They are charging. If you own a copy of Windows, a Mac, an iPhone, an iPod, a PlayStation 3, a Blu-Ray Player or any other device that can play or record H.264, and you paid for it, you paid for H.264./QUOTE]
As royalties are a sort of "private taxes", in my opinion, their economical effect may be compared to the one generated by excises.
Excises are not necessarily paid by the consumer: it depends on the elasticity of the demand. In some cases the full amount of the royalty may be paid by consumers, in others fully by producers and sometimes both are paying in a variable percentage.
Anyway, if you read the license, you see that royalty are between 0,10 USD and 0,20 USD per item sold... And there's a maximum cap.
So, yes, we may be paying for h264... But no more than 20 cents!
It's actually less than that if you do the math.
But the point is - Google's whining about royalties being unjust and needing to develop a 'free' version are silly. No one cares about paying $0.20 more for an iPhone (actually, as you point out, you're not even paying that. The cost is almost certainly not being passed on to the consumer). I'd rather pay the $0.20 for a better quality product (H.264) rather than use a POS that's free.
And, of course, that assumes that WebM really doesn't infringe on patents. Given that one of Google's biggest effort in the past decade was attempting to copy every published work in history and make it available online without the owner's permission (or even knowledge), Google is probably the LAST company on earth I'd listen to when it comes to intellectual property issues.
For me it's pretty simple? Google can afford to support the "common standards" in their browser. Why not both WebM and h.264? And since h.264 is already licensed on both OSX and Windows, they don't have costs there, right? THere's no excuse, really.
If they choose to drop support for h.264, there are other browsers. Chrome is nice, but a lot less nice without h.264 support. I can just not use it?????????
Which, in the end, is probably what will happen. I'm fine with Safari and Firefox, why bother wrestling with a browser that doesn't cover my browsing bases?
I wonder how much market share Chrome will lose as a result of dropping h.264 support, and, will that change Google's mind?
Wil also be interesting to see how it plays out. In the meantime, Safari+Firefox rule?.
And this, just as I was starting to like Chrome on OSX?...
Google should've made WebM better than h.264 first. Then it would've made sense for everyone to move towards WebM. I want non patent tech to win out but it's inferior right now.
This will be interesting to watch. I wonder how much longer Apple is going to sit on the sidelines before they launch a search engine and a video site.
Search = why? Way outside their current core competencies; and one and a half (Bing) big barriers to entry. "Span of control" is a huge management issue for any large company. You can only drive effectively in so many directions at once before cohesion and mission are seriously compromised.
Mapping software and cloud-based content creation (both alive at Cupertino), on the other hand, seem like more logical places to play which are related to today's and near-future Apple, Inc.
Apple's success in resurrecting itself has partly come from limiting a proliferation of SKU's. The first thing Jobs did when he came back was to prune, prune, prune the Apple tree, and then start adding it to it one carefully curated and masterfully introduced product at a time (each with an easy memorable name unlike "HD RX7000T" whether you like the names or not).
Video site: Unlikely. iTunes is already getting more seriously unwieldy and loaded with legacy issues by the rev that will ultimately likely be as difficult to address as MS has found updating Windows to be. A "video site" would have to fit into the "Apple ecosystem" without compromising all the rest of their media content delivery mechanisms. Maybe there's a model but I don't see it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InfoDave
Apple should offer to pay the H.264 royalties for Mozilla. Opera too, for that matter.
Didn't see much other reaction to this. Other than the fact that as DED points out, Mozilla's already being massively propped up by Google (true??), is there any merit here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber
Like the standardization of rail gauges in the 19th century, maybe an adult (the government) needs to step in and impose order on the corporate children. A central authority has a role to play in helping to create order out of free market counterproductive chaos. Seems like we are reaching that point. It's like football without referees out there!
The intent to do anything doesn't mean you will, so why not let google try. In the process they could create some useful change even if it is something like encouraging the removal of all royalties for h.264. Or who knows perhaps google will create the format needed for the digital blu-ray files needed to fulfill Apple etc intent to kill physical disks
As long as everyone else is free to choice what they want to use let Google have their go on this.
More Apple bashing! The demise of rotating media will be the consequence of a natural progression of technology, not the the result of some evil, Apple led conspiracy.
The intent to do anything doesn't mean you will, so why not let google try. In the process they could create some useful change even if it is something like encouraging the removal of all royalties for h.264. Or who knows perhaps google will create the format needed for the digital blu-ray files needed to fulfill Apple etc intent to kill physical disks
As long as everyone else is free to choice what they want to use let Google have their go on this.
