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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
*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
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
If Steve Jobs forwards an article about the poor quality of something, there is no reason not to take him at face value.
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.
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!
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.
... 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.
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
and Adobe payback
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!
in other shocking news, the sky is blue.
The same guy said NO to Blu as well.
Linux is the only issue.
*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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
No it's not it's only a trick of the brain.
yes, well so are moving pictures, regardless of their codec.
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.
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.
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.
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.