Will H.264 Codec Support Come To Fedora? Nope.

[TheBlackCat]

They do it by not caring about the legalities.

I am pretty sure they do it by being in a country that does not allow patents on software (i.e. pretty much any country besides the U.S.).

[DaemonFC]

I am pretty sure they do it by being in a country that does not allow patents on software (i.e. pretty much any country besides the U.S.).

Don't worry, the companies that own the US government are hard at work to export our patent laws.

[Gusar]

There's nothing "first-class" about Flash integration in Chrome

How about the fact that is uses Pepper? It'll do so even on Windows, if it doesn't already.

If a website is looking to support HTML5 video then VP8 would be just as valid as h264 on the desktop under those circumstances.

No it's not, for one simple reason: all their videos are already h264. Re-ecoding the entire library to vp8 and storing both is a huge and expensive undertaking. Google with youtube can afford that, but other sites do not have Google's resources. Why undertake this expensive re-encoding, which would takes months, if you can without problems rely on that people have Flash.

Google wouldn't disable it on old hardware - just new. Like when Android 5.0 comes out, for example.

And why would people buy hardware that's less capable than current hardware? They'd instead go iDevice instead. Also, if only new Android devices wouldn't be able to play h264, that'd be a very, very small percentage of all mobile users. That's doesn't put pressure on distributors to undertake an expensive re-encoding.

And exactly the type of big step I think Google has been reluctant to take.

Because it doesn't add up. If they did it a year ago, maybe it'd have an impact. Though I think not even then. Now it's waaaay too late, if they do it now they'd just push people towards iDevices in the mobile space, and the desktop space has Flash.

Don't worry, Chrome spies on you and gives them enough personal information to sell to advertisers that it offsets the cost of the MPEG-LA cartel licenses.

Umm, how exactly does Chrome spy on you?

[XorEaxEax]

No it's not, for one simple reason: all their videos are already h264. Re-ecoding the entire library to vp8 and storing both is a huge and expensive undertaking. Google with youtube can afford that, but other sites do not have Google's resources.

I seriously doubt that storing both is a HUGE and EXPENSIVE undertaking, lots of sites already store the files in both the original and a streaming version (Vimeo comes to mind) and other sites have MUCH less content than youtube.

As for the future of vpx and webm, Google is obviously commited giving how they are hiring more skillfull developers and the great progress made on the performance and quality of vp8 (download 720p webm/vp8 and mp4/x264 videos on youtube and compare, I sure can't see any visual difference and the webm file is usually smaller). What webm lacks in it's current form in order to be attractive to content providers is drm provisions (yeah I know, urk!) which is something I'm sure will be rectified as Google bought Widevine which expertize lies in content protection.

Looking past Google however is what webm is really about for me, as I think it opens up great opportunities for startups in video content due to it not carrying any licence costs. All you warez kidz out there needs to realize that this is not about the codec used on your movie and anime releases (pirates DON'T pay codec licences), it's about what is used on the web where these licence costs become a reality.

For those declaring webm/vp8 a failure because it hasn't yet taken over the web, are you stupid? The amount of inertia to push through is staggering and any progress webm does against x264 will be in tiny steps, for an example of this regard the almost universally reviled flash versus the hailed html5 and it's slow progress.

Furthermore, even if you don't want to use it and still prefer x264 you still benefit from webm's existance as without it the licencing costs of x264 would be much higher.

As for this 'article' , yes it's sad to see Phoronix sink even deeper into putrid 'journalism' by using some flamebait trolling on a mailing list as a way to throw a jab at fedora. I still don't see what Micheals endgame is, I see that he has removed the 'about linux' thing moniker from the frontpage which perhaps explains something. Is he bitter due to Phoronix not getting recognition from the Linux community? I don't know, I just don't understand why he often goes out of his way to add a negative slant to things he reports on Linux, and things like this 'article' I don't even know where to begin...

[Ansla]

(the status of source code with regard to patent law is an...interesting topic)

So the lawyers you talked to consider even distributing source code problematic?

In Gentoo there is a USE flag called bindist that disable any patented feature so that the binaries generated can be distributed without problems (used for example when building the Gentoo live DVD), but on a regular Gentoo install that USE flag is disabled by default so patented features like H.264 and the floating point textures in mesa are being built.

Wouldn't this work for Fedora as well, distribute the packages in binary format like usual, but for select packages like ffmpeg and mesa ask the user if the patented features are desired and build them locally?

[crazycheese]

The best way is to take approach that Document Foundation did when opposing M$ Docx. And they won.
All other options are pathetic.

If Apple is forcefully installing h264 on its products, it does exactly the same approach as m$, called pushing "own" standards. You clearly CAN´T accept patented format as standard for video exchange. This will set all for good.

When will people learn that patents comissions should NOT be taken from NON-COMMERCIAL applications ?! You can´t charge someone who does not use your work to make money, this is simply unethical!

[Gusar]

I seriously doubt that storing both is a HUGE and EXPENSIVE undertaking, lots of sites already store the files in both the original and a streaming version (Vimeo comes to mind) and other sites have MUCH less content than youtube.

The Mozilla people have been talking to actual companies. Here's some examples:
http://groups.google.com/group/mozil...712eab3a3d534e
http://groups.google.com/group/mozil...b6ec2693505035

As for the future of vpx and webm, Google is obviously commited

If they were so obviously committed, they'd turn off h264 in Chrome when they promised to do it - at the beginning of last year. Hasn't happened.

download 720p webm/vp8 and mp4/x264 videos on youtube and compare, I sure can't see any visual difference and the webm file is usually smaller.

Provide a specific example, please.

