Google statement on codecs (opens in new tab)

I don't know why this got downvoted - we all know it's true, even if we don't want it to be.

Does anyone really believe Apple are going to support a codec that they can't hand off to power-saving silicone?

edit: it was gray when I replied

I don't think people would be enthusiastic about the larger file sizes and extra visual noise with VP8 in fast moving videos or those with a lot of contrast comaired to H264 Encode times were much longer too. My experience may not be typical but I could not get my videos to look as good even with much larger files. I could not find anyone with real world video using it. Unless they have made some big advances recently I just don't understand how they can claim parity.

As expected of a telecoms company - they want to use the standards that are already implemented in silicone.

Has anyone blogged the feasibility of hardware acceleration of Opus? I know they have an integer implementation already, but it seems we still don't even have Vorbis support anywhere...

From reading Wikipedia, the choice of G.719 sounds awful, since it needs licenses from not one but two companies and Ericsson pushing it sounds like something that would benefit them a lot.

Skype's value isn't a particular technical implementation, it's the install base, directory and related network effects.

WebRTC is likely to increase Skype's business (assuming the do a WebRTC implementation), at the expense of traditional telecoms and conference call providers.

VP8 is already used in Skype, and half the tech for the audio codec Opus came from Skype's Silk codec so it's not a forgeone conclusion. Possibly Microsoft control changes that equation, but clearly Skype thought this was the future when it was a standalone entity.

> But considering WebRTC could potentially ruin much of Skype's business

How?

Apparently Microsoft plans to use WebRTC in the Skype Web client [1]

[1] http://gigaom.com/2012/06/26/skype-webrtc-web-client/

Skype is already using VP8. But I'd really hate it if Microsoft (or Apple) acted like assholes and tried to force h.264 or some other proprietary technology into yet another web protocol. Web technologies should be free of patent-encumbered technologies. It's the only way you can ensure its sustainability and you don't run into patent problems a few years down the road.

This pretty much confirms what I suspected earlier ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4274757 ), namely that licensing issues are the reason for Google not having committed to it, yet. And as they said they recommend it if and only if the "remaining licensing issues can be resolved."

> I was hoping Google would adopt Mozilla's Opus codec for audio,

Is Opus Mozilla's codec? I didn't know that. I thought it was Xiph's with an effort to create an IETF draft for it.

Isn't it closer now to "Microsoft's codec" since it uses SILK (Skype's codec) for speech mode. Last time I looked at it I thought it was Xiph's codec with an effort do create an IETF standard...