
Google statement on codecs - vamsee
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg04953.html
======
zdw
"We believe that legacy hardware for hardware video encode and decode
acceleration should all be thrown out and everyone should embrace our new
standard which has no such support"

Yeah, that'll fly.

~~~
kalleboo
I don't know why this got downvoted - we all know it's true, even if we don't
want it to be.

Does anyone really believe Apple are going to support a codec that they can't
hand off to power-saving silicone?

edit: it was gray when I replied

~~~
spot
why can't apple hand off vp8 to silicon?

<http://www.webmproject.org/hardware/>

~~~
jfb
Why should they, if they have to support H.264 encode/decode in hardware
already? WebM hardware support would be an extra cost, and you'd better
believe that they've got those parts spec'd down to the fraction of a cent.
WebM offers nothing to Apple -- certainly not video quality, and they
participate in the MPEGLA patent pools, so they're not paying for the
licensing.

If WebM became a mandatory codec, they'd implement it, but they'd prefer not
to.

~~~
ksec
Being in Patents Pools doesn't mean they dont need to pay licensing. It just
means they are on both paying and receiving ends. Since there are thousands of
patents on H.264, Apple are only recieiving a tiny amount compared to what
they paid out.

------
dochtman
Also, Ericsson, in a different thread.

[http://www.ietf.org/mail-
archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg04938...](http://www.ietf.org/mail-
archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg04938.html)

No other companies so far, apparently.

~~~
kalleboo
As expected of a telecoms company - they want to use the standards that are
already implemented in silicone.

Has anyone blogged the feasibility of hardware acceleration of Opus? I know
they have an integer implementation already, but it seems we still don't even
have Vorbis support anywhere...

~~~
spot
silicon. please.

------
martinsievers
I read the thread, no responses from Apple nor Microsoft a.t.m.

But considering WebRTC could potentially ruin much of Skype's business, a
cynical guess would be that they won't make this easy.

~~~
nl
Skype's value isn't a particular technical implementation, it's the install
base, directory and related network effects.

WebRTC is likely to _increase_ Skype's business (assuming the do a WebRTC
implementation), at the expense of traditional telecoms and conference call
providers.

~~~
rdtsc
> WebRTC is likely to increase Skype's business (assuming the do a WebRTC
> implementation),

How so? Are their servers for sale and somehow they can license them so web
clients can conference via them. Otherwise I don't get. Or are you assuming
they will buckle and would be forced to implement the WebRTC protocol.

~~~
nl
Skype makes money from call-out (to traditional telecom services), call-in
(give a traditional telephone number to a Skype address) and additional
features (conference calls).

WebRTC increases the potential market for all of those things by decreasing
the friction - people won't even need to install the Skype client anymore.

------
simonster
So when is Google dropping H.264 in Chrome, as they indicated they would a
year and a half ago? ([http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/html-video-codec-
support-in...](http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/html-video-codec-support-in-
chrome.html))

------
vibrunazo
The website is down, here's cache:

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&newwi...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&output=search&sclient=psy-
ab&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmail-
archive%2Fweb%2Frtcweb%2Fcurrent%2Fmsg04953.html&oq=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=7b5e0dd64d88d370&biw=1366&bih=667)

------
ksec
I could understand reasons for their support for VP8. But "superior quality"
is definitely not a strength on VP8 side.

------
mtgx
I was hoping Google would adopt Mozilla's Opus codec for audio, but I can't
believe they are actually going to do it. Well done, Google!

Will Opus replace Vorbis in WebM as well, though?

~~~
quonn
This pretty much confirms what I suspected earlier (
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4274757> ), namely that licensing issues
are the reason for Google not having committed to it, yet. And as they said
they recommend it if and only if the "remaining licensing issues can be
resolved."

------
wmf
Looks like Mozilla's talking about WebM while implementing hardware-
accelerated H.264. <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=714408>

------
snowwrestler
I feel like the assertion that VP8 is royalty-free needs to be taken with some
skepticism given that (to my knowledge) it has not been tested in court. If
Google is willing to indemnify the whole Web from liability that might be
created if VP8 is found to infringe patents, then I'd say, let's make that the
standard. I don't think they've done this though (or even could).

