google wants you to, not what YOU want to. How ironic.
PlayOgg had such a lilt to it.
It's fairly well known that's bollocks. It's fairly well known that people who say what you have just done are lying out their arsehole and know it.
What is far closer to the truth is that VP8 (the video codec in WebM) was DESIGNED to *avoid* H.264 patents. Any patents WebM is infringing h.264 is infringing and neither MPEG-LA nor Google will indemnify you against them.
h.264 literally lifts the algorithms straight from MPEG2, this is a well known fact. However, those algorithms lifted are not under patent, just like the algorithms in WebM that are common to h.264.
It seems necessarty here to insert a reminder about what H.264 is and where it comes from:
H.264/MPEG-4 AVC is a block-oriented motion-compensation-based codec standard developed by the ITU-T Video Coding Experts Group (VCEG) together with the ISO/IEC Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG). It was the product of a partnership effort known as the Joint Video Team (JVT).
H.264 is perhaps best known as being one of the codec standards for Blu-ray Discs; all Blu-ray players must be able to decode H.264. It is also widely used by streaming internet sources, such as videos from Vimeo, YouTube and the iTunes Store, web software such as the Adobe Flash Player and Microsoft Silverlight, broadcast services for DVB and SBTVD, direct-broadcast satellite television services, cable television services, and real-time videoconferencing.
The H.264 video format has a very broad application range that covers all forms of digital compressed video from low bit-rate Internet streaming applications to HDTV broadcast and Digital Cinema applications with nearly lossless coding. With the use of H.264, bit rate savings of 50% or more are reported. For example, H.264 has been reported to give the same Digital Satellite TV quality as current MPEG-2 implementations with less than half the bitrate, with current MPEG-2 implementations working at around 3.5 Mbit/s and H.264 at only 1.5 Mbit/s.
The Digital Video Broadcast project (DVB) approved the use of H.264/AVC for broadcast television in late 2004.
The Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) standards body in the United States approved the use of H.264/AVC for broadcast television in July 2008, although the standard is not yet used for fixed ATSC broadcasts within the United States. It has also been approved for use with the more recent ATSC-M/H (Mobile/Handheld) standard, using the AVC and SVC portions of H.264.
The CCTV (Close Circuit TV) or Video Surveillance market has included the technology in many products. The introduction of H.264 to the video surveillance industry has meant the ability to stream high resolution at lower bit rates has substantially improved. H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, List of video services using H.264/MPEF-4_AVC
The implications for the global hardware manufactuer - the OEM - are clear:
Whatever the fate of WebM, you will be licensing H.264 and HVEC/H.265 across your entire product line. This is not a problem for companies the size of Mitsubishi Electric, Panasonic, Philips, JVC, Sony, or Samsung.
Not a problem for AMD, ARM, Apple, Intel, NVIDIA or Microsoft.
Google is the new kid on the block. HVEC should be final in about two or three years.
HEVC aims to substantially improve coding efficiency compared to AVC High Profile, i.e. reduce bitrate requirements by half with comparable image quality, probably at the expense of increased computational complexity. Depending on the application requirements, HEVC should be able to trade off computational complexity, compression rate, robustness to errors and processing delay time.
HEVC is targeted at next-generation HDTV displays and content capture systems which feature progressive scanned frame rates and display resolutions from QVGA (320x240) up to 1080p and Ultra HDTV (7680x4320), as well as improved picture quality in terms of noise level, color gamut and dynamic range. High Efficiency Video Coding
The implications for the content provider are also clear.
WebM is not a theatrical production codec.
It is not a theatrical, broadcast, cable or sattelite distribution codec. It does not support content protection.
The H.264 base Netflix client is baked into every HDTV set, video player and video game console sold in the U.S.
There are clients for th
As a video host the concerns would be audience, quality, easy access to the tools and revenue. Cost is not an issue if the revenue covers it. Ideology is rarely a factor.
