Talk:WebM

File extension

It is a bit early, but I see no reference to a .webm extension. The way I understand it, it is going to be a Matroska file format, ie ".mkv"... Espadrine (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The extension shown by Google is webm. --Xero (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The extension is referenced at WebM Container Guidelines.
--Gyrobo (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

IE9 support

Microsoft says they'll "support VP8 video when the user has installed a VP8 codec on Windows". Just because they support VP8, doesn't mean they support WebM, correct? One is a codec, the other is the container with the encoded video/audio. Are they supporting Ogg Theora? (I don't think so). I see no mention of WebM on that blog entry and no indication of native support. I think the bit about IE9 should be removed for the time being until there's more information. 129.120.86.194 (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

WebM files will be playable only if VP8 is installed by a third-party codec, like Directshow.
--Gyrobo (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's besides the point. Will IE9 interpret the */webm content types and the matroska container correctly and pass them on to the correct splitter and codecs? Will it implement the complete HTML media element scripting interface for content types that it doesn't play natively? Nobody knows yet. There's not a single mention of WebM in Hachamovitch's post, so the assertion that IE9 will support WebM once the codecs are installed is unsupported by the source.--94.223.167.143 (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

129.120.86.194 is right: The sources says "IE9 will support playback of H.264 video as well as VP8 video when the user has installed a VP8 codec on Windows" but it does not mention WebM at all. Hence, writing "Internet Explorer 9 supports WebM if a VP8 codec is available" goes against both Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Civility. I deleted it. Please, next time, think twice before violating two of the Wikipedia pillars and re-adding the statement. Not introducing a source is one thing, introducing a fake source is another. Fleet Command (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't know as of yet, how will IE9 play <video> content - built-in, or via directshow. But h264 has codecs shipping with Windows, VP8 does not, that's why VP8 will need the codec installed and h264 will not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.132.145 (talk) 09:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

h264 codecs don't ship with all Windows editions. In particular, no version of Windows Vista comes with h264 codecs AFAIK Nil Einne (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The "Platform Update Supplement for Windows Vista", released as a free update for all Windows Vista users, includes an H.264 codec. So every version of Windows capable of running IE9 (the first version of IE to support HTML5 video) will have access to H.264 by default, provided the user has allowed Windows Update -- on by default -- to keep their system up to date. Windows XP and below will not be given built-in access to an H.264 codec -- but they also will not be capable of running IE9, so discussion about IE9's codec support really isn't applicable to those older OSes.24.222.2.222 (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The official Microsoft statement was: "IE9 will support playback of H.264 video as well as VP8 video when the user has installed a VP8 codec on Windows." FleetCommand says VP8 codec != WebM container therefore removes this statement from the article and calls people liars. He totally forgot that H.264 codec != MP4 container. Microsfot is referring to video codecs instead of containers because it is clearly the most important part of the process of delivering video on the web. You can't support H.264 or VP8 without a container. Stop being an ignorant person who calls others liars while it is actually you who is the blatant liar/partial editor.2.89.119.157 (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You are not a reliable source for making self-published analyses like this. Instead of engaging in edit warring, provide a source that explicitly say Internet Explorer supports WebM. And I didn't call you a liar; I did so with another IP contributor which ignored multiple previous polite warnings. Unless, you are the same person, you have no reason to get irritated. Fleet Command (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You are missing the point. The point is that you are removing a correct part of an article, and calling it falsehood, which is a lie. Can you find a place in the article where it says mp4? They are talking technical common-sense, which you don't have.2.89.119.157 (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly the point: Things me or many other Wikipedians don't understand. It has been provisioned in the founding pillars of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Verifiability. To say "Internet Explorer 9 supports WebM" we must have a source. We don't. The fact that you or even me think Internet Explorer 9 can play WebM does not matter at all. And that concludes the matter so far as the Wikipedia is concerned.

About MP4, it does not concern this article, hence I refrain to comment.

