Theora Development Continues Apace, VP8 Now Open Source 312
SergeyKurdakov writes "Monty 'xiphmont' Montgomery of the Xiph Foundation says the latest action-packed, graph- and demo-clip-stuffed Theora project update page (demo 9) is now up for all and sundry! Catch up on what's gone into the new Theora encoder Ptalarbvorm over the last few months. It also instructs how to pronounce 'Ptalarbvorm.' Ptalarbvorm is not a finished release encoder yet, though I've personally been using it in production for a few months. Pace on improvements hasn't slowed down — the subjective psychovisual work being done by Tim Terriberry and Greg Maxwell has at least doubled-again on the improvements made by Thusnelda, and they're not anywhere near done yet. As a bonus Monty gathered all Xiph demo pages in one place."
Also on the video codec front, and also with a Xiph connection, atamido writes "Google has released On2's VP8 video codec to the world, royalty-free. It is packaging it with Vorbis audio, in a subset of the Matroska container, and calling it WebM. It's not branded as an exclusively Google project — Mozilla and Opera are also contributors. Builds of your favorite browsers with full support are available."
An anonymous reader points out this technical analysis of VP8.
HTML5 video (Score:4, Interesting)
As far as HTML5 Video goes, a new upcoming Flash will make things even more interesting and mix them up. The final version of Adobe Flash 10.1 supports P2P to reduce the bandwidth costs for site owners [torrentfreak.com]. It works out of the box too, so users can still get the video normally streamed, but it will seriously lower bandwidth usage and hence costs for video streaming sites. This same P2P feature also works for both on-demand and live video aswell as Flash based multiplayer games.
Live streaming should have some common specs too, but P2P streaming requires such to be made into the standard so it works for all. It's a quite large feature for site owners too, since it dramatically lowers bandwidth costs.
I don't think we will still see Flash going away, even if we at some point can even decide about the codec used for HTML5 Video. There's still too many features Flash has that HTML5 Video doesn't support at all.
Welcome, our new open codec overlords! (Score:3, Interesting)
I, for one, welcome our new open codec overlords.
Woohoo! Much good [pcworld.com] will come of this.
And all you closed, patent encumbered codec trolls: please go away now. Your services are no longer required.
The project is also backed by hardware partners such as AMD, ARM, and Nvidia. "Hardware acceleration is extremely important." Sunder Pichai, Google vice president of product management (From TheRegister link).
WebM/VP8 patent risk for software developers (Score:5, Interesting)
Google says it holds certain patents on the VP8 video codec that is part of WebM but there's no assurance that Google's patents are the only patents required. What about patents that third parties could assert? While it appears to be a nice gesture if a major player releases software on open source terms, it's imperative to perform a well-documented patent clearance.
Developers should be provided with detailed explanations why Google believes that no one adopting WebM will have to fear allegations of patent infringement. Otherwise those developers might be exposed to considerable risk. It wouldn't be possible to check on millions of different patents but at the very least I think Google should look at the patents held by the MPEG LA pool as well as patents held by some well-known 'trolls' and explain why those aren't infringed. Programmers have a right to get that information so they can make an informed decision for themselves whether to take that risk or not.
It's not unreasonable to ask Google to perform a well-documented patent clearance because they certainly have the resources in place while most open source developers don't.
The situation surrounding Android shows that Google might opt to stand on the sidelines if those adopting its open source technologies -- such as HTC -- are sued by patent holders. I can't find any promise on the WebM website that Google would come to the aid of third parties adopting the technology, so Google should at least help everyone to assess the risk.
We all know Steve Jobs' recent email [slashdot.org] in which he said a patent pool was being assembled to go after open source codecs. So the patent question is really a critical one. Also, this in-depth analysis [multimedia.cx] by an X.264 developer shows that VP8 and H.264 are so similar that the risk of patent infringement could be substantial.
I have previously called for this kind of patent clearance, in connection with the open source Theora codec as well as with VP8, here on slashdot as well as on my blog, such as in this post [blogspot.com].
x264 dev did a technical review (Score:5, Interesting)
http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=377 [multimedia.cx]
They don't seem that impressed. It is less robust than H.264, in some places seems to outright copy it. Google is offering no patent indemnification (from the article: "this is a patent time-bomb waiting to happen.")
