An open media alliance has formed in response to H.264 and H.265
http://phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Alliance-Open-Media
Good to see this happening for the future of media on the web. Hopefully this means Apple and Microsoft add more open media support to their browsers.
http://xiphmont.livejournal.com/67752.html
"As of today, just after Microsoft announced its membership in the Open Media Alliance, they also quietly changed the internal development status of Vorbis, Opus, WebM and VP9 to indicate they intend to ship all of the above in the new Windows Edge browser."
I think I just cried.
Hi people
On the Alliance for Open Media's web site (http://aomedia.org/press-release/alliance-to-deliver-next-generation-open-media-formats/) it says:
"This initial project will create a new, open royalty-free video codec specification based on the contributions of members, along with binding specifications for media format, CONTENT ENCRYPTION and adaptive streaming, thereby creating opportunities for next-generation media experiences."
Content encryption? Is it a new and soft way to call DRM? I don't know, but from an organization where Apple, Microsoft and Netflix are present, nothing good I'll expect.
What do you think?
They are referencing NetVC, which is being pushed to be an open standard that combines the efforts of Daala, Thor, and the VP9/VP10 codecs. The encryption is being pushed by Netflix of course since they want to offer streaming without plugins and not pay royalty fees.
As for WebM, you should be able to watch it "as-is" in more software and hardware if this takes off. Even our boy, jxself, is behind Opus and VP9 and offers an upgraded version of VLC at https://jxself.org/vlc.shtml to help adoption.
Having support for the Edge browser is a good thing as more and more Windows users are upgrading to Windows 10 and having an open format available on such a large platform is a major step forward. Even if Edge and Windows are non-free.
> Content encryption? Is it a new and soft way to call DRM? I don't
> know, but from an organization where Apple, Microsoft and Netflix
> are present, nothing good I'll expect.
I would be surprised if "content encryption" wasn't a way to soft-peddle digital handcuffs, DRM. But right inline with what I expect from an organization that calls itself "open".
I think this leaves Apple as the last major browser vendor that won't have built-in support. I wonder if they'll eventually be forced into adding support. Fortunately there are workarounds for Safari in the form of plugins and JavaScript-based decoders.
Safari on the desktop is a low factor at this point, but the iOS versions are where it matters more as you already know. It would be nice if WebM support, if ever added, hits ALL of their browsers and not just the desktop one.
The nice thing about Chrome and Firefox on Android is the near implementation of the desktop versions.
for me , we need one standred - this is the big dogs doing it so im expect a very bad .ogg Experiance- dont take ne wrong .ogg is ok but last face it we need something that opensource like this to get rid of MP3-
I wouldn't worry much about MP3 right now. All of the remaining patents related to MP3 are going to be expired in 2017, and it's widely recognized that Ogg Vorbis is better; MP3 is used only for compatibility. The audio format which can cause problems in the future is AAC, and as far as I can tell, it hasn't seen particularly widespread adoption on its own (the only adoption I've seen of AAC is in video containers).
Right now, the formats most likely to cause problems are video formats.
If you are looking to throw up some audio on a site as a link or through an HTML5 player, it may be best to use a .weba file which is the WebM format just for audio. There you can use Vorbis or Opus for the codec and potentially reach a broader audience than just an .ogg or .opus file.
"we need one standred" [sic]
Mandatory reference - https://xkcd.com/927/
We'll see for sure if it's a tipping point or not in due time. It really depends on content providers, physical media is becoming less common. Personally I think the tipping point will only come once physical media is considered rare. The more people that stop buying physical media the better.
name at domain wrote:
> Personally I think the tipping point will only come once physical
> media is considered rare. The more people that stop buying physical
> media the better.
I don't agree mainly because of DRM and the spying DRM schemes seem to use these days.
Traditionally physical media has been a way for someone to get control over their copy of something, the kind of control one needs and deserves with ownership. One can still play some LP records (even 78s), CDs, and read books without spying.
Downloads from mainstream sources are commonly riddled with DRM. DRM-riddled data can be set up to stop working well before the physical media expires leaving the reader, listener, or viewer in a bind.
I feel for consuming media on the web, the more open formats the better. JPEG is pretty much the standard for pictures, so why can't we have an equivalent for audio and video? It just seems silly that there are no restrictions in viewing pictures but then magically we aren't sure if we can listen to an audio clip or view a video in our browser due to browser vendors like Apple who will only push something like H264 because they make royalties on the patent pool. I'm also glad that Flash is less common as that is a much bigger issue.
Like I said before, Microsoft supporting WebM is the big factor. Now tens of millions of people who use a Windows 10 computer (and it will be more as others upgrade from 7 or 8 or get a new PC) will have access to WebM no matter if they use Chrome, Firefox, or the included Edge browser. The only stalwart is Apple, but OSX users who use Chrome or Firefox can use WebM no problem. Its just the Safari browser that is the problem.
What would Apple lose if they added WebM to Safari and/or Quicktime as the codecs are royalty free and under a permissive BSD license? Nothing.
"What would Apple lose if they added WebM to Safari and/or Quicktime as the codecs are royalty free and under a permissive BSD license? Nothing."
I suspect that they're not doing it because of their connection to MPEG-LA: They get patent royalties for H.265/HEVC and H.264 abd MPEG-4, etc. See http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/HEVC/Pages/Licensors.aspx
I suspect their recalcitrance comes from not wanting to see royalties decline.
However: Microsoft & Cisco get patent royalties too and they're onboard with supporting free codecs:
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensors.aspx
I suspect that Apple hasn't yet realized that they have more to lose more than they gain from the software patent system. Hopefully that will happen one day. Here's a possible way for that to happen:
http://jxself.org/calling_all_patent_trolls.shtml
This is very aikido. Use their own red tape to strangle them ;) I'm not in the US, so I'm not sure how I can help, but I'm keen. In NZ we (mostly) got rid of software patents in the last refactor of the Patents Act, although we're watching with interest to see if the government tries to reinstate them with the excuse of complying with TPP conditions.
On a related note, I've ended up with some videos that won't play properly in VLC due to lack of HEVC support. Is there anything I can do about this? Or do I just have to find versions using a different video codec?