or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Steve Jobs says no to Google's VP8 WebM codec
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Steve Jobs says no to Google's VP8 WebM codec - Page 2

post #41 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by 801 View Post

This common reference to Ipod -I phone - I pad is getting grammatically boring:
I hereby proclaim the fore mentioned products should be know as the I P 3 group ( or the IP Cubed group) or product group or product line.

This should allow us to speed up all conversation and reference to this operating system / product family, while allow all of us to have some jargon that satisfies our need for an "insider catch phrase" that only we understand. Sort of like a gang sign for the rest of us, without having to be beat in or beat out.

Whud da ya say?

Great! Let's begin with those horribly over-used terms like "meme" and "paradigm" that no one seems able to use correctly. Then let's go back to "dimensions" instead of "form factor" (what other factors are involved?) and financial analysts' use of "guidance" instead of "forecast."

And last, but certainly not least, let's consign "ecosystem" to the landfill when used to describe a particular product or designer's sphere of influence.

So, IP3 it is! Let's get on the bandwagon.
post #42 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

They don't really have to. The browser could hand the media off to media player built into the browser. It could allow Quicktime or WMP to handle the media.

That's my point. I don't see me developing to this codec when the problem is solved by OS or flash which is already installed. As to mobile I want to work on windows 7, iPhone os and android. Do I need this technology for that?
post #43 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by DinPats View Post

Its Republicans way or no way!
Its Apple's way or no way!!!!!!!!


Apple is doing same what republicans are doing.
Saying 'No'.

But...but...Asherian is a Republican; how can this Gordian knot be untied?
post #44 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

Mozilla would need to pay $5,000,000 PER YEAR to license h264. I don't think that is reasonable.

http://www.osnews.com/story/22787/Mo...t_License_h264

It's not clear to me that Mozilla would need to pay anything if it only used h.264 decoders that come bundled with the OS. If Mozilla wanted to go the whole 9 yards, though, $5M per year shouldn't be insurmountable from donations.

Here is an official summary of the h.264 license terms:
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/...rmsSummary.pdf
post #45 of 100
They only need to pay the license if they want to support an operating system that doesn't support h264 playback.

Mozilla is doing this for ideological reasons only. It is nice when standards could be based on publicly owned IP, but it is clear that isn't really a big option here. VP8 is so close to h264 encoding that there will most likely be patent lawsuits on companies supporting VP8 (including on Mozilla). Publicly owned IP makes sense for something like HTML (because there are many ways to do page layout), but video encoding and playback is a much narrower field so I don't think Public IP will ever work in this case.

Personally I think it is suicide for Mozilla not to support h264. Promoting an ideological idea is great, but it is not worth sacrificing market share for. Rather then blocking h264, they should work with Google to promote VP8.

Currently Mozilla earns 75,000,000 per year on Firefox. They would save more money by spending 5,000,000 to create a library that could be used by open source operating systems and keep that 75 million flowing in. Most likely the library would have to force the end user to agree to a (free) sublicense, but I don't really know the legal details here. They could still promote VP8. This isn't a one way street.

A more likely outcome of not supporting h264, is supporting it indirectly through Flash. This will just help something even more proprietary (Flash) stick around. Unlike flash, h264 does allow for implementation competition. Web sites could target h264 HTML5 video and h264 in a flash wrapper so they would only need to encode to one format.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

Mozilla would need to pay $5,000,000 PER YEAR to license h264. I don't think that is reasonable.

http://www.osnews.com/story/22787/Mo...t_License_h264
post #46 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

The author demonstrably does not know what he's talking about, as it's live now and it looks great. The builds are available, download them and try it. Stop taking this propaganda for truth. Try it out....

I see you are dominating the thread again, spewing all this vitriol and propaganda, and then taking the author to task for doing what you yourself are so skilled at.

- You say it's "live now and it looks great," implying that it's already a done deal and ready for prime-time, but in fact you have to download a build of an unreleased product to even see it.

