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 556908
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[13]: Big picture...
by saynte on Thu 28th Mar 2013 08:42 UTC in reply to "RE[12]: Big picture..."
Member since:

"Saying someone is wrong is not an attack; and I didn't tell you to shut up, I said that you should stop discussing until you can base it on data, because it's not a useful discussion without data.

I accepted the contrary evidence supplied by Radio, contrary data can exist at the same time, because if you read the details of the IETF data, it's for WebRTC, and uses the baseline profile. This is a legitimate use-case, I said that already. Where do you find bias?

I find bias in your lack of belief that VP8 was competitive with h.264, when by the very measures you use to "support" your bias, VP8 actually performs better than h.264 in about a third of cases, the reverse is true for about a third of cases, and there is very little difference between the two in the remaining third of cases.

Wrong, I didn't say it wasn't competitive, I actually said that BOTH were acceptable in a sibling thread!

What I said was that x264 tends to produce better results on objective metrics, and supplied some data to show this for a given profile setting.

How is this worse than what you did: claiming VP8 was better with zero evidence? So it's bias in the case where I provide data, but not bias where you provide none?

The actual truth is that these two codecs by objective measurements (e.g. PSNR, SSIM) have very little difference.

Define "very little"? Some of these metrics are based a logarithmic scale, so it's not straight forward to relate the differences.

Here is a comparison on the metric you wanted, x264 "wins" at least 85% of the time (lower is better).

By subjective measurements I believe that VP8 is the (slightly) preferred codec, but most people cannot really tell the difference.

You're free to believe that.

How is it not bias to rant and rave when someone questions your dubious (and provably false) claim that h.264 was better by every performance measure?

I didn't claim it was better by every performance measure, I just presented evidence that showed x264 was better (for the defined experiment). I don't think there was any ranting or raving involved.

Reply Parent Score: 3