The main objective for Google was to ensure that encoded videos can be watched freely by users without a royalty. People might not remember this - but MPEG LA only announced in August 2010 that users could watch *free* videos encoded in the H.264 standard without paying a royalty.
Otherwise, Google would have had to subsidize each YouTube video or require users to pay a subscription fee.
This royalty-free license does not apply for commercial videos (such as wedding videos etc).
Incidentally, MPEG LA announced their decision a few months after Google freed the VP8 codec. It's very likely that the existence of WebM drove this decision because the MPEG LA is generally not known for its altruism.
So the right question is not why WebM did not overtake H.264. The right question is what the MPEG LA would have done in 2010 if WebM had not existed.
So it seems that Google achieved its main objective already: making sure that MPEG LA would not charge YouTube users (or extract these royalties from Google). This seems like 100+ million dollars well spent.
Whether VP8/VP9 replaces H.264 is less important - sure it would be the icing on the cake from Google's perspective because it remove restrictions on non-free videos.
The main objective for Google was to ensure that encoded videos can be watched freely by users without a royalty. People might not remember this - but MPEG LA only announced in August 2010 that users could watch *free* videos encoded in the H.264 standard without paying a royalty.
MPEG-LA in no way was charging users to watch free videos.
MPEG-LA in no way was charging users to watch free videos.
They announced in February 2010 that free Internet Broadcast would remain royalty-free until December 2015 - but they only made it permanent in August 2010.
Moreover, this only applies to Internet Broadcast videos and not to products that encode or decode video (such as program that play H.264 video).
Having your own codec which is almost as good as H.264 can be a useful threat against the MPEG LA - especially if your business depends to a large extent on free videos, video ads etc.
There is a reason that Microsoft does not ship Windows 8 with DVD player software - you have to purchase this option for an extra $9.99. It's expensive due to the licensing rates.
He lies all the time, just posts URL after bloody URL.
Hoping that no one checks and digs deeper
Never a cohesive or intelligent post, ever.
But the mods love him.
The original article claims that Google will have to "continue to subsidize" VP8 in order for VP8 to be less expensive than H.264.
[edit: Missing word in this paragraph]
That statement is not true: VP8 will continue to be available to developers and users royalty-free; Google's recent agreement simply clarifies the fact that this continued royalty-free distribution is no longer subject to any uncertainty or doubt with respect to the possibility of claims of unlicensed infringement of any patents held by members of the MPEG-LA. This deal will also apply to the next major iteration of the VPX codec -- namely, VP9.
We now have a perpetual guarantee that the MPEG-LA will not attempt to seek any royalties on VP8 nor on the forthcoming VP9.
MPEG-LA in no way was charging users to watch free videos.
No; the end-user has never been charged directly.
The MPEG-LA has three points where it charges royalties for the H.264 codec:
1) for making hardware and/or software that can CREATE H.264 video;
2) for making hardware and/or software that can DECODE H.264 video;
3) for DISTRIBUTION or BROADCAST of content containing H.264 video.
Parts (1) and (2) are now, and always have been, in full effect. The fee is buried further up the supply chain, so the end-user is never directly aware of it.
Part (3) is now royalty-free for people hosting H.264-encoded videos that are distributed to the end-user on a website for free; websites that host H.264-video that the user has to pay for are still subject to H.264 distribution royalties. Again, the end-user probably isn't aware that the web host is being charged this fee, but the money's gotta come from somewhere.
So then MPEG-LA has granted terms to Google for VP8 similar to what they have worked out for H.264-- free forever.
So then why do we need VP8, again? Wasn't the idea that H.264 was "patent encumbered", and it didn't matter what MPEG-LA said because you just never knew how things might work out and anyway, real open devotees just couldn't stomach even the idea of patents, no matter what agreements might get made?
I mean, we remember, right? Those were the arguments being made. Apple was bad because they had a finger in the H.264 pie and the horrible world of proprietary formats, Google was good because VP8 was "open."
So here we are. What does VP8 do for me that H.264 doesn't, other than help Google control the internet? How is VP8 morally superior to H.264?
Neither party made any acknowledgement that VP8 actually violates the patents. Resolving this in court would have been expensive and risky for both parties, so they agreed to a settlement that is probably less expensive for Google than a regular license, and guarantees MPEG LA that they don't lose and get left with nothing. Even if Google eventually won in court, WebM would have suffered in the meantime because of the licensing ambiguity. Google obviously felt it was worth paying to settle this sooner, regardless of whether they believe WebM actually violates any of the patents.
So then MPEG-LA has granted terms to Google for VP8 similar to what they have worked out for H.264-- free forever.
So then why do we need VP8, again? Wasn't the idea that H.264 was "patent encumbered", and it didn't matter what MPEG-LA said because you just never knew how things might work out and anyway, real open devotees just couldn't stomach even the idea of patents, no matter what agreements might get made?
I mean, we remember, right? Those were the arguments being made. Apple was bad because they had a finger in the H.264 pie and the horrible world of proprietary formats, Google was good because VP8 was "open."
So here we are. What does VP8 do for me that H.264 doesn't, other than help Google control the internet? How is VP8 morally superior to H.264?
VP8 and its successor is free for all purposes - not just internet broadcasting (decoding of free internet broadcasting videos is the only exception that MPEG LA has granted for the use of H.264 - everything else requires payment of royalties).
VP8 is free for building encoders, commercial video etc.
If VP8 has similar quality as H.264 it will limit the ability of MPEG LA to charge for H.264 even if VP8 will never replace H.264.
When individuals pirate, steal and pillage the IP of other individuals or corporations (cracked software, illegaly downloaded music, films, books, etc) the vox populi rises up in triumphant support.
