Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 28th May 2010 11:40 UTC
Intel One name was conspicuously absent from the list of companies backing Google's WebM project and the VP8 codec. Despite other chip makers and designers being on the list, like AMD, NVIDIA, ARM, and Qualcomm, Intel didn't make an appearance. Yesterday, the company made its first careful commitment to the WebM project.
Thread beginning with comment 426968
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I'm not surprised...
by Lazarus on Fri 28th May 2010 11:47 UTC
Lazarus
Member since:
2005-08-10

Intel always seems to be late to adopt anything new.

Reply Score: 3

RE: I'm not surprised...
by kaiwai on Fri 28th May 2010 12:40 in reply to "I'm not surprised... "
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Intel always seems to be late to adopt anything new.


How are they late to the party given that VP8 was only released a few weeks ago with the chip in question on the board since September 2009. I don't blame Intel's cautiousness given how the vultures of MPEG-LA seem to be circling.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: I'm not surprised...
by Kroc on Fri 28th May 2010 12:58 in reply to "RE: I'm not surprised... "
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Rubbish. How are Intel any less of a target than AMD, ARM, Nividia and Qualcomm who have all baked it and would be just as aware of the legal ramifications (esp. considering some of them use H.264 hardware).

Intel want the good press, without the commitment. They are effectively saying that if WebM becomes big without their help then they will join out of necessity so as not to be left behind, but by not backing it now they are actually inhibiting its ability to become popular since Intel is such a big player. They want it to fail without them but succeed with them so they can ride in and say how much they support the idea and how great it is.

Intel are full of crap. Put your silicon where your mouth is or go away. More and more they seem to be losing the plot.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: I'm not surprised...
by Lazarus on Fri 28th May 2010 13:02 in reply to "RE: I'm not surprised... "
Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

How are they late to the party given that VP8 was only released a few weeks ago with the chip in question on the board since September 2009. I don't blame Intel's cautiousness given how the vultures of MPEG-LA seem to be circling.


I say 'late' in this particular case as quite a few other companies have already committed to support it as opposed to waiting to see if it gets widely adopted as Intel is doing.

Based on information available online, some of these other companies were committed to it before it was publicly announced, and I would find it rather odd if Intel was left out of the loop during this time.

I certainly don't blame Intel for being cautious due to patent worries, but that does not change the fact that they have made a conditional and half-assed commitment to VP8 *AFTER* so many others.

So yeah. Late.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: I'm not surprised...
by _QJ_ on Fri 28th May 2010 13:37 in reply to "I'm not surprised... "
_QJ_ Member since:
2009-03-12

Intel always seems to be late to adopt anything new.

... Say the person who -absolutely- does'nt know the time it takes to verify if a hardware is ready or not for a given algorithm.

I am not a fan of Intel but:
May I remind you that we are talking about a silicon chip ?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: I'm not surprised...
by Lazarus on Fri 28th May 2010 13:41 in reply to "RE: I'm not surprised... "
Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

... Say the person who -absolutely- does'nt know the time it takes to verify if a hardware is ready or not for a given algorithm.

I am not a fan of Intel but:
May I remind you that we are talking about a silicon chip ?


Says the person who knows nothing about me. But thank you for your stunning insight that we're talking about hardware support. I would _never_ have known had you not pointed out that little nugget of information.

I am forever in your debt kind sir.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: I'm not surprised...
by cerbie on Fri 28th May 2010 18:08 in reply to "RE: I'm not surprised... "
cerbie Member since:
2006-01-02

...and what makes you think they'll need to change hardware, instead of a firmware update for an on-chip DSP of some kind?

Reply Parent Score: 2