Specifying codecs for the web
| Please consider subscribing to LWN Subscriptions are the lifeblood of LWN.net. If you appreciate this content and would like to see more of it, your subscription will help to ensure that LWN continues to thrive. Please visit this page to join up and keep LWN on the net. |
Audio and video content are increasingly important components of the World Wide Web, which some of us remember, initially, as a text-only experience. Users of free software need not be told that the multimedia aspect of the net can be hard to access without recourse to proprietary tools. So the decisions which are made regarding multimedia support in the next version of the HTML specification are of more than passing interest. A current dispute over the recommended codecs for HTML5 shows just how hard maintaining an interoperable web may be.
In particular, several big players have complained about the inclusion of Ogg Vorbis and Theora into the standard, causing a predictable uproar in the free software community. To many, it looks like a classic free-versus-proprietary standards showdown. In truth, the issue is not clear cut; there are nuances that are difficult to turn into a banner headline. The heart of the problem is patents, but, unexpectedly, it is the Ogg codecs that are claimed to be at risk.
Nokia fired a very public shot at the Ogg family with a position paper [PDF], calling it "proprietary". It is unclear what Nokia hoped to gain with this statement, other than inflaming the community, as Ogg Vorbis and Theora are clearly open codecs, with free reference implementations – just the opposite of proprietary. In addition, unlike most (or all) other codecs, a patent search was done to look for relevant patents for Vorbis and Theora, with the Xiph.Org Foundation claiming that none could be found. Some contend that an exhaustive patent search is essentially impossible, but most codecs (MP3, H.264, etc.) are known to be patent-encumbered, which would seem to make them a poor choice for HTML5.
Ogg is a container format that can contain multiple chunks of data, typically multimedia data. Ogg is designed so that it can be processed as it is received, rather than having it all available at once, to facilitate streaming. Vorbis is a codec (short for coder-decoder) that encodes audio data at various bitrates. Vorbis is a lossy, compressed format that saves space at the expense of perfect reproduction, much like MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3 aka MP3. Theora is a codec for video data, also lossy, akin to MPEG-4. An Ogg file could contain a mixture of Theora and Vorbis data to handle the video and audio of a particular work, but it is not in any way tied to those formats. An Ogg file could instead contain MP3 and MPEG-4 data or data from any other codec.
The draft of an HTML5 specification under construction by the Web Hypertext Application Working Group (WHATWG) contained, up until this week, a recommendation for the Ogg codecs. Ogg was not required, only listed as something that SHOULD (i.e. not MUST) be implemented by conforming browsers. That recommendation was dropped from the draft this week, replaced with the following:
Some of the big browser makers, notably Microsoft and Apple, have said that they will not support Ogg Theora – Vorbis is less of an issue – out of a concern for patents, particularly submarine patents. Ian Hickson, WHATWG spokesperson points to the Eolas and MP3 patent attacks against Microsoft (with damages in excess of a billion dollars) as examples of what the large, deep-pocketed companies are concerned about. If there is a patent covering (or appearing to cover) any of the techniques used in Theora, it is the large companies that are going to be on the hook.
Some in the community believe this move is part of a proprietary lock-in play:
There may be some truth to that, but there are some legitimate problems with Theora as well. The technical complaints tend to compare it to H.264 (the most popular MPEG-4 codec), but that is something of a red herring. Neither the WHATWG, nor the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) are going to allow a technology known to be licensed only on a royalty basis into HTML5. W3C, which will eventually make the final decision on what goes into HTML5, has a policy of requiring technology to be licensed in a royalty-free (RF) mode before it can be approved for inclusion into a standard.
All members of a particular W3C working group are required to disclose patents they believe to be relevant and to provide them to implementors on an RF basis. There may be relevant patent holders who are not members of the working group, thus not subject to that requirement, but if they have enforced their patent on a particular technology, the W3C will try to find an alternative. There may also be patent trolls waiting for someone with deep pockets to implement something covered by a patent they hold – this is the submarine patent threat.
Apple, Nokia, Microsoft and others have already implemented (and licensed) MPEG-4, so there would be no additional risk to them if that were used as the baseline video codec for the web. Using Theora as an alternative is seen by the larger players as a huge increase in their risk, with no benefit to their customers because there is, for all intents and purposes, no Theora content out there. For free software and smaller companies, the situation is clearly quite different.
The lack of Theora-encoded content is the crux of the matter. There might be lots of whining, but big companies would be forced by their customers to support Theora, patent suit risk or no, if there were interesting content available in only that form. This has led to a call for more Theora content:
The WHATWG folks seem to have the needs of free software firmly in mind; certainly the W3C RF policy makes it abundantly clear that a proprietary solution will not be required, or even recommended, for HTML5. The participants on the mailing list, and Hickson, in particular, have been very patient with the onslaught of flamers screaming about the change. The whole HTML5 effort is centered around interoperability for the web, so any technology that will not be implemented by Microsoft and Apple runs directly counter to that goal. WHATWG seems to be between the proverbial rock and hard place.
Several potential solutions are being considered. Possibilities include leaving a video codec recommendation out of HTML5 – not a particularly interoperable solution – or finding a codec that is old enough that any patents covering it must have expired. Another alternative would be to get some other current codec (MPEG-4 for instance) licensed on an RF basis. This issue will undoubtedly be discussed at the W3C Video on the Web Workshop currently being held in San Jose and Brussels. Stay tuned.