Fleet Command (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Then also please refrain from editing the article.2.89.119.157 (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Everyone has the right to edit the article, so far as his edit meets Wikipedia pillars and policies. I hate to break it down to you but it is you whose edits doesn't meet the aforementioned requirements. Saying that a source says something while that sources does not is a serious misconduct here. Edit warring, in which you are currently engaged, is yet another such misconduct. But I think both of us should continue editing Wikipedia, only you sir, must reconsider what you write and mind Wikipedia rules. Fleet Command (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to clearly state that this is only your opinion.2.89.119.157 (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It is the opinion of Wikipedia:Verifiability. But enough beating around the bush: Do you or do you not have a source that states Internet Explorer 9 is capable of playing WebM? If you have, please state it. Fleet Command (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The source is right in front of your frigging eyes, you're just probably way too slow to comprehend what people comprehended. So, you're telling me VP8 is supported but not WebM, then can you please describe how is it going to be played? In order to have a multimedia format, you have to have a container format. If it is only going to support "VP8" alone without any containers, how are you going to go about that? The article is from the msdn blog, and people following that blog are technically-oriented, they don't need to be taught the multimedia common-sense, please try to understand that.2.89.119.157 (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Offending does not help a bit. The source that you mention says VP8, not WebM. There are many other container formats.

I ask again: Do you have a reliable source that states Internet Explorer 9 is supporting WebM? Fleet Command (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The source also mentions H.264, but not MP4. Does this mean that the video is going to be delivered in a Matroska container? or a transport stream container? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.89.119.157 (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That does not concern our discussion. Our discussion is WebM support in IE9.

Does IE9 support WebM? In other words, does it recognize WebM MIME type or file extension? Does it support its container format? Even if IE9 recognize Matroska, does it identify WebM as Matroska? How IE9 will parse <video> tag? Does Microsoft choose to explicitly ban WebM to avoid the patent conflict that is going on?

But the above questions are too technical for an average literate person to conclude whether WebM is supported in IE9 or not. Hence, what we need is a reliable source that either say "Internet Explorer 9 supports WebM". Do you have such a source? Fleet Command (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Great googling, FleetCommand. You practically collected random questions from incompetent people on the internet. MIME type is not a browser thing, it's a server-side configuration. And yes, they announced that they will support H.264 and VP8 (which are delivered in .mp4 and .webm) and Microsoft didn't say anything about banning WebM to avoid patent conflict (lol you probably don't know that Microsoft is part of the MPEG-LA patent pool, they won't sue themselves)2.89.119.157 (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say "sue". Just explicitly avoiding/not implementing it to keep their nervous enterprise customers happy, the same way (but not for the same reason) that Adobe did to Adobe Premiere Pro to avoid MP3 audio stream. (Microsoft's main source of income and attention is enterprise customers, not ordinary consumers.) And I didn't Google.

But it is time you stopped offending the whole world by calling them "incompetent" and provided a source. Where is your source that says IE9 supports WebM?

Fleet Command (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It is available in the article. Check it out. They don't explicitly mention containers like .mp4 and .webm because they didn't know someone named FleetCommand would have trouble understanding what they meant."Microsfot is referring to video codecs instead of containers because it is clearly the most important part of the process of delivering video on the web. You can't support H.264 or VP8 without a container."2.89.119.157 (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I already told you that VP8 can go into every other container. You failed to provide a source. Hence, the statement goes. Should you continue to add the bogus statement, I will treat you as Wikipedia policies mandate. Fleet Command (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk about bogus statements? VP8 can't "go into every other container", only the containers that support VP8, the only ones I know do so now are Matroska and WebM (which is based on Matroska). If you really insist on "explicit mention of WebM by the article" then it does not exist. Is there another official source that explicitly mentions WebM? maybe, maybe not. That source was enough for most people. And if people got the wrong idea, MS wouldn't be slow to debunk the rumor. However, until someone can cite an official source of WebM support in IE 9, there is a compromise solution. We can change the wording of the sentence to read like this: "Microsoft announced that Internet Explorer 9 will support VP8 when the user has installed the VP8 codec on the system, but has not explicitly said whether there is support for Vorbis or the Matroska-based WebM container." What do you think of that?2.89.119.157 (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It's bad that Wikipedia has people like FleetCommand labelled as "editors", they don't have any encyclopedic integrity whatsoever. They can't prove they are correct in the discussion, yet they continue to do what they think regardless. You think being a Wikipedia editor automatically makes you the all-knowledgeable, never-wrong person? What kind of broken personality is this? Throughout this discussion, I've noticed that you are not actually arguing for the article, but for the sake of the argument. I've wasted my time tutoring a certified troll. This world would be a much better place if some Wikipedia "editors" stop messing with articles on topics they no nothing about. Peace. 2.89.119.157 (talk) 10:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the comment. Now, please mind your manners or you'll risk losing more editing privileges than you already have lost. Fleet Command (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

