Specifying codecs for the web

Posted Dec 12, 2007 19:07 UTC (Wed) by gmaxwell (guest, #30048)
Parent article: Specifying codecs for the web

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.

to post comments

Specifying codecs for the web

Posted Dec 13, 2007 0:40 UTC (Thu) by jamesh (guest, #1159) [Link] (3 responses)

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] (2 responses)

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] (1 responses)

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...