- You say the author "demonstrably doesn't know what he's talking about" by implying that he said VP8 can't do HD when in fact he didn't actually say that at all.

- You talk about VP8 doing "HD" when you know the the stream is highly compressed and barely worthy of the name.

- You quote big numbers in terms of the cash Mozilla would have to pay to support H.264, but don't give any reference, and worse, don't compare it to the actual revenue Mozilla makes. Even if your numbers are accurate, 5 million is a lot of money to an individual but hardly a drop in the bucket for a large concern like Mozilla.

When it comes to threads on video codecs, you are the biggest propaganda machine I've ever seen. Seems to me you've got a lot of nerve referring to anyone else's posts as "propaganda" or implying that others are twisting the truth to their own ends.

Pot, meet Kettle.
post #47 of 100
*facepalms* Bad move, Steve. At least after writing that Flash article.

HP Omni 100-5100z, 500GB HDD, 4GB RAM; ASUS Transformer, 16GB, Android 4.0 ICS
Although I no longer own Apple products like I did before, I'll continue to post my opinions.

Reply

HP Omni 100-5100z, 500GB HDD, 4GB RAM; ASUS Transformer, 16GB, Android 4.0 ICS
Although I no longer own Apple products like I did before, I'll continue to post my opinions.

Reply
post #48 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foo2 View Post

It's not clear to me that Mozilla would need to pay anything if it only used decoders that come bundled with the OS. If Mozilla wanted to go the whole 9 yards, though, $5M per year shouldn't be insurmountable from donations.

Here are the h.264 license terms:
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/...rmsSummary.pdf

I don't see the world jumping on VP8 until there are HW decoders. Even if it was better codec than H.264 without that integral part added to all HW it's dead in the water.

Mozilla doesn't have to do anything with H.264 and Firefox users can still get their browser to play back H.264 videos. Either an x264 plugin designed by users or using the OS' H.264 implementation. I figure the former will happen first.

I see Google clearly trying to make a longterm play for the future of the web but the shirt term goal is just going to lead to confusion. We had people that expected LightPeak on the last Mac releases and LTE iPhone last year so I'm sure we'll get people expecting more "miracles" to happen on this front, too.

In a few years is where this VP8 gets interesting. It will have a chance to get mature, to get all the number crinkles ironed out and potentially give MPEG-LA a scare that makes H.264 cost free for all browsers and sites that wish to use it. This is what I think is Google's play here. They want H.264 to become free and are using a slightly inferior free codec to force their hand. If not, then they'll have codec that is 6 years more mature to fallback back on. it's a win-win situation for them.


PS: I also expect patent lawsuits to pop up regarding VP8.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #49 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by shiesl View Post

The question seems to now be why did Google decide on the VP8 WebM codex?

Well, it wasn't quality or compression. It wasn't that it was worried about the encumberment of MPEG LA, because it knew damn well that this will attract lots of lawsuits. If they were so worried about Firefox, I'm sure they could have licensed it in perpetuity for way less than $131 million, which is what they paid for the "unemcumbered" VP*. Part of it is a completely retrograde way to keep Flash in the game.

Think back to before Macs could play less than a third of web video. You could play Real and Windows Media, up to a point only. When the "Advanced" Windows Media 9 came out, we were left alone. Only Flash could fill in the gaps, so that websites would only have to post one version for all. Well, for mobiles, that sucks. Much faster (and simpler) is HTML 5 (open) and the H.264 codec. See, if you standardize, things work very well with video. The codec is completely scalable, from Blu-ray video to the smallest of web video. Same codec.

