Linked by fran on Sun 20th Mar 2011 20:00 UTC
Multimedia, AV "Addressing a major weakness its plan to build its WebM video technology into the Web, Google yesterday released a version of its VP8 video encoder and decoder designed to be baked into hardware. [...] The hardware implementation of VP8 is called H1 and now Anthill, said Aki Kuusela, engineering manager of the WebM Project, in a blog post. It comes in the form of RTL, or Register Transfer Language, a very low-level description close to how processors actually perform their instructions, and it's available royalty free."
Order by: Score:
MissTJones
Member since:
2010-03-25

So how good are the H.264 hardware encoders in comparison? I seem to recall the x264 guy saying his software had surpassed them a long time ago, as he did about most other H.264 software encoders. In general it seems hardware will be at a disadvantage in this situation. But sometimes you have no choice but to use the hardware encoding option (mobile devices vs. server based encoding)

VP8's software encoder seems to have done pretty well against the competition, though not quite as high quality or anywhere near as speedy as the very best (x264). That struck me as a pretty good performance, like a unknown competitor getting all the way to the final before being bested, like something out of a Rocky movie. Though most people have focused on the eventual defeat by the reigning champion. But how does it stack up in hardware?

Reply Score: 1

v "and it's available royalty free"
by mrhasbean on Sun 20th Mar 2011 21:44 UTC
ruinevil Member since:
2009-01-08

So? Google is releasing software codecs and designs for hardware, which are both libre and gratis.

Free Code is free code is free code.

That they implement for their money making ventures doesn't prevent others from doing the same.

Google probably does have 10gig on me in their databases, and knows my spending habits, what sites I visit, and can track me to 10m using my Android phone; however, that conversation doesn't really have anything to do with VP8 hardware.

Also that Clayton definition page is useless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claytons

Why use Urbandictionary when you have Wikipedia.

Edited 2011-03-21 01:07 UTC

Reply Score: 6

chekr Member since:
2005-11-05

Everything Google does is at best "Claytons" (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Clayton's) royalty free. Sure it doesn't cost coin out of the pocket of the content provider, but what's your privacy and personal data worth, and how many billions of dollars do Google make by stealing it? Funds which are paid to Google by advertisers and are added on to the price of that advertiser's goods and services, which we're all paying for, just as we are with H.264. But unlike H.264, this is royalty by stealth. Anyone with a business background understands this concept, sadly many others don't. And as with the drink, Google's "royalty free" has an aftertaste, and it's also not a good one...


Can you please explain what the VP8 codec has to do with Google's ad platform?

TFH much?

Reply Score: 5

testman Member since:
2007-10-15

He is saying that it is funded in part by advertising revenue.

Reply Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

He is saying that it is funded in part by advertising revenue.


Which it is. Google essentially make their money via advertising revenue, which is raised when people view web pages. The more people who view more web pages more easily, more often and more freely, the more money Google stand to make.

Therefore, it is in Google's best interests to facilitate people being able to view web pages, without their having to pay any "toll" for viewing. It also helps Google's best interest if other people are ablle to offer web pages to the public for viewing, without having to pay any dubious technology toll.

Therefore, it is in Google's best interests to offer everybody a toll-free video codec.

This is bad ... err, ummm, ... how exactly?

Reply Score: 7

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

This is bad ... err, ummm, ... how exactly?


Apple fanboy logic:

If Apple (an advertising company also) has all your info through iTunes, MobileMe, App Store, and so on, and uses it for targeted advertising: okay.

If Google has all your info through its services and uses it for targeted advertising: bad.

Reply Score: 9

testman Member since:
2007-10-15

I hope that wasn't directed towards me, Thom. For the record I believe selling advertising and aggregate user data to be a perfectly legitimate means of paying for this kind of thing.

Reply Score: 2

testman Member since:
2007-10-15

This is bad ... err, ummm, ... how exactly?

it.... err, ummm... isn't.

Reply Score: 4

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Well, according to the HasBean it is, Of course,it's not bad when Apple does it. I'm sure then it benefits humanity and cures cancer.

Edited 2011-03-21 17:50 UTC

Reply Score: 5

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Everything Google does is at best "Claytons" (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Clayton's) royalty free. Sure it doesn't cost coin out of the pocket of the content provider, but what's your privacy and personal data worth, and how many billions of dollars do Google make by stealing it? Funds which are paid to Google by advertisers and are added on to the price of that advertiser's goods and services, which we're all paying for, just as we are with H.264. But unlike H.264, this is royalty by stealth. Anyone with a business background understands this concept, sadly many others don't.

And as with the drink, Google's "royalty free" has an aftertaste, and it's also not a good one...

So use WebM but don't use any other Googles other services. There's enough competing services for each and every one of Google's offerings out there.

Reply Score: 7

fran Member since:
2010-08-06

Previously you had advertising budgets exclusively targeting print, tv, radio.
How much did these big advertising revenues benefit general society? Except for making media moguls rich, subsiding televisions shows.
Advertsing in print,tv and radio has in reality become so expensive that some companies dont even consider a tv adds anymore because you have to compete with big companies for slots...
And how did these advertising moneys went towards advancement of technology?

Google on the other hand use there advertising revenue in a way that benefit even the poor and drive innovation.

Gmail. Google maps. Research tools. Operating systems. Royalty free or FOSS codecs. Google apps. youtube ect. ect..

Reply Score: 4

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Anyone with a business background understands this concept, sadly many others don't.


Anyone with a business background, wouldn't have an 4chan sourced avatar or link to urban dictionary.

Micro economics is a bit more complex than can be discussed on this message board. But rest assured everyone using webm is doing their best to make the best decisions for themselves.

Reply Score: 6

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Are you saying that Google is funding it's R&D through the only means by which they make money? Hot damn, stop the presses. You've got the scoop of the century there, old boy.

and how many billions of dollars do Google make by stealing it?


It must hurt that they're making more than Apple, eh?

Also, I guess since Clayton's a guy you'd like to hold on to forever we should consider WebM to be totally awesome. Thanks for clarifying.

Edited 2011-03-21 17:58 UTC

Reply Score: 4

ruinevil Member since:
2009-01-08

I don't think they are making more than Apple, however I agree with your assessment of Clayton and WebM.

Reply Score: 1