(Log in to post comments)
codec quality
Posted Dec 12, 2007 17:54 UTC (Wed) by DonDiego (guest, #24141) [Link]
How come that codec quality is never discussed when Theora comes up in discussions? That must be because Theora is outclassed by a long shot when compared to more modern codecs like MPEG-4 ASP or MPEG-4 AVC (H.264)... Theora is technically inferior, period. Centering discussions on patent issues is not going to get us anywhere. Any alternatives we wish to pursue must deliver comparable quality.
codec quality
Posted Dec 12, 2007 18:16 UTC (Wed) by ikm (subscriber, #493) [Link]
You can choose between Theora and something else only when there is 'something else'. The current situation looks like there is pretty much nothing to choose from, except for Theora, considering royalty-free licensing requirements.
Why not ?
Posted Dec 12, 2007 19:29 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
Most of the world can happily use x264 - free, open-source, high-quality codec. Why the whole world must suffer just because one country got silly laws ?
Why not ?
Posted Dec 12, 2007 21:16 UTC (Wed) by gmaxwell (guest, #30048) [Link]
While I haven't looked at H.264 specifically many of the other MPEG pool patents have been granted in Europe. Try getting the companies arguing against Theora to say that the encumbered formats are not encumbered in Europe. Haha. While software patents may not be directly enforceable in Europe, devices (including software) implementing certain techniques can probably infringe. Though this is outside of my scope of expertise so I can't say much on that point. Whatever benefits the European system currently has can not be guaranteed to last. Beyond that, infringing US patents is unwise even if they can't be enforced in Europe... Since a judgment against you in the US would be a problem if you ever need to do business in the US. Perhaps this may not matter to a person, but single people aren't currently the subject of patent litigation. Companies are, and this matters a lot. This codec licensing stuff can largely be seen as a fight where there are a few LARGE and deeply invested companies against a huge number of smaller companies. The public suffers as a result but they are just collateral damage.
Why not ?
Posted Dec 13, 2007 11:53 UTC (Thu) by skitching (guest, #36856) [Link]
This is nothing to do with what formats *can* be supported; any user is free to add extra codecs to their browser. This is about what codecs will ship with browsers, and therefore what codecs publishers can assume are present. The question that needs to be asked is not whether Theora is better than H264, but is it better than nothing? And the answer is clearly yes: it is quite a reasonable default to provide to users. Those who pay for bandwidth, or have limited bandwidth, and can legally use an H264 implementation can install one later if they wish. Flash video sucks, but it is very widely used, just because it is convenient. And because it is widely used, publishers offer their video in that format. If publishers knew that Theora would be available in their users browser, they would provide that format.
codec quality
Posted Dec 12, 2007 23:34 UTC (Wed) by DonDiego (guest, #24141) [Link]
You can choose between Theora and something else only when there is 'something else'. The current situation looks like there is pretty much nothing to choose from, except for Theora, considering royalty-free licensing requirements.No, you can always choose between Theora and nothing at all. This is the point I am trying to get across here: Without comparable quality the nothing at all choice will win. Nokia has just made the nothing at all choice.
codec quality
Posted Dec 13, 2007 1:48 UTC (Thu) by ikm (subscriber, #493) [Link]
Nokia was actually pushing H264/AAC. There seems to be a demand, so some form of supply should better be decided upon, rather than leaving every player on the market to push their own mutually incompatible de-facto standards. WHATWG tries to help everyone by finding some common denominators here, but that proves not to be an easy task. Concerning the opinion of yours on the matter, why not settle with some 'inferior' codec until there is a better alternative?
codec quality
Posted Dec 13, 2007 8:29 UTC (Thu) by DonDiego (guest, #24141) [Link]
Correct, Nokia was pushing for a high-quality video codec and when offered crap as alternative they went for the "nothing at all" option instead. When you say "some form of supply should better be decided upon" you assume that any supplied solution will be good enough and acceptable to all players. This is not the case. My opinion on the matter is completely irrelevant. Settling on an inferior codec just will not work, no matter how much wishful thinking we apply. Better alternatives without patent encumbrances will not fall from the sky. So it is going to be something patent-encumbered or nothing at all. It may be a sad fact, but nonetheless it is a fact. To put things in slightly more graphic terms: When you are looking for an automobile and somebody offers you a tricycle instead, will you settle for it until there is a better alternative or will you keep demanding a car and keep looking for car providers elsewhere?
codec quality
Posted Dec 13, 2007 12:57 UTC (Thu) by mjr (guest, #6979) [Link]
So it is going to be something patent-encumbered or nothing at all. It may be a sad fact, but nonetheless it is a fact.
If it will in the end turn out to be a fact, it will mostly be so due to a conscious decision by multinational companies against the public good.
Also talking about "crap" being offered is hardly productive. Theora isn't crap. It just isn't very shiny either.
Also let's see if people want to continue using H.264 in 2009 with the per-user webcast fees or change into something more reasonable...
codec quality
Posted Dec 13, 2007 13:21 UTC (Thu) by DonDiego (guest, #24141) [Link]
Sugarcoating the issues for ideological reasons is hardly productive. Theora is crap, not just below average. If you don't believe me get it straight from the horse's mouth.
codec quality
Posted Dec 13, 2007 14:29 UTC (Thu) by mjr (guest, #6979) [Link]
I still see "crap" coming only from the horse's ass, not the mouth it referenced. Anyway, suit yourself, but flaming on about crap is rather trollish of you. Nobody is or would have been stopping you or anyone from using any codec you like regardless of the baseline recommendation whose sole purpose would be to ensure achievable compatibility across all browsers from everyone without active threat from outside. Well, actually, somebody is stopping you. Not us or the W3C, though, but rather the MPEG LA gang of Nokia and friends. If you're worth their time. Of course, some of us are hardly worth anyone's time anymore. How lucky.
codec quality
Posted Dec 14, 2007 1:30 UTC (Fri) by DonDiego (guest, #24141) [Link]
You seem to be taking issue with my use of the word "crap". I'll retract that term and let the horse - Monty - speak for himself:<xiphmont_> Vorbis still stands up nicely. Theora, OTOH, is a a bit embarrassing. <xiphmont_> rather, it's a bit embarrassing until you look at the code, then it's alot embarrassing. <xiphmont_> and that's 70% 'really fucking stupid encoder, really On2, be ashamed' and 40% 'format design flaws'. It's so bad it adds up to 110%. <xiphmont_> I plan to help Theora limp along not too embarrassingly until it can be replaced for real-- possibly 2-4 years. <xiphmont_> Theora is actually fixable tho. The amount of low-hanging fruit is staggering. <xiphmont_> I mean, an entropy backend that results in *more* bits being written than went in? It's just... wow.That statement is taken from #mplayerdev on freenode.
