Comments on: Ogg objections

By: Why didn't Google use OGG or MPEG-4 Part 12 as the container format for WebM? - Quora

Sun, 06 Nov 2011 22:48:42 +0000

[...] add comment if you are logged out. 2 Answers Kieran Kunhya, Homo Sapiens http://hardwarebug.org/2010/03/0… sums up the technical reasons behind why one would not want to use ogg. There's no technical [...]

By: Why Lossless Audio Codecs generally suck « Kostya’s Wild Codec World

Why Lossless Audio Codecs generally suck « Kostya’s Wild Codec World — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 20:21:35 +0000

[...] — luckily, it’s buried for good but it also spawned one of the worst container formats possible which still lives. And looking at original source of it one should not wonder [...]

By: Mans

Mans — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 14:03:14 +0000

Matroska already replaced Ogg for all practical purposes about 6 years ago, and now that Google chose Matroska for their Webm thing, we can probably expect support for it in all major browsers.

By: Mohsin

Mohsin — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 13:58:15 +0000

Why not use Matroska instead of Ogg? As far as I can tell, Matroska avoids all the problems with Ogg, and is still open. If their are problems with Matroska, it should be relatively easy to develop a new format that fixes the problems.

I think a lot of people don’t seem to realize that Ogg is a container format and Theora and Vorbis are not bound to it at all.

Container formats are much simpler to develop, and much easier to avoid patents with than audio or video codecs like Vorbis and Theora.

Somebody should write patches for Firefox, Chrome, and common open source audio/video editors (if they don’t already) to support Matroska. If Ogg really is that bad, being optimistic, I can imagine Matroska or another format basically replacing Ogg within ~6 months.

By: Mason

Mason — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:17:13 +0000

One can read Monty’s reply at
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/lj-pseudocut/o-response-1.html

By: Ogg vs World (as picked up from Slashdot) | Axant Tech Blog

Ogg vs World (as picked up from Slashdot) | Axant Tech Blog — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:31:20 +0000

[...] had been discussed a lot lately. Having messed a bit with it and having felt the pain about dabbling with it and with [...]

By: Hjalmar 007s it-blogg » Lite tankar om proprietära system

Hjalmar 007s it-blogg » Lite tankar om proprietära system — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:35:17 +0000

[...] att höra samma liga som H.264-codecen i form av kvalitet, filstorlek och processoranvändning (1, 2). Nu har jag inte gjort några närmare undersökningar i detta ämne själv, delvis för att jag [...]

By: T

Mon, 05 Apr 2010 13:56:02 +0000

“For example what exactly is the problem created by the codec specific mappings when there is only 1 combination of audio and video codecs in widespread use on the web and implemented by the web browsers?”
But that isn’t the case, is it? Until recently, web browsers haven’t implemented any video file support. Ogg+Theora playback is probably going to be implemented in Chrome, Mozilla and Opera while H.264 is going to be implemented in Chrome, Safari and IE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video#Browser_support). If Theora is going to be the only codec that will be supported for the Ogg container, doesn’t that undermine developments like Dirac?

“Also you are just plain wrong about with your last comment about ‘all these years’ and indexes – I was at an linux-conf au presentation 3.5 years ago where it and other similiar issues like seeking with the ogg format were discussed, so pls stop rewriting history.”
So the indices were discussed 3.5 years ago and are still at draft stage?

By: Mans

Mans — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 22:32:49 +0000

If you can’t seek, an index will do you no good. If you can seek, you can go fetch the index wherever it is. There is no problem.

By: Mans

Mans — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 22:30:35 +0000

You are confusing MP4, the file format, with AVC, the video codec. I have yet to see any evidence or royalties being payable for use of the MP4 file format.