The issues around Google's VP8 / WebM codec have been going on for some time now – by some reports since the acquisition of On2 – but in recent days, something rather unusual has happened: Google has agreed to pay to license patents that drive WebM, but were regarded on some fronts as "essential to VP8."
The whole thing started back in 2010, when Google brought out WebM after Google picked up On2, a video compression tools vendor. Google released the VP8 technology as a “licensing free” alternative to MPEG H.264 from the International Standards Organization. Open source buffs were wildly enthusiastic about the change—especially Opera and Mozilla users who were eager to replace Ogg Theora with a better codec—and Google reportedly believed it could use its influence as a Web power to make WebM a Web standard.
WebM, however, was found to have some significant flaws, like suggestions of infringement on several patents held under H.264. Google fought the battle for years, but appeared to relent on some issues, and plans to license the necessary patents to keep WebM in play.
But that's not the only problem ahead for WebM, according to reports; there are some serious issues in terms of hardware that can work with WebM, and many video developers aren't exactly interested in working with it. Some developers like Jason Garrett-Glaser have cited WebM's slow speed in decoding – as well as an array of bugs – and as the recent Google move assented, that there were plenty of commonalities with H.264 that would have created patent issues.
Google is still working, though, to get a competitor in the field. Its push toward VP9 wants to take a piece of the market, but with H.265 currently in the works—and the industry preparing to accommodate the new codec—that will put a lot more pressure on VP9.
Google has already seen at least some success with WebM, especially in regard to its use in pictures. It's not hard to see success in a system that’s saving “terabytes” of bandwidth, and that certainly makes WebM at least a worthwhile solution in part. The question, of course, is whether or not Google can get that success beyond pictures and into video in any wide fashion.
Google does have plenty of pull in video—YouTube alone guarantees that—but with most every other service staying away from WebM, it's likely to prove something of an uphill battle.
Only time will tell just how Google's WebM comes out in light of these new developments, but Google isn't going away quietly, and will likely be part of the landscape for some time to come.
Edited by
Braden Becker