Now ad hominem attacks are not going to take us anywhere. I am afraid you are attacking the messenger bringing you bad news.
There are some inconvenient truths that need to be faced:
- Theora is not going to make it into the W3C recommendation. A lack of patent encumbrances is not enough to get it there.
- Theora is not good enough to compete with the current generation of video codecs nor with the last.
- There is no assurance that Theora is free of patent encumbrances.
codec quality
Posted Dec 13, 2007 15:00 UTC (Thu) by nettings (subscriber, #429) [Link]
the horse itself - displaying considerable wisdom - is *not* sugarcoating anything. rather, technical issues are being discussed frankly, shortcomings included. for those who are used to marketing blabber and will take any internal criticism of a *work in progress* as a sign of total obsolescence, the horse kindly spells it out for you in the preamble: > "This document does *not* say [...] Theora is doomed or hopelessly obsolete. It says the current encoder is lacking compared to the very very best." > "Don't forget kids, this isn't a fight about *technology*. It's a fight about *control*." nobody is doubting that your favourite codec has a bigger dick than mine. that is not the point.
conversation quality
Posted Dec 13, 2007 15:07 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]
Could I respectfully suggest that maybe this particular conversation has gone far enough? I'm not sure what else can be resolved through this particular line of argument.Thanks.
conversation quality
Posted Dec 13, 2007 17:10 UTC (Thu) by nettings (subscriber, #429) [Link]
agreed, and my apologies. it's just that i've been working with theora pretty much since first alpha (because it's the only available codec that allows free video streams worldwide), and i know many people who put great efforts into it, creating a free platform for those who care about such things. the derogatory nature (and lack of clue) of some comments here hit a nerve... taking your advice, i shall withdraw from the discussion now.
conversation quality
Posted Dec 14, 2007 0:12 UTC (Fri) by DonDiego (guest, #24141) [Link]
Sorry for getting a bit carried away and thanks for pulling us all back in line. However, I firmly believe that there is a point to be made here. Unfortunately the people disliking that point have started to kill the messenger... I shall try to make all further comments as respectful as possible.
codec quality
Posted Dec 13, 2007 20:33 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]
When you are looking for an automobile and somebody offers you a tricycle instead, will you settle for it until there is a better alternative or will you keep demanding a car and keep looking for car providers elsewhere?Depends on the tricycle.
codec quality
Posted Dec 14, 2007 1:05 UTC (Fri) by ikm (subscriber, #493) [Link]
Theora is not a tricycle. RLE compression is :) In my current project, I use IMA ADPCM to compress sounds. The sound quality is not the best, the compression ratio is not the best either, but it's very fast, and that's the absolute requirement there. Before it was Vorbis, and I had to throw it away, no matter how much I liked the compression quality. Same here. Another example is bzip/bzip2. The author had to throw the superior arithmetic coding used in bzip away and replace it with Huffman for bzip2 because of the patents.
patent royalties
Posted Dec 20, 2007 9:25 UTC (Thu) by KotH (guest, #4660) [Link]
You talk about royalties and how MPEG is so expensive, but did you really have a look at the license terms? The h.264 are the cheapest license terms for such a huge patent portfolio i've ever seen. First 100'000 units per year are for free, and those over 100'000 are a mere 0.2 USD per unit. I don't know how you calculate production costs, but even administrative costs are higher than that. And please note that only _paid_ products are included, anything that is given away for free (like OSS) is royality free. So, over all, h.264 has the same royalties like theora for OSS, with the simple exception that you really know that you don't have to pay for h.264 while it is always possible for someone to pop out of nowhere demanding royalties for a patent violated by theora. For commercial products the fees are negligible for h.264 and knowing exactly what you have to pay makes it a much safer choice than theora. Summa summarum, i have to say that the patent situation favors h.264 rather than theora.
codec quality
Posted Dec 12, 2007 18:29 UTC (Wed) by mjr (guest, #6979) [Link]
Theora is indeed not the most advanced video codec there is. However, if you had actually read the article or understood the issues, these patent-encumbered codecs are not simply even in the running for a W3C recommendation. Therefore technical comparisons to them are, indeed, quite irrelevant. In fact, barring a miracle and the MPEG LA granting a royalty-free license to some MPEG profile, the base codec recommended by HTML5 is likely to be an extremely old and crappy one whose possible patents have expired already. That is if there is going to be a recommended base codec; a consensus is not overly likely, what with MPEG LA protection racket members having a strong say in the matter.
codec quality
Posted Dec 12, 2007 23:19 UTC (Wed) by DonDiego (guest, #24141) [Link]
Theora is indeed not the most advanced video codec there is. However, if you had actually read the article or understood the issues, these patent-encumbered codecs are not simply even in the running for a W3C recommendation. Therefore technical comparisons to them are, indeed, quite irrelevant.I read the article and understand the issue perfectly. My point still stands: If the standard incorporates a low quality codec, the standard is going to be ignored. Alternatively it will be sabotaged as we have just witnessed Nokia do. Anybody who thinks that a low quality codec will win the race on nothing more than its legal merits is deluded. What's worse, there are no hard facts that prove Theora to not infringe any patents. It's just a popular belief in certain circles.
