Free Software Foundation Supports WebM
Wednesday, January 19, 2011 | 3:13 PM
We're excited that the Free Software Foundation (FSF) has joined the growing community of WebM supporters. You can read the FSF's announcement "No double standards: supporting Google's push for WebM" at their web site.
12 comments:
verb3k said...
Awesome news
January 19, 2011 3:18 PM
sarvÅdaya said...
Awesome news, indeed. Also, the FSF's PlayOgg campaign is now PlayFreedom! You should check it out here: http://playfreedom.org/
It's important that the double standard they're referring to in their announcement is the double standard on the meaning of "openness". Web standards need to be open and free. WebM and Theora would both be acceptable standards, but H.264 is not.
Apple cries that Google is attacking openness by removing support for a popular choice for video, yet they made the same attacks against flash. Funny how inconsistent you can be when you twist the meaning of openness for financial gain.
As a patent holder on H.264, Apple has a financial interest in the web depending on a non-free (patent-encumbered) codec. Google doesn't gain financially from WebM, as it is completely free, and the license irrevocably makes any patents on WebM free.
I'm no Google fanboy, i don't favor any company, i only favor those who support a free and open internet.
January 19, 2011 3:45 PM
verb3k said...
Apple and Microsoft(!) are both part of the MPEG-LA patent pool and collect massive royalties from h.264. How the heck could that be adpoted for an open standard? Besides, on pure technical terms, webm format should perform superbly on the web. VP8 is a best-of-breed video compression format, and its encoding tools improve on a daily basis, with new ones even coming out soon (xvp8). Vorbis beats all current AAC encoders in independent listening tests, the best of whom could barely tie with it.
January 19, 2011 4:46 PM
feathertail said...
Since Apple and Microsoft also have to pay the MPEG-LA licensing fees, I'm pretty sure they're not in it for the cash per se. But H.264's status as an international standard makes it easier for them to bank on supporting it, plus Apple's got a lot invested in hardware decoders for it. Their iOS devices have hardware acceleration for H.264, whereas a WebM video would drain battery life a lot faster if it worked.
January 20, 2011 12:38 AM
verb3k said...
@feathertail: Are you reading the blog? hardware vendors have released chips with hardware acceleration for WebM. H.264 wasn't hardware-accelerated anywhere when it was finalized. Give it some time, WebM will get even broader hardware acceleration support.
January 20, 2011 1:40 AM
Arkados said...
That's a really good news. Screw Apple. Also screw Adobe: adding support for WebM into Flash (well, they announced this a while ago..) will only provide a "fallback" excuse for website operators to roll on WebM too slowly using a propretary browser plugin.
I don't really know how Microsoft plans to follow the wave. Sort of a separate codec to be installed for IE 9 ? That's weak.
But for now, what we await, that's simple yet powerful CLI encoders for WebM ! Like ffmpeg2theora is for Theora video. Also: full support in ffmpeg for a large adoption in GUI encoders.
THEN, it will be possible for small website operators to roll their own infrastructure on WebM, leaving H.264.
WebM \o/
January 20, 2011 6:34 AM
Igor said...
Vorbis beats all current AAC encoders in independent listening tests, the best of whom could barely tie with it
Really? And where are those independent listening test?
In fact AAC is still better than Vorbis.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=74781
January 24, 2011 9:00 AM
verb3k said...
@Igor: Your own comparison is not representative. Don't link your own litrarture and say this proves what I say.
January 24, 2011 4:57 PM
Rostschutz said...
Hardware vendors have released chips with hardware acceleration for webm.
February 10, 2011 5:24 AM
verb3k said...
@Rostschutz: Released chips, not products using the chips.
February 10, 2011 7:59 AM
Igor said...
Your own comparison is not representative. Don't link your own litrarture and say this proves what I say
Your statement about that Vorbis beats every AAC encoder is very strong (if not wrong). You can't do these kind of misleading post.
There is no technic aspects that show superiority of Vorbis.
See now PUBLIC results of the test where AAC is better than Vorbis.
http://listening-tests.hydrogenaudio.org/sebastian/mf-64-1/results.htm
And consider to think twice after make such strong statements in futuremore.
February 10, 2011 5:06 PM
Igor said...
What is really interesting that Vorbis and Speex developers are preparing the new codec CELT http://celt-codec.org/ . The bitstream should be frozen during this month of the next. Now CELT is already considerably better than Vorbis and comparable with AAC. After future development (escpecially psy-model) CELT should do even better.
You can find the binaries and sources here
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=85000&view=findpost&p=742595
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=86580
February 10, 2011 5:20 PM
Post a Comment