Google trying to promote adoption of WebP image format for websites

Google is pushing for more websites to adopt the WebP image format, even as the company rolls out support for the next generation image and photo standard across its own websites and services.

In a recent post on the Chromium blog, Google said that it replaced the PNG images in the Google Play online store in 2013 with versions in the WebP format. It said that caused a reduction of 35 percent in the standard image file size. At the moment, Google is in the middle of converting the thumbnails for its YouTube video service to WebP, which it claims cuts down site load times by 10 percent.

The blog adds:

All the rollouts within Google combined have raised our aggregate data transfer savings tally to tens of terabytes every day. For users, this translates into faster page load times and fewer bytes counted against metered data plans.

Google recently added support for animated WebP images and claims the format is the best successor to the older JPEG, PNG, and GIF file. However, Mozilla might beg to differ with Google on that matter. A few weeks ago, the company announced it is developing a new encoder that could reduce the file sizes of the most popular image format, JPEG, by at least 10 percent.

Source: Google | Image via Google

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft to promote Xbox One's Kinect Sports Rivals with global tournament

Next Story

Microsoft issues security advisory and 'Fix-it' patch for Word exploit

80 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

35% reduction in image size? Talk about a pimp on an elephant's ass. Hey, Google, how about reducing your spam ads by even 10%?

Great, if they are serious about VP8 or WebP, then Google needs to turn it over to a 3rd party standards body.

If they are not willing to do this, then quit wasting our time.

Have they stated they were not going to? And yes, that is a question.

Maybe they are seeing if it takes off before they turn it over. But agreed, they need to.

techbeck said,
Have they stated they were not going to? And yes, that is a question.

Maybe they are seeing if it takes off before they turn it over. But agreed, they need to.

Why would they need to wait? They can turn it over now and continue to contribute to it.

They have had VP8 for several years now, what are they waiting for?

Either they want to abide by and work with standards or they don't. They can't have their cake and eat it too.

Mobius Enigma said,
Great, if they are serious about VP8 or WebP, then Google needs to turn it over to a 3rd party standards body.

If they are not willing to do this, then quit wasting our time.

It's been submited to the IETF (rfc6386) and the ISO SC29/WG11.
Nokia came in with a "hur dur wait no".
Nokia's infringenment claims have been dropped in Germany, so far. Not sure how that affects Nokia's attempt to block VP8's standardization.

I work on the web and in apps. It's disheartening to see so much hate for WebP in these comments. While I am as averse to big standards changes as anyone, JPEG, PNG, and GIF are old enough now to strangle creativity. WebP is a proven solution to the challenges the old formats face, and the sooner the other browser vendors can support it the better off we'll be as content creators.

Benjamin Ritter said,
I work on the web and in apps. It's disheartening to see so much hate for WebP in these comments. While I am as averse to big standards changes as anyone, JPEG, PNG, and GIF are old enough now to strangle creativity. WebP is a proven solution to the challenges the old formats face, and the sooner the other browser vendors can support it the better off we'll be as content creators.

It could be great, as soon as Google LETS GO of the format and turns it over to ANY 3rd party standards body that will keep Google from making future changes for their own benefit.

Mobius Enigma said,

It could be great, as soon as Google LETS GO of the format and turns it over to ANY 3rd party standards body that will keep Google from making future changes for their own benefit.

+1 We do not need a new IE6 situation.

Mozilla doesn't want to add webp support as it is based on vp8 which is a poor codec. Mozilla is creating the Daala video codec which will beat vp9 and h265. Mozilla almost certainly wants an image codec based on that.

torrentthief said,
Mozilla doesn't want to add webp support as it is based on vp8 which is a poor codec. Mozilla is creating the Daala video codec which will beat vp9 and h265. Mozilla almost certainly wants an image codec based on that.

