
Ogg objections - kierank
http://hardwarebug.org/2010/03/03/ogg-objections/
======
DarkShikari
The biggest aggravation is the fact that we have a container that is:

1\. Reasonably well-designed.

2\. Patent-free with a dozen free implementations.

3\. Widely-used, far more so than Ogg.

4\. General, with the ability to contain nearly any video, audio, or subtitle
format.

5\. Fully-featured, with the ability to compete effectively with MP4 and other
popular container formats.

6\. Supported by DivX as the replacement for AVI.

It's called Matroska. And practically everyone promoting Ogg _pretends that it
doesn't exist_.

My theory is that the difference is one of control. Having talked to many Ogg
evangelists, this seems to be the problem: Matroska _allows_ you to use video
and audio formats that Xiph doesn't like. Ogg does not. Therefore, Ogg is
"more free" because it _doesn't let you do what you want_. It's much the same
argument as GPL vs BSD: the GPL is "more free" because it places more
restrictions upon users/distributors of the software.

~~~
jmillikin

      It's called Matroska. And practically everyone promoting Ogg pretends that it doesn't exist.
    
      My theory is that the difference is one of control. Having talked to many Ogg evangelists, this seems to be the problem: Matroska allows you to use video and audio formats that Xiph doesn't like. Ogg does not.
    

Every Vorbis/Theora video I've _ever seen_ , which isn't distributed on the
web, is contained in Matroska. Ogg is the "default" because of Mozilla, not
due to some Xiph conspiracy. There are three reasons Matroska isn't more
heavily used:

1\. Ogg is the dominant format for free audio. I've tried to use Matroska for
storing audio (.mka), but most tools have poor or no support for it. I believe
a large part of this is because Matroska's metadata support is even more
poorly documented than Ogg's. At least Ogg has some de-facto standards for how
metadata should be included; Matroska,̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶f̶a̶r̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶I̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶
̶t̶e̶l̶l̶,̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶p̶l̶e̶t̶e̶l̶y̶ ̶f̶r̶e̶e̶-̶f̶o̶r̶m̶ ̶(̶a̶n̶d̶
̶t̶h̶u̶s̶ ̶u̶n̶u̶s̶a̶b̶l̶e̶)̶ has some standard tags, but few libraries can
read them. The Matroska developers should sit down and either a) document the
existing system or 2) figure out a new one. Then, help get support into common
media libraries such as GStreamer or TagLib. Once I can store audio in
Matroska, it's easier to encourage its use on the web.

2\. Mozilla doesn't like depending on platform libraries, even if they're
cross-platform, since history has shown that they tend to be more trouble than
they're worth. Look at the Mozilla C++ style guide; half of it is dedicated to
avoiding C++ features as simple as namespaces or exceptions because some
obscure platforms don't support them well. Therefore, they won't support
GStreamer or QuickTime, and support for any format has to be included in the
Mozilla repository directly.

3\. Since #1 means Ogg _must_ be supported, and #2 means there's a huge
disincentive to support more than the bare minimum of formats, Matroska is
seen as too much trouble to support. I think this won't change until more
users request it.

For what it's worth, here's Mark Pilgrim's opinion on Matroska, after I
requested at least a sentence or two be included in his new HTML 5 book (which
covers such unused fossils as AVI and XVid):

    
    
      > Could you add a paragraph on the Matroska[1][2] container format to
      > the list of containers?
    
      I could, but no browser supports it (even those that support
      Theora-in-Ogg), so there's little point. Then again, I do mention AVI,
      which no browser supports either, but that's mostly because I think
      most readers would be familiar with it. Few people have heard of MKV
      except Free Software hippies and movie pirates. :-)
    
      If it actually lands in Firefox or some other browser, I'll revisit
      this decision.

~~~
blasdel
Metadata support is ridiculously awful in [Matroska, OGM, FLAC, OGG], in
amounts increasing in that order.

If you want metadata to work consistently, use a MP4 / QT container. If you
want alternate tracks (for subtitles and audio) to work consistently, use
Matroska.

~~~
tl
> If you want alternate tracks (for subtitles and audio) to work consistently,
> use Matroska.

And avoid GStreamer-based players. Totem is absolutely horrible if the
subtitles are complicated (i.e. karaoke timing or multi-language). VLC seems
to get it right most of the time.

------
maggit

        Assuming it is true, it still does not alter the fact that Ogg is a bad format.
        Being free from patents does not magically make Ogg a good choice as file format.
        If all the standard formats are indeed covered by patents, the only proper
        solution is to design a new, good format which is not, this time hopefully
        avoiding the old mistakes.
    

Well, being free from patents can be a very good feature, and may very well
make this the _only_ \-- and therefore best -- available choice.

It might not be possible to make a _good_ format to replace it exactly due to
patents. Too many patents on obvious and necessary solutions exist.

However, I don't know the specifics. I would have liked a similar discussion
on the format which included patent concerns. Can anyone fill in? :)

~~~
sern
Just because their authors say that doesn't mean that it's true. Worse still,
no corporation is willing to perform a patent search because such an activity
could open a liability should it be discovered that something they already use
is covered by a patent they previously were unaware of.

The fact is that it is extremely difficult to implement any multimedia
application without running afoul of a patent. Rational developers will pick
the safest option, and that is to license the MPEG patents, which (I believe)
also offers submarine patent protection in that the MPEG-LA would be solely
liable for not finding them earlier should trouble arise.