says the guy who insulted everyone and called them blatant liars.2.89.119.157 (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Both Microsoft and Google announced that they were working closely with each other to allow WebM playback in IE 9: http://blog.webmproject.org/2011/03/introducing-webm-in-internet-explorer-9.html2.90.210.15 (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. But that's just pleasantries. Internet Explorer still cannot play WebM video without third-party support. Google and Microsoft are just being nice. Fleet Command (talk) 07:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"Microsoft confirmed that Internet Explorer 9 would definitely require third-party software to play WebM." has nothing to do with informing the user that the WebM Project has actually released Media Foundation components to allow WebM playback in Internet Explorer 9. You are omitting valuable information to the reader. I am going to add this statement after yours if I do not get any objections. I am posting here to document my stance and my desire not to engage in edit-warring. It is already clear to me that omitting this sentence is wrong.Verb3k (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, this problem can be easily resolved without undue use of advertising tone and technical words. Even so, you should have come here earlier, not after committing four instances of edit-warring. Fleet Command (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Is there any reason to believe VP8 only works in WebM and Matroska as suggested above? This seems unlikely. I strongly suspect VP8 will work in AVI, Ogg, ASF and probably even MP4 and FLV. It may not be officially supported and I doubt many will do it for the web (except perhaps a few for Ogg) but it seems unlikely as with most video codecs it will work fine in any container provided the muxing and demuxing is properly implemented and the container has a way to handle different codecs. (I also wonder what On2 were doing before they were bought out by Google. Sadly the links at http://forum.doom9.org/archive/index.php/t-141107.html don't work. Perhaps it was just a raw bitstream. I have doubts it was MKV though.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

No, there is no reason. In fact, the fact VP8 != WebM was one of the primary drives of the original discussion. VP8 is not strictly bound to WebM. All those who assert to the contrary must provide source. Fleet Command (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Acronym

Web movie? Web media? Web matroska? Web 'em?--94.223.167.143 (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Web Media I believe. I think it was mentioned in the keynote. Martin (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

license

I think BSD style is not correct. The last paragraph is a patent clause. For example this makes it incompatible with most FSF licenses. It may be compatible with LGLP3 and GLP3 only, there is no way it is compatible with GPL2 for example. Also it is slightly different than Apache license in the patent clause, but may be compatible there, again I am not an expert but Apache seems more strict in its patent clause so that should not be an issue. As to this being original research, there are some words about this in the FAQ for WebM, but not this specific. FOr now it may be a good idea to jst change thos BSD style parts in the article to BSD sytle with additional patent clause or something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.205.171 (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I have changed it to say "BSD license with royalty-free patent clause". The patent clause is actually quite irrelevant as far as software licensing is concerned, because it only applies to Google's patents (patent law), and not the source code (copyright law). -- intgr [talk] 18:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I am not an expert, but I think it doesn't apply to copyright but it does to the license. It's sort of a tangent that FSF licenses us copyright law for their teeth. But in the case of this license if you sue Google regarding patent infringement, you lose the rights granted by the license. Now copyright law says without those granted rights, there's little you are allowed to do without copyright infringement. So say you were wanting to use it with GPL2, there is the clause that if you have some other reason for which you lost the ability to distribute the code, the only way you can be in compliance to both requirements is to cease distribution. I don't know if that makes thing incompatible or what not, but it's relevant. In regards to Apache license, I believe that one says you sue anyone for patent infringement regarding the code, you lose the rights granted by the license. So I think there is no trouble there.