So, if they wanted to help, they would have just paid Firefox's royalties. Much cheaper than unleashing this crap and confusion on the net. Why? Well, they're following Sony's rules: if you make a new format, you build yourself a world all to yourself. And, wonderfully, magically, this is "free!" Good advertising word, that.
post #50 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zc456 View Post

*facepalms* Bad move, Steve. At least after writing that Flash article.

regardless what you think. WebM is still "closed" in the sense that it is controlled by Google. Google will always have the final say about what happens to it, unlike H264 which is controlled by a standard body.
post #51 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by desarc View Post

in other shocking news, the sky is blue.

No it's not it's only a trick of the brain.
post #52 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by DinPats View Post

Its Republicans way or no way!
Its Apples way or no way!!!!!!!!


Apple is doing same what republican's are doing.
Saying 'No'.

You might want to take a look at a (reputable) poll or two.
post #53 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

To the author of the article:
The slant in this news story, and many on this site, is astonishing. Why do people feel the need to defend Apple in everything? They're a business with their own vested interests, they're in this to make money and protect their interest...not to be a humanitarian company. Try being more being more objective. This site reads like a state newspaper in China or Pravda. Apple's side of the story is presented in detail, then a token reference to the other side is made followed by a slew of opinions stated as fact to discredit them. You guys can do better.

When it starts to bother you, just remember: There is no spoon.

In other words, PR Agents are everywhere Neo. Ignore the writer in the red dress.
post #54 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by junkie View Post

Why not just buy out MPEG LA, release H.264 for widespread use and be done with it?

Google spent over $100 million to buy On2, in order to give VP8 away. I think it's a legitimate question to ask how much money they would have needed to pay to MPEG LA to cover all of their probable royalty revenues, in order to make H264 effectively unencumbered.
post #55 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by NormM View Post

Google spent over $100 million to buy On2, in order to give VP8 away. I think it's a legitimate question to ask how much money they would have needed to pay to MPEG LA to cover all of their probable royalty revenues, in order to make H264 effectively unencumbered.

$100M wouldn't scratch the surface of buying them off. Some members of the consortium might not want to be bought out at any price, if they feared the level playing field it created would completely undermine their business model.
post #56 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

I'm sorry, but what?

To the author of the article:
The slant in this news story, and many on this site, is astonishing. Why do people feel the need to defend Apple in everything? They're a business with their own vested interests, they're in this to make money and protect their interest...not to be a humanitarian company. Try being more being more objective. This site reads like a state newspaper in China or Pravda. Apple's side of the story is presented in detail, then a token reference to the other side is made followed by a slew of opinions stated as fact to discredit them. You guys can do better.

You must be a Google employee or supporter. You try to present Google as a humanitarian company when in fact Google is evil. Google tries to undermine other companies' businesses buy giving out crapy illegal imitations in order to make a buck selling advertising. Google is in the process of destroying itself by poorly imitating everybody else for a buck in advertising. This model will not work. Google needs to innovate.
post #57 of 100
post #58 of 100
Comparing h.264 and VP8 to GIF and PNG isn't quite an accurate comparison.

GIF was already supported by every browser and in wide use before PNG even became a possibility. h.264 is only supported by 13% of the browsers on the Internet, so it has hardly become ubiquitous.

I don't think anyone will argue that VP8 is technically superior to h.264, but we need some sort of format that doesn't have license fees associated with it if it is supposed to be adopted across all browsers.
post #59 of 100
Articles here are nothing more than a mean to make Apple fanboys feel all warm and fuzzy. The title has nothing to do with the article. The Article itself rambles on with false information. I feel sorry for the people who don't know any better and actually buy into this crap.
post #60 of 100
The heading of this article suggests that Apple can and will keep Safari/QuickTime from supporting the V8 codec.

But Jobs *allegedly* only referred to a critical article as reflecting his opinion on V8.

To me this suggests that "Apple thinks Google's V8 video codec is flawed and risky" would be a way more appropriate heading.

Especially since a heading like the current, copied to sites like Macsurfer and the likes, will make many people think that Apple will be treating WebM like Flash, which I think would cause unneccessary PR problems for Apple.


