Facebook Plunges Again
Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
Google announces WebM open media format, wins web video wars
With one big announcement, Google may have just settled the ongoing battle over the media format of choice for the open Web. At today's Google I/O conference, Google backed WebM, a new project that will attempt to offer a standard, open format for audio and video on the web. WebM is made up of the VP8 video codec, the Vorbis audio codec, and a container format based on Matroska. The code is already available for developers, and users can already watch WebM videos on YouTube.
Vorbis was already open source, and Google will open up VP8 under a BSD-style license, so anyone can use it without paying royalties. There's already a long list of companies signing on to support WebM, including Mozilla, Opera and Adobe -- TheNextWeb is even reporting that Microsoft will support WebM in Internet Explorer 9. Notice that Apple, which has a stake in the proprietary H.264 codec, doesn't appear on the list in Google's post.
Is the battle over web video finally over? Will we finally have one media format to rule them all (and in HTML5 bind them)?
Comments
16
Subscribe to commentsGenericMay 19th 2010 4:23PM
I am both surprised and delighted. Also keeping my fingers crossed and hope that future cameras would support these formats.
AsgaroMay 19th 2010 4:26PM
What does this mean for Safari users? :D
GenericMay 19th 2010 4:43PM
Who cares right now. For the time being Apple will be watching for its next move but in the long run it will submit to the open web. Apple cannot afford to ignore a big force like Google just because they have conflicting agendas. Eventually all of us will be using WebM because it is good enough and readily available just like JPEG is for still images. There is even one better aspect of WebM and that it is an open standard based on the FreeBSD licensed software.
KarlWMay 19th 2010 4:55PM
I wouldn't worry about it - Apple wants video on the web accessible to mobile devices as much as anybody. If this will let them do that quickly, I think they'll go for it.
Google (specifically Android) doesn't stand to profit directly from this, so I don't see why Apple would oppose integrating it back in to WebKit from Chromium.
PixelSlaveMay 19th 2010 5:10PM
If Apple supports it, you don't need to do anything.
If Apple doesn't, it's time for you to re-think whether to use Safari or not. Safari's market share is less than 5%. Even Opera (together with Opera Mini) gets more than 3%. IE, Firefox, Chrome, and Opera together represents about 95% of the web traffic. No one can help you if you insist on using a browser that refuses to support something all other major browsers support. Your position will be like the stubborn IE6 users today.
AsgaroMay 19th 2010 5:58PM
I don't use Safari, I was just interessed in knowing ;)
On a side note: yeah Google FTW! Again proves it a big but not an evil company. (Couldn't say from FB...)
Another question:
the container will be Matroska.
Does this mean that if you rightclick and choose "save movie as" it will be saved with an .MKV extension?
sRcMay 19th 2010 6:12PM
its based on a subset of the MKV spec, but it isnt exactly the same. its official extension is .webm
doesnt seem to add anything different to the container, so i think youd be able to play it the same as an MKV assuming your player has VP8 support
KarlWMay 19th 2010 6:14PM
No, it will have a .webm extension but from what I can tell that's just a renamed MKV.
I'm getting this from their FAQ, in case you're wondering where I pulled that from.
jsx92May 20th 2010 12:19AM
@PixelSlave: Apple's been at the forefront of standards support with Safari, even Mozilla can't keep up with them. But they're also almost never on board at the start with new tech like this, so it's no surprise, despite Apple's connection with h264... which, by the way, only two weeks ago Microsoft said was going to be the "only" supported HTML5 video format in IE9. So I think the fact that MS is on board with this only weeks later is more of a shocker than Apple not already being in.
Also, if you're still using IE (7 or 8) then you are still "using a browser that refuses to support something all other major browsers support." MSIE continues to be notorious for having far-less support for standards, the only reason you might not notice as much anymore is because people are creating frameworks to consolidate what does.
I'll eat my hat if the MSIE9 can match even 90% of WebKit or Gecko in terms of support for standards.
GenericMay 19th 2010 4:35PM
I am both thrilled and surprised! I was hoping Google would opensource the VP8 codec but the way they presented it with Vorbis audio in the Matroska container came as a surprise to me. I thought someone would eventually merge all the viable characteristics of the various file formats into something more compelling but here is Google doing it in advance for all.
I am so falling in love with Google right now!
And I wish that camera manufacturers would include these codecs in their devices. The idea of someone deciding to sue me if I sell footage I took on my mobile phone is just creepy and served as a reminder that I shouldn't trust people who have hidden motives. As for Google, their motives is obviously not the video format itself but rather something like YouTube freedom from licensing fees. We benefit as a consequence and I like it :)
ArnieMay 19th 2010 6:04PM
While Open standards are better than Closed ones in general, this article from a person who knows what the hell this thing means did dampen my thoughts about VP8 or WebM. The codec is so close and similar to H.264 that the codec writer thinks it will be sued and when Google has explicitly said that they will not help you if you get sued over VP8 I wonder if video companies will take the risk, especially encoders.
Article URL
http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=377
ProlornMay 20th 2010 2:03AM
I am absolutely no expert, but as a layman I'm impressed by Jason's technical coverage; even if he does show any bias towards H.264, it's certainly not enough to discredit his analysis and concerns.
But on the legal side, I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to Google and its compatriots in the WebM effort. It seems unlikely that the patent situation for VP8 could be as dire as Jason fears with this many companies on board. Perhaps they are massively deluded to think that VP8 can stand the challenges that may well be thrown at it, but WebM's backers don't look (from the outside) to be legal fools or pushovers.
SilverWaveMay 20th 2010 6:27PM
1st Great move Google!
___
2nd
"This is pretty far off topic, but letting fud sit around is never a good idea."
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2010-May/047795.html
___
3rd
Also comment 15 of your link is interesting...
Suggests that some of the odd hacks may be dictated to avoid some patent.
___
4th
Anyway the legal hack they
have in place is sweet as well :-) Sue them and you lose your right to use it.
ArnieMay 20th 2010 6:57PM
But here is the deal, SilverWave the MPEGLA consortium will not sue Google, they will instead choose to sue smaller companies like Vimeo. These firms will be the first target as getting into a longer legal battle is simply not possible for them.
Having said that these smaller companies have two options--
1) Avoid a legal battle with a large consortium and choose to implement at their expense video using H.264.
2) Get into a long legal battle and pay a much larger amount to lawyers in order to win a court case which their chances are at best 50/50.
Businesses will try and avoid the 2nd because the 1st provides a fixed cost whereas the 2nd does not.
johnbondjoviMay 20th 2010 8:46AM
"TheNextWeb is even reporting that Microsoft will support WebM in Internet Explorer 9."
IE9 requires that you install a separate plugin to be able to view it, the whole idea is that it should be supported natively much like your browser can natively view png, gif or jpg images.
zpg006May 20th 2010 12:42PM
I'm pretty sure this article was written by someone who does't understand what words like open and proprietary means.
h.264 is an open standard that you may/may not (depends on usage) have to pay for. Apple's stake in h.264 is that it is currently the best video codec for the internet.
Quality wise VP8 is not better, it may be better patent wise. But time will tell there.