If I have an open standard without the tools to produce it, then it is nothing more than writing in a document. Content authoring tools needs to support producing things like WebM and Ogg, and I am yet to see anything available to Final Cut Pro or Adobe Premiere that will do that. If there is something that requires going to some obscure web site and requiring me to compile the tool, then it is not worth the time. If I am making money despite the H.264 tax then why would I want to make more effort than necessary, especially when the alternatives don't provide the quality expected.
Don't get me wrong, I am a big supported of open source, its just that sometimes you need to accept that what drives a business to make certain decisions is not ideologies, but rather the ability to reach the customers and bring in the money.
If you want you new video format standard to be taken seriously, then you need to make it easy to use in content creation and all mainstream video playback creation. If you don't do the work, then people aren't going to take the time or take you seriously.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Your definition of "open standard" is wrong: consider the following:
So far I agree with you. However, in the U.S.A and Japan and other jurisdictions that believe in software patents, it would be illegal for me to sell or distribute this program, because someone might actually use it, and then they would have to pay MPEG-LA their patent license dues. :-)
So you may call it an "open standard" if it can be implemented, but I believe most people implement standards with the purpose of actually being allowed to also use the resulting computer program executable
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
it's a positive step for free software, its users, and everyone who uses the Web.' ."
No, it's not. Google is trying to force the inferior codec, that's a loss for users and people using the web.
It forces content providers to release their content in yet another format, rather than the one established, widely implemented one, so it's a loss for them.
It it's larger at the same bitrate than h.264, therefore costing more bandwidth, so it's a loss for both users and providers.
It's an inferior codec, so I don't see how that's a positive step even for free software, you're pushing the inferior product, therefore pushing an inferior user experience, you're making life harder for content providers, you're costing them more bandwidth to stream, and you're associating free software with inferior products.
And the worst part is that this whole codec nonsense could have easily been avoided entirely simply by making the browser plug into its platforms video framework for codec support. QT on Mac, DX on Windows, and GStreamer on Linux. There, fixed, no worrying about codecs, the only caveat being that Linux distributors won't ship with the h.264 codec, but nothing stops the user from installing it themselves - and everyone wins, users and content providers get to enjopy the superior codec, providers pay less on streaming bandwidth, and browser vendors don't have to worry about codecs. Or we can pretend that shafting everyone involved and calling it freedom is a good thing. It certainly involves less work.
Over 20 Hardware vendors are working on WebM hardware acceleration right how, including Broadcom and Qualcomm.
Now figure in the amount the OEMs have invested in all those H.264 chips, along with the fact that all those consumer devices will have to be chunked (great for the environment) thanks to WebM killing the battery,
No, it means developers will have to support those devices until they fade out. Considering that most people replace their phone every 2-3 years anyway, that won't take too long. The only real problem here is if Apple refused to implement WebM even after hardware acceleration is available.
Three years ago, H.264 support on mobile devices was all but non-existent as well. There is no reason why WebM can't be just as widely distributed as H.264 in another three years if industry decides to support it. This isn't like Ogg Vorbis and Theora where the only supporters were FLOSS hobbyist. It is being supported by the biggest internet video company in the world, the biggest mobile chipset manufacturers in the world, the second and third biggest browsers in the world, and the second biggest (and fastest growing) mobile OS in the world. Hell even Flash is supporting it. Furthermore, unlike MP3->Vorbis transition, users won't have to do a thing to start using it; it will be entirely transparent to them.
Yes, it is possible that it won't succeed, but it is also very possible that it will, and if it does the web will be better off for. I don't understand the hostility that people have towards attempting to make things better, just because there is a chance it will fail.
It's Google, what you're describing isn't their style at all. They're one of the biggest proponents of open source technologies, and they're always giving things away. Heck they gave away their cell phone operating system, they didn't have to do that. It's made a lot of companies wealthy, and none of them had to do the original research to develop it.
