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 556656
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Big picture...
by lemur2 on Tue 26th Mar 2013 10:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Big picture..."
Member since:

here's a bigger picture for you.

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

VP8 is not inferior in performance to h.264 except for just one factor: encoding speed. In every other respect VP8 can match or exceed h.264 performance.

VP8 is actually less computationally expensive to decode than h.264. This is because VP8 puts much of the "hard work" into the encoder process rather than the decoder.

If by "power savings", you actually meant a hardware decoder versus a software one, be advised that VP8 is a part of the Android Multimedia Supported Formats:

Here is a list of ARM SoCs (which are used in mobile phones and tablets) from different manufacturers showing which support VP8 and which do not:

Unless you buy Apple gear then your (recent) mobile device is more likely than not to support VP8 decode in hardware. VP8 is getting quite prevalent in terms of adoption, just about every current Android device on the market would support VP8 decode in hardware.

Since VP8 is easier to decode than h.264, and since it now has hardware decoding in mobile SoCs, then VP8 is actually likely to out-perform h.264 in terms of power savings.

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 !

"Open" means royalty-free, anyone may implement it. That is most certainly VP9 and not h.265.

Here is an alpha-version implementation of VP9 you may wish to investigate:

Reply Parent Score: 4