How can you argue freedom of choice as google is taking choices away in order to prop up inferior technologies? They are just as bad as Apple's iOS on that front.
Video codecs have progressed so far I doubt very seriously that the open source community could contribute anything that would not infringe on many patents already held by the major players. It's not the largest community out their to begin with and if you really know your stuff you are employed and probably not in a legal position to contribute to an open source project.
Have you seen the list of patents contributed to the AVC/H.264 open standard? It's a 70-page A4 document
The patent pool is also international. So Google would be starting up one hell of a shit storm, that even they couldn't remain unaffected by.
There isn't a chance in hell that WebM does NOT infringe on some of these patents. Patent holders, with number of granted patent filings contributed (some patents are protected in multiple countries) in brackets, are:
Apple Inc. (4 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
Cisco Systems Canada IP Holdings Company (4 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York (9 patent filings(s) in 6 countries)
DAEWOO Electronics Corporation (2 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation (10 patent filings(s) in 6 countries)
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (4 patent filings(s) in 3 countries)
France Télécom, société anonyme (7 patent filings(s) in 7 countries)
Fraunhofer‐Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. (86 patent filings(s) in 28 countries)
Fujitsu Limited (18 patent filings(s) in 5 countries)
Hewlett‐Packard Company (1 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
Hitachi, Ltd. (4 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (42 patent filings(s) in 18 countries)
LG Electronics Inc. (386 patent filings(s) in 38 countries)
Microsoft Corporation (116 patent filings(s) in 23 countries)
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation (26 patent filings(s) in 8 countries)
Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (2 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
NTT DOCOMO, INC. (15 patent filings(s) in 5 countries)
Panasonic Corporation (574 patent filings(s) in 41 countries)
Robert Bosch GmbH (5 patent filings(s) in 5 countries)
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (60 patent filings(s) in 12 countries)
Sedna Patent Services, LLC (1 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
Sharp Corporation (87 patent filings(s) in 19 countries)
Siemens AG (5 patent filings(s) in 4 countries)
Sony Corporation (34 patent filings(s) in 12 countries)
Tandberg Telecom AS (1 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (5 patent filings(s) in 5 countries)
Toshiba Corporation (272 patent filings(s) in 6 countries)
Victor Company of Japan, Limited (5 patent filings(s) in 2 countries)
49 countries are involved in this patent portfolio, so it's not exactly going to be easy for Google or others sweep the whole patent issue under the carpet.
Interestingly, On2 Technologies, Inc. is listed as a licensee of H.264/AVC, so this will definitely take the sting out of any "clean room" defence Google may try and present.
It's also rather interesting that most of the patents are owned by Far Eastern Companies, the same ones who are making Android handsets. I doubt Google will want to piss them off too much either.
(...) drop HTML5's H.264 support from its Chrome brewer, Google (...)
(...) Mozilla rejected H.264 because it involved paying royally fees. (...)
Its not about money its not about royalty fees its not about openness its not about quality
Its the DATA stupid!
YOUR data!
Google has the best search algorithm BUT it is useless if data YOUR data is missing.
Flash and I bet VB8 allow Google to SPY on your usage for Google's benefit.
We already know what the CEO thinks of Privacy --- This is the only way Google can make a buck --- to spy and use the data to mine for direct sale of ad space to you ( they know what you like what you view what you do what you buy) ALL to make them big Brother in the (Ad) world
Apple prevents papers from knowing what you do via H.264 and App store.
Papers don't like it but Google can sell to them Flash data at a price!!
Its not about money its not about royalty fees its not about openness its not about quality
Its the DATA stupid!
YOUR data!
Google has the best search algorithm BUT it is useless if data YOUR data is missing.
Flash and I bet VB8 allow Google to SPY on your usage for Google's benefit.
We already know what the CEO thinks of Privacy --- This is the only way Google can make a buck --- to spy and use the data to mine for direct sale of ad space to you ( they know what you like what you view what you do what you buy) ALL to make them big Brother in the (Ad) world
This bit I get.
Quote:
Apple prevents papers from knowing what you do via H.264 and App store.
Papers don't like it but Google can sell to them Flash data at a price!!
Have you seen the list of patents contributed to the AVC/H.264 open standard? It's a 70-page A4 document
The patent pool is also international. So Google would be starting up one hell of a shit storm, that even they couldn't remain unaffected by.
