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 556717
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Big picture...
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Mar 2013 15:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Big picture..."
Member since:

Sorry, but there is nothing obvious about that. You cannot pick one edge comparison and make such a broad generalization.

Firstly it is pretty important seeing that Google Talk is probably using it that it uses twice as much bandwidth.

In any case Okay, how about this one?

Again, I am not saying VP8 is better than h.264. I will say that for resolutions and bitrates routinely used for web based video distribution (720p and 480p, 500-1200kpbs) it is definitely close enough in most measurable metrics that most people would not notice the difference.

Except it doesn't look at the above link.

Besides, frankly I think arguments on the technical merits of VP8 are wasted breathe (for or against). No one uses VP8 because it is technically superior - they use it because it is open and royalty free.

Well that might not be the case, we don't know yet.

The fact that it is actually comparable to h.264 when used for its target use case (web video) is just icing on the cake.

Except it isn't.

Reply Parent Score: 3