![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)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)
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)
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)
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'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)
Web movie? Web media? Web matroska? Web 'em?-- 94.223.167.143 ( talk) 22:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
“ | 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
Is webm lossy or lossless? 190.20.9.70 ( talk) 01:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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
Why does Gyfcat redirect to this article without being mentioned even once? -- Makkonen ( talk) 18:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)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)
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)
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)
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'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)
Web movie? Web media? Web matroska? Web 'em?-- 94.223.167.143 ( talk) 22:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
“ | 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
Is webm lossy or lossless? 190.20.9.70 ( talk) 01:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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
Why does Gyfcat redirect to this article without being mentioned even once? -- Makkonen ( talk) 18:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)