Moreover:
It might be time for AI to take alleged mails from Jobs a bit less seriously. You guys are making it seem like the CEO of America's 3rd largest company's first responsibility is to answer customer mails 24/7...
post #61 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

That's precisely the problem. Why would you want to jump into a pool of uncertainty when you don't have to?...

yes, that is precisely the problem... with all but the MPEG LA group. MPEG LA is a known quantity. Who is complaining about mpeg2 video for DVD's, mp4 video, mp3 audio, aac audio? Codecs used within them will always come and go. but H.264 is the official codec put together by this known group of technologists (this same group that we have happily relied on for other adopted and proven technologies). They are pushing the envelope; they want to be unencumbered by rogue patent trolls; they are pooling their efforts; and their efforts are producing good results that need to generate some return.

Likely, the licensing fees will always remain reasonable because the MPEG group will want to keep a simple, sustained and useable framework.

As was pointed out in the article about GIF, it is the supposedly free technologies that become the pool of uncertainty after they are widely adopted. Why would you want to jump into that pool of uncertainty when you don't have to? What for? For a less capable and less mature technology that has to navigate around the MPEG patents anyway? (and whatever other unknown ones are there ready to spring up). It is the MPEG group that are proving the value of their research and breakthroughs, and they are not sitting in an ivory tower somewhere.

Google does not appear to have done its due diligence on this and they are ostensibly jumping on the "Freedom" bandwagon when their record shows them to be less concerned about private data and freedoms than others, such as Apple for one (who are going to protect data going to advertisers as much as possible and whose computers don't phone home or make you verify your software every other minute).

In this type of situation, Apple's motivations are usually patently clear, whether you agree with them or not. Google on the other hand, seems to reveal itself as the murkier pool of uncertainty by the minute.
post #62 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

Mozilla would need to pay $5,000,000 PER YEAR to license h264. I don't think that is reasonable.

http://www.osnews.com/story/22787/Mo...t_License_h264

Please don't cite OSNews, unless you're Thom and you're shilling for it.

There will be a revote on all Members holding the patents who originally voted to not charge until 2016.

It is in their best interest to continue not charging, but Google and rags like OSNews are spreading fear and uncertainty to drive Google's aim of gaining favored status amongst the Publishing and Motion Picture Industry.

It will never happen.
post #63 of 100
I think Apple cares more about quality (for the end user and for their own artistic integrity) than the "open" ideology.

If Steve Jobs forwards an article about the poor quality of something, there is no reason not to take him at face value.
post #64 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

regardless what you think. WebM is still "closed" in the sense that it is controlled by Google. Google will always have the final say about what happens to it, unlike H264 which is controlled by a standard body.

Right, because Google had the final say when a small group ported Android to the Intel architecture. Anyway, WebM's license grants VP8's patent rights, and Vorbis is already open anyway. Making it possible to use without charge or permission.

HP Omni 100-5100z, 500GB HDD, 4GB RAM; ASUS Transformer, 16GB, Android 4.0 ICS
Although I no longer own Apple products like I did before, I'll continue to post my opinions.

Reply

HP Omni 100-5100z, 500GB HDD, 4GB RAM; ASUS Transformer, 16GB, Android 4.0 ICS
Although I no longer own Apple products like I did before, I'll continue to post my opinions.

Reply
post #65 of 100
"Note that x264 is an open source project for encoding H.264 compliant video. It has no inherent bias in promoting the H.264 specification over VP8"

MAKE ME LAUGH!

Without videos in H.264 format, x264 and Garrett-Glaser "work" is useless.
Without H.264 being the almighty standard... his work is USELESS.
Sorry, Mr. Garrett-Glaser... but why don't you embrace WebM and support the future of the Web?

Mr. Garrett-Glaser HAS inherit bias in promoting the H.264 specification over VP8.