I will go ahead and change the body to use the same "BSD license with royalty-free patent clause" text as in the box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.205.171 (talk)

Good point about losing distribution rights when suing Google, I didn't think of that. -- intgr [talk] 15:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Endorsements section

The title "Endorsements" is no longer accurate, as support may be available in Safari and Internet Explorer through third-party tools. Should this section be renamed something like "Vendor support", "Implementations" or simply "Support"?
--Gyrobo (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm changing it to "Vendor support" because it goes beyond endorsements, into implementation.
--Gyrobo (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Patent concerns

Why did you remove the claim by Google that they researched the patent issues of VP8 as well as statement that unsupported claims are used as an instrument of public manipulation? There is a difference to say that Google doesn't claim their own patents, and to say that they researched that no other patents are infringed. You create a negative picture which serves as an advantage mechanism for VP8 competitors. Wikipedia should stay neutral and should describe the factual situation - i.e. no actual claims and cases were filed against Ogg Theora and VP8 despite any possible concerns.

-- Bahaltener (talk) 03:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The article "Google backs open codec against patent trolls" is already referenced in that section, in the first sentence, describing VP8 as patent-free. I saw no reason to say the exact same thing twice.
--Gyrobo (talk) 03:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

As I noted, there is a different way to express that some company doesn't claim their own patents, and that they are sure that they don't infringe patents of others. The phrase "Google has released the VP8 codec as a royalty-free standard" is ambiguous, and normally is understood that Google doesn't claim patents for himself. You can extend that phrase to mention that Google claims that VP8 doesn't infringe other patents.
-- Bahaltener (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That isn't what your text said (refs omitted): [1]

“ On the other hand, Google representatives claim that they performed a thorough analysis of VP8 technology and they are confident that it is really patent free. No claims were made by MPEG-LA indicating any particular infringed patent, and threatening tactics alone can be used as a subversive method of public manipulation in order to disrupt the adoption of competing technology. Similar claims were made about Ogg Theora video codec, which was opened in September 2001, but no patent cases or claims were filed against it so far. ”

The tone seemed to conversational. Words like "claim" and phrases like "on the other hand" aren't encyclopedic in this context; information should be presented as facts, not conjecture. Saying that VP8 has been opened as a royalty-free standard states, as a fact, that the codec is, in its entirety, open. But if the nature of the complaints against VP8 is that it infringes on other patents not owned by Google, then it must be mentioned that all patents have been opened.
--Gyrobo (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Flash

The atricle states that flash will support the webm standard but the references only provide information about flash supporting vp8 (the video codec) with no information about vorbis or webm (the container). The comments on http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplatform/2010/05/adobe_support_for_vp8.html indicate flash will only be adding support for the vp8 codec. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.41.101 (talk) 07:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. The author of the article even responded to questions about Vorbis and Matroska by saying that Adobe hasn't announced support for any other codecs or formats beyond VP8.
--Gyrobo (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Google also announced that it would be using Flash and not just HTML5 for YouTube in a blog post here. I am going to add this on the WebM page as it just mentions HTML5, not Flash, if there no objections that is. 129.137.167.186 (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Importance of Nero AG lawsuit

Is the Nero AG lawsuit important to mention here? It's about the MPEG-2 portfolio, not VP8 or WebM.
--Gyrobo (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It is relevant, because it's essentially about MPEG-LA abusing monopoly power, which is the case with attempts to disrupt WebM adoption and usage.
-- Bahaltener (talk) 07:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the article isn't supposed to draw those kinds of conclusions. The Nero AG lawsuit is about MPEG-2, not VP8 or WebM. It's cogent, but not directly related to this case. I propose a {{Details}} or {{Further}} template at the top of the Patent concerns section, for MPEG LA#Criticism and Use of Ogg formats in HTML5.
--Gyrobo (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:SYN is applicable here. If and when a source publishes a connection between the Nero lawsuit and WebM, then I'd have no problem with covering it in the article. -- intgr [talk] 16:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Should we also remove the sentence about Ogg Theora, then? It doesn't pertain to any VP8-related patent pool.
--Gyrobo (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You should clarify if Theora does not overlap with VP8 in this sense. Since Theora itself is based on earlier On2 codec - VP3.
-- Bahaltener (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Open source/format status

The OSI contends that WebM cannot be considered yet 'open source' until it passes their approval process. They also say that it doesn't quality as an 'open standard' either until it can be reviewed by a standards group. [2]

Bearing these in mind, is it still okay to claim that WebM is open source in the lead, and as an open format in the infobox? Or should it have some sort of in process placeholder until Google and OSI settle their differences? --112.203.100.68 (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Not receiving a stamp of approval from the OSI doesn't mean something isn't open source. Open-source software "is computer software that is available in source code form for which the source code and certain other rights normally reserved for copyright holders are provided under a software license that permits users to study, change, and improve the software." This describes the license for WebM perfectly.
--Gyrobo (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That's just a circular definition, you quoted the Wikipedia definition word-for-word. --112.203.100.68 (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

More to the point, receiving a stamp of approval from OSI *is* important in determining whether a software license is open source.[3] We don't just accept it at face value when Microsoft declares one of their products as open source; likewise we should have the same parameter for Google and look for more authoritative sources before believing that WebM could be considered open source. --112.203.100.68 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC).

Receiving a stamp of approval from OSI only certifies that the license follows their Open Source Definition. Open source as a term is more broad. But if there's an actual controversy over this, then of course it should be mentioned. This exact situation was discussed on Talk:VP8#Introductory wording for VP8, and the tentative result is a sentence in the introduction stating that there is still contention over whether the license is truly open source. Would that work here?
--Gyrobo (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I can get behind that. I'm fine with the wording in the introductory section of the VP8 article, if it gets adapted here too while Google and OSI haven't resolved their issues yet that will be clarify things for the better. --112.203.100.68 (talk) 01:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Passing over the stamp of approval, the article source does not mention that WebM is an open format; in fact, it does not mention WebM at all. It merely grants royalty-free access to VP8 bitstream and codec. However, I have another source that suggests that WebM is indeed an open format. Now modifying the article accordingly. Fleet Command (talk) 09:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Expanding "Patent concerns"

Given the apparent controversy over whether WebM/VP8 are actually open source, should the section "Patent concerns" be expanded to "Legal concerns" to house such material?
--Gyrobo (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done There is now enough material on the controversy over the WebM license that it can't be comfortably kept in the introduction.
--Gyrobo (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the section gets renamed as 'Licensing concerns'. Whatever the OSI or FSF talks about is just whether the WebM license follows the respective OSI and FSF definitions, it is not something that will get challenged in court. --112.203.100.68 (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Makes sense.
--Gyrobo (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

WebM format cannot consist of software/codecs

I corrected this wrong statement: "The WebM format consists of the VP8 video codec developed by On2 and the Vorbis audio codec, in a container format based on a profile of Matroska."

to this new text: "The WebM format consists of VP8 video stream (originally developed by On2) and Vorbis audio stream, in a container format based on a profile of Matroska."

Citation from the Codec article: A codec is a device or computer program capable of encoding and/or decoding a digital data stream or signal.

A container format, such as WebM cannot contain a codec. This statement is totally wrong. A container format can contain bitstreams created by an encoder or codec. It cannot contain a device or computer program capable of encoding and/or decoding a digital data stream or signal.

Vorbis is not a codec. Vorbis is an audio compression format and it can be created by different implementations of this format (encoders/codecs) - such as libvorbis and aoTuV.

Please, read the WebM project website: "WebM files consist of video streams compressed with the VP8 video codec and audio streams compressed with the Vorbis audio codec." - http://www.webmproject.org/about/faq/ - That means, the WebM can contain video bitstream created by an implementation of VP8 (video in VP8 compression format) and audio bitstream created by an implementation of Vorbis format (audio in Vorbis compression format).

Please, read the VP8 article. The VP8 codec was published as libvpx or VP8 codec library. http://www.webmproject.org/code/repository-layout/ , http://code.google.com/p/webm/downloads/list

(See also: Audio codec or Video codec#Commonly used video codecs - Video in most of the publicly documented or standardized video compression formats can be created with multiple encoders made by different people. Many video codecs use common, standard video compression formats, which makes them compatible.)

User:Intgr reverted my edits. So, I am trying to avoid a revert war.

--89.173.66.229 (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The entire lede is a little awkward, and your changes improve it slightly.

Your reformulation of the sentence sounds broken to me though, because you say "consists of [...] stream" instead of "consists of a [...] stream". Maybe Intgr reverted it because of that. Additionally, the word "comprises" seems better to me than "consists". However, I'm not a native speaker and thus not entirely sure about that.

A related problem in the article is the first sentence, which states that "WebM is a video format" which, as you pointed out, isn't really accurate -- it's a container format that contains one video and one audio stream (VP8, Vorbis).

— DataWraith (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

A container contains streams, a container format does not. A container format is a format, and a format is a specification. A specification describes how to make something that contains something.—J. M. (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The whole sentence was problematic. You are right—a codec is not a format, and a format cannot consist of a codec. That's just patent nonsense, even if it's supported by a citation. However, a format cannot consist of a video/audio stream either. Files consist of video/audio streams. So I rewrote the sentence. Now it says: "A WebM file consists of VP8 video and Vorbis audio streams in a container based on a profile of Matroska." Since we're now talking about files rather than formats, I changed the expression "container format" to "container", because the actual file is (or contains) the container, not the container specification (format). I hope this new wording should please both sides.—J. M. (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Phrasing

The article phrases similar things differently, which might lead to some misunderstanding. For example, "Media players such as VLC, Miro and Moovida have announced support" and "MPlayer is also able to play WebM files when built with libvpx" while in fact all previously mentioned players actually use libvpx to decode VP8, i.e. they are no different than MPlayer. Should we consider the fact that they committed a perfectly working implementation around libvpx to the public SVN an announcement even though there was no news update on the official website from the guys at MPlayer announcing WebM/VP8 support? In other words, can we make it into "Media players such as VLC, Miro, Moovida and MPlayer have announced support"? --94.98.33.110 (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Browser or Vendor?

Should we change "Support by Mozilla, Opera and Google was announced..." to "Support by Mozilla Firefox, Opera and Google Chrome was announced..."? Because the former doesn't explicitly inform the reader that the browsers actually support WebM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.97.149.17 (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Support. That's a good idea.
--Gyrobo (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. In the future, invoke WP:BOLD. -- intgr [talk] 18:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Safari/QuickTime support

While Perian(svn) supports WebM/VP8 including limited playback in Safari, QuickTime does not provide any API for third party developers to support seeking in HTTP Resources via HTTP 1.1 Content-Range requests. With this limitation, <video> support in Safari will always be very limited. Seeking is an important feature of html5 video. Apple ignored requests for exposing HTTP seeeking to third pary components, while they fixed it for h264 in QuickTime X. Given these limitations, the section about possible support in Safari should be removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.159.99.62 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 01 August 2010 (UTC)

WebM vs. Matroska

Can someone point out why there is the demand for a specific Matroska profile called WebM when there already is standalone Matroska? --Abdull (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Who said there was any demand? Big companies like Google usually don't create new things because there's demand for them. There are more strategic, sophisticated goals than fulfilling demand. Guaranteeing that the profile only allows Vorbis audio and VP8 video is a marketing move that could potentially make it more successful on the web than plain Matroska which can contain any combination of anything—that would be unrealistic to support everywhere. And making WebM successful and widely supported would mean companies like Google could eventually start replacing H.264 video with it and save big money on H.264 licensing fees.—J. M. (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I myself would like the article to have a few hints on the differences between the two container formats, with reasons behind the limitations; but we'd also need to find out a source... 66.11.179.30 (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it while wikipedia calls webm a "container format" the actual intent is for webm to refer to a complete format. Much as PNG defines either directly or by reference everything needed to render a PNG file webm defines either directly or by reference everything needed to render a webm file. Flexible container formats are nice from some points of view but they make it a nightmare for less technical users to determine what exactly is needed to play a file. By narrowly defining a format one can reduce the question of compatibility to a yes/no answer which makes life a heck of a lot easier. Plugwash (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

