Google statement on codecs • Hacker News Board

Re: Google statement on codecs

#21

Post by rdtsc » Mon, Jul 30, 2012, 3:00 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.

> 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.

Re: Google statement on codecs

#22

Post by wmf » Mon, Jul 30, 2012, 3:14 PM UTC

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

Re: Google statement on codecs

#23

Post by wmf » Mon, Jul 30, 2012, 3:14 PM UTC

spot wrote: post #18

kalleboo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

Does the A4/A5 support WebM?

Re: Google statement on codecs

#24

Post by Ihavenoname » Mon, Jul 30, 2012, 3:35 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 think people would be enthusiastic about the larger file sizes and extra visual noise with VP8 in fast moving videos or those with a lot of contrast comaired to H264 Encode times were much longer too. My experience may not be typical but I could not get my videos to look as good even with much larger files. I could not find anyone with real world video using it. Unless they have made some big advances recently I just don't understand how they can claim parity.

Re: Google statement on codecs

#25

Post by jfb » Mon, Jul 30, 2012, 4:40 PM UTC

spot wrote: post #18

kalleboo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

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.

Re: Google statement on codecs

#26

Post by ksec » Mon, Jul 30, 2012, 4:45 PM UTC

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

Re: Google statement on codecs

#27

Post by ksec » Mon, Jul 30, 2012, 4:53 PM UTC

jfb wrote: post #25

spot wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why can't apple hand off vp8 to silicon? http://www.webmproject.org/hardware/

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 impleme…

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.

Re: Google statement on codecs

#28

Post by snowwrestler » Mon, Jul 30, 2012, 6:19 PM UTC

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).

Re: Google statement on codecs

#29

Post by nl » Mon, Jul 30, 2012, 11:37 PM UTC

rdtsc wrote: post #21

nl wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

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.

Re: Google statement on codecs

#30

Post by ZeroGravitas » Wed, Aug 01, 2012, 8:22 AM 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

The Google WebRTC team argue that differential between encoding and decoding video at web-conferencing rates is negligible compared with having the screen turned on and sending and receiving data so I wouldn't accept that argument from Apple without some numbers.