codec quality
Posted Dec 13, 2007 6:24 UTC (Thu) by nettings (subscriber, #429) [Link]
> What's worse, there are no hard facts that prove Theora to not infringe any patents. It's just a popular belief in certain circles. as a certain member of such circles let me tell you in no uncertain terms that this remark is not particularly brilliant. some facts to clear the FUD: * theora is based on a patented codec (VP3 by On2) donated to the open-source community. a license for unlimited use has been granted, and a lot of legal babble ensures that this stays so. * therefore it has been scrutinized by patent law to some extent and found sufficiently original that a patent was granted. * there can never be absolute proof that something is entirely unencumbered by patents. this is not an argument against theora, but against software patents. http://theora.org/faq/#24
codec quality
Posted Dec 13, 2007 13:36 UTC (Thu) by DonDiego (guest, #24141) [Link]
- theora is based on a patented codec (VP3 by On2) donated to the open-source community. a license for unlimited use has been granted, and a lot of legal babble ensures that this stays so.
- therefore it has been scrutinized by patent law to some extent and found sufficiently original that a patent was granted.
Your faith in patent law and the patent offices is honorable, but unfortunately there is no base for it in reality. The above points do not in any way refute my claim that the lack of patent encumbrances in Theora is - sadly - little more than wishful thinking by certain parties.
To the best of my knowledge there has not even been an exhaustive patent search around Theora to put some confidence into the assumption that Theora is free of patent encumbrances. Not that such a search could be exhaustive, but it could give people some confidence.
codec quality
Posted Dec 12, 2007 18:46 UTC (Wed) by nettings (subscriber, #429) [Link]
i think nobody who has worked with theora will dispute that there are better codecs out there. *but*: in terms of interoperability and accessibility (for people/organisations on very tight budgets), there is no alternative to theora today. its toolchain needs more polishing, but that is likely going to happen within weeks of its adoption for a major standard such as html5. with broadband becoming a commodity in many countries, the trade-off between freedom/cost and compression efficiency is not an issue any more. and in the developing world, where bandwidth is scarce, the money to license proprietary codecs is in even shorter supply. that said, the an implementation formerly bbc-funded dirac codec has recently gone beta, so there is hope for a free alternative down the road. it should be able to compete with proprietary state-of-the-art codecs in terms of compression vs. quality.
U.S. != world
Posted Dec 12, 2007 19:36 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
In many countries people are still paying for traffic. In most countries you still must pay for mobile traffic. And x264 is free.
Thus from my POV all this discussion looks like someone is trying to get solution for their problems for my money.
who'da thunk it?
Posted Dec 12, 2007 19:54 UTC (Wed) by nettings (subscriber, #429) [Link]
thanks for letting me know that US != world. being a german citizen, that is quite a reassuring fact. :-D bickering aside, you have misread the web page you were linking to. the implementation itself is free (GNU GPL), but there are patents involved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H264#Patent_licensing which is an issue in the US, specifically, because of their software patent laws. i guess you will find that your money is involved either way... but i'd rather consumers had to pay a little more to access content, than see independent content creators threatened by bullying corporations or lobby organizations over patent issues.
U.S. != world
Posted Dec 12, 2007 22:59 UTC (Wed) by lambda (subscriber, #40735) [Link]
Yes, and what you need to remember is that Europe != world. Many of the major developers in question happen to be located in the US (Apple, Mozilla, Microsoft, etc), and so they are liable if they infringe on people's patents. The W3C is also in the US, and has a very strong policy against standardizing on anything that requires royalties or has patents that might require royalties. Furthermore, there has been a lot of pressure to allow software patents in the EU, so it's possible that at any time, a legislative decision will mean that even in Europe, x264 will be illegal.
Yup.
Posted Dec 13, 2007 0:09 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
Europe and U.S. together are less then 15% of world. Plus Eupore is not a single country. Thus any choice forced on the whole world will be wrong. To force Theora on the people who can happily use x264 and save money on bandwidth is wrong, to force H.264 on people who can not legally use it is wrong too. The aspiration to free all people are admirable but why should poorer people pay for freedom of wealthier people ?
But...
Posted Dec 13, 2007 0:48 UTC (Thu) by RobertBrockway (guest, #48927) [Link]
A central concept of the Internet is that content is independent of the location of the end user (as a general rule). What you are suggesting is to have the video codec dependent on the location of the viewer. That is setting a very bad precedent. I think people need to sit up and take a good long hard look at the global patent system. It is in a mess. It is too easy to patent processes that didn't require any significant R&D to develop in the first place. The patent system is expensive and so naturally favours large corporations over small corporations or individuals. There are so many patents that it is now very difficult to be sure that no patent infringement is occuring. I believe the patent system is near collapse. Throught these discussions it is important to keep in mind that the patent system is not an immovable rock, which is how many seem to view it. A lot of "patent reform" has occured in recent decades .
"central concept" does not work for video...
Posted Dec 13, 2007 5:59 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
It's simple question of logistics. For example RUtube is significantly more popular then YouTube. How come ? Two factors:
1. 30min limit instead of 10min limit
2. free or cheap Russian traffic instead of expensive foreign traffic
Theora will just exacerbate second problem. The solution for Google is to sign contracts with big Russian ISPs, but... if you do THAT surely you can provide different kind of video too ?
Logistics will dominate field of web-video for next 10-15 years and by the end of this period patents related even to H.264 will be close to expiration
Specifying codecs for the web
Posted Dec 12, 2007 17:58 UTC (Wed) by leoc (guest, #39773) [Link]
Another solution, of course, would be to get governments who allow software patents to stop doing so. This situation is yet another good example of how they have only managed to hinder rather than help the industry.
