Google statement on codecs • Hacker News Board

Re: Google statement on codecs

#11

Post by jonknee » Mon, Jul 30, 2012, 1:04 PM UTC

nl wrote: post #6

martinsievers wrote: post #2

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.

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.

Install base doesn't matter nearly as much when "installing" is just visiting a web page.

Re: Google statement on codecs

#12

Post by quonn » Mon, Jul 30, 2012, 1:12 PM UTC

mtgx wrote: post #10

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?

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."

Re: Google statement on codecs

#13

Post by LeonidasXIV » Mon, Jul 30, 2012, 1:40 PM UTC

dochtman wrote: post #7

Also, Ericsson, in a different thread. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg04938... No other companies so far, apparently.

From reading Wikipedia, the choice of G.719 sounds awful, since it needs licenses from not one but two companies and Ericsson pushing it sounds like something that would benefit them a lot.

Re: Google statement on codecs

#14

Post by kalleboo » Mon, Jul 30, 2012, 1:46 PM UTC

dochtman wrote: post #7

Also, Ericsson, in a different thread. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg04938... No other companies so far, apparently.

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...

Re: Google statement on codecs

#15

Post by zdw » Mon, Jul 30, 2012, 1:56 PM UTC

"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.

Re: Google statement on codecs

#16

Post by kalleboo » Mon, Jul 30, 2012, 2:19 PM UTC

zdw wrote: post #15

"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.

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

Re: Google statement on codecs

#17

Post by spot » Mon, Jul 30, 2012, 2:44 PM UTC

kalleboo wrote: post #14

dochtman wrote: post #7

Also, Ericsson, in a different thread. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg04938... No other companies so far, apparently.

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...

silicon. please.

Re: Google statement on codecs

#18

Post by spot » Mon, Jul 30, 2012, 2:50 PM UTC

kalleboo wrote: post #16

zdw wrote: post #15

"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.

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

why can't apple hand off vp8 to silicon?

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

Re: Google statement on codecs

#19

Post by simonster » Mon, Jul 30, 2012, 2:50 PM UTC

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...)

Re: Google statement on codecs

#20

Post by rdtsc » Mon, Jul 30, 2012, 2:56 PM UTC

mtgx wrote: post #10

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?

> I was hoping Google would adopt Mozilla's Opus codec for audio,

Is Opus Mozilla's codec? I didn't know that. I thought it was Xiph's with an effort to create an IETF draft for it.

Isn't it closer now to "Microsoft's codec" since it uses SILK (Skype's codec) for speech mode. Last time I looked at it I thought it was Xiph's codec with an effort do create an IETF standard...