WebM: Google tries to free internet video, ensures awesome Linux support to come

By , Published May 19, 2010

Earlier today Google unveiled a new open-source and royalty free video codec for use with online video. The codec, which Google hopes will become the standard codec for HTML 5 video, will also be supported in Adobe's Flash plug-in, too.

Why WebM?

The case for a fully €œfree€ codec has long been argued for. Whilst FOSS advocates championed the free lossy Theora codec many web engineers held valid concerns over the quality it provided, the much larger-bandwidth needed to compensate for the lower-quality and lack of hardware acceleration.

On the flip side sat H.264 which, whilst a technically superior codec, had its own set of problems stemming from its proprietary nature – concerning many web advocates who were weary of a patent & royalty encumbered codec once again dampening innovation on the web.
Enter Google with, seemingly, the answer: WebM.

What is WebM?

The WebM codec is made up of: -

  • VP8, a high-quality video codec
  • The open source Vorbis audio codec
  • a container format based on a subset of the Matroska media container

WebM will be supported by all three major browsers: Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox and Opera and is set to make sway in its play to become the de facto standard in online video codec’s not only thanks to the inevitable roll-out of it across YouTube but also simply because of the sheer might of hardware and software companies assembled behind it in support: from Mozilla, Adobe & Google through to AMD, NVIDIA and ARM.

What about Ubuntu?

Linux users in particular will be thrilled to note that Collabora, the core developers and maintainers of the GStreamer multimedia framework and the PulseAudio audio server, worked with Google on ensuring full support for WebM through the Gstreamer framework.


“WebM has the potential to be a landmark project in internet video and we are delighted to be part of the team alongside Entropy Wave and Google,” said Collabora Multimedia director Christian Schaller in a joint press release with Entropy Wave, issued earlier to day.


“By adding WebM support to GStreamer we are ensuring that the millions of Linux Desktops and Linux based devices out there will have access to this crucial open technology.”

Where next?

Time will tell where Microsoft and Apple stand on the issue, but judging by the boons it will have for media consumption on mobile devices €“ such as the iPhone and iPad €“ and the ever-bulging list of supporters, it will be hard for Apple or Microsoft to renege on its importance.

Steve Jobs recently warned that €œa patent pool is being assembled to go after Theora and other ‘open source’ codecs..€. I can't help but wonder if he will find that 'patent pool' as inviting to dip his toes in come the morning…

WebM is currently supported in the latest Nightly builds of Mozilla Firefox & Opera 10.53. Support for Google Chrome will be available from the 24th of May.

Article originally appeared on omgubuntu.co.uk

No related posts.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
  • Anonymous
    • Anonymous

      It looks they’re doing it right this time:

      “IE9 will support playback of H.264 video as well as VP8 video when the user has installed a VP8 codec on Windows.”

      I like this other phrase: “As we said at MIX recently, when it comes to HTML5, we’re all in.” :P

      • http://omgubuntu.co.uk/ d0od

        That blog post by Microsoft is actually pretty feeble, but at least they plan to support it (however meekly)

        • zekopeko

          It’s actually pretty clever. They have no idea how patent-encumbered VP8 is. H.264 is a safer bet for them because they know where they need to pay not to get sued (plus they have a number of patents in MPEG-LA).

          • amano

            I bet that On2 and Google and the WebM partners own a lot of patents that they could throw into the party as well. The chance is big that there are some patents that even h.264 infringes upon. If the MPEG-LA sued google its members would have to licence VP8 in future. AND they would possibly have to licence some google patents even for h.264 use. For all others it is free. And ON2 was a veteran player in the video world. They can fend off a lot of basic patents by providing prior art.

          • zekopeko

            MPEG-LA doesn’t have to sue. One of the companies that is part of MPEG-LA could OTOH.
            I have yet to see a patent pool form around WebM. So I don’t know how you come to the conclusion that Google’s partners would engage in counter-suing. They could simply settle out of court. That would leave all the other companies under threat of the patent.

          • Felix

            Google would intervene and counter sue, the way things are moving now a days, I hope they get sued and patents begin to be knocked out one by one out of MPEG-LA stash.