There isn't a chance in hell that WebM does NOT infringe on some of these patents. Patent holders, with number of granted patent filings contributed (some patents are protected in multiple countries) in brackets, are:
Apple Inc. (4 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
Cisco Systems Canada IP Holdings Company (4 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York (9 patent filings(s) in 6 countries)
DAEWOO Electronics Corporation (2 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation (10 patent filings(s) in 6 countries)
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (4 patent filings(s) in 3 countries)
France Télécom, société anonyme (7 patent filings(s) in 7 countries)
Fraunhofer‐Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. (86 patent filings(s) in 28 countries)
Fujitsu Limited (18 patent filings(s) in 5 countries)
Hewlett‐Packard Company (1 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
Hitachi, Ltd. (4 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (42 patent filings(s) in 18 countries)
LG Electronics Inc. (386 patent filings(s) in 38 countries)
Microsoft Corporation (116 patent filings(s) in 23 countries)
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation (26 patent filings(s) in 8 countries)
Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (2 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
NTT DOCOMO, INC. (15 patent filings(s) in 5 countries)
Panasonic Corporation (574 patent filings(s) in 41 countries)
Robert Bosch GmbH (5 patent filings(s) in 5 countries)
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (60 patent filings(s) in 12 countries)
Sedna Patent Services, LLC (1 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
Sharp Corporation (87 patent filings(s) in 19 countries)
Siemens AG (5 patent filings(s) in 4 countries)
Sony Corporation (34 patent filings(s) in 12 countries)
Tandberg Telecom AS (1 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (5 patent filings(s) in 5 countries)
Toshiba Corporation (272 patent filings(s) in 6 countries)
Victor Company of Japan, Limited (5 patent filings(s) in 2 countries)
49 countries are involved in this patent portfolio, so it's not exactly going to be easy for Google or others sweep the whole patent issue under the carpet.
Interestingly, On2 Technologies, Inc. is listed as a licensee of H.264/AVC, so this will definitely take the sting out of any "clean room" defence Google may try and present.
It's also rather interesting that most of the patents are owned by Far Eastern Companies, the same ones who are making Android handsets. I doubt Google will want to piss them off too much either.
Good post. I don't know many of these people are the same people as the ones who make Android devices. I don't know but this could totally backfire on google. I hope they did their research on this before they went and announced this also... I think MPEG group should just drop the licensing fees altogether. Mozilla isn't going to budge and Google is unlikely to budge. I would rather this be hashed out in court so we can see who is doing what. I don't know why MPEG hasn't already been looking into patent infringements beforehand. What was the logic behind them not already pursuing a case regarding On2 and now WebM? I would've rather this been litigated in court already so we know what to do as developers.
The MPEG LA needs to point out right now any patents infringed by WebM, before the damage is too big, and NOT play the "patent troll strategy" of waiting until it is wide spread to charge more royalties...
I see there's a lot of fire in the bellies of the regular trolls, fanbois, et al, but I'm going to avoid all that and simply state: I don't install plug-ins. No Flash, no Silverlight, and definitely no WebM. If I visit a site that requires plug-ins I simply move along. They can't want my money if they force me to install a plug-in just to see their content.
I see there's a lot of fire in the bellies of the regular trolls, fanbois, et al, but I'm going to avoid all that and simply state: I don't install plug-ins. No Flash, no Silverlight, and definitely no WebM. If I visit a site that requires plug-ins I simply move along. They can't want my money if they force me to install a plug-in just to see their content.
Do you use Firefox on Mac? Did you remove the Quicktime 7.6.6 plugin?
You can repeat it as many times as you want, but H.264 is NOT an open standard. It contains patented technologies, which means it isn't "open", no matter how many times Appleinsider says it is.
Ogg Theora, however is 100% open, and is now supported by both Mozilla and Chrome. Since Google owns YouTube, I assume YouTube will switch to Ogg very shortly.
That leaves Safari with H264, which is not exactly a dominant player in the browser market right now. The iPhone is no longer the dominant smartphone platform, either, so Android should also push more folks into using Ogg.
While I understand Apple placed it's bets on H264 (understandable since they are an MPEG LA licensor), I think it'll be forced to include Ogg support once YouTube makes the switch - I think the iPhone needs YouTube more than YouTube needs the iPhone at this point.
Does anybody else remember when Appleinsider used to pay at least passing lip service to the fact that most stories have to viewpoints? Lately every article can be summed up with 2 simple points:
1. Apple is Correct/Perfect/Amazing/The Future/Putting the Customer First
2. Not Apple (Google, MS, Consumer Reports, etc) is WRONG/FLAWED/STUPID/SO LAST YEAR/ONLY INTERESTED IN MONEY.
It would be nice if people informed themselves before posting...
The MPEG LA needs to point out right now any patents infringed by WebM, before the damage is too big, and NOT play the "patent troll strategy" of waiting until it is wide spread to charge more royalties...
Ohhhh boy I bet you MPEG LA is waiting patiently for Google to roll out WebM for a year or so, make some nice patent-infringing improvements to it... Then BAM! Crush WebM with litigation. Just you see...
Google's video services are dominant by far, but there is a plethora of other services out there that it's not that hard to avoid YouTube if you're looking for a bit of entertainment. Personally, I'd like to see Vimeo get a bigger share. Maybe not as feature-full of a site, most things look and work better than on YouTube.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
LOL. DED's metaphors are as mixed as his adjectives are colorful. Fun for those looking for feel-good, but those looking for unvarnished facts will have to go elsewhere.
If I didn't know better, it read like that of someone learning English as a second language. The English language does have a lot of colloquialisms, metaphors and so on, it just reads like a poorly mixed metaphor in my opinion.
This part of the Opera article is nonsense (and who really cares about Opera anyways?)
"Google bundles Flash, so it is being hypocritical"
This is comparing apples and oranges. Flash is a plugin, which Google chose to bundle because there is a lot of Flash content out there. On the other hand, H.264 would be part of the browser itself, and not a mere plugin.
One important thing to keep in mind is that Flash is already ubiquitous. If you want to do any kind of video on the web, you don't have a choice. Flash is needed. However, the "battle" over HTML5 video is still raging. There is no clear winner, but with Google dropping the closed H.264, it is much more likely that an open format will prevail in the end.
So when Google keeps bundling the Flash plugin, it makes perfect sense. Most video content on the web uses Flash, and that allows Google to continue to support just about all online video until native video support gains a proper foothold. There is no hypocrisy involved here, just pragmatism.
In the end, the question of Google's bundling of Flash is a red herring which takes away the focus from the real issue: Whether native video support in browsers is based on open or closed technologies.
By the above reasoning, why doesn't Google just bundle a plugin for H.264? If "most of the web video is still Flash", a lot of the web video is also H.264. Clearly Google is favouring WebM and Flash video for their own purposes. It's a pity all the open source idealists are going to be thoroughly conned by Google. Even the article suggests "Oh, Flash is ubiquitous, so we give up, let's embrace that decrepit closed proprietary system" and "it's just pragmatism". Wouldn't it be more pragmatic to let Flash die and just work with H.264 and clarify licensing, royalties, etc.? People, don't buy this smoke-and-mirrors stuff from Google and Opera. More gems: "If you want to do any kind of video on the web, you don't have a choice [but to use Flash]". Nice one, open source proponents. I didn't know roll over and play dead was part of your strategy.
Here's the best part, the article acknowledges: VP8 is a technology with a specification, not a standard. However, Google has granted anyone the right to use it, and makes no claims about patents to restrict its royalty-free use. This means that VP8 is actually a good candidate for being turned into a proper open web standard.
So... it's just "a good candidate"? And Google makes no claims about patents? IE, if you get sued Google will just whistle as it walks past.
No offence but this is just a ridiculous assertion.
There is no charge to the end user and a very minimal small charge to those that do the encoding. If you are talking about people "paying for it" because the cost to the producers is rolled into the hardware, then you are wrong in the specific sense as that tiny cost is actually *not* purposely figured in to the pricing.
You may be correct in the limited general sense that all costs incurred by a company are eventually rolled into the price whether it's done explicitly or not, but we are talking about possibly $0.02 on a device costing $700.00 in the case of the iPhone. So in this sense you are being technically accurate in terms of the detail, but disingenuous at the same time in the implication that this is a real charge that the consumer experiences.
Uh, you seem to be labouring under the incorrect assumption that I have some kind of problem with the fact that MPEGLA is charging for the use of the patents, or that I'm suggesting it's something end users should care about. Neither of those things is true, I was merely pointing out the factual inaccuracy in the idea that they were charging 0 and therefore the increase of 10% was incalculable unless it was calculated as zero. My point was people were conflating the use of H.264 on the web with the use of H.264 full stop. But incidentally, just because the cost is negligible enough not to be directly factored doesn't mean you're not paying it, it just means it's so triflingly small as to be irrelevant.
Just one of many reasons H.264 is the world-leader and the industry standard (And why Google can take a long walk off a short pier if it tries anything more aggressive than this futile Chrome Heel Face Turn to install itself as the sole provider of web video codecs).
Comments
They are charging. If you own a copy of Windows, a Mac, an iPhone, an iPod, a PlayStation 3, a Blu-Ray Player or any other device that can play or record H.264, and you paid for it, you paid for H.264./QUOTE]
This is exactly the argument I was waiting for
Actually, this is not necessarily true!
I'm reading the license: http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/...rmsSummary.pdf
As royalties are a sort of "private taxes", in my opinion, their economical effect may be compared to the one generated by excises.
Excises are not necessarily paid by the consumer: it depends on the elasticity of the demand. In some cases the full amount of the royalty may be paid by consumers, in others fully by producers and sometimes both are paying in a variable percentage.
Anyway, if you read the license, you see that royalty are between 0,10 USD and 0,20 USD per item sold... And there's a maximum cap.
So, yes, we may be paying for h264... But no more than 20 cents!
It's actually less than that if you do the math.
But the point is - Google's whining about royalties being unjust and needing to develop a 'free' version are silly. No one cares about paying $0.20 more for an iPhone (actually, as you point out, you're not even paying that. The cost is almost certainly not being passed on to the consumer). I'd rather pay the $0.20 for a better quality product (H.264) rather than use a POS that's free.
And, of course, that assumes that WebM really doesn't infringe on patents. Given that one of Google's biggest effort in the past decade was attempting to copy every published work in history and make it available online without the owner's permission (or even knowledge), Google is probably the LAST company on earth I'd listen to when it comes to intellectual property issues.
Interesting article and thread?
For me it's pretty simple? Google can afford to support the "common standards" in their browser. Why not both WebM and h.264? And since h.264 is already licensed on both OSX and Windows, they don't have costs there, right? THere's no excuse, really.
If they choose to drop support for h.264, there are other browsers. Chrome is nice, but a lot less nice without h.264 support. I can just not use it?????????
Which, in the end, is probably what will happen. I'm fine with Safari and Firefox, why bother wrestling with a browser that doesn't cover my browsing bases?
I wonder how much market share Chrome will lose as a result of dropping h.264 support, and, will that change Google's mind?
Wil also be interesting to see how it plays out. In the meantime, Safari+Firefox rule?.
And this, just as I was starting to like Chrome on OSX?...
Google should've made WebM better than h.264 first. Then it would've made sense for everyone to move towards WebM. I want non patent tech to win out but it's inferior right now.
This will be interesting to watch. I wonder how much longer Apple is going to sit on the sidelines before they launch a search engine and a video site.
Search = why? Way outside their current core competencies; and one and a half (Bing) big barriers to entry. "Span of control" is a huge management issue for any large company. You can only drive effectively in so many directions at once before cohesion and mission are seriously compromised.
Mapping software and cloud-based content creation (both alive at Cupertino), on the other hand, seem like more logical places to play which are related to today's and near-future Apple, Inc.
Apple's success in resurrecting itself has partly come from limiting a proliferation of SKU's. The first thing Jobs did when he came back was to prune, prune, prune the Apple tree, and then start adding it to it one carefully curated and masterfully introduced product at a time (each with an easy memorable name unlike "HD RX7000T" whether you like the names or not).
Video site: Unlikely. iTunes is already getting more seriously unwieldy and loaded with legacy issues by the rev that will ultimately likely be as difficult to address as MS has found updating Windows to be. A "video site" would have to fit into the "Apple ecosystem" without compromising all the rest of their media content delivery mechanisms. Maybe there's a model but I don't see it.
Apple should offer to pay the H.264 royalties for Mozilla. Opera too, for that matter.
Didn't see much other reaction to this. Other than the fact that as DED points out, Mozilla's already being massively propped up by Google (true??), is there any merit here?
Like the standardization of rail gauges in the 19th century, maybe an adult (the government) needs to step in and impose order on the corporate children. A central authority has a role to play in helping to create order out of free market counterproductive chaos. Seems like we are reaching that point. It's like football without referees out there!
No, please, NOOOOOOO!
The intent to do anything doesn't mean you will, so why not let google try. In the process they could create some useful change even if it is something like encouraging the removal of all royalties for h.264. Or who knows perhaps google will create the format needed for the digital blu-ray files needed to fulfill Apple etc intent to kill physical disks
As long as everyone else is free to choice what they want to use let Google have their go on this.
More Apple bashing! The demise of rotating media will be the consequence of a natural progression of technology, not the the result of some evil, Apple led conspiracy.
The intent to do anything doesn't mean you will, so why not let google try. In the process they could create some useful change even if it is something like encouraging the removal of all royalties for h.264. Or who knows perhaps google will create the format needed for the digital blu-ray files needed to fulfill Apple etc intent to kill physical disks
As long as everyone else is free to choice what they want to use let Google have their go on this.