Also, do your own test transcoding a DVD video. I did so. Unfortunately it was more than a year ago, so I'd need to repeat the test with current versions of encoders. Back then libvpx was quite bad. Here's the worst example: original, x264, libvpx. Other examples weren't that bad, here's the entire album: http://www.imagebam.com/gallery/ylkh...csidsfo9yx1ww/. For each of the five images compared, they're always in the order of original, x264, libvpx, theora.

libvpx has surely improved since then, but I doubt is has come close to x264. Only an actual test would say for sure though.

Looking past Google however is what webm is really about for me, as I think it opens up great opportunities for startups in video content due to it not carrying any licence costs.

If you want to reach the broadest audience, and you do, you need h264. I don't think limiting yourself to desktop Firefox+Chrome+Opera users is a wise business decision. Especially with how the mobile space is growing.

For those declaring webm/vp8 a failure because it hasn't yet taken over the web, are you stupid?

No, just realistic. Read the message from Asa Dotzler I linked to above - webm isn't making *any* progress on the web. It's the other way around. Companies are actively saying "no" to it. That's the reality. The Mozilla folks have accepted it, after talking to companies for months.

[XorEaxEax]

If they were so obviously committed, they'd turn off h264 in Chrome when they promised to do it - at the beginning of last year. Hasn't happened.

They are continuing to develop vpX at a high pace and also hiring more developers to work at it, how is that not commitment? As for the exact reasons for not removing h264 from Chrome, I can only speculate that they feared it would negatively impact Chrome's adoption rate. But that does not equal lack of commitment towards webm as it's increased development shows. Personally I think it's better if webm gains ground on it's merits of being a licence-free codec with rather than by preventing access h264.

Also, do your own test transcoding a DVD video. I did so. Unfortunately it was more than a year ago, so I'd need to repeat the test with current versions of encoders.

Yes you do, there's been several releases since then. I too do test encodes from DVD, and I did some tests when 'Duclair' was released and I was impressed with the results. In high-motion scenes x264 was certainly better (as in viewing still shots, live it's very hard to tell) at equal file sizes but the difference wasn't staggering by any means. x264 output is undoubtably better quality at equal file sizes but the difference is not huge and for web content it makes no percievable difference at all.

When I did the tests I used the new constant quality option in vpenc (basically same as constant rate factor in x264 although this works in two pass):

vpxenc 1.y4m -o output.webm --best --target-bitrate=100000 --end-usage=cq --cq-level=16 --kf-min-dist=0 --kf-max-dist=360 --token-parts=2 --min-q=0 --max-q=63 --passes=2 --auto-alt-ref=1

Never mind the inflated --target-bitrate as it is just a dummy value, the cq-level is what determines the quality

I compared this to the output of:
x264 --subme=10 --ref=16 --bframes=16 --trellis=2 --no-fast-pskip --rc-lookahead=40 --8x8dct --me=umh --merange=24 --b-adapt=2 --analyse=all --partitions=all --b-pyramid=2 --cabac --direct=auto --crf=16

And again while x264 was definately better at the same file sizes the difference was (imo) impressively small. Now I'm no expert encoder and chances are there are much better options for both these encoders, if so please do tell.

libvpx has surely improved since then, but I doubt is has come close to x264. Only an actual test would say for sure though.

Give it a shot, I'd think you'd be surprised.

If you want to reach the broadest audience, and you do, you need h264. I don't think limiting yourself to desktop Firefox+Chrome+Opera users is a wise business decision. Especially with how the mobile space is growing.

True but in reality you also need to offset the costs necessary to reach the broadest audience, x264 comes with licencing costs, webm does not.

No, just realistic. Read the message from Asa Dotzler I linked to above - webm isn't making *any* progress on the web. It's the other way around. Companies are actively saying "no" to it. That's the reality. The Mozilla folks have accepted it, after talking to companies for months.

I don't know what Mozilla was expecting, seriously this sounds like a cop-out excuse just because they want to get their browser into the mobile sector and therefore needs to be able to use h264.

Google offers a quality encoder for free, with a perpetual patent grant for anyone to use, they add support for it on their own site Youtube, which I can happily say is progressing great as I haven't come across a non-playable video in quite some time (I don't have flash installed so it's all webm for me), they continue to pour money into improving the codec and it's tools. Yet we have whiners complaining that they aren't doing enough??? Insane.

[droidhacker]

Ok, where to begin...

First off, that the article is biased nonsense that doesn't take the LAW into account. Fedora/RH is a **UNITED STATES** based linux distro, and are thus subject to USA LAW. That means that they must respect IP or obama will butt-rape them.

Second, Fedora ***DOES*** support H.264, BONE STOCK, straight out of the box, no hacks, no 3rd party repos, nothing funny. Just not SOFTWARE codecs, which are pretty useless anyway. Certain hardware decoders (broadcom crystalhd, maybe some intel GPUs, etc.) can decode H.264, and Fedora *DOES* include open source drivers for some of those. The reason these are permitted is because the drivers don't actually do any of the decoding, the hardware does, and the hardware is LICENSED, hence LEGAL.

[curaga]

Google wouldn't disable it on old hardware - just new. Like when Android 5.0 comes out, for example. One of the hardware requirements to run 5.0 would be VP8 hardware acceleration. With VP8 Youtube videos, I think it might be possible. You could get places like ESPN to start serving up WebM streams along with h264. But this is a large step, and one that Google is obviously nervous about taking. It probably never will. It's exactly the kind of radical step that a company like Apple might do, to try and lock users into their format and push the market where they want it to go. And exactly the type of big step I think Google has been reluctant to take.

It's not that bad; they have been offering the hardware decoder design for free for a while, and at least Rockchip has implemented it in many of their SoCs.
If even many of the chinese Android phones have hw vp8, it wouldn't exactly be a huge investment to the big players.