Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 25th Mar 2013 21:09 UTC
Legal Late last week, Nokia dropped what many consider to be a bomb on the WebM project: a list of patents that VP8 supposedly infringes in the form of an IETF IPR declaration. The list has made the rounds around the web, often reported as proof that VP8 infringes upon Nokia's patents. All this stuff rang a bell. Haven't we been here before? Yup, we have, with another open source codec called Opus. Qualcomm and Huawei made the same claims as Nokia did, but they turned out to be complete bogus. As it turns out, this is standard practice in the dirty business of the patent licensing industry.
Permalink for comment 556648
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Big picture...
by Valhalla on Tue 26th Mar 2013 10:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Big picture..."
Valhalla
Member since:
2006-01-24


VP8 is and has been inferior to H.264 in every single way. Performance, power savings, adoption, you name it.

Adoption, obviously given how long h264 has been around. Power savings, I have not seen any comparison between hardware based h264 and vp8, do you have any links? Performance, depends on what you mean by 'performance', decoding/encoding speed? visual quality (here h264 is better due to excellent mature encoders like x264 but certainly not by a wide margin) ?

And it's certainly not inferior in cost.

Good thing VP9 is "open". Look at the endless amount of information on it and the wide spread adoption. Oh no wait, thats H.265 !

Yes it's open, here is the git repository where you can follow the actual development in real-time, modify/build it yourself and use it, send patches, examine the code.

http://git.chromium.org/gitweb/?p=webm/libvpx.git;a=summary

The vp9 spec is not yet finalized but there are design documentation and progress reports:

http://downloads.webmproject.org/ngov2012/pdf/04-ngov-project-updat...

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-videocodec-4.pd...

http://downloads.webmproject.org/ngov2012/pdf/02-ngov-product-requi...

What part of your definition of open does this fail to qualify for?

Reply Parent Score: 4