Google To Push WebM With IE9, Safari Plugins

surveyork writes with this "new chapter in the browser wars: 'Google in a defense of its decision to pull H.264 from Chrome's HTML5 revealed that it will put out WebM plugins for Internet Explorer 9 and Safari. Expecting no official support from Apple or Microsoft, Google plans to develop extensions that would load its self-owned video codec. No timetable was given.' So Google gets started with their plan for world-wide WebM domination. They'll provide WebM plugins for the browsers of the H.264-only league, so in practice, all major browsers will have WebM support — one way or the other. Machiavellian move?"

Re:Yes, Machiavellien, quite

[commodore64_love]

So let's see: WebM is the container.
--- VP8 is the video
--- Vorbis is the audio

Google also has a WebP standard based on VP8, to replace GIFs/JPEGs - wonder why they're not pushing that too? Ya know: Remove image support from their Chrome. (shrug)

MPEG4/h264 vs. VP8 comparison (h264 slightly better - specially on low bitrate connections):
    - http://compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/h264_2010/vp8_vs_h264.html [compression.ru]
HE-AACplus vs. Vorbis (HE-AAC wins):
    - http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/mf-48-1/results.htm [hydrogenaudio.org]
JPEG vs. WebP (WebP wins):
    - http://englishhard.com/2010/10/01/real-world-analysis-of-googles-webp-versus-jpg/ [englishhard.com]

Re:Then has anyone decided to fork the H.264 build

[MrL0G1C]

What, like this:

mp3 is not free..
http://mp3licensing.com/royalty/emd.html [mp3licensing.com]

h.264 is not free:
http://www.streaminglearningcenter.com/articles/h264-royalties-what-you-need-to-know.html [streamingl...center.com]

mpeg2 is not free:
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/M2/Pages/Agreement.aspx [mpegla.com]

(how do I make a proper link here - without the whole url showing up?)

Re:h.264 Broadcasting consideration?

[Game Genie]

No. It is because, ATSC was defined before H.264 was. DVB is newer and supports H.264. ATSC technically added support for H.264 in 2008, but nobody is using it because TV sets that don't support H.264 would be left in the dark unless we had a whole new round of stupid converter boxes. We will be stuck with MPEG-2 for broadcast TV for the next 50-80 years; just as long as good old NTSC held on before biting the dust.

Re:Then has anyone decided to fork the H.264 build

[obarthelemy]

if what you're saying is true, why didn't they just make it open, maybe with a foundation in charge of certifying different implementations ?

what do you mean by "pissing in their pool" ? do you mean competing ? is that a bed thing now ? or illegal ?

my take is the patent holder are out to make money. they can't really make it off of the consumer, client side, so they're reluctantly making it free as in beer, in order to safeguard their business-side revenue. and they may change their mind at any later date about the special terms under which x.264 is for now allowed to be used to for free in certain specific cases.

you're wrong to think that h.264 comes for free. your devices' manufacturers have had to pay royalties, which are reflected in the price you paid for the devices.

Re:Then has anyone decided to fork the H.264 build

[Kitkoan]

Sorry, but I agree with John Hasler, its horseshit. The MPEG-LA is designed to control and maximize profits. And they use their size and power to prevent others from trying to rise against them. Things like this were mentioned here on /. months ago [slashdot.org] when it was pointed out about video recording camera's and all of them using x264. Try buying a video camera that doesn't use either x264 or mpeg2 video codecs. Every major video camera maker, and just about every minor one uses these codecs. So when you buy them, you have to pay the royalty fees. That would be what I would consider maximizing profits. There are other codecs that would work just as great and are flexible and free to use (like Googles own WebM as an example) but the owners of the other codecs don't have the muscle of MPEG-LA, so they get strangled out so the MPEG-LA, and only MPEG-LA, is profiting from digital video codec sales. It also gives the MPEG-LA power over how people use the videos they make. According to the licensing of x264, you will also need an additional license to use your digital video commercially, and since any video made with a digital video recording (becoming quite the norm with most people) that means that MPEG-LA yet again has their fingers in the pie for more money. It doesn't matter if you later transfer the video to a different codec that is free since at one point of the making of the video it was done in MPEG-LA's codec so they are entitled to their fee's. (While the MPEG-LA has stated that you don't need an extra license to shoot commercial video with h.264 cameras, that doesn't hold any weight since it says you do in the license agreement and in the eyes of the law, the license agreement is what the reality is).

Re:Then has anyone decided to fork the H.264 build

[Anonymous Coward]

MPEG-LA isn't meant primarily to generate a profit

Maximizing profit is a core goal of the MPEG-LA. From http://www.mpegla.com/main/Pages/About.aspx [mpegla.com] (emphasis mine):

"Our goal is to provide a service that brings all parties together so that technical innovations can be made widely available at a reasonable price. Utilizing our collaborative approach, we help make markets for intellectual property that maximize profits for intellectual property owners and make utilization of intellectual property affordable for manufacturers, consumers and other users."

I'm sorry but it just seems like you have no real idea what you're talking about.