Specifying codecs for the web
Posted Dec 12, 2007 18:11 UTC (Wed) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]
As mp3 proved, having a widely available codec is effectively game over for competitors even if they are technically superior (and in this particular case only theora is a bit weak technically). So the original wording had the potential to vaporise the huge investment companies like Apple and Nokia made in software or hardware implementations of proprietary codecs. It does not matter if those codecs are better technically (and for sound they are not). Making ogg vorbis/theora a public default (even if it's optional) would marginalize them at once. All the carefully built closed gardens and associated revenue streams would suddenly lose their consumer appeal. Companies like Apple and Nokia bet on codecs that could only win over similarly legaly encumbered alternatives, now that WHATWG threatens to call the race end with Ogg Theora/Vorbis in they are frantically trying to preserve the status-quo. Submarine patents are a problem but they affect every codec and forestalling standardization because of them is only good for entities with no interest in standards.
Specifying codecs for the web
Posted Dec 12, 2007 18:44 UTC (Wed) by sfeam (subscriber, #2841) [Link]
"As mp3 proved, having a widely available codec is effectively game over for competitors even if they are technically superior (and in this particular case only theora is a bit weak technically).Perhaps. But in the video world another obvious analogy is to the state of proprietary vs. free video cards. Until recently, you could make a case for rephrasing that as: "having a sufficiently superior proprietary video card has been effectively game over for free competitors." Which analogy is more apt? It depends on how inferior theora is when compared to h264.
Specifying codecs for the web
Posted Dec 12, 2007 19:32 UTC (Wed) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]
I compare codecs to codecs, you compare codecs to hardware. If you want to go into hardware-land look how bad clearly technically superior formats like blue-ray and hd-dvd fare against simple encumbrance-free DVD.
DVD isn't free either
Posted Dec 12, 2007 20:45 UTC (Wed) by rillian (subscriber, #11344) [Link]
DVD is not encumberance-free. The licensing group charges a royalty fee for encoder and decoder implementations of the MPEG-2 codec and container suites. The DVD-specific parts of the format (subtitles, menus, navigation, virtual machine, disk layout, scrambling) are only available under NDA; I don't know if there are other contractual obligations that would count an encumberances. Much of that has been reverse-engineered, however.
DVD isn't free either
Posted Dec 12, 2007 20:54 UTC (Wed) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]
On the hardware-side for all practical matters it is. I agree it's not a perfect analogy.
DVD isn't free either
Posted Dec 12, 2007 21:46 UTC (Wed) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]
VHS vs Beta would be pretty close
h264 is NOT proprietary
Posted Dec 12, 2007 19:39 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
Sorry but that's inferior free codec vs superior one. x264 is here. Not even a contest - except for some countries where software patents are legal.
h264 is NOT proprietary
Posted Dec 12, 2007 21:47 UTC (Wed) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link]
You have pushed x264 all over the comments on this page--but you have not explained how to get around the simple fact that no one in the United States can use x264 without leaving themselves liable to patent infringement lawsuits. Like it or not, the fact that software is patentable in the US does matter--you can't just bury your head in the sand!
Ask fluendo, will you
Posted Dec 12, 2007 22:31 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
Ask Fluendo to speed up work on H.264 and buy codec. Hopefully it'll be available sooner then HTML5 :-)
Yes, it's not a perfect solution, but how can you be sure it'll not be needed in the future by Theora as well ? As long as software patents exist the only way to get 100% unencumbered solution is to use something 20 years old - and that's not Theora.
Ask fluendo, will you
Posted Dec 13, 2007 8:13 UTC (Thu) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]
How can you be sure you have payed all the existing patent owners for the specific x264-related patents? Microsoft has learned it the hard way recently with MP3. So that risk still applies for all others. At least for Theora there are no known patents.
You can not
Posted Dec 13, 2007 22:41 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
How can you be sure you have payed all the existing patent owners for the specific x264-related patents?
You pay to all known patent owners and hope for the best
Microsoft has learned it the hard way recently with MP3.
Exactly.
So that risk still applies for all others. At least for Theora there are no known patents.
And what exactly does it change ? Submarine patents still will be a problem. At least with H.264 you should only fear patent trolls, with Theora "normal" companies like IBM or Microsoft can sue you too...
You can not
Posted Dec 15, 2007 2:39 UTC (Sat) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]
Microsoft surely can't. At least not if they participate in the standartization of HTML5.
H.264 is a proprietary codec
Posted Dec 10, 2014 22:53 UTC (Wed) by Simon_Hall (guest, #100181) [Link]
Anyone labelling H.264 as non-proprietary is confused as to what constitutes a “proprietary technology”.
"Proprietary" describes a technology or product that is owned exclusively by a single company. These are controlled by licenses and.or patents.
Any technology distributed under license, free or not, is proprietary
H.264 is controlled under license by MPEG LA.
See the list of patents...
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Pages/PatentList....
Specifying codecs for the web
Posted Dec 12, 2007 19:40 UTC (Wed) by gmaxwell (guest, #30048) [Link]
Video cards? File formats exhibit considerable network effect: I install XYZ tools to read the XYZ files you produce, causing me to produce XYZ files which ... The same isn't true for Video cards. It's also the case that unencumbered software is ZERO per unit cost software. The same would not be true for 'free' video cards. The dynamic is just different. You are right that the level of inferiority is material. But even today Theora is simply 'not quite as good', rather than 'so much worse that it would be unsuitable for the application', like MJPEG or H.120 would be for web video. Theora is good enough today that, if widely adopted, it would put price pressure on vendors of H.264. The payoff math is particularly simple for web use: Both Theora and H.264 can fit acceptable quality streaming video into typical broadband connections. If compatibility is equal, H.264 must be enough better to pay its way in reduced bandwidth consumption. Between decreasing bandwidth costs and improvements to Theora, this will become increasingly difficult over time. ... Frankly, the above seems like a much simpler an obvious explanation from companies with patents in the MPEG patent pool's than the handwaving argument that they would suffer a material increase in patent liability because of an optional recommendation by the W3C.
