Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 10th Mar 2013 13:07 UTC
Multimedia, AV A few days ago, Google and the MPEG-LA announced that they had come to an agreement under which Google received a license for techniques in VP8 that may infringe upon MPEG-LA patents (note the 'if any'). Only a few days later, we learn the real reason behind Google and the MPEG-LA striking a deal, thanks to The H Open, making it clear that the MPEG-LA has lost. Big time. Update: Chris Montgomery: "The wording suggests Google paid some money to grease this along, and the agreement wording is interesting [and instructive] but make no mistake: Google won. Full stop."
Permalink for comment 555103
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: A basic question
by Deviate_X on Mon 11th Mar 2013 14:21 UTC in reply to "A basic question"
Deviate_X
Member since:
2005-07-11

This is a genuine question, I am not trying to score any points, I just don't follow this stuff as closely as some other seem to.

My question is this. In the real world what is VP8 used for? By that I mean who is using VP8 to deliver video, how widespread is VP8 use?

A supplementary question: are there are sources of video that are only being delivered via VP8 which are not accompanied by delivery using other codecs?

Hope those questions made sense. This issue obviously is quite heated and I am trying to work out the scale of this issue in real world situations.



I think the no.1 use of VP8 is to create arguments in threads about open vs. closed.

What about reality??

Is WebM a better quality, smaller size, eat less battery?

What does it mean when the end user can't encode to WebM with Adobe, Microsoft or Apple.

Reply Parent Score: 3