          • amano

            ”Google hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer this implementation of VP8, where such license applies only to those patent claims, both currently owned by Google and acquired in the future, licensable by Google that are necessarily infringed by this implementation of VP8. If You or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree to the institution of patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that this implementation of VP8 or any code incorporated within this implementation of VP8 constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, or inducement of patent infringement, then any rights granted to You under this License for this implementation of VP8 shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.”

        • zekopeko

          It’s actually pretty clever. They have no idea how patent-encumbered VP8 is. H.264 is a safer bet for them because they know where they need to pay not to get sued (plus they have a number of patents in MPEG-LA).

      • http://omgubuntu.co.uk/ d0od

        That blog post by Microsoft is actually pretty feeble, but at least they plan to support it (however meekly)

      • http://omgubuntu.co.uk/ d0od

        That blog post by Microsoft is actually pretty feeble, but at least they plan to support it (however meekly)

    • Anonymous

      It looks they’re doing it right this time:

      “IE9 will support playback of H.264 video as well as VP8 video when the user has installed a VP8 codec on Windows.”

      I like this other phrase: “As we said at MIX recently, when it comes to HTML5, we’re all in.” :P

    • Anonymous

      It looks they’re doing it right this time:

      “IE9 will support playback of H.264 video as well as VP8 video when the user has installed a VP8 codec on Windows.”

      I like this other phrase: “As we said at MIX recently, when it comes to HTML5, we’re all in.” :P

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous
  • http://twitter.com/_Vos_ daniel

    Hey Steve Jobs!

    Welcome to our OOL. Notice there is no P in it….. keep it that way!

  • http://twitter.com/_Vos_ daniel

    Hey Steve Jobs!

    Welcome to our OOL. Notice there is no P in it….. keep it that way!

  • http://twitter.com/_Vos_ daniel

    Hey Steve Jobs!

    Welcome to our OOL. Notice there is no P in it….. keep it that way!

  • http://www.kenpardue.com Kenneth Pardue

    Couple of other interesting things that this article doesn’t mention:

    - Microsoft has announced (indirect) support for IE9 in the tag, saying that it will play back WebM/VP8 video if the user has installed the codec on their system.

    - If this is considered “good enough” support, then Apple may already be behind it without actually doing anything, since in a few weeks Google will be rolling out a Quicktime plugin to bring WebM support, and since Safari uses Quicktime for playback, it will gain support for WebM in that fashion.

    - Biggest problem is patents, it seems. It may not be so much a case of Jobs being afraid of sticking his toe into the patent pool and the other way around. VP8 has got to stand up to cheap patent lawyers and trolls, and that didn’t exactly work out so well for Microsoft when they tried to release VC-1 royalty free. Let’s hope, but still a long uphill road between patent litigation and hardware support.

    - Besides, Apple’s not trying to control the web with H.264, they (and their shareholders) don’t want to be on the being-sued end of a lawsuit. Apple only has one of the 900 patents on H.264. Microsoft has said that they pay far more than they make from MPEG-LA since they license it, and they have 9 patents. I’d be far surprised if Apple has any financial gain from using H.264. It’s just what makes the most business sense for them.

    Mispellings: HTLM 5 and Theroa in the first paragraph, and Steve Jobs last name.

    • http://omgubuntu.co.uk/ d0od

      Good catch, darn spell checker.

      I wasn’t aware of the Microsoft announcement until after posting this, but it’s a nice enough gesture on their part to support it. However meekly.

      • http://kenpardue.com Kenneth Pardue

        I agree. You can tell from the language that they’re scared silly of the patent risks. They throw in tons of language in there to absolve themselves of liability with their support position. Google seems to distance themselves from it as well: “The main difference between the standard BSD license and the VP8 license is that this license grants patent rights, and terminates if patent litigation is filed alleging infringement of the code.”

        I’m sure with such broad industry support coalescing in such rapid order (and such big pockets involved), the courts will decide in the coming weeks/months whether or not VP8 will fly on its own merits.

      • http://kenpardue.com Kenneth Pardue

        I agree. You can tell from the language that they’re scared silly of the patent risks. They throw in tons of language in there to absolve themselves of liability with their support position. Google seems to distance themselves from it as well: “The main difference between the standard BSD license and the VP8 license is that this license grants patent rights, and terminates if patent litigation is filed alleging infringement of the code.”

