Steve Jobs says no to Google's VP8 WebM codec - Page 3

A good point.

If Google is so sure that nobody will have to pay patent royalties for the technologies used in VP8, then it needs to back it up with legal protection. This is not unprecedented and several software companies do offer varying levels of indemnity to their customers. Certainly Google has the pockets to offer such protection unless its assurances are just hot air.

The way I see it, this announcement is just another example of Google's recently adopted "monkey see, monkey do" business philosophy. I mean, at this point it's becoming downright blatant...

A top Google exec sits on Apple's board for a few years. Shortly before leaving Google embarks on a path of "competitive activities" that mimic Apple's innovative strategies across the board. Aside from a search engine and a few online applications like Google Maps, what has Google done in the past couple of years that Apple hasn't already done first?

In no particular order:

Apple has a browser, so Google makes a browser.

Apple has its OS, and Google has been trying to establish one too.

Apple creates a mobile OS, so Google makes one too.

Apple releases a mobile phone, so Google releases one.

Apple releases a touch-tablet, so Google announces one too.

Apple promotes/supports a video codec, so Google announces one.


And the list goes on...

The timing of the Google announcements are what make them so obvious. It doesn't look at all like a natural, organic direction for the company when they consistently announce "like" products right on the heels of Apple's doing so. Instead it appears a rather blatant form of imitation.

I guess Apple should be flattered.

You want to be taken as a knowledgeable figure and then make very thin statements like this. H.264 is far more flexible and has more profiles and variants than WebM is able to offer. WebM will likely be proved to be on par with Baseline H.264.

It's because of how Google, and Microsoft before them, view their position in the world, which guides their behavior. One of the most important things Steve Jobs ever said was, quoting from memory, "For Apple to succeed, Microsoft doesn't have to fail." More than anything, this highlights the differences in the approach to business at Apple, and the way Microsoft, and now Google, do business. For them, they see the success of other companies coming at their expense. So, in Google's view, for them to succeed, they must prevent others from succeeding.

It's essentially a destructive philosophy, where much of your energy goes into preventing the success of others, at any cost, to them, to yourself, to consumers. Compare this to Apple's philosophy, as expressed by Jobs, where the goal is to succeed through creation, and you'll understand the fundamental differences between Google and Apple as companies.

It worked for Microsoft!

Totally Agree

Could not agree more.

They have said, though, that if anybody does file a patent infringement suit (against Google or any 3rd party using VP8) for infringing on any patent related to VP8, then that act automatically triggers Google to revoke that litigant's license for any Google-owned patents also related to VP8.

An interesting question, then, is this: Does Google's patent portfolio include any patents that could reasonably be considered relevant to both VP8 and H.264? If so, then any attempt to shut down VP8 could have the unintended side effect of cancelling any such patent licenses -- thus effectively revoking the litigant's permission to use either VP8 or H.264.

*head explodes*

from what I understand not much. apparently they are waiving the fees until 2016 for all but perhaps the largest of companies

They charge two separate sets of royalties:
1) One royalty for vendors of software and hardware devices that take raw, uncompressed video and convert it into H.264 compressed video, and vice versa, takes compressed H.264 video and converts it into raw, uncompressed video, with the intention of the compressed video being used purely for private, personal uses. These royalties are intended to be borne solely by the software and hardware vendors themselves. All vendors of software or hardware that implements the H.264 codec (encoder or decoder) must pay royalties, no matter how large or small they may be.

2) One royalty for any content provider who makes use of the codec to generate H.264-encoded video for any non-private uses, such as distribution on the Internet, broadcast, physical media, etc. These royalties are intended to be borne by the actual content distributors/broadcasters themselves, and are not covered by the hardware or software vendors' existing licenses.

Category (2) is further subdivided into several different categories of uses: (a) Cases where the end user directly pays for the ability to view videos either on a pay-per-title basis or a subscription basis, and (b) cases where the end user doesn't directly pay for the video (but the content provider may or may not receive other indirect forms of remuneration, eg through advertising revenue).

Category (2a) does not require content distributors to charge royalties if the end user pays for content on a title-by-title basis and the title is shorter than 12 minutes in length. For videos of 12 minutes or greater, as well as all titles obtained under a subscription basis, the royalty varies depending on the price paid and the number of subscribers/copies purchased.

