21–30 of 37 posts
Right now HEVC encoding is slow as molasses as is VP9. If Google improves libvpx encoding and pushes it into the same ballpark as libx264 there's a much higher chance of adoption. VP8 encoding is also slow and I don't know why Google can't manage to speed up libvpx with a team of experts vs the libx264 dev team.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Patent-free video is good for the web, and makes it more likely to get broad support. So good for Google. DRM in HTML5 means that you don't need Flash/Silverlight to play Netflix, etc. Which means that you can support video more easily. So good for Google.
Except that VP9 isn't patent-free. MPEG LA and other patent holders simply haven't bothered to flex their muscles because VP9 adoption is pretty much non-existant. That's why I much prefer H.265. It is a defacto standard.
> In March 2013, MPEG LA announced that it had dropped its effort to form a VP8 patent pool after reaching an agreement with Google to license the patents that it alleges "may be essential" for VP8 implementation, and granted Google the right to sub-license these patents to any third-party user of VP8 or VP9.[26][27] This deal has cleared the way for possible MPEG standardisation as its royalty-free internet video codec, after Google submitted VP8 to the MPEG committee in January 2013.
It seems odd that Google would expend effort to make web video patent-free while at the same time pushing for closed-source DRM in HTML5.
Patent-free video is good for the web, and makes it more likely to get broad support. So good for Google. DRM in HTML5 means that you don't need Flash/Silverlight to play Netflix, etc. Which means that you can support video more easily. So good for Google.
You still need a closed-source DRM module, as a replacement for Flash or Silverlight. It doesn't make it any easier in that respect. It does provide a standard API between such DRM modules, though.
But yes, this is good for Google, as it does own one such DRM module (Widevine). So Google can push its own DRM and does not need to rely on third parties like Flash or Silverlight.
It seems odd that Google would expend effort to make web video patent-free while at the same time pushing for closed-source DRM in HTML5.
You have to look at it in context. The alternative to HTML5 EME is not un-DRMed content but rather the entire commercial video industry mandating non-web technology. That leads to vendor lock-in, security problems and increases the barriers to entry for everyone involved in video: * Cool device? Now you need to convince (read pay) Adobe or Microsoft to port Flash/Silverlight to it or develop a native app and make it…
This is still true with EME. EME is just an API, you still need the closed-source proprietary DRM module itself, the CDM. You would need to convince/pay one of the very short list of such modules to port it to your device, and you would need to do so with a module that the content creators support.
The same is true for the other things in that list. EME simply does not even try to solve those problems - it just provides a standard HTML5 API to what remains a closed-source proprietary DRM module. There are very few companies with such modules - Adobe, Microsoft, and Google are the prominent ones. Without partnering with at least one of those, you can't bring DRM'd content using EME to a new device.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Patent-free video is good for the web, and makes it more likely to get broad support. So good for Google. DRM in HTML5 means that you don't need Flash/Silverlight to play Netflix, etc. Which means that you can support video more easily. So good for Google.
> DRM in HTML5 means that you don't need Flash/Silverlight to play Netflix, etc. Which means that you can support video more easily. You still need a closed-source DRM module, as a replacement for Flash or Silverlight. It doesn't make it any easier in that respect. It does provide a standard API between such DRM modules, though. But yes, this is good for Google, as it does own one such DRM module (Widevine). So Googl…
I wish the video companies didn't insist on it, but if we need to have something to keep them happy, I'd rather it was a simple decoder than a whole plugin runtime.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both of those companies have been around long enough to remember the hell caused by there being a bunch of competing codecs in the 90s before the two main bodies that make video standards agreed to go the same direction. Google is the new kid that wants them to try something they have already watch fail again.
If you want one standard for everybody it better not exclude innovators without deep pockets and require licensing fees to use the standard everybody's supposed to use. The world doesn't just consist of TV stations, video production workstations and iPhones or Samsung TVs all licensing H.26*. Participators in creating a technical standard must be compensated for the their work but if it's a standard for everyday use…
Overall the licensing structure and costs are reasonable IMO except that software decoders that are given away for free shouldn't incur licensing costs.
There is an odd contrast between this article and the announcement in January of broad support for VP9 from hardware manufacturers: As Google announced today, however, virtually all major hardware vendors will soon support VP9 natively in their products and allow Google’s YouTube to stream HD content up to 4K directly to computers, TVs and mobile devices. These new hardware partners include ARM, Broadcom, Intel, LG,…
Correct me if I am wrong on the licensing issue. And BTW VP9 / 10 isn't patents free, Google is just paying for it and you get to use it for free.
And aside of patents issues, VP10 doesn't stand against HEVC in quality. VP9 quality never got close to H.264 AVC best encoder. And even VP10 will come close or exceed it, HEVC is here already. VPx ( The one after VP10, For some reason they dont call it VP11 ) will hopefully rival HEVC.
I think HEVC, or H.265 is moving to much better terms in licensing. Instead of requiring license fees for Software decoder, They are collecting a small fees for Hardware decoder / encoder. Since every Mobile devices will be getting it and devices are going to ship units in billions in the life time of the codec. It is going to get back all the investment. Meanwhile a free ( in price ) software decoder can be included…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Patent-free video is good for the web, and makes it more likely to get broad support. So good for Google. DRM in HTML5 means that you don't need Flash/Silverlight to play Netflix, etc. Which means that you can support video more easily. So good for Google.
Except that VP9 isn't patent-free. MPEG LA and other patent holders simply haven't bothered to flex their muscles because VP9 adoption is pretty much non-existant. That's why I much prefer H.265. It is a defacto standard.