[SiVal]

Where is Google in all this? They must surely be aware of all such IETF projects. I can understand why Apple wasn't mentioned (Apple Island is a world unto itself to the maximum extent possible), but Google has usually pursued the opposite strategy. This seems like the sort of thing they would get behind unless there is some issue I'm unaware of, and it seems as though Mozilla would mention Google in this infomercial if they were backing it.

[wmf]

Google has a big NIH conflict of interest since they bought GIPS. "On the audio side, we will initially support iSAC, iLBC, G.711, and DTMF, with iSAC being the default. It is a royalty free wideband codec optimized for speech, open sourced at webrtc.org." http://blog.chromium.org/2012/04/chromes-webrtc-roadmap.html It looks like somebody volunteered to add Opus to Chrome and was met with silence: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/discuss-w...

Mozilla says "Audio codecs planned: G.711 & Opus. (Although royalty/license-free, we have no plans to support iLBC, iSAC and G.722)", so as it stands Firefox and Chrome could only interop with G.711 (aka uncompressed). https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/Features/WebRTC

[SiVal]

Very interesting. That Google Group you link to is very busy with responses to almost all threads, but the one you link to, the May 9 offer to add Opus to Chrome, was met by the sound of crickets.

If IE, Firefox, Opera, and Chrome support it, there might be enough leverage on Apple to add it to Safari (Mac, iOS, maybe iPod), too. But without Chrome, Apple has the political cover to claim that "nobody uses it," so they can kill it.

[mtgx]

So which is better, iSAC or Opus?

[gcp]

Skype used the SILK part of Opus to replace iSAC quite a while ago. (SILK is in fact their second iteration of their own codec to improve upon/replace it)

I couldn't find any direct comparison, it looks like the IETF standardization work didn't even consider it worthwhile comparing to iSAC as it was judged outdated and "being phased out". (For example, Google participated in the tests, but they only tested against iLBC, not iSAC)

So it's likely that Opus is way better. It can certainly scale to much higher quality than iSAC can just by the format alone.

Qualitywise, Opus outperforms the state-of-the-art high-latency codec at music encoding while being a low latency music & speech codec itself. The only case where another codec outperforms Opus anywhere seems to be AMR, when encoding speech at very low bitrates (<= 6-12kbps). But AMR also has higher delay.

You can read the summary here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-codec-results-01

[ksec]

Opus, A lot better, it is a rather strange beast that it nearly manage to outperform in every category. With a bit more tuning work for a year or two it could properly be on the same level with AAC @ 256Kbps.

[gcp]

Do you have samples where AAC@256kbps outperforms Opus@256kbps? That'd be very interesting...

[quonn]

Well, I suspect they talked to their legal department which _might_ have reasoned like this (IANAL, btw):

"Opus is a hybrid codec that internally uses both, SILK and Celt.

SILK was created by Skype (now Microsoft) and its patent license includes this gem: '5.1 Skype may terminate this License Agreement and any rights granted hereunder in the event that you or any of your Affiliates (i) materially breaches any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement; or (ii) asserts any patent or patent rights against Skype, its Affiliates, or its or their successors or assigns.'

So lets assume Motorola (owned by Google) tries to (counter)sue MS over some Android stuff: Suddenly the patent grant given by Skype becomes invalid and Google might have to remove Opus from Chrome. If it's popular by that time, this is a serious competitive disadvantage.

So better not help making it popular in the first place. "

[mtgx]

Skype/MS should just make it fully open source then, for the betterment of the web, instead of using it for potential silly legal fights in the future.

[gcp]

Google apparently participated in the listening tests and concluded Opus outperformed the GIPS codecs they had just bought for 68 million USD, sometimes by wide margins.

I guess they're still hurting over that? :)

[taligent]

Exactly that Apple Island with their industry standard H.264 and AAC files.

And Google with their proprietary WebM.

[kkowalczyk]

Yes, a completely open-sourced, royalty free and patent-free WebM is "proprietary".

Patent-laden format for which you have to pay multi-million royalties is "industry standard".

[taligent]

It is not "patent-free". If it was I am sure Google would indemnify users from patent infringement lawsuits.

Fact is that at least 12 organisations have already said that WebM infringes on their patents.

[dtf]

Is there any open-source, royalty-free technology you can think of that comes with a legal indemnity against patent lawsuits?

[taligent]

Many providers of Linux and Java products indemnify their users e.g. RedHat, Novell.

[tonfa]

s/users/customers/ ?

[mtgx]

WebM is not proprietary. It's open source. You can find it here:

http://www.webmproject.org/

[taligent]

It IS proprietary.

Google owns WebM and unilaterally makes the decisions about the direction of the format. H.264 is a standard and driven by a standards committee and process comprising numerous companies.

[surrealize]

> It IS proprietary.

Also, war is peace, freedom is slavery, and innocence is strength!

[sp332]

The code may be open source but the format/spec is 100% controlled by Google. Forking the code won't help you change the direction of format development. If anyone besides Google wants to make changes, they'd have to fork the entire spec under a different standards body.

[jonknee]

As you would with any standard. If h.264 were open source you couldn't fork it and have it work with existing h.264 devices. It would be a new standard.

[taligent]

Also we should point out that Google should NEVER be trusted.

Their disgraceful behaviour in blackmailing Microsoft over H.264 FRAND patents is of huge concern to anyone who cares about standards. Companies should be encouraged to get together and define industry standards with fair royalty rates. When that happens we ALL win. Clearly the ITC/EU agree.

Hopefully Google will see the error of its ways and change course.

[necubi]

Seriously? Google has owned Motorola Mobility for fewer than two months[0]. And in any case, though it seldom matters to people insistent on seeing the Android manufacturers in a bad light, Microsoft started this war by demanding licensing fees for ridiculous patents, like this one, for "Generating meeting requests and group scheduling from a mobile device"[1].

If you want to talk about bad guys in this mess, it's the companies who ended the détente by suing their competitors. That would be Microsoft and Apple. Asking companies like Motorola, HTC and Samsung to tie their hands behind their backs while Apple and Microsoft shake them down (or try to ban their products) is lunacy.

We need patent sanity in this country. But in the mean time, companies who are attacked have every right to defend themselves by any legal means they have available.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Mobility [1] http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...

[taligent]

I fail to see how it matters how long Google has owned Motorola. They are the ones making the decisions.

And this isn't just about Motorola and Microsoft. This is about the principle of ALL contributors to a standard licensing their patents in a fair way. Regardless of whether they are being sued or not or how 'nice' the counter party is.

Do you not understand that if Motorola gets away with this then it will set in a place a precedent for all H.264 patent holders to go after any licensees ? You may not understand the implication but the ITC/EU clearly do.

[jamesaguilar]

Google did not own Motorola Mobility when the FRAND stuff went down (in February). If you can't see how that's relevant then I guess you probably can't see much at all.

[kkowalczyk]

Propaganda is always easier if you fail to mention all the facts.

Like the fact that it was Motorola that used their patents to negotiate with Microsoft long before it was acquired by Google. Or the fact that Motorola did it only after Microsoft blackmailed Motorola, using your rhetoric, with their patent portfolio in order to destroy Android not by making better products but by patent bullying.

[taligent]

It is ludicrous for one patent holder of the H.264 patent pool to demand patent royalty rates far beyond the license rate for the entire pool.

It was NEVER a negotiation.

[progrock]

Certainly good reason to hop onto a free standard.