9 ms·

Google statement on codecs

51 points by vamsee 14y ago

martinsievers 14y 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.
- gingerjoos 14y 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/ http://gigaom.com/2012/06/26/skype-webrtc-web-client/
  - TazeTSchnitzel 14y 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.
- ZeroGravitas 14y 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.
- nl 14y 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.
  - jonknee 14y ago
    Install base doesn't matter nearly as much when "installing" is just visiting a web page.
  - rdtsc 14y 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.
    - nl 14y ago
      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.
- mtgx 14y 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.
dochtman 14y ago
Also, Ericsson, in a different thread. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg04938.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg04938... No other companies so far, apparently.
- LeonidasXIV 14y 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.
- kalleboo 14y 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 14y ago
    silicon. please.
vibrunazo 14y ago
The website is down, here's cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmail-archive%2Fweb%2Frtcweb%2Fcurrent%2Fmsg04953.html&oq=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=7b5e0dd64d88d370&biw=1366&bih=667 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&newwi...
mtgx 14y 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 14y ago
  This pretty much confirms what I suspected earlier ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4274757 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 14y 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...
zdw 14y 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 14y 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 14y ago
    why can't apple hand off vp8 to silicon? http://www.webmproject.org/hardware/ http://www.webmproject.org/hardware/
    - wmf 14y ago
      Does the A4/A5 support WebM?
    - jfb 14y ago
      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.
      - ksec 14y ago
        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.
  - 14y ago
simonster 14y 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-chrome.html http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/html-video-codec-support-in...)
wmf 14y ago
Looks like Mozilla's talking about WebM while implementing hardware-accelerated H.264. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=714408 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=714408
ksec 14y ago
I could understand reasons for their support for VP8. But "superior quality" is definitely not a strength on VP8 side.
snowwrestler 14y 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).

51 points by vamsee 14y 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.

gingerjoos 14y 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/ http://gigaom.com/2012/06/26/skype-webrtc-web-client/
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y 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.
ZeroGravitas 14y 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.
nl 14y 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.
- jonknee 14y ago
  Install base doesn't matter nearly as much when "installing" is just visiting a web page.
- rdtsc 14y 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.
  - nl 14y ago
    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.
mtgx 14y 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.

dochtman 14y ago

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

LeonidasXIV 14y 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.
kalleboo 14y 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 14y ago
  silicon. please.

vibrunazo 14y ago

The website is down, here's cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmail-archive%2Fweb%2Frtcweb%2Fcurrent%2Fmsg04953.html&oq=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=7b5e0dd64d88d370&biw=1366&bih=667 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&newwi...

mtgx 14y 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 14y ago
This pretty much confirms what I suspected earlier ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4274757 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 14y 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...

zdw 14y 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 14y 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 14y ago
  why can't apple hand off vp8 to silicon? http://www.webmproject.org/hardware/ http://www.webmproject.org/hardware/
  - wmf 14y ago
    Does the A4/A5 support WebM?
  - jfb 14y ago
    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.
    - ksec 14y ago
      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.
- 14y ago

simonster 14y 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-chrome.html http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/html-video-codec-support-in...)

wmf 14y ago

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

ksec 14y ago

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

snowwrestler 14y 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).