Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 23rd May 2010 09:41 UTC
Benchmarks Now that Google has opened up VP8, the big question is obviously how it'll hold up to H264. Of course, VP8 already wins by default because it's open source and royalty free, but that doesn't mean we should neglect the quality issue. Jan Ozer from StreamingMedia.com has put up an article comparing the two codecs, and concludes that the differences are negligible - in fact, only in some high-motion videos did H264 win out. As always, this is just one comparison and most certainly anything but conclusive. Update: Another comparison. I can't spot the difference, but then again, I'm no expert.
Permalink for comment 426179
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: More legal challenges ahead...
by Neolander on Sun 23rd May 2010 15:05 UTC in reply to "More legal challenges ahead..."
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

So Google, while having a member on the Apple board, get the YouTube app included on the iPhone using h.264 and now that they have released their own smartphone platform in competition they buy and release a codec that, if the above prediction is true, would effectively render a built-in iPhone app inoperable and significantly benefit Google's own platform in the process, yet nobody seems to think there is anything anti-competitive let alone unethical about this?

Isn't this just Google trying to use their dominant position in a market segment to control what transpires in that market and force the hand of anyone who wants to play in that market? Antitrust anyone? Or is it ok for Google to kill off the competition as long as it's in the name of being "free and open"?

I see lots of people talking about wanting choice, but this isn't giving choice. Leaving both options in place would be giving choice...

As much as I'd enjoy (and already enjoy) the vision of Apple finally getting slapped in the face for all of their horrible business practices, and the MPEG-LA's patent trolling and FUD put to an end, what you say here makes a lot of sense. You can't ask me to defend the GIF of video formats, but it's more than fair to declare that Google will use this to increase its monopolistic power.

And then I wonder (and it's a real question, not some trolling) : what can we do against Google, when they're always the most reasonable choice ?

Being a bit worried about them one day, after enumerating all the Google-owned services which I were using, I reduced my Google consumption, going as far as trying other search providers like Yahoo and Exalead (still using YouTube and GMail, though). But then, every time I use Yahoo, I see horrible interface design along with poor search results, and I think "those guys don't even understand what an user asks from a search engine".

I, as a geek, will then choose to use the clunky service. But I can't honestly recommend them to anyone else. If someone asks me "What are the benefits", I'll say "Google does not own you", and if someone asks me "...and ?", I'll say "Nothing else, in fact you'll rather lose a lot".

And indeed, saying "no" to Google means losing a lot for just about everyone. It means losing the best search provider in the world, the most complete video sharing service in the world, the guys who helped open-source going twice as fast lately through the GSoC system, an easy-to-use free and ad-free blogging service, the sole flash-free map service which I know of, the sole H.264 alternative that's able to stand against the MPEG-LA's patents, and so on... Sometimes I lose faith and think that saying no to Google is related to masochism.

What benefit, other than experiencing that we've still got some freedom, does one get from that ?

Edited 2010-05-23 15:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0