Google gets collateral benefits from everything they do. WebM is going to benefit Youtube, among other things, because it's a free and open format free of any potential patent trolling.
Giving away the source code for a technology doesn't give them any control over it. Instead, it actually gives them less control, e.g. Microsoft could take WebM source code and make their own incompatible format say WMMX and thrust that upon users of IE7/8/9 instead of WebM or H.264 thereby forcing 50 - 60% of web users to view their format instead. Then Google's YouTube would have to support Microsoft's format, if they want to reach half of all web users.
See my point?
Google just wanted to help, you're just paranoid.
I wish I had mod points!
"Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."
I am getting really tired of arguments like the above, which are total nonsense.
The idea that the masses would just ditch YouTube because they have to install a plugin is nonsensical. It has so much content and such branding that it is simply not realistic, there is no current competitor to YouTube on the web. The closest thing, was Google Video!
If people have to do a one-time install of a plugin to watch YouTube in IE - they will.
Saying that people will ditch YouTube because they have to install a plugin, is like saying people will ditch their favorite cereal because you change the box art. It just IS NOT going to happen. You may lose a couple, gain a couple, but on the whole the impact will be immaterial.
How did Google kill open video? It's possible that WebM won't matter and therefore Google's action won't help to open video, but it won't kill it, because we never had any alternative for open video anyway.
The scenario that would have worked was Google helping to get the video tag widespread with h.264 as a base, in the meantime readying mobile hardware that could support WebM would be built up, and Chrome marketshare would continue to grow...
Then, in around four years, Google throws the switch. No Flash on Chrome, only WebM playback in video tag on Android. Now suddenly there are enough devices and browsers to make it compelling for producers to render to WebM.
I would say just like they are doing now, but they aren't dropping support for h.264 anywhere since Flash still supports it. So basically all they are doing now is killing the video tag in addition to making it hopeless that WebM will see wide adoption.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Why would Google produce video in both WebM and H.264?
Why not ask them - today YouTube does exactly that.
The likely way forward for YouTube is that they'll start transitioning to WebM and phase out H.264
They cannot because of IE and iOS marketshare.
perhaps just producing a low quality H.264 encode for the current crop devices that can only play H.264 with no hope of a software upgrade
Did you forget we are talking about YouTube? No-one will care.
What makes you think that Adobe won't add WebM support to Flash?
They will. What makes you think that matters? Again, producers will still put out video in h.264. Flash supports a lot of other codecs that are not commonly used.
iOS devices aren't all that important in the grand scheme of things.
You haven't looked at percentages for browsing video in mobile devices I take it.
If iOS devices "were not that important" it would not the be the case that MANY sites would have transitioned to feeding them h.264 video directly. They have. There are north of 90 million iPhones around now, probably more Touches, and nearly 17 million iPads that all see heavy use in browsing and watching video. Realistically content producers cannot ignore this.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Adobe: makes tools.
And Flash. Which needs Adobe's tools to develop for... you are right about Adobe being all about tools and utterly clueless about how they are trying to make sure people keep using Adobe tools. Things that are not Flash reduce the need for using Adobe tools in
production.
Google: doesn't care about money, or anything short-term, really.
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA.
Any advertising firm cares very much about money and Google as done nothing recently showing any concern for the future of the industry, only the future growth of Google.
Apple: wants complete control over their own walled garden. They don't care what people do outside, but inside, they need to play by Apple's rules. Apple sells the Apple experience, and that does not include porn, third-party plugins, third-party dev tools, or anything that they consider too slow.
Except that web technologies that APPLE has pushed heavily are totally open!! OOPS.
There is really no good reason for them to not like WebM, other than the fact that they already invested a lot in H.264.
Except that mobile device experience with a non-hardware accelerated codec will suck, both in terms of performance and battery life. But companies can't possibly be doing something in a users best interests, impossible!
Mozilla: They're just not going to pay for H.264
Which is fine, there's no need to if they just let the video tag flow through to OS support.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley