Thoughts on WebM
The announcement of WebM, in general, was very positively perceived by the habrasoobschestvom, but most of the conclusions that are viewed in the comments to the relevant topics, in my opinion, show excessive optimism and misunderstanding by many readers of many important points that may affect success (or failure) and WebM implementation speed. In this small note I will try to briefly describe the points that should be taken into account for more understanding of this whole situation with WebM, H.264 and so on.
Although these parameters, no matter how paradoxical it may sound, are not decisive, they nevertheless play a significant role in the “struggle of formats”. If you look objectively and do not push off from fanatical dogmas, Theora was frankly weaker than H.264 and, although supporters of Theora constantly said that “it can be finished and done better,” it was clear to everyone that in this case it was not clear to all who, how and how much will be engaged and who will pay for it in the end, so it will stretch for unclear terms. With WebM, potentially, a similar situation is possible. Despite the statements of On2, there is no reliable and verifiable data that WebM (or more precisely VP8) is better than H.264. But there are the words of the developer x264, which, although it can be counted among the interested parties, is still quite competent in this area, which somehow tells us that with the quality of WebM everything is sad enough and, most importantly, of a special large space for improvements and there is no optimization as the standard specifications are already final.
This parameter is very critical, first of all, for mobile gadgets, consumer electronics and weak netbooks. Although we are promised a weak load on the processor when playing WebM, it’s still fair to say that so far it has never been weak, but at the same time it promises to be fixed in the future. True, the reliability of these promises to be under great doubt - although I am not an expert on video codecs, but in principle it is clear that a weak load on the processor will be only if the video compression ratio is weak, which, accordingly, will result in large amount of data that will take video. For good, this problem can be solved quite simply if the WebM format is decoding by hardware, for example, a computer video card or a SoC gadget, but the following problem comes from here.
One of the factors due to which the H.264 format began to rapidly gain popularity is the support of its hardware acceleration, not only with computers, but also with a variety of consumer electronics and gadgets, including Apple's well-known devices. If existing generations of computer video cards, for sure, will be able (if manufacturers wish) to get support for WebM hardware acceleration (for example, at the driver level), then in the case of integrated SoC, this is practically impossible. To support the hardware acceleration, WebM will have to make a new player / smartphone, already on the basis of new SoCs, which still need to be designed and put into production, and these are not the smallest costs for their manufacturers. Moreover, the costs of introducing WebM support into many SoCs can be regarded by manufacturers as such that they have no meaning, because for this it is necessary to do extra work (and these are costs), and the meaning is less than obvious for them - how fast WebM will gain popularity Is there anyone who will release content in it, and is it necessary for an ordinary consumer? As a result, this may result in a significant decrease in the rate of distribution of the new format.
')
Probably the most unpleasant topic that few people want to raise. The fact is that, as already mentioned, "just because something is open source, it doesn’t mean anything, but these are cruel realities that also need to be considered in this matter. As far as I know, so far no one has made any claims to WebM (or more precisely VP8), but if we consider that this standard was developed by On2, this cannot be ruled out in the future. At least the claims to Theora, which was based on VP3 (as you know, this is also a child of On2), have been heard several times, although no litigation has yet followed, but this example is indicative.
Of course, developers are already actively working to implement WebM in libraries of decoders, coders, browsers, and so on, but it should be understood that the statuses are “almost ready” and “ready” - this, as they say, is two big differences. In the end, the web video is not limited to YouTube (otherwise it would be possible to say that H.264 won a long time ago, although it was hidden, in most cases, behind a Flash player), but how convenient is it to use WebM to third parties? What software is it supported in? When it will be? At the same time, the “long-standing” H.264 continues to be fully implemented by many companies and projects, because everything is clear with it and everything is ready, recently even one large domestic social network has implemented it :)
This is about the attractiveness of the introduction of the format for third parties. We must try to answer the question “Why is it worth implementing WebM? What are its advantages? ”From companies. From the obvious, it can be recalled that it is open and free from paying license fees, but the fact is that these factors in the world of big business have little effect on them simply because sometimes it is easier to pay and get a turnkey solution. Many should remember OGG Vorbis, which, in fact, was neglected in favor of MP3, although it was also open and free from paying royalties. Such facts “Promoted by Google” and “Supported by Multiple Browsers” should significantly increase the attractiveness - the first gives hope that the whole thing will not be abandoned after the premiere, but the second is practical expediency. But just with the second fact problems may arise. No matter how I or someone else personally relates to the IE browser, the fact that this browser continues to be a leader in its share and occupies more than 50% in the world (although it has been steadily losing it lately) still remains a fact. If the new version of IE doesn’t, as they say, support WebM out of the box (and MS’s statement about WebM support, if such a codec is available in the system, this can be interpreted as such), this will be a very negative factor for the speed of WebM implementation by others market participants (not browsers, but projects).
The fact that such a large number of companies from the most diverse industries have declared their support for the new format looks very positive, but this fact should not be overestimated. The fact is that in the field of IT, as in any other field of activity, “promising is not a means of marrying” and often supporting speaking out almost “for the company”, after which, in practice, there is little that can be done in this direction if something is done then in general.
How can I get around such a point? :) There is every reason to believe that not complete fools are sitting in MPEG LA, although it seems to many differently :) Therefore, if they don’t want the position of one of their standards to falter (and they hardly want it), they can have quite strongly resistance on two main fronts.
The first is legal claims about VP8 violation of MPEG LA patents. Despite the fact that software patents are far from being in all countries of the world, the problems in the United States alone will be enough to significantly undercut the introduction of the new format.
The second is an increase in the attractiveness of H.264 compared to a competitor, and there is nothing to do with the format itself, and it will be enough to liberalize the conditions of its use a little. How do you think, how many will be worn with WebM, if MPEG LA removes the most acute complaints about the format? And this, I remind you, is the payment for manufacturers of free browsers and, so far theoretically, the need to pay for its use to end users. In MPEG LA they may well go for it under the threat of “loss of web video”, because they still receive the main money and will receive it not from Mozilla and Opera.
I hope that this small note written in the middle of the night will be useful and understandable to you :) If I remember something else in the afternoon, I will update the note.
My personal opinion is that WebM will ultimately take a decent share of the web video market, because there are a lot of promotion efforts (and Google is unlikely to score on this project, otherwise they wouldn’t buy On2) few people let it down :) but the pace of it for some reason, the introduction seems to me not so rosy, and indeed the continuation of the “format war” is not the most pleasant and useful for end users.
PS: in the end, the format chosen by the producers of porn will still win anyway :)
Quality and efficiency
Although these parameters, no matter how paradoxical it may sound, are not decisive, they nevertheless play a significant role in the “struggle of formats”. If you look objectively and do not push off from fanatical dogmas, Theora was frankly weaker than H.264 and, although supporters of Theora constantly said that “it can be finished and done better,” it was clear to everyone that in this case it was not clear to all who, how and how much will be engaged and who will pay for it in the end, so it will stretch for unclear terms. With WebM, potentially, a similar situation is possible. Despite the statements of On2, there is no reliable and verifiable data that WebM (or more precisely VP8) is better than H.264. But there are the words of the developer x264, which, although it can be counted among the interested parties, is still quite competent in this area, which somehow tells us that with the quality of WebM everything is sad enough and, most importantly, of a special large space for improvements and there is no optimization as the standard specifications are already final.
CPU load
This parameter is very critical, first of all, for mobile gadgets, consumer electronics and weak netbooks. Although we are promised a weak load on the processor when playing WebM, it’s still fair to say that so far it has never been weak, but at the same time it promises to be fixed in the future. True, the reliability of these promises to be under great doubt - although I am not an expert on video codecs, but in principle it is clear that a weak load on the processor will be only if the video compression ratio is weak, which, accordingly, will result in large amount of data that will take video. For good, this problem can be solved quite simply if the WebM format is decoding by hardware, for example, a computer video card or a SoC gadget, but the following problem comes from here.
Hardware acceleration
One of the factors due to which the H.264 format began to rapidly gain popularity is the support of its hardware acceleration, not only with computers, but also with a variety of consumer electronics and gadgets, including Apple's well-known devices. If existing generations of computer video cards, for sure, will be able (if manufacturers wish) to get support for WebM hardware acceleration (for example, at the driver level), then in the case of integrated SoC, this is practically impossible. To support the hardware acceleration, WebM will have to make a new player / smartphone, already on the basis of new SoCs, which still need to be designed and put into production, and these are not the smallest costs for their manufacturers. Moreover, the costs of introducing WebM support into many SoCs can be regarded by manufacturers as such that they have no meaning, because for this it is necessary to do extra work (and these are costs), and the meaning is less than obvious for them - how fast WebM will gain popularity Is there anyone who will release content in it, and is it necessary for an ordinary consumer? As a result, this may result in a significant decrease in the rate of distribution of the new format.
')
Patent security
Probably the most unpleasant topic that few people want to raise. The fact is that, as already mentioned, "just because something is open source, it doesn’t mean anything, but these are cruel realities that also need to be considered in this matter. As far as I know, so far no one has made any claims to WebM (or more precisely VP8), but if we consider that this standard was developed by On2, this cannot be ruled out in the future. At least the claims to Theora, which was based on VP3 (as you know, this is also a child of On2), have been heard several times, although no litigation has yet followed, but this example is indicative.
Ready for use
Of course, developers are already actively working to implement WebM in libraries of decoders, coders, browsers, and so on, but it should be understood that the statuses are “almost ready” and “ready” - this, as they say, is two big differences. In the end, the web video is not limited to YouTube (otherwise it would be possible to say that H.264 won a long time ago, although it was hidden, in most cases, behind a Flash player), but how convenient is it to use WebM to third parties? What software is it supported in? When it will be? At the same time, the “long-standing” H.264 continues to be fully implemented by many companies and projects, because everything is clear with it and everything is ready, recently even one large domestic social network has implemented it :)
Attractiveness
This is about the attractiveness of the introduction of the format for third parties. We must try to answer the question “Why is it worth implementing WebM? What are its advantages? ”From companies. From the obvious, it can be recalled that it is open and free from paying license fees, but the fact is that these factors in the world of big business have little effect on them simply because sometimes it is easier to pay and get a turnkey solution. Many should remember OGG Vorbis, which, in fact, was neglected in favor of MP3, although it was also open and free from paying royalties. Such facts “Promoted by Google” and “Supported by Multiple Browsers” should significantly increase the attractiveness - the first gives hope that the whole thing will not be abandoned after the premiere, but the second is practical expediency. But just with the second fact problems may arise. No matter how I or someone else personally relates to the IE browser, the fact that this browser continues to be a leader in its share and occupies more than 50% in the world (although it has been steadily losing it lately) still remains a fact. If the new version of IE doesn’t, as they say, support WebM out of the box (and MS’s statement about WebM support, if such a codec is available in the system, this can be interpreted as such), this will be a very negative factor for the speed of WebM implementation by others market participants (not browsers, but projects).
Manufacturers support
The fact that such a large number of companies from the most diverse industries have declared their support for the new format looks very positive, but this fact should not be overestimated. The fact is that in the field of IT, as in any other field of activity, “promising is not a means of marrying” and often supporting speaking out almost “for the company”, after which, in practice, there is little that can be done in this direction if something is done then in general.
Confront competitors
How can I get around such a point? :) There is every reason to believe that not complete fools are sitting in MPEG LA, although it seems to many differently :) Therefore, if they don’t want the position of one of their standards to falter (and they hardly want it), they can have quite strongly resistance on two main fronts.
The first is legal claims about VP8 violation of MPEG LA patents. Despite the fact that software patents are far from being in all countries of the world, the problems in the United States alone will be enough to significantly undercut the introduction of the new format.
The second is an increase in the attractiveness of H.264 compared to a competitor, and there is nothing to do with the format itself, and it will be enough to liberalize the conditions of its use a little. How do you think, how many will be worn with WebM, if MPEG LA removes the most acute complaints about the format? And this, I remind you, is the payment for manufacturers of free browsers and, so far theoretically, the need to pay for its use to end users. In MPEG LA they may well go for it under the threat of “loss of web video”, because they still receive the main money and will receive it not from Mozilla and Opera.
Instead of conclusions
I hope that this small note written in the middle of the night will be useful and understandable to you :) If I remember something else in the afternoon, I will update the note.
My personal opinion is that WebM will ultimately take a decent share of the web video market, because there are a lot of promotion efforts (and Google is unlikely to score on this project, otherwise they wouldn’t buy On2) few people let it down :) but the pace of it for some reason, the introduction seems to me not so rosy, and indeed the continuation of the “format war” is not the most pleasant and useful for end users.
PS: in the end, the format chosen by the producers of porn will still win anyway :)
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/94036/
All Articles