How can you argue freedom of choice as google is taking choices away in order to prop up inferior technologies? They are just as bad as Apple's iOS on that front.
Back to plugins, are we?
Video codecs have progressed so far I doubt very seriously that the open source community could contribute anything that would not infringe on many patents already held by the major players. It's not the largest community out their to begin with and if you really know your stuff you are employed and probably not in a legal position to contribute to an open source project.
Have you seen the list of patents contributed to the AVC/H.264 open standard? It's a 70-page A4 document
The patent pool is also international. So Google would be starting up one hell of a shit storm, that even they couldn't remain unaffected by.
There isn't a chance in hell that WebM does NOT infringe on some of these patents. Patent holders, with number of granted patent filings contributed (some patents are protected in multiple countries) in brackets, are:
- Apple Inc. (4 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
- Cisco Systems Canada IP Holdings Company (4 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
- The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York (9 patent filings(s) in 6 countries)
- DAEWOO Electronics Corporation (2 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
- Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation (10 patent filings(s) in 6 countries)
- Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (4 patent filings(s) in 3 countries)
- France Télécom, société anonyme (7 patent filings(s) in 7 countries)
- Fraunhofer‐Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. (86 patent filings(s) in 28 countries)
- Fujitsu Limited (18 patent filings(s) in 5 countries)
- Hewlett‐Packard Company (1 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
- Hitachi, Ltd. (4 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
- Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (42 patent filings(s) in 18 countries)
- LG Electronics Inc. (386 patent filings(s) in 38 countries)
- Microsoft Corporation (116 patent filings(s) in 23 countries)
- Mitsubishi Electric Corporation (26 patent filings(s) in 8 countries)
- Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (2 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
- NTT DOCOMO, INC. (15 patent filings(s) in 5 countries)
- Panasonic Corporation (574 patent filings(s) in 41 countries)
- Robert Bosch GmbH (5 patent filings(s) in 5 countries)
- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (60 patent filings(s) in 12 countries)
- Sedna Patent Services, LLC (1 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
- Sharp Corporation (87 patent filings(s) in 19 countries)
- Siemens AG (5 patent filings(s) in 4 countries)
- Sony Corporation (34 patent filings(s) in 12 countries)
- Tandberg Telecom AS (1 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
- Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (5 patent filings(s) in 5 countries)
- Toshiba Corporation (272 patent filings(s) in 6 countries)
- Victor Company of Japan, Limited (5 patent filings(s) in 2 countries)
49 countries are involved in this patent portfolio, so it's not exactly going to be easy for Google or others sweep the whole patent issue under the carpet.Interestingly, On2 Technologies, Inc. is listed as a licensee of H.264/AVC, so this will definitely take the sting out of any "clean room" defence Google may try and present.
It's also rather interesting that most of the patents are owned by Far Eastern Companies, the same ones who are making Android handsets. I doubt Google will want to piss them off too much either.
Working with speech-to-text looks like fun
(...) drop HTML5's H.264 support from its Chrome brewer, Google (...)
(...) Mozilla rejected H.264 because it involved paying royally fees. (...)
Its not about money its not about royalty fees its not about openness its not about quality
Its the DATA stupid!
YOUR data!
Google has the best search algorithm BUT it is useless if data YOUR data is missing.
Flash and I bet VB8 allow Google to SPY on your usage for Google's benefit.
We already know what the CEO thinks of Privacy --- This is the only way Google can make a buck --- to spy and use the data to mine for direct sale of ad space to you ( they know what you like what you view what you do what you buy) ALL to make them big Brother in the (Ad) world
Apple prevents papers from knowing what you do via H.264 and App store.
Papers don't like it but Google can sell to them Flash data at a price!!
Google remains head honcho for ever!
Its not about money its not about royalty fees its not about openness its not about quality
Its the DATA stupid!
YOUR data!
Google has the best search algorithm BUT it is useless if data YOUR data is missing.
Flash and I bet VB8 allow Google to SPY on your usage for Google's benefit.
We already know what the CEO thinks of Privacy --- This is the only way Google can make a buck --- to spy and use the data to mine for direct sale of ad space to you ( they know what you like what you view what you do what you buy) ALL to make them big Brother in the (Ad) world
This bit I get.
Apple prevents papers from knowing what you do via H.264 and App store.
Papers don't like it but Google can sell to them Flash data at a price!!
Google remains head honcho for ever!
WTF are you talking about here, though?