MPlayer supports WebM natively

The article needs to be updated as mplayer no longer requires libvpx to be able to play WebM files. --94.97.66.77 (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Only when the distro supports it natively. I believe Fedora 13 and Ubuntu 10 provide native support. --Xero (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

x264 developer criticises

"Jason Garrett-Glaser, a developer of the x264 encoder, gave several points of criticism for WebM, explaining that the VP8 format had no real specification, and that WebM was lacking in several areas". Isn't that exactly what someone who is a developer for a different project would do (criticize it)? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Jason Garrett-Glaser also develop an encoder for VP8[4]. Hervegirod (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and that's what makes him a reliable source. Fleet Command (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above, but I have removed his claims about patent problems from the article. He is a software developer, but not a patent lawyer; he is not a reliable source for anything patent-related. In one breath he criticizes VP8 for not using H.264's better algorithms, in the next he claims the two are too similar. -- intgr [talk] 15:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Jason Garrett-Glaser doesn't develop a VP8 encoder. The developer of the xvp8 encoder is Ronald Bultje, who is an FFmpeg developer, not an x264 developer. He was hired by Google for a year to develop a VP8 encoder based on the x264 codebase. Jason is the head of the x264 LLC which sells x264 licenses to companies wanting to integrate the software into their products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.89.119.157 (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that was a Metonymy. The fact is that Jason is not a fish seller or a chef. On the contrary, he probably knows more about H.264 and WebM than the members of general public combined. He is a reliable source; so reliable that even if we don't take what he says for granted, his point of view should be mentioned in Wikipedia, in order to maintain a neutral point of view. Fleet Command (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of Jason's criticism is aimed at libvpx, the only VP8 implementation at the time of the article (may 2010). Jason referred to libvpx as VP8 because, at that time, libvpx was the only implementation of VP8. Now there is an independent decoder implementation, and an encoder implementation based on x264 is in the works. As such, the criticism should be in the libvpx article, not the format's article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.89.119.157 (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Project or Google

The artikel refers to the WebM project as an independant entity. However other than a website, the WebM project does not seem to be an actual legal entity. The WebM project site is just another Google site. Should the artikel not refer to Google as WebM seems to be a format convieved by Google and any IP rights on WebM would therefore also belong to google and any (free) licenses given on the format would also be from Google. Google is now mentioned as a sponsor. But they are not the sponsor but the legal entity that created and legally owns the format. I think the article should refer to Google as the party behind the format and not try to fake independance behide a website name which has no legal status whatsoever. 86.83.239.142 (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

EXAMPLES

The article should contain one or more example files in WebM format, to download, as all the file-format articles should. Not only bla, bla, bla... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.162.24 (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Why? What purpose would this example file serve? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? The example would serve as an illustration of the format in a way that mere description cannot. We do it for all the filetypes that are allowed to be hosted here, so it's not like it would be anything unusual.

Granted, there would be very little difference between, say, a WebM video and a MKV video with the VP8 and Vorbis codecs, so it might make more sense to do it on a codec basis instead a filetype basis. Still, the basic idea is sound. — trlkly 21:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added an example video. PhilKnight (talk) 09:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

About loss of data

Is webm lossy or lossless?190.20.9.70 (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Lossy, like all practical video codecs. -- intgr [talk] 14:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You mean all *delivery* codecs. There are very practical lossless codecs used in post production. --209.203.125.162 (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

How is this "For a better video playback experience we recommend an HTML5 video browser."

