Google statement on codecs

51 points by vamsee 13 years ago | 30 comments

zdw 13 years ago |

"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 13 years ago | |

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 13 years ago | | |

why can't apple hand off vp8 to silicon?

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

ZeroGravitas 13 years ago | | |

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.

Ihavenoname 13 years ago | |

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.

dochtman 13 years ago |

Also, Ericsson, in a different thread.

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg04938...

No other companies so far, apparently.

kalleboo 13 years ago | |

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 13 years ago | | |

silicon. please.

LeonidasXIV 13 years ago | |

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.

martinsievers 13 years ago |

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 13 years ago | |

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 13 years ago | | |

> 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.

jonknee 13 years ago | | |

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

ZeroGravitas 13 years ago | |

VP8 is already used in Skype, and half the tech for the audio codec Opus came from Skype's Silk codec so it's not a forgeone conclusion. Possibly Microsoft control changes that equation, but clearly Skype thought this was the future when it was a standalone entity.

gingerjoos 13 years ago | |

> But considering WebRTC could potentially ruin much of Skype's business

How?

Apparently Microsoft plans to use WebRTC in the Skype Web client [1]

[1] http://gigaom.com/2012/06/26/skype-webrtc-web-client/

TazeTSchnitzel 13 years ago | | |

Yep. Skype's selling point isn't its uniqueness. There are plenty of reasonable VoIP options out there, of course. Skype's selling point is its established user base. WebRTC can only help that.

mtgx 13 years ago | |

Skype is already using VP8. But I'd really hate it if Microsoft (or Apple) acted like assholes and tried to force h.264 or some other proprietary technology into yet another web protocol. Web technologies should be free of patent-encumbered technologies. It's the only way you can ensure its sustainability and you don't run into patent problems a few years down the road.

simonster 13 years ago |

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...)

vibrunazo 13 years ago |

The website is down, here's cache:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&newwi...

ksec 13 years ago |

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

mtgx 13 years ago |

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 13 years ago | |

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."

rdtsc 13 years ago | |

> 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...

wmf 13 years ago |

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

snowwrestler 13 years ago |

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).