Have you seen the list of patents contributed to the AVC/H.264 open standard? It's a 70-page A4 document
The patent pool is also international. So Google would be starting up one hell of a shit storm, that even they couldn't remain unaffected by.
There isn't a chance in hell that WebM does NOT infringe on some of these patents. Patent holders, with number of granted patent filings contributed (some patents are protected in multiple countries) in brackets, are:
- Apple Inc. (4 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
- Cisco Systems Canada IP Holdings Company (4 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
- The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York (9 patent filings(s) in 6 countries)
- DAEWOO Electronics Corporation (2 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
- Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation (10 patent filings(s) in 6 countries)
- Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (4 patent filings(s) in 3 countries)
- France Télécom, société anonyme (7 patent filings(s) in 7 countries)
- Fraunhofer‐Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. (86 patent filings(s) in 28 countries)
- Fujitsu Limited (18 patent filings(s) in 5 countries)
- Hewlett‐Packard Company (1 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
- Hitachi, Ltd. (4 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
- Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (42 patent filings(s) in 18 countries)
- LG Electronics Inc. (386 patent filings(s) in 38 countries)
- Microsoft Corporation (116 patent filings(s) in 23 countries)
- Mitsubishi Electric Corporation (26 patent filings(s) in 8 countries)
- Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (2 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
- NTT DOCOMO, INC. (15 patent filings(s) in 5 countries)
- Panasonic Corporation (574 patent filings(s) in 41 countries)
- Robert Bosch GmbH (5 patent filings(s) in 5 countries)
- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (60 patent filings(s) in 12 countries)
- Sedna Patent Services, LLC (1 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
- Sharp Corporation (87 patent filings(s) in 19 countries)
- Siemens AG (5 patent filings(s) in 4 countries)
- Sony Corporation (34 patent filings(s) in 12 countries)
- Tandberg Telecom AS (1 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
- Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (5 patent filings(s) in 5 countries)
- Toshiba Corporation (272 patent filings(s) in 6 countries)
- Victor Company of Japan, Limited (5 patent filings(s) in 2 countries)
49 countries are involved in this patent portfolio, so it's not exactly going to be easy for Google or others sweep the whole patent issue under the carpet.Interestingly, On2 Technologies, Inc. is listed as a licensee of H.264/AVC, so this will definitely take the sting out of any "clean room" defence Google may try and present.
It's also rather interesting that most of the patents are owned by Far Eastern Companies, the same ones who are making Android handsets. I doubt Google will want to piss them off too much either.
Good post. I don't know many of these people are the same people as the ones who make Android devices. I don't know but this could totally backfire on google. I hope they did their research on this before they went and announced this also... I think MPEG group should just drop the licensing fees altogether. Mozilla isn't going to budge and Google is unlikely to budge. I would rather this be hashed out in court so we can see who is doing what. I don't know why MPEG hasn't already been looking into patent infringements beforehand. What was the logic behind them not already pursuing a case regarding On2 and now WebM? I would've rather this been litigated in court already so we know what to do as developers.
I see there's a lot of fire in the bellies of the regular trolls, fanbois, et al, but I'm going to avoid all that and simply state: I don't install plug-ins. No Flash, no Silverlight, and definitely no WebM. If I visit a site that requires plug-ins I simply move along. They can't want my money if they force me to install a plug-in just to see their content.
Do you use Firefox on Mac? Did you remove the Quicktime 7.6.6 plugin?
You can repeat it as many times as you want, but H.264 is NOT an open standard. It contains patented technologies, which means it isn't "open", no matter how many times Appleinsider says it is.
Ogg Theora, however is 100% open, and is now supported by both Mozilla and Chrome. Since Google owns YouTube, I assume YouTube will switch to Ogg very shortly.
That leaves Safari with H264, which is not exactly a dominant player in the browser market right now. The iPhone is no longer the dominant smartphone platform, either, so Android should also push more folks into using Ogg.
While I understand Apple placed it's bets on H264 (understandable since they are an MPEG LA licensor), I think it'll be forced to include Ogg support once YouTube makes the switch - I think the iPhone needs YouTube more than YouTube needs the iPhone at this point.
Does anybody else remember when Appleinsider used to pay at least passing lip service to the fact that most stories have to viewpoints? Lately every article can be summed up with 2 simple points:
1. Apple is Correct/Perfect/Amazing/The Future/Putting the Customer First
2. Not Apple (Google, MS, Consumer Reports, etc) is WRONG/FLAWED/STUPID/SO LAST YEAR/ONLY INTERESTED IN MONEY.
It would be nice if people informed themselves before posting...