They give it credit for being the best open source format out there, but they fault it generally in every other category.
WebM (VP8) license: will it be approved by OSI? (Score:4, Interesting)
WebM is available under a new license [webmproject.org]. So far haven't been able to find out whether Google will try to get this license OSI-approved [opensource.org].
Re:Welcome, our new open codec overlords! (Score:3, Interesting)
You can never know for sure, unless you've went through all the patents. However I'm sure since it's On2 their lawyers have looked at it.
However, it doesn't mean it's completely patent free. Google still owns all the patents and gives a patent license to use it. They're promising it's royalty-free.
And there was much rejoicing !.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yet Another Codec, both Gratis AND Freedom ?
Supported by a fuck-ton of companies ?
- among which not only the major player which made better the modern web as we know it (All the companies mentioned in the summary. Basically anything beside Microsoft)
- but also several hardware industry backers [blogspot.com] (like major such as ARM, Qualcomm and Texas Instruments) ?
(We can expect a "WebM accelerated on embed chip's GPU+DSP" Google Summer of Code poping up this year...)
Well, thank you Google ! That's pretty much good news !!!
Only question : How will be the HTML5 standards organised ? Will it be possible to mix and match the various codecs (Theora, VP8, ...) with the various containers (OGG, Matroska, ...) ? Or will it be specified only as defined combination (WebM = Matroska + VP8 + Vorbis ; ??? = OGG + Theora + Vorbis, H264 = MP4 + Mpeg 4 AVC/h264 + AAC) ?
Re:HTML5 video (Score:3, Interesting)
Well. Damn.
This looks like almost exactly the same functionality that we were developing. Though we used a java applet for P2P that recombined the signals into a stream that would run on almost any player: flash, quicktime, silverlight media player, embedded windows media player, and many more. We even had a setup that would detect other clients on the local network and they would all source from the same feed, allowing any number of local clients at no additional external bandwidth usage.
We were in the final stages of testing early in 2009, I jumped ship when paychecks started coming in late and a few months before the venture capitalists pulled the plug for good.
The idea of Google countersuing isn't realistic (Score:4, Interesting)
Google still has a load of patents with which it can countersue any third party that isn't a pure-play non-practicing entity.
No, Google isn't a patent powerhouse. Its patent portfolio is only a fraction of the size of Apple, for an example, and even Apple isn't extremely big compared to some others. Look at this analysis [edibleapple.com], for an example:
In a recent investor note from Deutsche Bank, analyst Chris Whitmore compares the patent libraries of Apple, Google, and HTC. What he found was that in the past few years, Apple has been issued 3,000 patents, Google has been issued 316 patents, and HTC has been issued a measly 58 patents.
Also, if Google had the ability to do this, why would they stand on the sidelines when Android adopters such as HTC are being sued or when royalties are collected from them?
Confused about HTLM5 video (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:First in-depth technical analysis of VP8 (Score:5, Interesting)
Hardware support will be good on the TI OMAP line of cellphone chips, which include an actual programmable DSP (instead of a hardcoded decoder). There's already a Theora implementation for them. These chips are used e.g. on the Droid and the N900.
It is not patent free (Score:5, Interesting)
But that's a good thing. Google in fact holds patents on it. Why is this good? Well they give people a license to use it, free of charge. However the license is revoked if (and only if) you file a patent infringement suit against VP8. So this means if someone sues them, they can no longer implement VP8 in their products in any form. Also, since Google has patents, they have those to fire back with. If the patent filer infringes on any of those, they are in trouble, again since the license to use them is revoked.
Basically, there really isn't any harm. I mean yes, Google could take away the ability to get new licenses at some point if they wanted, but that's true even with no patents. However as the license stands you are free and clear, and they cannot revoke it, except if you file an infringement lawsuit over VP8.
