Linked by Kroc Camen on Fri 1st Jan 2010 15:36 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 402172
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-17
If I make an h264 video, I don't have to worry about licensing costs... the browser vendor does.... and now that windows, Mac and Linux support h264 playback, I think it is moot.
You didn't check very well.
Beginning in 2011, you will apparently have to pay a yearly royalty fee if you make a website that includes any h264 video. The more video data you send to more users, the higher the royalty fee will be. Sites such as Youtube are already looking at alternatives, to the extent that Google has purchased On2 (owners of the VP6, Vp7 and VP8 codecs).
http://newteevee.com/2009/08/05/google-buys-on2-now-controls-vp6-co...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On2_Technologies
Edited 2010-01-03 07:25 UTC