Video Card Network Effect
Posted Dec 12, 2007 23:55 UTC (Wed) by zlynx (guest, #2285) [Link]
The video card network effect is seen most in games. The current Nvidia dominance of the performance video card has resulting in games optimized to Nvidia cards. This translates to review benchmarks showing Nvidia running games faster than ATI/AMD. More gamers buy the Nvidia card, leading to game writers optimizing for it ... It also applies to game consoles. When one console offers a superior game experience, the game authors target it, the game buyers buy more of them, etc.
Video Card Network Effect
Posted Dec 13, 2007 4:48 UTC (Thu) by intgr (subscriber, #39733) [Link]
More gamers buy the Nvidia card, leading to game writers optimizing for it ...
Well, it's not that simple. NVidia is also publishing very elaborate toolkits to analyze and debug performance with their drivers/hardware. Naturally game developers will optimize for nVidia because it's so much easier to do.
Specifying codecs for the web
Posted Dec 12, 2007 19:07 UTC (Wed) by gmaxwell (guest, #30048) [Link]
I'm disappointed to see LWN go to press on this without getting Xiph's position on the subject. I think the content available question is itself a red-herring: While it certainly is true that Theora is not as widely adopted as some contemporary encumbered formats, it's dishonest to claim that it isn't used at all. For example, Ogg/Theora is the exclusive video format supported on Wikipedia, one of the top ten most visited websites in the world. Ultimately it takes much less effort to OFFER content in a new format then it does to upgrade clients to support that format. Many content providers are simply waiting for the client support to exist, once the client support reaches an acceptable level they will be able to easily migrate thus avoiding the MPEG-LA per-user webcasting fees which begin in 2009. On the quality front, the Theora codec offers quality/bitrate performance orders of magnitude better than other video formats, such as the H.120 standard from the early 80s or MJPEG, which are believe to equally free of patent risk. The difference in performance of megabits per second vs hundreds of kilobits per second is utterly critical for the success of web based video. The currently available Theora code achieves a quality/bitrate ratio somewhat worse than H.264 (MPEG-4 part 10/AVC), an expensive, heavily encumbered, and computationally costly codec. Xiph believes that with further enhancements to the codecs Theora can achieve and maintain generally competitive performance with H.264. (Critical commentary on Theora from its maintaining engineers: http://web.mit.edu/xiphmont/Public/theora/demo.html) I'm not sure where the Microsoft comment came from as MSFT is not a member of WHATWG or the W3C, and they already ship Xiph codecs in various products. Finally, I think it's a little unfair to fail to mention that the vocally opposed parties all profit from the patent licensing for the encumbered formats that they prefer.
Specifying codecs for the web
Posted Dec 13, 2007 0:40 UTC (Thu) by jamesh (guest, #1159) [Link]
I'm not sure where the Microsoft comment came from as MSFT is not a member of WHATWG or the W3C, and they already ship Xiph codecs in various products.
Where are you getting your information? Microsoft is a W3C Member. In fact a Microsoft employee is listed as a co-chair of the HTML Working Group in the charter.
As the vendor of the most widely used web browser, any standard that didn't take their opinion into account would be doomed to slow or no uptake.
Specifying codecs for the web
Posted Dec 13, 2007 1:11 UTC (Thu) by gmaxwell (guest, #30048) [Link]
Ah. My error. I asked someone involved with the W3C and I must have misunderstood his answer. While I made an error in that detail the important message I was trying to convey, that MSFT has not publicly protested the inclusion of the Ogg codecs as baselines for HTML5 and that the article was incorrect to claim otherwise, still stands. Microsoft already ships Ogg container codecs in a number of products and has for a long time. I think they are too wrapped up with the grim realities of using known patented codecs right now to worry about Theora. Ultimately this is an area where the free world and Microsoft have interests in common, and this time Microsoft might actually realize it, if not quite well enough to actually give their public support.
Specifying codecs for the web
Posted Dec 13, 2007 4:59 UTC (Thu) by intgr (subscriber, #39733) [Link]
Huh, really? Whatever happened to WMV?
Specifying codecs for the web
Posted Dec 13, 2007 11:33 UTC (Thu) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link]
I have not heard about MS using Theora anywhere; however I believe that DirectPlay uses Vorbis and Speex for voice communications.
Specifying codecs for the web
Posted Dec 13, 2007 7:14 UTC (Thu) by nettings (subscriber, #429) [Link]
some more clarification can be found in conrad parker's blog (a developer working on ogg/annodex and related media formats): http://blog.kfish.org/2007/12/html5-for-free-media-today-... looks like this issue is not as bad as it looks...
Flushing out submarine patents
Posted Dec 12, 2007 23:37 UTC (Wed) by nelljerram (subscriber, #12005) [Link]
Perhaps this kind of situation could be resolved by inventing a legal way of flushing out submarine patents. Someone wanting to develop or standardize something would make a declaration to the relevant patent offices, and there would then be a period during which possible patent holders would have to declare themselves, or else hold their peace forever after. What objections to this are there?
Flushing out submarine patents
Posted Dec 13, 2007 0:30 UTC (Thu) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link]
Those with submarine patents will surely object.
