Developers › A Journal from Behind the Trenches
WebM: High-quality free and open video for the Web
Opera, Mozilla and Google have just announced WebM - high-quality free and open video for the Web!
WebM uses VP8 for video, Vorbis for audio, and the Matroska container format.
That's right. Google decided to open the On2 VP8 codec, and share it with the rest of the world. They joined forces with Opera and Mozilla to bring it to a browser near you, and now it's ready for testing!
You can grab your copy of Opera with WebM support, and actually try it out at YouTube!
Google is throwing its weight behind WebM, and has countless content, hardware and software partners lined up. This is truly an industry-changing event, as until now the Web seemed to be moving towards lockdown with H.264 looking at complete dominance over online video.
With the world's most popular browsers and the world's most popular video site pushing WebM, it will truly make a difference.
WebM uses VP8 for video, Vorbis for audio, and the Matroska container format.
That's right. Google decided to open the On2 VP8 codec, and share it with the rest of the world. They joined forces with Opera and Mozilla to bring it to a browser near you, and now it's ready for testing!
You can grab your copy of Opera with WebM support, and actually try it out at YouTube!
Google is throwing its weight behind WebM, and has countless content, hardware and software partners lined up. This is truly an industry-changing event, as until now the Web seemed to be moving towards lockdown with H.264 looking at complete dominance over online video.
With the world's most popular browsers and the world's most popular video site pushing WebM, it will truly make a difference.
Readers' comments 50
Left under the original article, as archived; 1 page of comments could not be recovered.
About this article
| Published in | A Journal from Behind the Trenches |
|---|---|
| Date | May 19, 2010 |
| Author | Haavard |
| Tags | opera, vorbis, mozilla, google, matroska, webm, vp8, standards |
| Original | Internet Archive |
thobi19. May 2010, 16:01
edit: but opera isn't linked yet
btw: opera isn't mentioned there at all -> http://www.youtube.com/html5
Mark Gillespie19. May 2010, 16:02
ishs19. May 2010, 16:04
SanIceman19. May 2010, 16:06
Charles Schloss19. May 2010, 16:07
Can't get to http://webmproject.blogspot.com/ have to log into Blogger to view
João David19. May 2010, 16:11
Andrew Sam19. May 2010, 16:11
Mark Gillespie19. May 2010, 16:15
Opera gives back too!!!
Matheus19. May 2010, 16:18
Harlekin Mond19. May 2010, 16:19
Dustin Wilson19. May 2010, 16:22
Now what about easily accessible tools to produce this format? Manually patching ffmpeg is okay for someone like me, but I'm sure many others wouldn't bother with that kind of thing.
lwiczek19. May 2010, 16:34
Paul George19. May 2010, 16:43
I am looking forward to this stuff hitting the major tech blogs and seeing Microsoft and Apple's responses.
Fun times ahead.
Mark Gillespie19. May 2010, 16:53
http://www.webmproject.org/users/
Says Opera Coming Soon?
Have Opera messed up again with their marketing and missed the boat? What still amazes me, is Opera wonder why they have such a small marketshare, when they let things like this happen, and do such a poor job at marketing the best browser on the market.
EDIT: Now updated on the WebM site...
João Eiras19. May 2010, 17:13
Haavard19. May 2010, 17:34
Originally posted by mgillespie:
No, it links to the Opera Labs announcement. Furthermore, Opera is credited on the project front page, and took the stage with Google and Mozilla to announce WebM.zbgoswvhvsq19. May 2010, 17:39
Does it have advantages over AVC, besides the cost for manufacturers?
Mark Gillespie19. May 2010, 17:39
Originally posted by zbgoswvhvsq:
Patent-Free.
Mark Gillespie19. May 2010, 17:40
Originally posted by haavard:
It didn't when I looked 20mins ago. It's now correct thou.
Dillon19. May 2010, 17:48
http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=377
Seems slightly worse, but competitive and I'm looking forward to future speed and quality improvements. I am a little worried about patent infringement though
zbgoswvhvsq19. May 2010, 17:53
Originally posted by mgillespie:
Actually the same reason.
By advantages I mean engineering solutions. How good is VP8?
Originally posted by Astrophizz:
tnx
Daniel James Hendrycks19. May 2010, 18:21
Mad Scientist19. May 2010, 18:28
Originally posted by mgillespie:
+1
Mark Gillespie19. May 2010, 18:31
http://newteevee.com/2010/05/03/microsoft-on-vp8-for-html5-never-say-never/
I think they realize despite them wanting to control the web, they no longer have that ability (they abandoned IE for too long).
ouzoWTF19. May 2010, 18:37
Igor19. May 2010, 19:16
Diego Schild19. May 2010, 20:22
Tenno Seremel19. May 2010, 20:33
Originally posted by xErath:
http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/b/bloggingwindows/archive/2010/05/19/another-follow-up-on-html5-video-in-ie9.aspx
EDIT: It seems I was late
BS-Harou19. May 2010, 20:41
d4rkn1ght19. May 2010, 20:45
Andrew Nguyen19. May 2010, 21:07
Mark Gillespie19. May 2010, 21:10
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2010/05/19/another-follow-up-on-html5-video-in-ie9.aspx
"In its HTML5 support, IE9 will support playback of H.264 video as well as VP8 video when the user has installed a VP8 codec on Windows."
