Linked by David Adams on Fri 20th Apr 2012 01:31 UTC, submitted by fsmag
Multimedia, AV "When I started working on a no-DRM, open-standards-based solution for distributing high-definition video on fixed media ('Lib-Ray'), I naturally thought of Theora, because it was developed as a free software project. Several people have suggested, though, that the VP8 codec would be a better fit for my application. This month, I've finally gotten the necessary vpxtools and mkvtoolnix packages installed on my Debian system, and so I'm having a first-look at VP8. The results are very promising, though the tools are somewhat finicky."
Permalink for comment 515047
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
galvanash
Member since:
2006-01-25

Well I'd say there is another problem that will be a real elephant in the room which is why Google refuses to indemnify VP8 which is the patents on H.264 are so wide and so numerous that frankly it would be extremely difficult to do much of anything with video without walking right into that minefield.


Google doesn't indemnify WebM users for the same reason that MPEG-LA doesn't indemnify H.264 users... No one licensing codecs (either commerical or OSS) does that.

Considering MPEG-LA makes people pay to use H.264 you would think that there might be a wee bit more outrage about them failing to indemnify their licensees, but nooooooo... everyone grills Google over it, even though they give there stuff away for free.

This is why I had hopes that developers would refuse to support HTML V5 unless a FOSS codec was chosen as baseline as that might finally bring this thing to a head but sadly it looks like the lure of iMoney nixed that and with Google refusing to step up to the plate frankly trying to get any kind of FOSS high def format adopted by the mainstream (and to get that crucial hardware support) is gonna be nearly impossible as the hardware manufacturers won't dare risk the wrath of MPEG-LA.


Google refusing to step up to the plate? What else do you want them to do for goodness sake...?

And why is hardware support so crucial - I still don't get this. WebM doesn't have to become a dominant format to "win" - it just has to exist. If companies want to use H.264 and pay for licences that is fine - why should I care? If I'm buying a little box to play netflix movies, why should I care what format they are in?

That isn't at all the point of WebM - the point is to have a video distribution format for the web that can be used without having to pay for licensing. All it needs to accomplish that is get widespread browser support and a little time...

Reply Parent Score: 3