Steve Jobs is the new Bill Gates... same kind of actions and style.
Apple and Open Web? LOL!
post #66 of 100
Is that the same Android that Microsoft licenses?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zc456 View Post

Right, because Google had the final say when a small group ported Android to the Intel architecture. Anyway, WebM's license grants VP8's patent rights, and Vorbis is already open anyway. Making it possible to use without charge or permission.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #67 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

... PS: I also expect patent lawsuits to pop up regarding VP8.

It'll probably end up being at least as patent encumbered as Og.

For example (via Gruber): MPEG-LA Considering Patent Pool for VP8/WebM

Clearly, there's more uncertainty around using VP8/WebM than there is around H.264 as far as costs go, since the costs are now hidden and include possible legal fees.

I don't see this as a boon for Mozilla at all, if anything, it's just another detour into an Og-like dead-end that leads to nothing but Firefox's irrelevance. Maybe that's the ultimate goal here: sideline Firefox by giving them false hope that there is a viable, free alternative to H.264, while Google quietly eats away at their market share with Chrome. After all, from Google's perspective, the only reason for Firefox's existence is to provide a cross-platform platform that Google apps and services are guaranteed to run on, so that neither Microsoft or Apple can cut them off at the knees. Now that they have Chrome running on multiple platforms, they don't really have a use for Firefox for much longer, and, from Google's point of view, it would be better to migrate these users to Chrome anyway.
post #68 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Great article. My only though is ... YouTube and Chrome. YouTube is the 800 pound gorilla where video content is concerned and if Google switched to using only VP8 WebM on YouTube and if Chrome supports it and IE and Safari don't maybe this is a Google trojan horse for Chrome's adoption. That sentence was way too long ...

and Adobe payback This could get uglier than the Flash thing. Imagine...No WebM? Well no YT for you!
post #69 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by success View Post

and Adobe payback This could get uglier than the Flash thing. Imagine...No WebM? Well no YT for you!

Google and Apple seem to have many reasons these days to not cooperate in fact quite the reverse and I cannot help but wonder how long it will be before Google cease or close down many features or products that are great for Apple users. I have to think Apple are working hard to have replacements should this start happening. The optimist in me hopes Google and Apple prefer to remain friendly adversaries and this won't come to pass. I am trying hard to think what Apple has that Google would like to continue but can't think of anything other than their presence to help fend of anti-trust and monopoly issues... Oh I know one ... an ad revenue stream which iAd is about to undermine! Oh dear!
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #70 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by desarc View Post

in other shocking news, the sky is blue.

The same guy said NO to Blu as well.
post #71 of 100
New Mac and Windows computers come with licenses. Mozilla will not need a license for these platforms.

Linux is the only issue.
post #72 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zc456 View Post

*facepalms* Bad move, Steve. At least after writing that Flash article.

Why? Steve didn't say Apple would never support it, he simply directed the correspondent to a web site which discussed the issue. Apple may be undecided on whether to support it, but suggesting that available information says that it's not so great.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doxxic View Post

The heading of this article suggests that Apple can and will keep Safari/QuickTime from supporting the V8 codec.

But Jobs *allegedly* only referred to a critical article as reflecting his opinion on V8.

To me this suggests that "Apple thinks Google's V8 video codec is flawed and risky" would be a way more appropriate heading.

Especially since a heading like the current, copied to sites like Macsurfer and the likes, will make many people think that Apple will be treating WebM like Flash, which I think would cause unneccessary PR problems for Apple.

Agreed. A 'standard' controlled by Google is no better than a 'standard' controlled by Adobe.

If this new codec turns out to be any good, Apple can support it. They didn't say anything that would preclude that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zc456 View Post

Right, because Google had the final say when a small group ported Android to the Intel architecture. Anyway, WebM's license grants VP8's patent rights, and Vorbis is already open anyway. Making it possible to use without charge or permission.

The problem is that WebM's license doesn't give them the right to give a license to patents they don't own. If patent holders decide that this codec infringes their patents, they can sue regardless of what Google says.