Of course this is different from what they were saying last week, and I bet when IE9 ships it will come with BUNDLED VP8 support, in true Microsoft style they always cover their tracks, lots of small backtracks instead of one big public about turn.
Zotlan19. May 2010, 21:23
Incidentally, why was the linux version of the labs build not provided as a tarball? That way everyone could have used it.
Mark Gillespie19. May 2010, 22:06
Originally posted by Zotlan:
Google are far from evil. They offer us lots of cool stuff in exchange for some data to make search results more accurate.
Microsoft are the real evil ones, hell bent on trying to own everything under the sun.
Cutting Spoon19. May 2010, 22:22
Better container format (though ripped off and re-branded), terrible documentation and questionable future. I'm checking out the Labs build now, but feel that VP8 will be taking all of us on a long and bumpy ride.
PS: The browser should be able to play any correctly coded file via context menu or drag-n-drop, I first noticed this lack with .ogv files when Theora support landed. You have better AVI support than HTML5 support.
PPS: Thanks much for the decision to donate your GStreamer porting work.
Charles Schloss19. May 2010, 22:31
http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/b/bloggingwindows/archive/2010/05/19/another-follow-up-on-html5-video-in-ie9.aspx
Cutting Spoon19. May 2010, 23:09
So I took it for a spin on my Atom N280-based netbook. Results for YouTube are as follows:
1) No fullscreen yet.
2) Slick interface otherwise, mostly "just works".
3) Looks about the same as Flash, often sounds worse. (YouTube's fault?)
4) More CPU usage and frame-tearing than Flash version. (less efficient)
a) NO I DO NOT HAVE ACCELERATED FLASH
5) Seems to generate larger cache entries than h.264 (less compression)
6) Seems to use more memory, but this is less certain.
VERDICT: I think they've managed the "good enough" quality level if they can X) improve audio quality, Y) lower system requirements, Z) survive the patent litmus.
Aux20. May 2010, 00:18
Guillermo20. May 2010, 03:10
"Your browser does not currently recognize any of the video formats available.
Click here to visit our frequently asked questions about HTML5 video."
Ruari Ødegaard20. May 2010, 05:22
Originally posted by Guille:
Don't install it, run it 'in place', i.e.It seems we have a small bug that results in the install script not copying the WebM files into the correct location.
If you really want to use your main profile (not at all recommended but it is your choice), change that last line to:
P.S. Since installing does not work right now (at least as far as WebM support, which is the point of the labs release) we have removed the install script from the online *nix packages.
prd320. May 2010, 09:56
Originally posted by mgillespie:
Oh, quit it with the crazy rants already. It doesn't take more than a tiny non-issue, and you start ranting about all sorts of completely irrelevant crap. Save your knee-jerk reactions for something that actually matters. That you are mindlessly parroting the market share myth just proves how deluded you are.
Originally posted by BS-Harou:
That has got nothing whatsoever to do with WebM. It's how Google chose to add it to YouTube.
prd320. May 2010, 09:57
Originally posted by Astrophizz:
More like commentary from someone who is financially, emotionally and creatively invested in H.264. Heavily invested. Take his biased rants with a grain of salt.
Originally posted by hellspork:
It's pretty insane to make a verdict based on alpha quality builds intended for early testing of the feature.
BS-Harou20. May 2010, 15:25
Originally posted by prd3:
no, it's about how Opera implemented it) ... there is default context menu for Theora too)
prd320. May 2010, 15:56
Originally posted by BS-Harou:
Wrong.
BS-Harou20. May 2010, 17:06
Originally posted by prd3:
well the whole point of HTML5 video is that it is right in the browser (not is some plugin) so its browsers choice what is in the context menu...
Dillon20. May 2010, 18:03
Originally posted by prd3:
He isn't emotionally or creatively invested in H.264. In fact he's stated he might work on WebM encoding. He's said he would work on Theora except that the code is apparently a mess. In fact many of the new improvements coming to Theora are a result of his suggestions to the Xiph team. Sure he might be biased, but as it stands that post of his is the most informed article on the internet about the technical merits of WebM. Please stop attempting to discredit knowledgeable people based on your gut reactions.
prd320. May 2010, 20:44
Originally posted by BS-Harou:
It IS right in the browser. It's just added to the page in a different way.
Originally posted by Astrophizz:
He IS invested in H.264 since he has spent enormous amounts of time and resources on x264. Claiming otherwise is simply insane. He has a history of attacking anyone who doesn't bow to H.264's (according to him) excellence. He has a history of distortion, including this latest hit piece against WebM.
Dillon20. May 2010, 21:05
prd321. May 2010, 05:53
Anyone who wants to sue over WebM will have to face Google's army of lawyers anyway.
BTW, I'm wondering what people think about MPEG-LA not indemnifying people who use H264?
Dillon21. May 2010, 06:07