Flushing out submarine patents
Posted Dec 14, 2007 19:15 UTC (Fri) by nelljerram (subscriber, #12005) [Link]
True, but that doesn't count, as they have no justification - either moral, or in terms of the usual reasoning for the existence of patents - for that "business" model.
Flushing out submarine patents
Posted Dec 13, 2007 3:15 UTC (Thu) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link]
This could easily backfire. Big companies that wanted to avoid a small guy's patent would put out a continuous stream of declarations to keep him so busy that he doesn't notice the one that actually applies to his patent.
Flushing out submarine patents
Posted Dec 14, 2007 19:21 UTC (Fri) by nelljerram (subscriber, #12005) [Link]
Good point; that's a more tricky one. I'll report back if I can think of a solution.
Specifying codecs for the web
Posted Dec 13, 2007 7:57 UTC (Thu) by mitchskin (guest, #32405) [Link]
This article is so even-handed! I miss the Corbet-snark.
Specifying codecs for the web
Posted Dec 13, 2007 9:51 UTC (Thu) by nhippi (guest, #34640) [Link]
Ogg vorbis is much better position than theora. vorbis has accepable quality and some nice features for web, such as peeling (dropping bitrate without recompressing), has seen patent review and is in widespread use by community and industry players like samsung and software houses wanting to avoid mp3 tax. The main disadvantage is that vorbis isn't really dsp-friendly, which makes it hard to implement bugfree in low-powered portable players. This is not a problem for the html5 video tag really. Ogg theora on the other hand is technically inferior, and rarely used. Even the <a href="http://www.effi.org/tapahtumat/bb-seminaari-07-videot.html">EFF finland site</a> provides videos only in H.264 and mpeg2 format! I don't think the community is very honest when demanding *theora* support from W3C when they are not ready it eat their own dogfood. An interesting review would be the visual quality of H.261 (which is supposedly old enough that all patents have expired) vs Ogg theora. With selected improvements, such as allowing more video sizes, H.261 could become an acceptable baseline.
Specifying codecs for the web
Posted Dec 13, 2007 11:27 UTC (Thu) by mjr (guest, #6979) [Link]
Taking a single example of a non-Theora using nonprofit (that does not represent in any way the whole of the "community") from our little country that has had no software patent litigation so far is of no worth as an argument to any intellectually honest person. I'll mind you also that the local authorities have granted software patents here as well, EFFI merely asserts that those are nevertheless illegal here. It's quite likely businesses are already threatened into paying protection behind the scenes, though; not something you want to be happening with a Web standard either.
Incidentally, you're also wrong about H.261, as it's not yet old enough. H.120 would be. That's 1982 technology.
Specifying codecs for the web
Posted Dec 13, 2007 14:23 UTC (Thu) by nhippi (guest, #34640) [Link]
Taking a single example of a non-Theora using nonprofit (that does not represent in any way the whole of the "community") from our little country that has had no software patent litigation so far is of no worth as an argument to any intellectually honest person. I'll mind you also that the local authorities have granted software patents here as well, EFFI merely asserts that those are nevertheless illegal here.Effi is the the biggest anti-sw-pat actor in Finland, and thus would seem to be the most likely contender to use non-patent-encumbered formats as an example for others. That is why I picked them as an example.
I'm just trying to point out that theora is on weaker ground since not even freedom activists embrace it with scale vorbis has been adopted.
Specifying codecs for the web
Posted Dec 13, 2007 15:13 UTC (Thu) by mjr (guest, #6979) [Link]
Effi is the the biggest anti-sw-pat actor in Finland, and thus would seem to be the most likely contender to use non-patent-encumbered formats as an example for others. That is why I picked them as an example.
On one hand it would (and I perhaps would have preferred that approach). On the other hand, as said, it's a kind of active assertion that "we are completely within our liberties to use this". EFFI also has a guide (in Finnish) on picking a video format for Web use in Finland that reflects this and includes consideration and recommendation, especially in some circumstances, of Theora also.
Now that the issue is fresh in my mind, maybe I'll do a quick conversion and see about getting them included aside the other versions.
Specifying codecs for the web
Posted Dec 13, 2007 11:37 UTC (Thu) by mjr (guest, #6979) [Link]
Oh, also I'll note that Fluendo/Cortado streaming has seen mainstream use here in Finland as well at least in sports event streaming - perhaps they were less confident than EFFI in asserting that software patents are illegal here. (Don't know which event(s) or how many, as I'm not interested in sports - merely noted their use of free technology). As for more global use, at least Wikipedia policy is to use spesifically Theora for video. They're only one of the ten or so most popular web sites around, and while there's not overmuch video content at this point, the amount is only going to increase. Theora may not be as widely used as some of the encumbered options, but that doesn't mean it's doesn't get around already.
Specifying codecs for the web
Posted Dec 13, 2007 10:28 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]
Why can't we get audio and video-tags that work similar to the existing img tag then ?
The img tag does not specify the encoding of the src= referenced image, it just gives the adress. The encoding is specified by the mime-type of that image, and indeed the type of image can be auto-negotiated on the basis of the web-browsers accept: header.
Sure, it's an annoyance that, for example, png-support in some browesers is flaky, and it'd be nice if there was something besides gif/jpg that you could be certain would be supported across the board, but there isn't and somehow we still manage.
Due to popularity, I'm fairly certain all major browsers would support wav and mp3, ogg and flac would be nice, but essentially, if a browser-vendor says: "we won't do that", then they won't -do- that, wishful thinking notwithstanding.
Having it in the standard wouldn't nessecarily help much in practice. There are LOTS of stuff that are in the standards, and has been for a long time, but where you -still- can't use it and trust that it works universally, because a major browser does not infact implement it. There's not many websites actually using fig for anything ....