The MPEG LA needs to point out right now any patents infringed by WebM, before the damage is too big, and NOT play the "patent troll strategy" of waiting until it is wide spread to charge more royalties...
Ohhhh boy I bet you MPEG LA is waiting patiently for Google to roll out WebM for a year or so, make some nice patent-infringing improvements to it... Then BAM! Crush WebM with litigation. Just you see...
The only content supplier that really matters here is youtube due to its monopoly on web video. It makes no difference if browsers support it or not.
YouTube is a monopoly based on what? Youtube is about 43% of number of videos viewed. That's the weakest monopoly I've ever seen (sarcasm).
http://searchengineland.com/youtube-...-viewers-43379
Google's video services are dominant by far, but there is a plethora of other services out there that it's not that hard to avoid YouTube if you're looking for a bit of entertainment. Personally, I'd like to see Vimeo get a bigger share. Maybe not as feature-full of a site, most things look and work better than on YouTube.
LOL. DED's metaphors are as mixed as his adjectives are colorful. Fun for those looking for feel-good, but those looking for unvarnished facts will have to go elsewhere.
If I didn't know better, it read like that of someone learning English as a second language. The English language does have a lot of colloquialisms, metaphors and so on, it just reads like a poorly mixed metaphor in my opinion.
http://www.webmproject.org/about/supporters/
Opera's reasonings:
http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2011/01/13/openness
Have fun.
Opera's reasonings:
http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2011/01/13/openness
Have fun.
This part of the Opera article is nonsense (and who really cares about Opera anyways?)
"Google bundles Flash, so it is being hypocritical"
This is comparing apples and oranges. Flash is a plugin, which Google chose to bundle because there is a lot of Flash content out there. On the other hand, H.264 would be part of the browser itself, and not a mere plugin.
One important thing to keep in mind is that Flash is already ubiquitous. If you want to do any kind of video on the web, you don't have a choice. Flash is needed. However, the "battle" over HTML5 video is still raging. There is no clear winner, but with Google dropping the closed H.264, it is much more likely that an open format will prevail in the end.
So when Google keeps bundling the Flash plugin, it makes perfect sense. Most video content on the web uses Flash, and that allows Google to continue to support just about all online video until native video support gains a proper foothold. There is no hypocrisy involved here, just pragmatism.
In the end, the question of Google's bundling of Flash is a red herring which takes away the focus from the real issue: Whether native video support in browsers is based on open or closed technologies.
By the above reasoning, why doesn't Google just bundle a plugin for H.264? If "most of the web video is still Flash", a lot of the web video is also H.264. Clearly Google is favouring WebM and Flash video for their own purposes. It's a pity all the open source idealists are going to be thoroughly conned by Google. Even the article suggests "Oh, Flash is ubiquitous, so we give up, let's embrace that decrepit closed proprietary system" and "it's just pragmatism".
Here's the best part, the article acknowledges: VP8 is a technology with a specification, not a standard. However, Google has granted anyone the right to use it, and makes no claims about patents to restrict its royalty-free use. This means that VP8 is actually a good candidate for being turned into a proper open web standard.
So... it's just "a good candidate"? And Google makes no claims about patents? IE, if you get sued Google will just whistle as it walks past.
No offence but this is just a ridiculous assertion.
There is no charge to the end user and a very minimal small charge to those that do the encoding. If you are talking about people "paying for it" because the cost to the producers is rolled into the hardware, then you are wrong in the specific sense as that tiny cost is actually *not* purposely figured in to the pricing.
You may be correct in the limited general sense that all costs incurred by a company are eventually rolled into the price whether it's done explicitly or not, but we are talking about possibly $0.02 on a device costing $700.00 in the case of the iPhone. So in this sense you are being technically accurate in terms of the detail, but disingenuous at the same time in the implication that this is a real charge that the consumer experiences.
Uh, you seem to be labouring under the incorrect assumption that I have some kind of problem with the fact that MPEGLA is charging for the use of the patents, or that I'm suggesting it's something end users should care about. Neither of those things is true, I was merely pointing out the factual inaccuracy in the idea that they were charging 0 and therefore the increase of 10% was incalculable unless it was calculated as zero. My point was people were conflating the use of H.264 on the web with the use of H.264 full stop. But incidentally, just because the cost is negligible enough not to be directly factored doesn't mean you're not paying it, it just means it's so triflingly small as to be irrelevant.
Just one of many reasons H.264 is the world-leader and the industry standard (And why Google can take a long walk off a short pier if it tries anything more aggressive than this futile Chrome Heel Face Turn to install itself as the sole provider of web video codecs).