
Google hopes to sidestep the entire HTML5 video debate with a new, open source, royalty free format called WebM. But will Apple ever support it? Judging by to the latest missive from Steve’s iPad, things don’t look great.
A Register reader sent a concise email to Jobs’ public email address, to which he often uses to respond to questions and inject his opinion into tech issues, semi-indirectly:
Hey Steve,
What did you make of the recent VP8 announcement?
Good question! Microsoft, Mozilla, Opera and Google (obv) are all willing to give this WebM thing a whirl. Whether or not Apple incorporates support into its products—particularly the HTML5-savvy iPhoneOS—could well determine the format’s fate. Steve responded with nothing but a link. A link to the first widely read screed against WebM, penned by Jason Garrett-Glaser, who works on an open source h.264 encoder project. So, what does he think? Ho ho:
VP8 is simply way too similar to H.264: a pithy, if slightly inaccurate, description of VP8 would be “H.264 Baseline Profile with a better entropy coder”. Though I am not a lawyer, I simply cannot believe that they will be able to get away with this, especially in today’s overly litigious day and age. Even VC-1 differed more from H.264 than VP8 does, and even VC-1 didn’t manage to escape the clutches of software patents. Until we get some hard evidence that VP8 is safe, I would be extremely cautious.
Garrett-Glaser also mentions poor performance relative to h.264, sloppy definition of the standard, and its seeming incompleteness, at one point observing, “AAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!” The analysis is exhaustive and extremely technical (I somehow doubt Jobs is versed in the intricacies of DC coefficients and quantization maps); at times it’s hard to know if the writer is using impenetrable jargon to his advantage, if the writer’s closeness to his subject tints his opinion. Either way, it’s a worthwhile read.
Warrants of the piece aside, I suppose we can take this to mean that Steve’s personal opinion is somewhere in the ballpark of “AAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH,” and furthermore, that Steve’s opinion either reflects company policy, or will soon be reflected by company policy. Apple’s adoption would be a major get for WebM, but that looks like that’s out of the question, at least in the short term. [Register]



















Shane
Friday, May 21, 2010 at 9:25 AMGiven the fact that you can’t get a bluray drive in any mac products, I wouldn’t hold your breath…
Matt
Friday, May 21, 2010 at 10:06 AMI think they were right about blue ray. Physical media is dead. Except flash drives. But with a more powerful and ubiquitous web, that will die too.
Brock Taffe
Friday, May 21, 2010 at 12:14 PMSteve has stated before that they wouldn’t implement Bluray into there computers because that the technology isn’t as solid and efficient as they’d prefer, as with all new technologies. If this were different I’m sure Steve would give the ‘OK’
boc
Friday, May 21, 2010 at 4:06 PMI read through the whole analysis and it is very detailed. There is a strong bias against VP8 naturally.
His criticisms of WebM are valid. What’s unfortunate is that he glosses over the positive aspects of webM. For example WebM is a true streaming format.
Regarding quality, I don’t believe the intention of WebM is for streaming 1080p to a mobile device. It’s for streaming smaller lower quality web clips like youtube. In that context, WebM is a good alternative to H264.
Regarding legal issues, On2 and VP8 have existed for a long time, so has Matroska. They’ve been used by big companies and no lawsuits yet. The MPEG group could sue, but, wouldn’t Google ensure that WebM is different enough to avoid that? So ignoring the MPEG group, if WebM was hit with patent suits that would mean that the MPEG group would likely be liable as well since the two are very similar. I don’t think anyone would get away with suing the MPEG group, so WebM is sort of protected in that regard as well.
In the end WebM is just another option for us to use. The difference is that it’s free, open source, and lightweight.
matt
Saturday, May 22, 2010 at 6:27 PMlol:
titled “Diary Of An x264 Developer”
so a developer working on the competitor, worse yet a developer working on the OPEN SOURCE competitor…
I didn’t read past the title but I’m sure a neutral, objective, professionally conveyed analysis is NOT what I would have found…
thats as bad as asking him what he thinks of windows, and having him respond with a link to the biggest rant he could find on a Mac fanboy forum…