With the likes of Facebook, Netflix and Wikipedia requesting WebP support for Mozilla's browser, they'll most likely eventually bend over and add it.

http://mobilitydigest.com/netflix-to-mozilla-give-us-webp/

ichi said,

With the likes of Facebook, Netflix and Wikipedia requesting WebP support for Mozilla's browser, they'll most likely eventually bend over and add it.

http://mobilitydigest.com/netflix-to-mozilla-give-us-webp/

facebook disabled webp i believe as users found out they couldn't edit and share their photos with other people as their browsers couldn't support webp. Mozilla said just days ago on bugzilla that they won't be supporting it.

torrentthief said,

facebook disabled webp i believe as users found out they couldn't edit and share their photos with other people as their browsers couldn't support webp. Mozilla said just days ago on bugzilla that they won't be supporting it.

So maybe that'd be the reason why they were asking Mozilla to support it?

Mozilla also said that they weren't implementing support for h264, see how far that went.

I think the difficulty in adoption of WebP is probably not related to the technical details- anybody can agree that reduced loading times and file sizes is better 100% of the time. It's the name. People can easily say "JPEG" and "PNG" ("GIF" arguments still get rather heated), but "WebP"? It doesn't sound cool or roll off the tongue, and so that's why the layman will have a hard time liking WebP.

Google isnt forcing everyone to use their new format, just changing their sites. Whether or not this takes off, who knows. But this is how standards are created. Not all get adapted but if no one was proposing/creating new standards...then nothing will move forward.

Another day in the tech world.

techbeck said,
Google isnt forcing everyone to use their new format, just changing their sites. Whether or not this takes off, who knows. But this is how standards are created. Not all get adapted but if no one was proposing/creating new standards...then nothing will move forward.

No, this is not how standards are created.
http://www.w3.org/standards/

theyarecomingforyou said,
I really hope it does take off, as it's pretty sad that video codecs have evolved numerous times over the years but image codecs have stagnated.

image codecs have no stagnated. There is just no reason for them with jpg being good enough. Every year there is one more bad ass image format than the rest, but the fact remains that the reason video formats evolve at what is perceived to be faster is because the demand for HD video is much much greater than the demands of static porn in terms of cost to the distributor :)

besides 4K is the next big deal, and it is a problem the video codecs have to tackle while we have had huge ass jpgs for decades which haven't made comcast charge flickr for bandwidth. There simply is no need for a jpg alternative. If you need transparency use PNG. And if you need quality, use RAW or DNG.

No, thank you. I have long needed transparency AND compression, but JPEG2000 is not supported by all major browsers. Going to indexed color PNG makes your website look like it came from 1996. The old formats are dead; long live the needed new standard, whatever we can agree it to be.

theyarecomingforyou said,
I really hope it does take off, as it's pretty sad that video codecs have evolved numerous times over the years but image codecs have stagnated.

I see this no different than MP3, there's other audio formats out there, the die hards only want FLAC for example, but it's the minority. For most people mp3, even though it's not the best option, is what they want and is good enough, so it's still around and kicking. JPEG and PNG and so on are no different, images are less of a issue for people than audio and video, as long as their pictures look good they don't care if it's JPEG or not.

Besides, PNG can give you good quality with a smaller size, if file size is the issue here.

derekaw said,
Only Apple has the power to move web sites to a different format. MP4, Flash.

oh so apple was what caused MP4 to be used and it had nothing to do with the fact it was designed for HD which...oh yeah apple invented HD too. Yup, it was all apple. I hear that when we get a new mpg format for UHD, it will be all apple's brand new invention.

neonspark said,

oh so apple was what caused MP4 to be used and it had nothing to do with the fact it was designed for HD which...oh yeah apple invented HD too. Yup, it was all apple. I hear that when we get a new mpg format for UHD, it will be all apple's brand new invention.

I'm sorry, at least files from Apple such as M4A and M4V are actually high quality and organizable unlike MP3's and AVI's. Get your sarcasm out of here.

Romero said,
MP4? Give me MKV any day. Far better container.

agreed. However until it's supported by vendors who hold an interest in maintaining IP rights I still won't use it

Sartoris said,
With far less support unfortunately.
Works fine on my PCs, tablets and phones (with 3rd party free apps of course) and standalone media players too.

Thrackerzod said,
What happened to JPEG 2000? It was supposed to be the successor to JPEG but it just disappeared.

I'm sure WebP will find it because both will end up at the same landfill.

Enron said,
PNG please

Mr.XXIV said,
PNG all the way. Animated PNG even better.