        I’m sure with such broad industry support coalescing in such rapid order (and such big pockets involved), the courts will decide in the coming weeks/months whether or not VP8 will fly on its own merits.

      • http://kenpardue.com Kenneth Pardue

        I agree. You can tell from the language that they’re scared silly of the patent risks. They throw in tons of language in there to absolve themselves of liability with their support position. Google seems to distance themselves from it as well: “The main difference between the standard BSD license and the VP8 license is that this license grants patent rights, and terminates if patent litigation is filed alleging infringement of the code.”

        I’m sure with such broad industry support coalescing in such rapid order (and such big pockets involved), the courts will decide in the coming weeks/months whether or not VP8 will fly on its own merits.

    • http://omgubuntu.co.uk/ d0od

      Good catch, darn spell checker.

      I wasn’t aware of the Microsoft announcement until after posting this, but it’s a nice enough gesture on their part to support it. However meekly.

    • http://omgubuntu.co.uk/ d0od

      Good catch, darn spell checker.

      I wasn’t aware of the Microsoft announcement until after posting this, but it’s a nice enough gesture on their part to support it. However meekly.

    • zekopeko

      Excellent comment.

      @do0d

      Contrary to the title of this post there are no guaranties that VP8 is safe from patents. Quite the opposite. It is apparently similar to h.264 (going by this: http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=377) and there are some 900+ patents on it. I would put my money on Theora being safer from patents.

    • zekopeko

      Excellent comment.

      @do0d

      Contrary to the title of this post there are no guaranties that VP8 is safe from patents. Quite the opposite. It is apparently similar to h.264 (going by this: http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=377) and there are some 900+ patents on it. I would put my money on Theora being safer from patents.

    • zekopeko

      Excellent comment.

      @do0d

      Contrary to the title of this post there are no guaranties that VP8 is safe from patents. Quite the opposite. It is apparently similar to h.264 (going by this: http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=377) and there are some 900+ patents on it. I would put my money on Theora being safer from patents.

  • MixiM

    This is simply, amazing… Although one concern… Why call it the webM, really hope it’s a working name. I understand that it will focus on providing multimedia content for the web, but it will scare off the use for desktops only because of it’s name. When avarage users convert video from let’s say a camera they will probably stay away from anything that sounds “web” (low quality video associations). This in the other hand could create a divide. WebM on the net and H.264 on local storages. This will lead to having to convert every time you upload stuff on the web. I understand that webM WILL play on every other player, but when a container is called like that, people tend to scare away from using in their desktop environment… like .flv for example.

    • http://omgubuntu.co.uk/ d0od

      WebM – I assume it stands for WebMultimedia (or maybe even WebMatroska =P )

      • MixiM

        Yeah, but I mean that the name reprents what their focus has been, as quoted from their site: “WebM is focused on addressing the unique needs of serving video on the web.” If VP8 is truly that good, then this “focus” could be a bad decision… scaring away parties from using it on offline applications and thus potentially reducing the cuthrough on to the market. If it’s as good as h.264, then why try to limit it to the web by using as stated “Minimal codec profiles and sub-options” ? If it is as good as On2 has been claiming it is, then this would be a shame. If it’s not, well then i’m at least gratefull that we can get rid of theora for something that is clearly better….

      • MixiM

        Yeah, but I mean that the name reprents what their focus has been, as quoted from their site: “WebM is focused on addressing the unique needs of serving video on the web.” If VP8 is truly that good, then this “focus” could be a bad decision… scaring away parties from using it on offline applications and thus potentially reducing the cuthrough on to the market. If it’s as good as h.264, then why try to limit it to the web by using as stated “Minimal codec profiles and sub-options” ? If it is as good as On2 has been claiming it is, then this would be a shame. If it’s not, well then i’m at least gratefull that we can get rid of theora for something that is clearly better….