Re:Namefail (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally, I didn't even know what "Vorbis" means (or that it is even supposed to mean anything) for the first few years of using it rather extensively. It sounds like a nice name to me, even on its own. Same for Theora. What's wrong with them? They aren't offensive, they are distinctive, they are easy to pronounce (Vorbis perhaps more so) - so what's the problem?
Ptalarbvorm! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:WebM/VP8 patent risk for software developers (Score:1, Interesting)
Use Theora and you might get hit with a patent suit.
Use h264 and you definitely will get hit with a patent suit.
Re:Welcome, our new open codec overlords! (Score:3, Interesting)
The protection that H264 has is that any outside entity filing an h264 patent lawsuit is going to have to defend themselves against MPEGLA's patent portfolio.
Which means nothing to a patent troll, since they, by definition, produce nothing, and therefore cannot be violating any patents.
Re:And there was much rejoicing !.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Basically anything beside Microsoft
Re:Welcome, our new open codec overlords! (Score:5, Interesting)
Free Software projects are not likely to be a target in this particular patent battle. Patent lawsuits are expensive, and Free Software projects are unlikely to have the resources to make them workable targets. After all, how do you prove millions in damages from a project given away for free? More importantly, there are plenty of well-funded entities with an interest in protecting Free Software projects in general, and these codecs in particular, from patent attacks. My guess is that if you were sued by MPEG-LA (or whoever) for using of VP8 or Ogg Theora that there would be plenty of companies with deep pockets that would be willing to help pay for excellent legal representation.
You don't honestly think that Google will allow MPEG-LA (or Microsoft, or Apple) to get a precedent setting patent case against some piddly Free Software project that was merely using VP8 (or even Ogg Theora) without at least offering world class legal assistance? It doesn't matter who gets sued over these codecs. Google is going to make sure that whoever it is that gets sued has the best lawyers that money can buy. Suing a Free Software project just guarantees that the patent holders suing 1) look like horrible thugs in front of a jury 2) limit the amount of damages that they can ask for (because the Free Software guy is likely to be much poorer than Google).
In short, there is no upside to suing the little guy, only downside. So if there is a lawsuit it will be against Google, and MPEG-LA (or Apple or Microsoft) would have to be desperate to get to that point.
Talk, on the other hand is cheap. I fully expect a FUD-storm very reminiscent of the one that Microsoft leveled against Linux. Just because Microsoft, Apple, or MPEG-LA say that there are problems, however, does not mean that they are willing to risk a patent war with Google, and that's what it would take to actually back up any threats.
P2P client in Flash 10.x (Score:2, Interesting)
Hmmm, considering Adobe's record of using Akamai's P2P client [akamai.com] as part their Download Manager [slashdot.org], which you have to use to download stuff from their store (or did at one time anyway). The thing runs in stealth mode, and I'd venture to guess that most users who have it installed don't know that they do, and don't know that they may *still* be sharing their bandwidth long after they downloaded their Adobe product.
Basically, I'd be fine with it so long as they give users a true opportunity for informed consent (not bury some sneaky clause in a EULA), AND give users control over how much bandwidth is used/when.
For example, if my laptop is connected off a 3G card, I don't want to share *any* bandwidth. And if I downloaded some content a week ago, time's up, I'm not sharing that thing anymore. And if I'm playing a lag-sensitive game, I don't want some background P2P client mucking with my bandwidth.
The fact that Adobe is putting this P2P stuff directly into their Flash player is problematic unless they do a *much* better job than in the past of respecting the fact that the computer and its bandwidth belong to the user.
Agreed (Score:2, Interesting)
But if somebody does want to get into a patent fight over codecs, I imagine that some targets are less attractive than others.
Google? Would some lawyer want to bring his patents into court against Google? There can't be a company on Earth better prepared to find prior art to invalidate any plaintiff's entire patent portfolio than Google. They're Google. They index the world's information. It's what they do. It wouldn't surprise me if Google had prior art on trellis quantization based on translation of Olmec temple ornamental carvings.
Lawyer fights are usually such dry, boring drawn out things that they don't get much attention. That, though? That would be such a one-sided brutal crushing of the plaintiff that if it were televised I'd like to pay-per-view it.