Zagadka said,
PNG for life yo

PNG is lossless and will produce much, much larger images. PNG is not an option for this unless we're talking line art or you don't mind raping your servers. JPEG 2000, JPEG XR, WebP all do lossy transparent images.

WebP is a great format! The reduction in file sizes is impressive - however, in order for the format to really take off, it needs to be natively supported by other browser vendors too!

GreatMarkO said,
WebP is a great format! The reduction in file sizes is impressive - however, in order for the format to really take off, it needs to be natively supported by other browser vendors too!

jpgXR made similar claims, met the same fate: you cannot just be better. Unfortunately as long as the format comes from google, microsoft, or apple, somebody will refuse it making it worthless.

neonspark said,
Unfortunately as long as the format comes from google, microsoft, or apple, somebody will refuse it making it worthless.

Pretty much. But a new format is needed. With more data caps and people being charged for every little piece of data they consume, its time for something like this. So I hope Google and others push for a new standard to reduce file size/data consumption.

With a proprietary video format that only Google supports, a proprietary scripting language that only Google supports, you need a proprietary image format too.

Actually, even though pickup has been a bit slow, WebP and VP8/9 are completely open and royalty-free codecs. Their proposed new browser scripting language is just that - a proposal that is still compatible with Javascript.

VP8 and VP9 are both open and royalty-free codecs. Not proprietary at all. Webp is based on VP8 and is also open and royalty-free.

Go and Dart are open source, not proprietary.

WhatTheSchmidt said,
With a proprietary video format that only Google supports, a proprietary scripting language that only Google supports, you need a proprietary image format too.

WebP is licensed under BSD open source license, which makes it completely open for both commercial and non-commercial uses except for the license boilerplate that must be maintained at the top of any code files that are changed or reused.

But hey, a bit of research must be hard in between trying to troll all these Google stories ;).

Ambroos said,
Actually, even though pickup has been a bit slow, WebP and VP8/9 are completely open and royalty-free codecs. Their proposed new browser scripting language is just that - a proposal that is still compatible with Javascript.

"open" and "royalty-free" != standards based. There are no specifications for their video format, they just dumped a bunch of code on the web, meaning they are in complete control of the format with no contribution from the community. They are the only ones implementing these technologies in their browser - embrace and extend.

Edited by WhatTheSchmidt, Mar 24 2014, 7:26pm :

WhatTheSchmidt said,
With a proprietary video format that only Google supports, a proprietary scripting language that only Google supports, you need a proprietary image format too.

basically, but like all their others efforts to force the community to adopt their crap, it will fail. their browser already accepts non standard markup and their "native code" -active X ripoff is signaling google is not only interested in everybody using their formats, but in using their browsers to basically do what IE did many years ago: create pseudo standards regardless of how bad the standard is and how there is no need for them.

LouisC said,
You couldn't be more wrong. There's tons of documentation on webp and webm.

Show me the standards body approved documentation. Show me the documentation I can download to create a non-Google coded version of their codecs.

WhatTheSchmidt said,

"open" and "royalty-free" != standards based. There are no specifications for their video format, they just dumped a bunch of code on the web, meaning they are in complete control of the format with no contribution from the community. They are the only ones implementing these technologies in their browser - embrace and extend.

Looking specifically at the WebP image format:

Documentation
Intro: https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/
Container format: https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/docs/riff_container
VP8 Decoding Guide: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6386

Browser support (From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webp#Support)
- Google Chrome
- Opera
- Maxthon
- Safari (with plugin)
- Any other WebKit browser
- Firefox (in development)
- Epiphany (in development)
- Konqueror (in development)

Other support of note
- Microsoft Office 2010 (with plugin)
- Adobe Photoshop (with plugin)
- Windows Photo Viewer (with plugin)

Okay, fair point, WebP isn't a "standard" per se, but since the code and documentation is out there, if Google decides to go in a direction that is not conducive to the advancement of a standards-based web, we-the-people can just take the code and standardise it without Google.

Given enough time, there's also no reason it couldn't itself become a standard.