      • MixiM

        Yeah, but I mean that the name reprents what their focus has been, as quoted from their site: “WebM is focused on addressing the unique needs of serving video on the web.” If VP8 is truly that good, then this “focus” could be a bad decision… scaring away parties from using it on offline applications and thus potentially reducing the cuthrough on to the market. If it’s as good as h.264, then why try to limit it to the web by using as stated “Minimal codec profiles and sub-options” ? If it is as good as On2 has been claiming it is, then this would be a shame. If it’s not, well then i’m at least gratefull that we can get rid of theora for something that is clearly better….

    • http://omgubuntu.co.uk/ d0od

      WebM – I assume it stands for WebMultimedia (or maybe even WebMatroska =P )

    • http://omgubuntu.co.uk/ d0od

      WebM – I assume it stands for WebMultimedia (or maybe even WebMatroska =P )

    • http://livinginagoogleworld.blogspot.com/ Jonathan Frederickson

      But you know, the term “web” shouldn’t be associated with low quality videos, because the web is exactly what Google is trying to push. If it’s associated with lower quality, then Google has failed.

      • MixiM

        Yeah, but I mean that the name represents what their focus has been, as quoted from their site: “WebM is focused on addressing the unique needs of serving video on the web.” If VP8 is truly that good, then this “focus” could be a bad decision… scaring away parties from using it on offline applications and thus potentially reducing the cutthrough on to the market. If it’s as good as h.264, then why try to limit it to the web by using as stated “Minimal codec profiles and sub-options” ? If it is as good as On2 has been claiming it is, then this would be a shame. If it’s not, well then i’m at least grateful that we can get rid of theora for something that is clearly better….

    • http://livinginagoogleworld.blogspot.com/ Jonathan Frederickson

      But you know, the term “web” shouldn’t be associated with low quality videos, because the web is exactly what Google is trying to push. If it’s associated with lower quality, then Google has failed.

  • MixiM

    This is simply, amazing… Although one concern… Why call it the webM, really hope it’s a working name. I understand that it will focus on providing multimedia content for the web, but it will scare off the use for desktops only because of it’s name. When avarage users convert video from let’s say a camera they will probably stay away from anything that sounds “web” (low quality video associations). This in the other hand could create a divide. WebM on the net and H.264 on local storages. This will lead to having to convert every time you upload stuff on the web. I understand that webM WILL play on every other player, but when a container is called like that, people tend to scare away from using in their desktop environment… like .flv for example.

  • MixiM

    This is simply, amazing… Although one concern… Why call it the webM, really hope it’s a working name. I understand that it will focus on providing multimedia content for the web, but it will scare off the use for desktops only because of it’s name. When avarage users convert video from let’s say a camera they will probably stay away from anything that sounds “web” (low quality video associations). This in the other hand could create a divide. WebM on the net and H.264 on local storages. This will lead to having to convert every time you upload stuff on the web. I understand that webM WILL play on every other player, but when a container is called like that, people tend to scare away from using in their desktop environment… like .flv for example.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/GO5YDAELK7B37JMYV6BM7Q7EAQ Josh

    The comment attributed to Steve Jobs has been identified by several websites as bogus. The “patent pool” isn’t being assembled, it already exists, its called MPEG-LA. And as for going after open source codecs, who do they go after? For what purpose? The entire notion is non-sensical. I’ll refer you to the latest episode of “The Conversation” with Nilay Patel from Engadget. Patel is a former patent attorney and calls this “statement” out as bogus.

  • Anonymous

    This is awesome! Man… like… wow. Google, you are my hero. A company that’s doing right, so far as it can. Today you added more to the side of the argument that you are not evil. XD

  • Anonymous

    This is awesome! Man… like… wow. Google, you are my hero. A company that’s doing right, so far as it can. Today you added more to the side of the argument that you are not evil. XD

  • Anonymous

    awesome news

  • http://twitter.com/NathanL1 Nathan Loudon

    This is fantastic news! I’ll be excited when most video websites start making the transition. Flash video just sucks (especially for us linux users).

  • http://twitter.com/NathanL1 Nathan Loudon

    This is fantastic news! I’ll be excited when most video websites start making the transition. Flash video just sucks (especially for us linux users).

  • Anonymous

    This news is so full of win I can’t imagine!

