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 426983
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: I'm not surprised...
by _QJ_ on Fri 28th May 2010 13:37 UTC 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

RE[3]: I'm not surprised...
by _QJ_ on Mon 31st May 2010 07:30 in reply to "RE[2]: I'm not surprised... "
_QJ_ Member since:
2009-03-12

... And yes, I was talking about algo (so FirmWare) not about hardware.
It is a question of gates available, also of memory available, etc, etc.
Intel is talking about an existing SoC platform in term of released design, not a future ┬ÁP/graphic card product. So, yes we are talking about FW.

And I am surprised to see people saying Intel is late about its VP8 support... On an almost released product!

If we were debating about future and (maybe) on-going developments, I can admit that Intel is late. Okay, it is a question of "commercial & strategic" announcements.
But NOT about this released product.
Call me mister slow-coach if you which, but please, at least make a good case for. ;-))

Reply Parent Score: 1