Regardless, what are the alternatives? JPEG is long past it's best, and no amount of hackery from Mozilla will recover it's deprecated encoding without serious rewrites of the standard. JPEG2000 is basically nowhere to be found besides Microsoft software. PNG is a possibility, but produces relatively large file sizes, which is exactly what JPEG and WebP aim to avoid. What else is there?

TCLN Ryster said,
Gotta love the Other support of note section there Majestic... so basic they don't support it. The plug-in does.

*shrug* What else are they going to do? It's down to the vendor to support it natively. Just because it's a plugin doesn't mean it's not supported. Firefox doesn't have a native Flash implementation, but it supports Flash embeds just fine with a plugin.

Plugins at the very least are a way of breaking the chicken-and-egg cycle. If no vendor supports it, then no-one else will use it, which in turn means that no vendor will be inclined to add support for it. At least if there's a plugin it works as a foothold for wider support.

Majesticmerc said,

clip

Notice the restrictions in the license at the bottom of that 3rd link. Doesn't sound too open to me - if you are in a dispute with Google then they can yank the license. And being they have bought companies in the past just to litigate against their competitors, and once they lose those court cases, immediately drop them for billions in losses, then that license is useless.

And once again Google skips one specific browser in their support, a browser that views a majority of the web.. That is not the actions of a company wanting to do good for the web.

In the past Google has over and over again avoided the standards bodies to use their code as a club. And yet, Google is given a pass - and Google's competitors are criticized for contributing to the community and the standards procedures.

Ambroos said,
Actually, even though pickup has been a bit slow, WebP and VP8/9 are completely open and royalty-free codecs. Their proposed new browser scripting language is just that - a proposal that is still compatible with Javascript.
When something is open source, it doesn't mean it can't be propriatary. Since only Google has control over this thing (it's not a standard, just a thing no body should accept as long as it isn't a standard), it's propietary. Even the royalty-free thing is in doubt, as there are a lot of companies that claim that both VP8 and VP9 break licenses.

WhatTheSchmidt said,
Notice the restrictions in the license at the bottom of that 3rd link. Doesn't sound too open to me - if you are in a dispute with Google then they can yank the license. And being they have bought companies in the past just to litigate against their competitors, and once they lose those court cases, immediately drop them for billions in losses, then that license is useless.

Are you serious? That's the standard BSD 3-Clause license (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...2Modified_BSD_License.22.29). Pretty much the only way that it could be less restrictive is if it was public domain. There's nothing in the BSD license that allow the original distributor to "yank the license".

WhatTheSchmidt said,

And once again Google skips one specific browser in their support, a browser that views a majority of the web.. That is not the actions of a company wanting to do good for the web.

Google isn't obligated to provide 3rd party support at all. Google didn't add support for any specific browser, they just added it to WebKit, the knock-on effect of which meant that Maxthon, Opera and Safari all got support out the gate alongside Chrome. Gecko and KHTML are both working on their own implementations. Microsoft hasn't mentioned whether or not they intend to add support.

Regardless, whether or not Google does someone else work for them doesn't add anything to the argument about whether or not WebP is proprietary or not.

WhatTheSchmidt said,

In the past Google has over and over again avoided the standards bodies to use their code as a club. And yet, Google is given a pass - and Google's competitors are criticized for contributing to the community and the standards procedures.

Where is anyone criticizing Google's competitors here? I'm not enormously happy about the fact that they're pushing for a non-standardized image format, but it is freely available to use, so standard or not, it's out there.

LouisC said,
VP8 and VP9 are both open and royalty-free codecs. Not proprietary at all. Webp is based on VP8 and is also open and royalty-free.

Go and Dart are open source, not proprietary.

These arguments kill me...

Darwin is open source too, so how much have you contributed to OS X and how much has Apple allowed you or the OSS community to guide, change, or control?

Oh, right nothing...


There is a problem with VP8 and WebP - Google can change how they operate at any time and how they are implemented, just like Apple maintains COMPLETE control over Darwin and OS X.

One example of why this could hurt - In five years if VP8 or WebP takes off, all Google has to do is change THEIR version to report back to their tracking servers. Everyone else will have to implemented these changes as well, or their websites will stop WORKING on Google devices, software, as by dominance THEY CONTROL the 'default' implementation of the them.