  • Jimbo

    Don’t get your hopes up on Apple switching to this. Its already been proven to be inferior than H.264 in video quality. The best we can hope for is Apple adding support for it, while they continue to use H.264 as their default.

    • http://www.manishsinha.net Manish Sinha

      “Its already been proven to be inferior than H.264 in video quality.”

      Citation please?? Where you got this? Who proved this?
      A good codec spec with bad encoder/decoder implementation will lead to an inferior product than a bad codec spec with a good implementation of encoder/decoder.

      The encoder implementation matters more than decoder implementation.

    • http://www.manishsinha.net Manish Sinha

      “Its already been proven to be inferior than H.264 in video quality.”

      Citation please?? Where you got this? Who proved this?
      A good codec spec with bad encoder/decoder implementation will lead to an inferior product than a bad codec spec with a good implementation of encoder/decoder.

      The encoder implementation matters more than decoder implementation.

    • Anonymous

      er. I was under the impression its still a bit young.

      • Jimbo

        VP8 has been around for several years before Google bought it. It can be improved in the future yes, but Google have already confirmed that how it stands today is how it will ship. Ie. We need to wait for ‘VP9′ before we get any improvements, to the codec spec at least, the encoders can and will be improved.

  • Jimbo

    Don’t get your hopes up on Apple switching to this. Its already been proven to be inferior than H.264 in video quality. The best we can hope for is Apple adding support for it, while they continue to use H.264 as their default.

  • carlf

    I’m sure Google will find a way to spy on people using this codec. They spy with everything else so why not this

    I honestly don’t see what people see in Google besides the search engine with all the other crap they do with their other applications.

    Anyhow, Android is coming to U.S. Cellular this summer. It would be nice if they would give an unlimited instead of 5 GB for $50.00 on a netbook or table with Android.

    This is why I do not buy into all this stuff about Clouds when a huge part of the United States does not have broadband or else you are capped like with U.S. Cellular.

    • Jimbo

      Shouldnt you be under your bridge Troll? Seriously, a codec that spys on people? WTF?? For one thing its open source, hence anyone can look at the code and see if there are parts that spy on you. Go back under your bridge.

    • Anonymous

      This paranoia is really amusing.

      As far as I know, Google collects statistics in Chrome with your consent. Using this data to improve their products is much more scientific than most methods.

      The banks collect spy on your account, they notice when the money comes in and it comes out. They use this information so you can be persuaded into buying something at the right time.
      The telephone company sells your phone number to marketing companies. I’m sure there will be other companies doing similar things.
      But yeah, evil Google surely has a ring to enslave us all. I mean, a company is doing what we wanted a company to do and everyone gets suspicious.

  • Anonymous

    @ d0od: You really ought to provide sources for your information, particularly when quoting someone. As a journalist, I’m sure you pride yourself in providing accurate and correct information to the best of your knowledge and ability, but if you want to be taken seriously it isn’t enough to have reliable sources of information, you must also let your readers know what those sources are. How else can we distinguish between real journalism and simple spreading of rumors? I for one would really like to know where I can find the Steve Jobs quote in context.

    • Anonymous

      you could copy paste it to google and see where it leads you.

      • Anonymous

        I certainly could – and I certainly have done so. The question isn’t whether or not it is possible for the reader to do his own research and fact-checking, the question is whether relying on the reader to do this job is good journalism.

  • Anonymous

    @ d0od: You really ought to provide sources for your information, particularly when quoting someone. As a journalist, I’m sure you pride yourself in providing accurate and correct information to the best of your knowledge and ability, but if you want to be taken seriously it isn’t enough to have reliable sources of information, you must also let your readers know what those sources are. How else can we distinguish between real journalism and simple spreading of rumors? I for one would really like to know where I can find the Steve Jobs quote in context.

  • http://twitter.com/anonrock Hasinul Islam Biash

    Brilliant! From now on it’s no more OGG vs. H.264 – rather VP8 vs. whatever bullshit Apple and Micro$oft was trying to feed people!

  • Mohan

    Definitely a huge deal!

  • Mohan

    Definitely a huge deal!

  • Anonymous

    I’m sure someone has already pointed this. WebM is not supposed to be a Codec. It’s a video format using VP8 (Google) as the video codec, Vorbis (OGG/Xiph) audio codec and a Matroska based container.

