

WebM - an open web media project - tswicegood
http://www.webmproject.org/

======
mbrubeck
Mozilla has been working with Google on this for some time now, but we haven't
been able to talk about it in public until now.* Some of the developers from
the Theora project are also working with Mozilla and Google to implement and
improve VP8. Firefox builds are available today:

<http://nightly.mozilla.org/webm/>

One of the most important parts here is that Google owns the patent rights to
VP8, and is licensing them to the public under a royalty-free grant -- but the
grant doesn't apply to anyone who files a patent suit _against_ VP8, which
means the patents are still useful for defensive purposes.

* _This is, of course, part of the outcome Mozilla hoped for from not supporting the non-free H.264 format._

~~~
orblivion
Is there the theoretical possibility that Google could turn around and use the
patent offensively? Rescind their grant? Or are we all now guaranteed safe to
use it?

~~~
mbrubeck
The license includes a _"perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge,
royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license."_
\- <http://www.webmproject.org/license/software/>

You'll have to ask a lawyer whether it's truly irrevocable, but clearly that's
the intention.

~~~
smallblacksun
There is nothing a contract can say that a good enough lawyer can't get out
of, but there is no reason to expect that Google would try in this case.

------
jmillikin
This is absolutely outstanding news. Google gets some flack for privacy (some
deserved, some not), but it's undeniable that they care deeply about the
health of the Web.

" _a container format based on a subset of the Matroska media container_ "

I wonder what reasons they have for not using Ogg, or at least real Matroska?
I notice their container format doesn't support subtitles, and is "undecided"
on tags. Why on earth would they drop such important functionality, especially
when every other modern container supports them?

It would be nice if Google and Mozilla add support for VP8 in Ogg or Matroska,
so users can continue to use existing processing tools for web video.

e: Looks like there's already an Ogg mapping for VP8 at <
<http://people.collabora.co.uk/~slomo/webm/ogg-vp8.pdf> >

~~~
pkaler
"Google gets some flack for privacy (some deserved, some not), but it's
undeniable that they care deeply about the health of the Web."

That's ridiculous. Smart competitors commoditize complements. Google's goal is
to commoditize content and content players. When cash stops exchanging hands
for content it starts exchanging hands for advertising. This is a strategic
move by Google, not an altruistic move.

Say hello to your new master, same as the old master.

------
ZeroGravitas
Basic tech is Matroska container (at least "based on") + Vorbis audio + VP8
video.

Biggest news imho, Adobe Flash Player is listed as a supporting software, but
I can't see any details yet. Pretty good list of supporters altogether
actually:

<http://www.webmproject.org/about/supporters/>

~~~
weixiyen
The flash support is absolutely key to this thing being adopted. If I'm a
video company, I'd bet the future on VP8 and HTML5 with Flash to support older
browsers.

~~~
PanMan
Why VP8 instead of h264? VP8 will bring you firefox, which does support flash.
h264 brings you i(Phone|Pod|Pad) and other hardware. Am I missing something?

~~~
weixiyen
Well I'd make the bet that Apple will eventually support WebM, namely because
of Youtube (because I'm betting Google encodes Youtube videos in VP8).

VP8 has the best chance of becoming the HTML5 video standard since Mozilla
flat out refuses h.264, yet Apple and MS have yet to publicly suggest refusal
VP8.

The iPad and iPhone won't be the only players in the game. Android is getting
more popular, and if Google releases a tablet that plays WebM youtube videos,
I don't see why Apple wouldn't try to support it as well.

------
trevorturk
Does it means something that I don't see Apple on this page?

<http://www.webmproject.org/about/supporters/>

~~~
judofyr
Interesting. With both Chrome, Firefox and Opera supporting it, there will
still be plenty of options for viewing WebM on OS X though. I wonder what will
happen to Safari if WebM gets popular?

~~~
bruceboughton
More interesting is Mobile Safari.

------
andybak
The interesting question for me is whether existing mobile hardware can
accelerate this in any way - i.e. through the ARM Neon extensions and similar.
Otherwise we will have to wait for a whole new generation of hardware if this
is going to make any dent in the mobile web.

~~~
mbrubeck
Both Mozilla and Google funded work to implement hardware-accelerated Theora
on mobile devices[1][2]. While I don't know of any similar efforts for VP8
yet, I'd guess that it is inevitable.

[1]: [http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2010/04/interesting-
ti...](http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2010/04/interesting-times-for-
video-on-web.html)

[2]: <http://blog.mjg.im/2010/04/16/theora-on-n900.html>

~~~
zokier
On2 was already developing hardware solutions (iirc they already had hw
encoder/decoder designs) for their codecs before G acquired them.

------
rmc
So, what does this mean for Apple? They're betting on H264 being the web video
codec. If YouTube is all in WebM and Firefox supports it, that's 60% of the
browser market and one of the largest video sites. Is this game over for H264?

------
mambodog
So, any bets on how long until litigation from the H.264 patent pool turns up?

~~~
saraid216
No bet.

[http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-20003895-265.html?tag=mnco...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-20003895-265.html?tag=mncol;txt)

~~~
robin_reala
Right, but the MPEG-LA’s strategy has always been to hint about possible
upcoming litigation while never actually launching a suit.

------
nuclear_eclipse
From the intro page:

 _a container format based on a subset of the Matroska media container_

Am I the only one who couldn't help laughing when reading that part?

------
Kilimanjaro
If you love the web, the web will love you back.

This is the kind of progress that makes me happy to tears.

------
not_an_alien
Awesome.

------
hackermom
We have a saying in Sweden, "the more chefs, the worse the soup". It kinda
embodies what I feel about _yet another attempt_ at squeezing something new in
through the door in hope of setting _the_ standard.

~~~
lftl
This _supposedly_ has a set of qualities nothing else out there has. Namely
its royalty free (excludes H.264) and is high quality (excludes Theora).

If those two claims hold true, VP8 has significantly more value than the
current options and should be the standard.

~~~
jon_dahl
Definitely. This is not "just another video codec" - it is significantly
better than any other open source video codec. That's a big deal.

And codecs are really really hard to create, for technical and legal reasons.
It's not like 5 new production-ready video codecs come up every year. We might
not see another credible open source codec for five years.

~~~
hackermom
You are entirely leaving out one very important factor when it comes to video,
and that is the video quality itself. Do you really think any user out there
except Richard Stallman will give a damned about the fact that the codec is
royalty free when the end-result might look worse than what they are enjoying
on the web now due to bandwidth constrains putting harsh limits on bitrates?
The answer is of course that it won't matter at all to them - they'll just be
annoyed.