Microsoft faced this years ago, they had their own video codec and their own IMAGE format as well. And the same arguments were threw at Microsoft.

However, the difference being, Microsoft turned WMV over to a 3rd party standards body to ensure that Microsoft could not damage or USE the standard to their own advantage with changes later on.

This is how and why VC1 is common and successfully video codec in use today. (Many BluRay and Streaming services use VC1.) VC1 is just a standards version of WMV 9.


If Google is serious or truly cares or wants to help, they need to TURN THESE over to a 3rd party standards body. Then later Google cannot change them for their own or nefarious reasons.

'Open Source' means NOTHING. It only means you can read the code, it doesn't mean you have any role or control over the codecs. Google retains complete control as they set the 'features' instead of it being a 'standard'.

Majesticmerc said,

clip

Sorry, I intended to say the Patents section not the license part. If you make any claims to patents being violated, then they can strip your use of the license.

Typical Google worship crap. Google can ignore large portions of the market, but other companies must provide full support for everyone for all time, and it is up to those other companies to provide support. Of course, if others had a bug, or something was documented ambiguously then Google and a very small, miniscule portion of the market would be crying bloody terror and demand to be compensated. Meanwhile, a few months from now in their annual Fall/Winter/Spring/Summer cleaning, Google will cancel the project and nobody will notice.

So it being non-standard is outbalanced by them giving away the code, not taking any feedback from the community, and not submitting it to the standards bodies? And you know very well that if it were from other companies that the internet would scoff at anything from Microsoft. They wrote, submitted to, and was accepted by the W3C new touch events for web browsers. Other companies (Google) are refusing to support them, and just the act of submitting to the W3C was met with criticisms. MS even wrote the code for those other browsers, and see how that worked out for them.

WhatTheSchmidt said,

Sorry, I intended to say the Patents section not the license part. If you make any claims to patents being violated, then they can strip your use of the license.

No, it doesn't. It says that Google grants you the right to use their patents for any modification of the VP8 code as you see fit, but Google withdraws that clause if you choose not to reciprocate. It's a very fair clause in my opinion, why should Google let you use their patents if you're not going to let them use yours? EVEN SO, if you choose to litigate against Google for patent enfringment, you're still welcome to use any of the VP8 code as long as you license or remove any code patented by Google.

WhatTheSchmidt said,

Typical Google worship crap. Google can ignore large portions of the market, but other companies must provide full support for everyone for all time, and it is up to those other companies to provide support. Of course, if others had a bug, or something was documented ambiguously then Google and a very small, miniscule portion of the market would be crying bloody terror and demand to be compensated. Meanwhile, a few months from now in their annual Fall/Winter/Spring/Summer cleaning, Google will cancel the project and nobody will notice.

Such a strawman argument. I'm no Google worshipper, I'm being pragmatic. I'd welcome JPEG-XR, JPEG-2000 or any other other multitude of other possible image formats to the table as well. It's just that of the rest, none of them have the reach that WebP does. Like I said before, JPEG-2000 is used no-where on the web as far as I can tell, and JPEG-XR is only implemented on Microsoft software and a couple of others. If they want to start pushing for standardization on the web, fine by me. Hell, bring it on.

WhatTheSchmidt said,

So it being non-standard is outbalanced by them giving away the code, not taking any feedback from the community, and not submitting it to the standards bodies?

I agree with you insofar that not submitting as an ISO standard is a mistake, and no, giving away the code doesn't make up for it, but it does make implementation and use easier.

WhatTheSchmidt said,

And you know very well that if it were from other companies that the internet would scoff at anything from Microsoft.

Microsoft JPEG-XR is already in the wild and frankly the best choice in terms of standardization (although I don't know what compression is like). Realistically though there's nothing out there that uses it on the web aside from Internet Explorer, so nobody is going to use it until that changes. WebP is currently much more prolific at this time.

Majesticmerc said,

...

And that is the point - it is something controlled by one company, don't like their terms then you can't use the code. That isn't open like was claimed. It is not royalty-free since you need to pay by donating your own patents.