Now, if Google wants to INDEMNIFY users against patent suits, that would be a different matter -but they haven't offered to do that. I wonder why.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #73 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by DinPats View Post

Its Republicans way or no way!
Its Apples way or no way!!!!!!!!


Apple is doing same what republican's are doing.
Saying 'No'.

That would be a fair analogy, the only difference would be Republicans don't create anything, they only destroy
post #74 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

If this new codec turns out to be any good, Apple can support it. They didn't say anything that would preclude that.

Apple didn't say anything *at all*!

All that this article is really proving is that Dilger has forgotten to take his daily anti hysterical spinning spree pills.
post #75 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecphorizer View Post

But...but...Asherian is a Republican; how can this Gordian knot be untied?

I am Canadian. I believe in freedom, something Americans gave up some time ago with the DMCA.
post #76 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

I see you are dominating the thread again, spewing all this vitriol and propaganda, and then taking the author to task for doing what you yourself are so skilled at.

- You say it's "live now and it looks great," implying that it's already a done deal and ready for prime-time, but in fact you have to download a build of an unreleased product to even see it.

Uh, what?

Somebody is claiming that VP8 doesn't support/work well with HD...the fact that HD video is online that anyone can freely check out is a valid point to make. Stop whining and go check it out rather than pointing fingers at me and calling me names.

Quote:
- You say the author "demonstrably doesn't know what he's talking about" by implying that he said VP8 can't do HD when in fact he didn't actually say that at all.

Interesting how I didn't say that either. He doesn't know what he's talking about because he said it doesn't lend itself well to HD or something like that.

Quote:
- You talk about VP8 doing "HD" when you know the the stream is highly compressed and barely worthy of the name.

HD implies resolution. If the author meant something else, he used the wrong term and, again, didn't know what he was talking about.

Quote:
- You quote big numbers in terms of the cash Mozilla would have to pay to support H.264, but don't give any reference, and worse, don't compare it to the actual revenue Mozilla makes. Even if your numbers are accurate, 5 million is a lot of money to an individual but hardly a drop in the bucket for a large concern like Mozilla.

You can figure out how to find the reference. It's all over the internet. Mozilla has even talked about it themselves. I've got no time to baby you with it.

Your excuse is it's small money to a company that gives its only product away. I'll let that speak for itself.

Quote:
When it comes to threads on video codecs, you are the biggest propaganda machine I've ever seen. Seems to me you've got a lot of nerve referring to anyone else's posts as "propaganda" or implying that others are twisting the truth to their own ends.

Pot, meet Kettle.

I've got no stake in any codec. I just need to deal with them. Nothing I've said is propaganda, you just don't want to hear reality.

h264 is of slightly superior quality to WebM, but it is expensive with uncertain royalties in 2016.
post #77 of 100
If the terms of use of h.264 change suddenly, I will just convert all my videos to something else. But there is no evidence this will happen.
post #78 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by lowededwookie View Post

No it's not it's only a trick of the brain.

yes, well so are moving pictures, regardless of their codec.
post #79 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

It will have a chance to get mature, to get all the number crinkles ironed out and potentially give MPEG-LA a scare that makes H.264 cost free for all browsers and sites that wish to use it. This is what I think is Google's play here. They want H.264 to become free and are using a slightly inferior free codec to force their hand. If not, then they'll have codec that is 6 years more mature to fallback back on. it's a win-win situation for them.

+1

Just like the spectrum auction. Not everything Google does is for direct and immediate benefit. Sometime they do things just to force openness, which benefits them in the long run. It's very possible that they did this just to force H.264 to remain free or keep the costs very low.
post #80 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

HD implies resolution. If the author meant something else, he used the wrong term and, again, didn't know what he was talking about.

If you are putting it that way, mpeg1 can do HD also. It just doesn't do very well, that's all.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Steve Jobs says no to Google's VP8 WebM codec