I already can play HTML5 videos on my computer. I am using Safari that can play HTML5 videos without a plug in. I use this to watch HTML5 video from the BBC iPlayer website and for watching YouTube. In what way is it a better experience to download a new player to play this format of file? From reading this page it seems the only advantage is that you don't have to pay royalties. QuentinUK (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Whatever you are quoting, it's not the page WebM. As you said it's fine to play WebM videos in players supporting it, once you managed to download it (can be tricky.) –Be..anyone (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a message from Wikipedia when the user clicks on an animation. Wikipedia is saying that this is a better experience. QuentinUK (talk) 09:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, if that's a problem from your POV this talk page isn't a good place to discuss it. I can't tell what exactly triggers this message for you, otherwise I'd suggest a corresponding interface message (system message) Mediawiki talk page. You can let others sort this out, and report the issue as suggestion or bug on phabricator:. –Be..anyone (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Or you might try discussing it at WP:PUMP instead. -- intgr [talk] 15:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

4chan example

As of late, many more imageboards support the webm format, such as 8chan. So I propose changing the 4chan bit to a more general bit about imageboards. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 17:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

What about the file signature?

Shouldn't all these containers articles mention the header or signature which identifies the kind of file it is? Windows programs generally use the extension but unices programs almost always use the signature to know the kind of file. See # man file in any unix based OS shell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.233.103.167 (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hardware acceleration in mobile processors?

Is WebM hardware decoded in any mobile processors or GPUs (like Snapdragon, or Apple's A series)? --209.203.125.162 (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

VP8: Yes (and for quite some time now). VP9: Yes on anything semi-recent. 72.139.70.6 (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Lossy or lossless?

I found here that the video format was lossy. Is that true? Plus, I really think that this information should be included in the article, otherwise we don't know anything about the video format, which is the main subject of the article. NatoBoram (talk)

WebM is just a container and does not itself use any lossy compression. It can hold VP8 or VP9 video, which is almost always lossy, however VP9 does have a rarely used lossless mode. For audio it supports Vorbis and Opus, which are always lossy. So in theory you could have a lossless video-only WebM file, which contains VP9 in lossless mode with no audio. -LiberatorG (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on WebM. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110321150357/http://labs.opera.com/news/2010/05/19/ to http://labs.opera.com/news/2010/05/19/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100930181634/http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=499 to http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=499

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Services

I removed 4chan from the list of web services supporting WebM. 4chan is not a major web service, it's just an image board. The content was restored, however. Any other opinions? Kaldari (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kaldari: I have removed the list entirely; WebM is pretty ubiquitous now and such list would be either incomplete or too long to be useful. I think the fact that YouTube was an early adopter and promoter of WebM would deserve a mention in a "history" section, but other than that the list was not helpful. -- intgr [talk] 09:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Security implications?

There is a lot of discussion on the boards (e.g. reddit) about the security of webm, especially regarding the protection of the user’s IP address when using HTML5. This is a very active discussion right now in the context of using VPN and TOR and especially on iOS and possibly other mobile platforms. I did not see any discussion of this on other security-focused wiki pages. Perhaps someone with more detailed knowledge than I could consider adding something to this page on this topic? I also will add a note to the TOR page about this. Mike-c-in-mv (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Article is Obsolete and biased.

The article needs to explain why all these ten-year-old hopes are still in the present or future tense. Why did they seemingly fail?

Hardware
.... AMD, ARM and Broadcom have announced support for hardware acceleration of the WebM format.[34][35] Intel is also considering hardware-based acceleration for WebM in its Atom-based TV chips if the format gains popularity.[36] Qualcomm and Texas Instruments have announced support,[37][38] with native support coming to the TI OMAP processor.[39] if the format gains popularity. a fully hardware decoder for VP8 that can decode full HD resolution (1080p) VP8 streams at 60 frames per second.[40]

It's saying:

• Ten years ago AMD, ARM and Broadcom once announced...
• Intel also considered...if the format would have gained popularity.
• Qualcomm and Texas Instruments once announced support...

and so on. Outdated. Also, Wikipedia is not in the business of transmitting manufacturing (nor their Media's) breathless hopes, dreams and "announcements" as Wiki-approved (facts). Only the actual facts should be reported.
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:305E:100D:36A4:2349 (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC) Just Saying

Gyfcat Redirect

Why does Gyfcat redirect to this article without being mentioned even once? --Makkonen (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)