That there is nothing open and standard about this. It is a proprietary format, just because the source is available does not make it open, there are heavy restrictions. Restrictions that major companies are not going to get involved with.

As for JPEG-XR, it has been submitted to standards bodies. So couldn't Google be criticized for supporting non-standards (WebP, Dart, etc) and not supporting standards, such as JPEG-XR? Think of the hate and distain for IE supporting VBScript, or using the Marquee tag. But one company, who controls the browser and the media distribution use a proprietary format, and they are cheered by many (I see now that you are less favorable to this) in this thread for doing it. We are seeing it for what it is worth, people are not upset when standards are not followed and new tech is not submitted to standards bodies, they only get upset when that applies to one specific company.

WhatTheSchmidt said,
And that is the point - it is something controlled by one company, don't like their terms then you can't use the code. That isn't open like was claimed. It is not royalty-free since you need to pay by donating your own patents.

That there is nothing open and standard about this. It is a proprietary format, just because the source is available does not make it open, there are heavy restrictions. Restrictions that major companies are not going to get involved with.

That's true of any code written. If someone makes an entirely open piece of code, and someone then comes along and says "well look-y here, we hold a patent for this here piece of code", anybody using that code is then susceptible to the resulting fallout. Incidentally, this very same "patent reciprocation" clause applies to JPEG-XR (http://www.microsoft.com/opens...specifications/default.aspx), albeit under a different name, and JPEG-2000 is at risk of "submarine patents" (http://www.jpeg.org/jpeg2000/CDs15444.html).

Patent's are a fact of life. The fact that Google, Microsoft et al give their away for free irrevocably makes the reference codecs as open as they're ever going to be.

WhatTheSchmidt said,

As for JPEG-XR, it has been submitted to standards bodies. So couldn't Google be criticized for supporting non-standards (WebP, Dart, etc) and not supporting standards, such as JPEG-XR? Think of the hate and distain for IE supporting VBScript, or using the Marquee tag. But one company, who controls the browser and the media distribution use a proprietary format, and they are cheered by many (I see now that you are less favorable to this) in this thread for doing it. We are seeing it for what it is worth, people are not upset when standards are not followed and new tech is not submitted to standards bodies, they only get upset when that applies to one specific company.

Nobody really criticized Microsoft for supporting VBScript, since they also supported JavaScript. The reason they got grief for VBScript was because it sucked compared to JavaScript, and the fact that nobody aside from Microsoft ever picked it up meant that developers that used it were hurting their own software. The hate was mostly aimed at developers supporting a non-cross-browser scripting language, rather than Microsoft implementing it.

Google don't get criticism for Dart or WebP because these things don't really affect web standards themselves. Dart and TypeScript also both have tools for compiling to regular JavaScript, so it's not a really a big deal. Lack of support for image standards like JPEG-2000 are criticism-worthy, but the lack of support is not really an issue at this point in time due to lack of adoption, which is why it isn't very often used against the likes of Mozilla, Apple or Microsoft either.

WhatTheSchmidt said,
With a proprietary video format that only Google supports, a proprietary scripting language that only Google supports, you need a proprietary image format too.

I think you're confusing Google's formats with proprietary and patent encumbered formats like MPEG group's H.264+, of which Microsoft and Apple are the biggest supporters.

Plenty of typical open-warriors here. "Open" and royalty free means jackshit. This is just google's way to dominate everywhere while using you as their pawns in the general community.

Crimson Rain said,
Plenty of typical open-warriors here. "Open" and royalty free means jackshit. This is just google's way to dominate everywhere while using you as their pawns in the general community.

Uh. It's not just an open and royalty free format.

Like JPEG XR, WebP and WebM use BSD compatible licenses. What more do you need? That's enough for integration in open-source software. How exactly are Google "dominating you" in a negative sense by developing an image format.

Do you also feel "dominated by" the Joint Photographic Experts Group when you upload JPEG images?

Edited by Northgrove, Mar 25 2014, 9:57am :

Mobius Enigma said,

One example of why this could hurt - In five years if VP8 or WebP takes off, all Google has to do is change THEIR version to report back to their tracking servers. Everyone else will have to implemented these changes as well, or their websites will stop WORKING on Google devices, software, as by dominance THEY CONTROL the 'default' implementation of the them.