Specifying codecs for the web
Posted Dec 13, 2007 15:30 UTC (Thu) by vmole (guest, #111) [Link]
The whole point of this is to establish baseline support that would be required for HTML5 compliance, so that a provider could rely on the presence of certain codecs, just as they can rely on jpg and gif being displayed correctly.
Specifying codecs for the web
Posted Dec 13, 2007 17:28 UTC (Thu) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
But none of the major vendors are likely to obtain HTML5 compliance, unless its by watering down the standard to contain mostly SHOULDs that they can decide not to implement. HTML is a very qualified success. Tag soup has won out for the most part. Things have improved in the last ten years, but not very quickly. Can you think of a web browser people use that's HTML 4 compliant? Not "nearly" or "sort-of" or "the important bits" but the HTML 4 standard as published ? Last time I looked Mozilla.org still had bugs open against rarely used HTML features dating back to the start of the project in the 1990s. I'm not completely sure I understand how this happened, but one thing that definitely had an effect was the encouragement to "edit in Notepad" without tools that could verify the resulting document meant anything, let alone what was intended by the author. Modern tools have much reduced this tendency (most people now create content in Wikis or blogs where they can type an ampersand without making the site fail validation).
Specifying codecs for the web
Posted Dec 13, 2007 22:38 UTC (Thu) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263) [Link]
Assuming Theora gets a bit of momentum (such as, being approved).. I bet everyone will suddenly jump on the wagon saying they have got a competetive advantage (because the competitors do not (yet)) -- *even though* having complained beforehand that it will hurt competition.
Ultimately...
Posted Dec 14, 2007 20:04 UTC (Fri) by jd (subscriber, #26381) [Link]
...the question is one of whether the supplied codec is intended as:- The protocol that will be usable and used in typical scenarios for typical users
- The protocol that will be usable and used in lowest common denominator systems that support HTML5
- The fallback protocol to be used by HTML5 when the server wants to deliver video content in a format the client can't process - ie: something you can guarantee being able to convert to and play in all cases
- The default format for a codec should be specified similarly to language, as a browser and server preference, with multiviews handling differences
There is a world of difference between these scenarios. If it's the first case, then you need a format comparable with good quality video formats even if encumbered, because that it what typical users will want. Then, and only then, do you need to worry about producing a very high-end codec.
If it's the second case, quality is much less important. You need something that can be universally implemented and produce comparable results. It shouldn't matter whether you're using an HDR display, a standard CRT and basic graphics card, or Lynx and aalib. The quality of output may vary, but they should all produce valid results for the same input.
The third case - which honestly I would argue is much more important for a client/server technology - would be to have a meta-codec. It should be possible to (with minimal loss and effort) convert any usable codec into the meta-codec and convert the meta-codec into any other usable codec. Then it doesn't make any difference who actually implements what. The browser remains neutral of the specifics, it only requires that it CAN be done, not how.
A meta-codec might be easier to sell to all vendors, as it doesn't harm their sales by encouraging people to use something else. However, it would require all browsers to have an on-the-fly translator to convert the meta-codec into whatever codec the user has specified as a preference.
Using multiviews to negotiate how to handle differences in capability would put a lot more onus on web developers. However, this technology already exists, is already in use and moves the necessary changes from HTML5 into the HTTP protocol.
The advantage of this is that HTTP and HTML have a really bad mix of content and capability. Really, capability should be negotiated at a lower level and content should be kept at a high level. If absolutely necessary, add a middle layer for metadata and environmental data. But keep the specifics of how to do things outside of that component intended to only contain the specifics of what to do.
The disadvantages of such an approach are that this would require a whole new standards committee to be involved, it would incite gigantic flame-wars over who had responsibility for what, and it would potentially lead to the breaking of a lot of pre-existing software that assumes that the current mishmash is the way to do things.
Personally, I'm at the point of saying that no browser actually adheres to the standards and quality control is an exercise in futility, servers are turning into miniature OS' just to support all practical methods of doing things, along with the weight of all this code and the tools needed to keep the software and content maintained, is beginning to exceed the usefulness of the web as-is.
In the same way HTML replaced Archie, Gopher and WAIS, standards only last until it becomes easier to replace them than maintain them. If my view that HTML is reaching end-of-life is shared by enough others, then whether HTML5 supports Theora is of no interest or importance. It becomes easier to provide the alternative than to fight for something that might be no more coded than any other of the HTML standards preferences or requirements have been.
What's the alternative ?
Posted Dec 14, 2007 23:24 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
HTTP and HTML can only be replaced if there are better alternative. When such alternative will exist your points will be valid. May be. May be not - depends on the alternative. Right now situation with HTML looks like situation with C++ in ninetees: huge mess of incompatible implementation, strange extensions, etc. A lot of guys sai back then that C++ is near the end of it's life and we will stop using C++ in a few years. Guess what: C++ was standartized, incompatibilties mostly fixed and today it's still one of the most popular languages. Why do you think it's impossible to do the same with HTML ?
Oh and the same problem as with HTML exist with C++ too: there are exactly zero 100% standard compliant compilers! It does not matter in practice: incompatibilities are in small corners of language which can be easily avoided...
What's the alternative ?
Posted Dec 15, 2007 0:12 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
I'm not sure if you could call separate compilation of templates a `small corner of the language', really. It's just so hard to implement that everyone has got used to doing without it, and there *are* ways to get along without it.
Separate compilation of templates ? There are no such thing.
Posted Dec 15, 2007 23:16 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
Do you mean templates export ? The thing does not exist in real world and should not exist in real world. And since all compilers (except one) don't support it you can just remove it from the spec (AFAIK C++ committee plans to do just that). So yes, it's minor thing. We'll see if Theora support will be the same "minor thing" in HTML5...