Category (2b) is further subdivided into two separate categories: (i) Distribution over the Internet, and (ii) all other forms of distribution.

Royalties for category (2bii) varies, depending on the number of encoding devices that were used to create the sum total of all content distributed under the category.

Category (2bi) does not require the content distributor to pay royalty fees until at least 2016.

In total, the only entities that are not required to pay royalties are content distributors who sell content of less than 12 minutes duration on a title-by-title basis, and content distributors who distribute their titles over the internet for no direct fee. All other content distributors are required to pay royalties. Every hardware and software vendor who implements H.264 must pay royalties.

From everything I have seen, this seems to be the most plausible explanation for Google's actions. It is good to know that they are looking ahead, and eliminating problems before they have a chance to even happen. Their strategic thinking should be applauded. And we will all benefit if their strategy works.

I think that Steve Jobs cares about maximizing total profits. If that can be accomplished with quality, so be it. If and "open ideology" will maximize profit, then that ideology will be adopted.

And if Steve makes public statements, it is intended to increase Apple's total profits.

Don't confuse the means with the end.

You don't wonder why. You KNOW why.

It is not a good point. First of all, it doesn't take into account the minuscule likelihood that any end user would be sued for patent infringement. And even worse, leaving the likelihood aside, it doesn't explain how such suits would even be possible.

I think that your analysis is flawed, as it rests on your guesses about how multinational companies "see themselves". I think your guesses in turn rest on an untested and unjustified assumption: That companies are motivated by how they "see themselves".

And even if what you said were true, I do no such analysis prior to using a product. Whether a company wants to destroy another, like Apple wants to do to Adobe, is not relevant when I choose a product.

So even if your analysis had a leg to stand on, which it doesn't, it would be irrelevant.

[QUOTE=lfmorrison;1636979
An interesting question, then, is this: Does Google's patent portfolio include any patents that could reasonably be considered relevant to both VP8 and H.264? If so, then any attempt to shut down VP8 could have the unintended side effect of cancelling any such patent licenses -- thus effectively revoking the litigant's permission to use either VP8 or H.264.[/QUOTE]

I need to hear Ananomouse explain this. It seems to be an explanation for the lack of an indemnity clause. There's likely any number of other, better explanations too.

But I want to hear how Google won't indemnify end users because of their view that end users are likely to be sued for patent infringement.

It's really quite simple. Let's say that someone uses VP8 - either as a developer or as a user - and that someone who owns a relevant patent doesn't like it, so they sue (granted, this is far likelier to involve a developer than an end user, but it could happen either way).

Google could agree in advance that if anyone is ever sued for use of VP8 that Google will pay their legal expenses to defend them and any penalties that might be incurred. Others have done it. Obviously, Google doesn't believe it's worth doing that - because the risks are too high.

It's really amazing how many people have fallen for the 'Google is God's gift to computing' nonsense. Google has shown that their only goal is controlling every element of your online life - and probably even more than that. You can't go anywhere on the Internet without Google tracking you and selling your private information. Google has taken the position that copyright laws don't apply to them and that they should be able to sell copyrighted works without permission of the copyright holder. They know more about you than the US government does (the US government doesn't have pictures of your home nor track your browsing history, for examle) and have perhaps the worst privacy rules in the business. And that's even if you don't use their products. Then there's the fact that if you want a good page rank for your business, you have to pay Google bribes to get listed anywhere in the top 10 pages.
http://www.google-watch.org/

Apple, OTOH, has specifically stated that they will not sell advertisers private information about users. Furthermore, you can quite simply stay out of Apple's databases by not buying their products.

Anyone putting their trust in Google is making a HUGE mistake.

I agree it would be very unlikely suits would be filed against individual end users of any product using VP8. But what about a developer of a successful application that leverages VP8? Such a developer would be a tempting target.

At my company, a licensor's commitment to indemnify and bear the risks can factor into technology decisions during the development process.

I think that your analysis is flawed, as it rest on guesses about what my analysis is based on. It's got nothing to do with how they see themselves, it's all about how they behave, which we can all see.

And, it's only irrelevant if you a) don't base decisions on any sort of values and b) view everything as disconnected.