Comments
The main objective for Google was to ensure that encoded videos can be watched freely by users without a royalty. People might not remember this - but MPEG LA only announced in August 2010 that users could watch *free* videos encoded in the H.264 standard without paying a royalty.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/h-264-goes-royalty-free-forever/9489
Otherwise, Google would have had to subsidize each YouTube video or require users to pay a subscription fee.
This royalty-free license does not apply for commercial videos (such as wedding videos etc).
Incidentally, MPEG LA announced their decision a few months after Google freed the VP8 codec. It's very likely that the existence of WebM drove this decision because the MPEG LA is generally not known for its altruism.
So the right question is not why WebM did not overtake H.264. The right question is what the MPEG LA would have done in 2010 if WebM had not existed.
So it seems that Google achieved its main objective already: making sure that MPEG LA would not charge YouTube users (or extract these royalties from Google). This seems like 100+ million dollars well spent.
Whether VP8/VP9 replaces H.264 is less important - sure it would be the icing on the cake from Google's perspective because it remove restrictions on non-free videos.
MPEG-LA in no way was charging users to watch free videos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
MPEG-LA in no way was charging users to watch free videos.
They announced in February 2010 that free Internet Broadcast would remain royalty-free until December 2015 - but they only made it permanent in August 2010.
Moreover, this only applies to Internet Broadcast videos and not to products that encode or decode video (such as program that play H.264 video).
Having your own codec which is almost as good as H.264 can be a useful threat against the MPEG LA - especially if your business depends to a large extent on free videos, video ads etc.
There is a reason that Microsoft does not ship Windows 8 with DVD player software - you have to purchase this option for an extra $9.99. It's expensive due to the licensing rates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts
Well caught.
He lies all the time, just posts URL after bloody URL.
Hoping that no one checks and digs deeper
Never a cohesive or intelligent post, ever.
But the mods love him.
The original article claims that Google will have to "continue to subsidize" VP8 in order for VP8 to be less expensive than H.264.
[edit: Missing word in this paragraph]
That statement is not true: VP8 will continue to be available to developers and users royalty-free; Google's recent agreement simply clarifies the fact that this continued royalty-free distribution is no longer subject to any uncertainty or doubt with respect to the possibility of claims of unlicensed infringement of any patents held by members of the MPEG-LA. This deal will also apply to the next major iteration of the VPX codec -- namely, VP9.
We now have a perpetual guarantee that the MPEG-LA will not attempt to seek any royalties on VP8 nor on the forthcoming VP9.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
MPEG-LA in no way was charging users to watch free videos.
No; the end-user has never been charged directly.
The MPEG-LA has three points where it charges royalties for the H.264 codec:
1) for making hardware and/or software that can CREATE H.264 video;
2) for making hardware and/or software that can DECODE H.264 video;
3) for DISTRIBUTION or BROADCAST of content containing H.264 video.
Parts (1) and (2) are now, and always have been, in full effect. The fee is buried further up the supply chain, so the end-user is never directly aware of it.
Part (3) is now royalty-free for people hosting H.264-encoded videos that are distributed to the end-user on a website for free; websites that host H.264-video that the user has to pay for are still subject to H.264 distribution royalties. Again, the end-user probably isn't aware that the web host is being charged this fee, but the money's gotta come from somewhere.
So then MPEG-LA has granted terms to Google for VP8 similar to what they have worked out for H.264-- free forever.
So then why do we need VP8, again? Wasn't the idea that H.264 was "patent encumbered", and it didn't matter what MPEG-LA said because you just never knew how things might work out and anyway, real open devotees just couldn't stomach even the idea of patents, no matter what agreements might get made?
I mean, we remember, right? Those were the arguments being made. Apple was bad because they had a finger in the H.264 pie and the horrible world of proprietary formats, Google was good because VP8 was "open."
So here we are. What does VP8 do for me that H.264 doesn't, other than help Google control the internet? How is VP8 morally superior to H.264?
"This agreement is not an acknowledgment that the licensed techniques read on VP8."
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg06631.html
Neither party made any acknowledgement that VP8 actually violates the patents. Resolving this in court would have been expensive and risky for both parties, so they agreed to a settlement that is probably less expensive for Google than a regular license, and guarantees MPEG LA that they don't lose and get left with nothing. Even if Google eventually won in court, WebM would have suffered in the meantime because of the licensing ambiguity. Google obviously felt it was worth paying to settle this sooner, regardless of whether they believe WebM actually violates any of the patents.
deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
So then MPEG-LA has granted terms to Google for VP8 similar to what they have worked out for H.264-- free forever.
So then why do we need VP8, again? Wasn't the idea that H.264 was "patent encumbered", and it didn't matter what MPEG-LA said because you just never knew how things might work out and anyway, real open devotees just couldn't stomach even the idea of patents, no matter what agreements might get made?
I mean, we remember, right? Those were the arguments being made. Apple was bad because they had a finger in the H.264 pie and the horrible world of proprietary formats, Google was good because VP8 was "open."
So here we are. What does VP8 do for me that H.264 doesn't, other than help Google control the internet? How is VP8 morally superior to H.264?
VP8 and its successor is free for all purposes - not just internet broadcasting (decoding of free internet broadcasting videos is the only exception that MPEG LA has granted for the use of H.264 - everything else requires payment of royalties).
VP8 is free for building encoders, commercial video etc.
If VP8 has similar quality as H.264 it will limit the ability of MPEG LA to charge for H.264 even if VP8 will never replace H.264.
When individuals pirate, steal and pillage the IP of other individuals or corporations (cracked software, illegaly downloaded music, films, books, etc) the vox populi rises up in triumphant support.
When a corporation does it....not so much.
Ah, the sweet smell of hypocrisy in the morning.