Google could change the way their JPEG encoders and decoders work right now and start reporting back to their servers.

If they have the market power (and you are implying) to force third parties to follow their own specific implementation then WebP makes no difference, they could do that exactly the same with JPEG, PNG or whatever the hell they want.

But then again if they could actually do that once WebP became widespread they wouldn't need to entice anyone to use it right now: cut support for every other file format and force only WebP on Google devices.

Does that make sense? It doesn't, right? Neither does the theory about world dominance through WebP.

Edited by ichi, Mar 25 2014, 11:45am :

Northgrove said,

Uh. It's not just an open and royalty free format.

Like JPEG XR, WebP and WebM use BSD compatible licenses. What more do you need? That's enough for integration in open-source software.


So BSD compatible license is everything now? Integration with other "open-source" software is everything? Never heard about standards?

Your post clearly displays what I was talking about.

Studio384 said,
When something is open source, it doesn't mean it can't be propriatary. Since only Google has control over this thing (it's not a standard, just a thing no body should accept as long as it isn't a standard), it's propietary. Even the royalty-free thing is in doubt, as there are a lot of companies that claim that both VP8 and VP9 break licenses.

Being proprietary is related to it's license, not how it's developed. Open source cannot be also proprietary unless it has a dual license, which is not the case here.

Regarding the claims about VP8 patents yes, there has been some talk about that. The MPEGLA reached an agreement grating any essential license to Google and Nokia's claims regarding VP8 were already taken to court and dismissed as non infringing.

I'm not sure what are those "lots of companies" that would be claiming infringement.

WhatTheSchmidt said,

Show me the standards body approved documentation. Show me the documentation I can download to create a non-Google coded version of their codecs.

RFC6386, and also the full code published on Github which you can not only fork but also contribute to.

It was submited to IETF and ISO, then Nokia came in alledging patent issues (which AFAIK have so far been ruled as non-infringed in Germany).

Basically if VP8 isn't currently going through a standardization track you should basically blame Nokia.

Crimson Rain said,
Yes, blame nokia because they are trying to protect their patents. How could they!!!

Well, yes. Not because they'd be wrong in doing so (assuming VP8 actually infringes), but because they are the obstacle between VP8 and standardization.

Thing is people here are saying that there are no standard specifications and that Google should submit the specifications to a standard body, kinda implying that Google would have some vested interest in keeping things out of the standardization track... but turns out they did already submit to IETF and ISO.

Wow. Your arguments make me cry.

Companies/People should give up their patents because someone stole it and making it a standard for a great cause!

May be you also have no issues if someone robs you of your belongings, give them to poor, kick you out of your house and let homeless people stay there...all for great causes!11

Crimson Rain said,
Wow. Your arguments make me cry.

Companies/People should give up their patents because someone stole it and making it a standard for a great cause!

May be you also have no issues if someone robs you of your belongings, give them to poor, kick you out of your house and let homeless people stay there...all for great causes!11

I'm crying over your reading skills.

Nokia has all the right to decide if they want to license their patents or not (which again have not yet proven to be infringed, and have been found non infringed in Germany. That's so far Nokia's own statement when they asked the IETF to halt the process).

The point is that the reason VP8 is not progressing on the standardization track is not Google's intention to keep everything close to it's chest. They submited to the IETF and the ISO.
The reason is that the process is currently being halted by Nokia until the patent issues are resolved.

Nokia's reasoning for not licensing the allegedly infringed patents (as explained by themselves to the IETF) is that they think Google wants to dominate video streaming with "their proprietary technology", which is an utterly backwards argument considering that VP8 is certainly not proprietary.

>The point is that the reason VP8 is not progressing on the standardization track is

Simple. It is google who refuse to cooperate with patent/licensing issue and pass it on others (example: android device makers).

Crimson Rain said,

Simple. It is google who refuse to cooperate with patent/licensing issue and pass it on others (example: android device makers).

Good I'm glad Google isn't giving in to these patent extortionists. MPEG wants to dominate video encoding standards by using its patents arsenal. I'm glad we have companies like Google fighting against these vermin.