Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 11th Jan 2011 22:21 UTC, submitted by Kroc
Google The WebM project - a VP8 video stream and a Vorbis audio stream wrapped in a Matroska container re-branded as a WebM container - launched by Google, openly supported by every major chip maker, is going to be the major codec for Google's Chrome web browser. Yes, Google is dropping H264 support from the Chrome web browser.
Thread beginning with comment 457187
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
manjabes
Member since:
2005-08-27

You're forgetting the damage part. You have to hurt a market with your monopoly position first. Moving to an OPEN, ROYALTY-FREE, NON-PATENT-ENCUMBERED codec can, in no possible way, be seen as Google trying to hurt the market. IT'S FREE, FOR FUCK'S SAKE.


Well, them rightsholders that let their rights managed by the...hrm....people... at MPEGLA, might disagree with You on that. Beforehand they might have had a little income to cover up them R&D costs that ended up as patents (yes, real and phony ones). Hows that for market damage?

Think of it this way, You own a bakery shop. You work your ass off early mornings to provide customers with croissants and stuff. Maybe earn a little money while doing that. There's another bakery shop nearby too, but you're not that worried about it because you figure that if your croissants are tastier then the customers will prefer to get theirs from your shop.
Now a metallurgical magnate that gets nearly all of its income from producing chromium and copper and stuff buys your competitors shop and starts providing free croissants. It can afford it because the metals business is its primary source of income and a good one at that. You can make your croissants as delicious as possible but you can't beat free, can you?

Applying your logic as the commenter, no market damage was made, because the croissants are free for fucks sake. You, the baker, might think otherwise.

Reply Parent Score: 1

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Think of it this way, You own a bakery shop. You work your ass off early mornings to provide customers with croissants and stuff. Maybe earn a little money while doing that. There's another bakery shop nearby too, but you're not that worried about it because you figure that if your croissants are tastier then the customers will prefer to get theirs from your shop.
Now a metallurgical magnate that gets nearly all of its income from producing chromium and copper and stuff buys your competitors shop and starts providing free croissants. It can afford it because the metals business is its primary source of income and a good one at that. You can make your croissants as delicious as possible but you can't beat free, can you?


Your analogy is cute, I give you that, but it quite doesn't come out right. It would be more like that the magnate started giving out ingredients for the croissants to all his competitors in addition to using them himself. That's quite a different angle to the whole thing.

Reply Parent Score: 3

_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Not only that...

1) Your bakery shop isn't some small business. You also are a massive magnate in your own right.

2) You threaten other bakeries to join your empire as you're the only one that should know how to make croissants.

3) The competitor was originally buying croissants from the bakery at some cost. Why buy from from you when they can make it themselves for cheaper than what you're selling.

4) You're banking on the fact that you become the only bakery in existence forcing everybody to buy baked goods from your bakery.

5) You will always have discerning customers that will pay any price for a little more marginal quality. The Competitors free croissants benefit more people because they cost less (are free) and not everybody can afford your croissants.

6) You tell some people that you won't charge anything but then wait until they have eaten the croissants and then tell them to pay up. If they don't pay then you call the police and report a theft.

Edited 2011-01-12 11:14 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Well, them rightsholders that let their rights managed by the...hrm....people... at MPEGLA, might disagree with You on that. Beforehand they might have had a little income to cover up them R&D costs that ended up as patents (yes, real and phony ones). Hows that for market damage?


Uhm, just hurting your competitors is not automatically damaging a market - quite the opposite, actually. Considering the market for digital video is currently held in a death grip by patent troll MPEG-LA, Google's move will actually be welcomed by market regulators since it INCREASES competition.

Reply Parent Score: 2