Steve Jobs’ (or Apple’s, or some new Fake Steve Jobs who now uses Steve’s IP and email) responds to VP-8 with nothing other than a URL. So I guess I’ll do the same:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/20/jobs_on_vp8/

And yes, back to our regularly scheduled Create Digital Motion programming. We’ll rejoin the ongoing saga of HTML5′s video tag later. I expect this will be the rare occasion where Apple points to the open source video development community for evidence. Of course, Jobs/Apple/The Shadow/Deep Throat here may be right — now. It’s just that right now isn’t the end of the story. If Apple doesn’t specifically go to war with VP-8 as they did with Flash, it’s a good thing; there would be a chance for Google and encoder developers to iron out some of the WebM kinks, prove the technology, and gradually help the open format win over H.264 in the long run. And any fear that Apple and Microsoft would somehow force H.264 into becoming the standard, causing Firefox to cease working with YouTube or something, is obviously not what’s happening. So rest easy – unless you’re the CEO of Apple, in which case, stay up a few hours more and tap out random emails on your iPad, I guess.

  • micro

    isn't it a bit strange: someone (maybe jobs, maybe not) posts a link in a mail and half the world takes this as an "apple says no to vp8"???

  • Peter Kirn

    @micro: I'm not taking it that way, necessarily, if that isn't clear from the post. But I'd say Apple is saying something by their absence from the WebM announcement. That speaks louder than any late-night iPad email of dubious origin.

    If people are giving the iPad emails weight, that may be that they seem consistent with public Apple policy… although that must be a PR nightmare, if the CEO is telegraphing these opinions on his own.

    Anyway, it doesn't matter. Apple isn't onboard with WebM yet, period; whether that changes in the future is completely unknown.

  • smithers

    The developer in reference makes it clear that it is Google that is the party responsible for making it impossible to improve the standard.

    Supposedly Google is open to improving the bitstream format — but this seems to conflict with the fact that they got so many different companies to announce VP8 support.  The more software that supports a file format, the harder it is to change said format, so I’m dubious of any claim that we will be able to spend the next 6-12 months revising VP8.  In short, it seems to have been released too early: it would have been better off to have an initial period during which revisions could be submitted and then a big announcement later when it’s completed.

    Update: it seems that Google is not open to changing the spec: it is apparently “final”, complete with all its flaws.

  • Peter Kirn

    Ugh. Yeah, that's clear; agreed.

    But the developer also says that changes to tooling and not just the spec could result in improvements.

    I think it's clear the reason Google moved so aggressively was because H.264 threatened to become the standard. Presumably that was the reason none of this long, long, long list of partners didn't protest, either. And they're talking about both VP8 *and* WebM. There's a good argument for finalizing the spec on WebM. Less so on VP8, I agree, but I think they may have decided time was something they didn't have.

  • Yahooo

    He is not ffmpeg dev. He is not "ffmpeg dev".

    [08:12] <Dark_Shikari> well, I do find it rather amusing that they wrote "ffmpeg dev"

    [08:12] <Dark_Shikari> because it says in the fucking title of my blog

    [08:12] <Dark_Shikari> "x264 developer"