  • Anonymous

    I’m sure someone has already pointed this. WebM is not supposed to be a Codec. It’s a video format using VP8 (Google) as the video codec, Vorbis (OGG/Xiph) audio codec and a Matroska based container.

  • bhm

    The day flash slowly died. So it began.

    • http://openid-provider.appspot.com/mark_c@markecurtis.com Merk

      Flash is more than just video!!

  • bhm

    The day flash slowly died. So it began.

  • daas88

    Great news! I hope it survives patent issues though

  • daas88

    Great news! I hope it survives patent issues though

    • http://www.manishsinha.net Manish Sinha

      Everything on this planet is patented. Every product infringes on some patent or the other. The patent system is broken. The only way Google can protect VP8 is to counter-sue the people suing VP8.

      OTOH VP8 is a codec spec. I don’t think the person who created/owns the spec can be sued. It is the encoder/decoder implementation which can be sued via patents. I think the VP8 encoder/decoder is provided by Google, so google can handle the lawsuit.

    • http://www.manishsinha.net Manish Sinha

      Everything on this planet is patented. Every product infringes on some patent or the other. The patent system is broken. The only way Google can protect VP8 is to counter-sue the people suing VP8.

      OTOH VP8 is a codec spec. I don’t think the person who created/owns the spec can be sued. It is the encoder/decoder implementation which can be sued via patents. I think the VP8 encoder/decoder is provided by Google, so google can handle the lawsuit.

  • http://twitter.com/princeofnam Tokyo Tony
  • http://twitter.com/princeofnam Tokyo Tony
  • Anonymous

    I’m not trying to be a skeptic or anything, but I don’t see some sites being willing to switch from Flash video to HTML5 video. Using Flash to display videos allows a site to:

    - Show advertisements before/during/after the video
    - Provide links to other videos after the first is done
    - Add their own skin to the movie player (and integrate it into the site)

    Does anyone know any good ways to do this with HTML5? I’m all for open video, but those are legitimate concerns.

    • David Moraes

      I agree. Wouldn’t YouTube’s features like video annotations not work on Html5?

      • http://openid-provider.appspot.com/mark_c@markecurtis.com Merk

        I think that, or the subtitles is done now or could be done with

        The other stuff I believe can all be done, just different languages since it’s not all Flash

    • Anonymous

      I don’t know about advertisements, but I’m pretty sure you can design your own player and provide links when the video ends. Actually, I think it’s even easier to make the video interact with the whole page since it’s the browser that’s controling everything.

      The problem with html5 for some developers is the fact they have to learn multiple languages/specifications (HTML, JavaScript, CSS, DOM), most people are just happy to make a bloated Flash site, only with the necessary html to contain a huge Flash app.

  • Anonymous

    I’m not trying to be a skeptic or anything, but I don’t see some sites being willing to switch from Flash video to HTML5 video. Using Flash to display videos allows a site to:

    - Show advertisements before/during/after the video
    - Provide links to other videos after the first is done
    - Add their own skin to the movie player (and integrate it into the site)

    Does anyone know any good ways to do this with HTML5? I’m all for open video, but those are legitimate concerns.

  • https://launchpad.net/~jaymac Jaymac

    You didn’t mention the fact that Flash will soon switch from the H.264 codec to VP8 as well..

    Supposing Google offers Youtube videos in HTML5/VP8 and Flash/VP8, IE and Safari users won’t have to be left behind even if MS and Apple do nothing. This is dependent of course, on those users being happy to run the behemoth that is Flash..

  • https://launchpad.net/~jaymac Jaymac

    You didn’t mention the fact that Flash will soon switch from the H.264 codec to VP8 as well..

    Supposing Google offers Youtube videos in HTML5/VP8 and Flash/VP8, IE and Safari users won’t have to be left behind even if MS and Apple do nothing. This is dependent of course, on those users being happy to run the behemoth that is Flash..

  • Athikities

     If you have sex, it can be STD. STI symptoms are not always obvious. If you suspect that you have symptoms of STD, see a doctor. More details go to http://www.treatmentforgonorrhea.com/