Comments on: One codec to rule them all, Part2 Web Video http://www.crafted.com.au/blog/2007/07/07/one-codec-to-rule-them-all-part2-web-video/ JamieG looks deep into the ramifications of current trends in Technology and Media Sat, 28 Aug 2010 18:56:21 +1000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: JamieG Analysis http://www.crafted.com.au/blog/2007/07/07/one-codec-to-rule-them-all-part2-web-video/comment-page-1/#comment-478 JamieG Analysis Sun, 19 Aug 2007 03:11:50 +0000 http://www.crafted.com.au/blog/?p=37#comment-478 [...] As a developer of online applications for video related businesses, I have had a lot to say about the future of Flash and Video. The recent development for YouTube export and how it does it, is an interesting one and I would like to make some follow up comments from my previous post on this found here. [...] [...] As a developer of online applications for video related businesses, I have had a lot to say about the future of Flash and Video. The recent development for YouTube export and how it does it, is an interesting one and I would like to make some follow up comments from my previous post on this found here. [...]

]]> By: jamieg http://www.crafted.com.au/blog/2007/07/07/one-codec-to-rule-them-all-part2-web-video/comment-page-1/#comment-270 jamieg Mon, 09 Jul 2007 12:47:44 +0000 http://www.crafted.com.au/blog/?p=37#comment-270 Roscoe: Thank you so much for pointing out the post http://www.kaourantin.net/2005/08/quest-for-new-video-codec-in-flash-8.html Strangely, however, I feel the Comments of the post back up exactly what I am saying. I do agree, however, that at the time of Flash8 release, the support of On2/VP6 over H.264, considering all the issues mentioned in the blog post, did have merit. But that was then. This is now, and the change in the landscape really makes it a strategic mistake to not go down the H.264 path. Firstly, looking at http://www.on2.com/technology/vp7/ you will read that vp7 is designed for, quote "On2 VP7 is optimized for playback on low-power chipsets and includes advanced buffering and latency features." (Sounds like a codec is more suitable for video-calls or other real time implementations. Note: no demo downloads of the Encoder appear available on the site, so I have not been able to test it personally.) To me this means it is not as ideal for distribution as a SMPTE ratified codec like H.264. Certainly for FlashLite, but for the standard duel core desktop of today. By its own admission, its not the ideal choice. However, and thanks for the link to the AVC licensing costs, this is the real issue for lack of support for AVC. Still, I imagine Adobe and the licensing body are probably in deep negotiations. Imagine a one off (resonable) licensing fee, allowing flash to support AVC/AAC. It would propel Flash player into a near impenetrable dominant position for the API of choice of digital content distribution on the net. It would really close the doors on Silverlight/Microsoft's plan to try and dominate the future of this technology. (Depending on DRM outcomes) Imagine if Flash became the platform of choice for implementation of IPTV/NET/Mobile technology for all digital media distribution. Consider the support for Apple, PC, Linux. The ease of STB implementation etc. This would greatly improve Adobe capturing this part of the industry and all the licensing possibilities that go with it. (Where the real money is in my opinion) James Roscoe: Thank you so much for pointing out the post
http://www.kaourantin.net/2005/08/quest-for-new-video-codec-in-flash-8.html
Strangely, however, I feel the Comments of the post back up exactly what I am saying. I do agree, however, that at the time of Flash8 release, the support of On2/VP6 over H.264, considering all the issues mentioned in the blog post, did have merit.

But that was then. This is now, and the change in the landscape really makes it a strategic mistake to not go down the H.264 path.

Firstly, looking at http://www.on2.com/technology/vp7/ you will read that vp7 is designed for, quote “On2 VP7 is optimized for playback on low-power chipsets and includes advanced buffering and latency features.” (Sounds like a codec is more suitable for video-calls or other real time implementations. Note: no demo downloads of the Encoder appear available on the site, so I have not been able to test it personally.)

To me this means it is not as ideal for distribution as a SMPTE ratified codec like H.264. Certainly for FlashLite, but for the standard duel core desktop of today. By its own admission, its not the ideal choice.
However, and thanks for the link to the AVC licensing costs, this is the real issue for lack of support for AVC. Still, I imagine Adobe and the licensing body are probably in deep negotiations.

Imagine a one off (resonable) licensing fee, allowing flash to support AVC/AAC. It would propel Flash player into a near impenetrable dominant position for the API of choice of digital content distribution on the net. It would really close the doors on Silverlight/Microsoft’s plan to try and dominate the future of this technology. (Depending on DRM outcomes)

Imagine if Flash became the platform of choice for implementation of IPTV/NET/Mobile technology for all digital media distribution. Consider the support for Apple, PC, Linux. The ease of STB implementation etc. This would greatly improve Adobe capturing this part of the industry and all the licensing possibilities that go with it. (Where the real money is in my opinion)

James

]]> By: Roscoe http://www.crafted.com.au/blog/2007/07/07/one-codec-to-rule-them-all-part2-web-video/comment-page-1/#comment-267 Roscoe Sun, 08 Jul 2007 16:11:45 +0000 http://www.crafted.com.au/blog/?p=37#comment-267 Nice try, but I believe you're wrong here more than you're right. 1) Have you ever checked out the MPEGLA & VIA 'patent pool' licensing fees? http://www.mpegla.com/avc/avc-agreement.cfm http://www.vialicensing.com/licensing/MPEG4_fees.cfm?product=MPEG-4AAC Apple gets away with it because every thing from iTunes, you have to BUY. Take a rough guess what it would cost Adobe to license 264 in their Flash Platform of product and upcoming devices. 2) To see Flash 10's codec, go to 'Move Networks' or 'Vividas' and check out the video. They both use On2's VP7. Adobe has already licensed it. VP7 provides the same video quality as 264 but is a less complex algorithm, will be smaller size in the Flash 10 player, easier to decode and less taxing on the CPU. 3) Macromedia tested 264 along with On2's codecs....they selected On2. Here's why.... http://www.kaourantin.net/2005/08/quest-for-new-video-codec-in-flash-8.html Nice try, but I believe you’re wrong here more than you’re right.
1) Have you ever checked out the MPEGLA & VIA ‘patent pool’ licensing fees?
http://www.mpegla.com/avc/avc-agreement.cfm
http://www.vialicensing.com/licensing/MPEG4_fees.cfm?product=MPEG-4AAC
Apple gets away with it because every thing from iTunes, you have to BUY.
Take a rough guess what it would cost Adobe to license 264 in their Flash Platform of product and upcoming devices.
2) To see Flash 10′s codec, go to ‘Move Networks’ or ‘Vividas’ and check out the video. They both use On2′s VP7. Adobe has already licensed it. VP7 provides the same video quality as 264 but is a less complex algorithm, will be smaller size in the Flash 10 player, easier to decode and less taxing on the CPU.
3) Macromedia tested 264 along with On2′s codecs….they selected On2.
Here’s why….
http://www.kaourantin.net/2005/08/quest-for-new-video-codec-in-flash-8.html

]]>