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.
Google's web video ambitions bump into hard reality
11–20 of 37 posts
Re: Google's web video ambitions bump into hard reality
#12It 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 non-horrible e.g. for Netflix users to find and use. * Create a new video codec? You have to add support to Flash/Silverlight before most people can use it * Want to put video online? If any of it's for sale, you have to build out a full Flash/Silverlight stack to support it.
That's expensive and as we've seen it's a huge security hazard and generally holds technology back – e.g. neither Flash nor Silverlight play back H.264 anywhere near as efficiently as the native OS despite having years to add decent hardware acceleration.
From the perspective of a web-focused company like Google, that's a lot of downside with no advantage. Even Microsoft and Adobe aren't interested in doing much with Flash and Silverlight and they're expensive to keep alive as niche media playback platforms. That's why we ended up with EME in the first place – it allows every single component except for the actual decryption to use the standard web stack.
If Firefox shipped Daala tomorrow, YouTube could start serving it next week rather than wait a year or two for it to go through the release cycle at Adobe/Microsoft.
If a video site needs to support both open and encumbered media (a given for all but a few markets) this allows them to keep every single part the same except for the encryption stage without a degraded or inconsistent user experience.
DRM won't go away overnight, so we're going to see sites selling both and making that process as easy as possible will hasten the time where we can see an actual market response to restrictions – both from consumers being less willing to pay full price for encumbered content and from sites who are tired of DRM licensing eating into their revenue. If that's as simple as unchecking the “Use EME” box, you'll see a lot more willingness to experiment that you will if it's “Change our video production and serving pipeline away from the expensive Flash Media Server setup we already paid for”.
Re: Google's web video ambitions bump into hard reality
#13If the test of a technology/codec is its ability to transport pornography; I'd say this is being successfully adopted via webm. http://blog.4chan.org/post/81896300203/webm-support-on-4chan
It's also replacing GIF in places and seems to nullify the claims that missing support in Safari or IE is a problem. My gut feeling is that Microsoft and Apple have competitive (destroy Google) or ulterior motives and financial gains in mind in terms of actively blocking WebM. This stinks of anti-competitive behavior in need of regulation. If Google had actually acted on their plans to push WebM and phase out H.264 it could have either destroyed YouTube (highly unlikely) or fixed the video codec situation.
Re: Google's web video ambitions bump into hard reality
#14It 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.
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.
Re: Google's web video ambitions bump into hard reality
#15If the test of a technology/codec is its ability to transport pornography; I'd say this is being successfully adopted via webm. http://blog.4chan.org/post/81896300203/webm-support-on-4chan
It's also replacing GIF in places and seems to nullify the claims that missing support in Safari or IE is a problem. My gut feeling is that Microsoft and Apple have competitive (destroy Google) or ulterior motives and financial gains in mind in terms of actively blocking WebM. This stinks of anti-competitive behavior in need of regulation. If Google had actually acted on their plans to push WebM and phase out H.264 i…
You have it completely backwards there. It is Google that has the ulterior motive/financial gain in not adopting H.264/H.265. They are the only major player who has not adopted it. And if Google decided to force WebM in YouTube it would absolutely destroy it.
This whole weird misadventure Google has embarked on will be abandoned sometime soon. There simply is nothing to be gained from it.
Re: Google's web video ambitions bump into hard reality
#16If the test of a technology/codec is its ability to transport pornography; I'd say this is being successfully adopted via webm. http://blog.4chan.org/post/81896300203/webm-support-on-4chan
It's also replacing GIF in places and seems to nullify the claims that missing support in Safari or IE is a problem. My gut feeling is that Microsoft and Apple have competitive (destroy Google) or ulterior motives and financial gains in mind in terms of actively blocking WebM. This stinks of anti-competitive behavior in need of regulation. If Google had actually acted on their plans to push WebM and phase out H.264 i…
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.
Re: Google's web video ambitions bump into hard reality
#17Every couple of years we seem to have to re-learn the lessons from the VHS versus BetaMax wars.
Re: Google's web video ambitions bump into hard reality
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also replacing GIF in places and seems to nullify the claims that missing support in Safari or IE is a problem. My gut feeling is that Microsoft and Apple have competitive (destroy Google) or ulterior motives and financial gains in mind in terms of actively blocking WebM. This stinks of anti-competitive behavior in need of regulation. If Google had actually acted on their plans to push WebM and phase out H.264 i…
You have it completely backwards there. It is Google that has the ulterior motive/financial gain in not adopting H.264/H.265. They are the only major player who has not adopted it. And if Google decided to force WebM in YouTube it would absolutely destroy it. This whole weird misadventure Google has embarked on will be abandoned sometime soon. There simply is nothing to be gained from it.
Codec licensing costs are an impediment to innovation in the video space and another example of controlling the market and keeping out newcomers without deep pockets. If you had only two brands of paper that licensed the one paper+pen "technology" (H.26*) available and anyone with an alternative pen+paper combination that isn't out to make money only with licensing fees is kept out of the market - that's the situation we are in with video codecs. Regulatory bodies play a vital role but fail by sometimes overregulating and in this case ignoring abuse of power. The widespread myth spread by ISPs that want to invest once and milk the network as long as possible while maintaining it as little as possible is also the reason why we haven't managed to declare internet connectivity as just another utility like water and electricity. To think that those broadband companies got tax breaks and want tax breaks while searching for loopholes to prevent municipal fiber installations...
Re: Google's web video ambitions bump into hard reality
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also replacing GIF in places and seems to nullify the claims that missing support in Safari or IE is a problem. My gut feeling is that Microsoft and Apple have competitive (destroy Google) or ulterior motives and financial gains in mind in terms of actively blocking WebM. This stinks of anti-competitive behavior in need of regulation. If Google had actually acted on their plans to push WebM and phase out H.264 i…
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 by everyone what are the arguments for requiring licensing fees?
Re: Google's web video ambitions bump into hard reality
#20Earlier 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.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. MPEG LA sue Google for a technology invented/bought(and patented) by Google? Is that it? I think I need more details to understand what you truly mean.