The good news is that these patents are not enforceable worldwide, and the
first of them should start expiring (if they haven't already) within the next
few years.

~~~
freetard
Theora is VP3+few well documented modifications. Youtube for years and still
today used on2 codecs (through flash) which are all based on VP3 with
optimization. If Theora and therefore VP3 were patent encumbered so would be
all the codecs used by youtube, hulu, vimeo and all sites that use flash
video. Now if I had a patent on vp3, would I be crazy enough to wait for
theora to be successful in order to sue the hell out of everyone? Or would I
have already been suing google, adobe and friends?

That's what make patents in theora extremely unlikely IMO. That and the fact
that theora devs are extremely cautious on the matter, this is also the reason
why theora is not as good as it should be (avoiding patents at all price).

~~~
wmf
AFAIK YouTube used H.263, not VP6.

~~~
freetard
Except it did use VP6 and VP7.

~~~
yuvi
Flash has never supported VP7, and the only VP6 on youtube was on self-encoded
sponsored channels.

------
ZeroGravitas
I can't help but feel the ffmpeg guys, despite providing a great service to
the world, have got a real chip on their shoulder when it comes to all things
Ogg and Xiph.

Does he think the ranty tone really helps get his message across? At least
it's all written down in one place instead of sniped from the comments every
time it could be vaguely thought relevant.

See this recent argument (between _DonDiego_ and _Monty_ ) in the comment
section of a blog about Google and VP8, which I assume prompted this article:

[http://blog.gingertech.net/2010/02/20/googles-challenges-
of-...](http://blog.gingertech.net/2010/02/20/googles-challenges-of-freeing-
vp8#comment-4844)

~~~
DarkShikari
_I can't help but feel the ffmpeg guys, despite providing a great service to
the world, have got a real chip on their shoulder when it comes to all things
Ogg and Xiph._

They don't like things that are badly designed. This same chip applies equally
to a lot of other stuff, especially proprietary formats, like the utterly
atrocious and buggy RealVideo 10.

Xiph gets a double dose, however, because of the methods that Xiph uses to
market their bad technology. They have at times posted outright lies about
their software and then, once proven wrong, often refuse to recant. Example:
the Theora vs x264 PSNR comparison where they "accidentally" performed
measurement wrong, making x264 appear 2x worse.

They use the same techniques as many of the more evil commercial companies out
there, which annoys the hell out of people who disagree with such techniques.
ffmpeg devs believe that open source should be about honesty and good
technology, not lies and FUD. Xiph disagrees, believing that "the ends justify
the means", creating a practically unbridgeable gulf.

Thus Xiph has spent the last few years spreading absurd amounts of FUD about
everyone who they believe opposes them. They have managed to convince a
shocking number of people that "ffmpeg is illegal" and that you should use
their software instead. Ironically, almost all the FUD in the multimedia space
in recent years has come from people who claim to support "free software"!
Didn't we spend years criticizing Microsoft for the exact same thing?

And you wonder why people don't like them!

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Wasn't that PSNR comparison problem because of an ffmpeg bug?

And what evidence have you that it wasn't done "accidentally" (your scare
quotes). You're clearly wrong if you're implying they didn't retract that
claim, as they do so here, in an update to the original page:

<http://web.mit.edu/xiphmont/Public/theora/demo7.html>

You seem to be, in this very post, doing exactly what you accuse them of,
spreading FUD and lies about a competitor.

Maybe this feud goes way back, but you're not taking the moral high ground by
calling them liars and cheats.

~~~
DarkShikari
_Wasn't that PSNR comparison problem because of an ffmpeg bug?_

It was because of two bugs: an ffmpeg bug (signalling chroma positions wrong)
and a bug in their testing tool (which resampled the image, something that a
PSNR tester should never do for any reason).

 _You're clearly wrong if you're implying they didn't retract that claim, as
they do so here, in an update to the original page:_

Interesting, last time I looked they hadn't, but that's quite welcome then.
But of course this pattern has repeated itself a dozen times already.

~~~
aw3c2
That page was last updated about 6 months ago.

------
Avenger42
Something I discovered by accident: in the "Final Words" section, if you mouse
over the italic words "Ogg isn't bad, it's just different", they change to
"Ogg isn't dead, it's just resting".

I don't really understand the reason behind that.

~~~
maggit
"* isn't dead, it's just resting" is a reference to Monty Python's famous Dead
Parrot skit: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218>

By this the author means that "Ogg isn't bad, it's just different" is
essentially a lie, because the author means that Ogg is obviously bad.

~~~
Avenger42
Aha. The reference passed over my head. Slightly too young for Monty Python to
immediately spring to mind. (Now if it were a BtVS reference...)

I did accept his premise of "not bad, just different" because he laid out his
explanation below. Not catching the humor in the reference, I thought he was
trying to lay out a broader "Ogg is dead" theme that I didn't see any support
for.

------
sliverstorm
Oh god, it's like reading about LDAP all over again...

------
alilja
Also, no one uses Ogg.

~~~
kevingadd
<http://wiki.xiph.org/Games_that_use_Vorbis>

~~~
aw3c2
Don't forget archive.org, they are probably the biggest Vorbis and Theora user
out there.

~~~
blasdel
Except in the cases that they have lossless copies from the artist, it's all
transcoded crap, mostly from crappy MP3s.

Wikipedia's also a big user, and their stuff is almost exclusively transcoded
from other lossy codecs, because they care more about their self-righteousness
than worldly concerns like passable quality, much less the ability for any of
their users to decode it.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Anything I've looked at on Archive.org (mostly video but some audio) has the
original uploaded file plus trascodes into Ogg Theora and H.264. So even if it
is "transcoded crap", you're given the option of the original. Which makes
sense when you've got "archive" in your name.

Wikipedia may only serve free formats, but they'll make use of stuff from
Archive.org so you can click through to the original if it's there.

