Linked by lemur2 on Wed 9th Mar 2011 00:18 UTC
Multimedia, AV The WebM project Blog has announced an update release of the VP8 Codec SDK codenamed the "Bali" release. The Bali release was focused on making the encoder faster while continuing to improve its video quality.
Thread beginning with comment 465425
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Given the circumstances, anyone who doesn't insist on conflating openness with freeness would have to admit that h.264 was, and likely remains, more open.


WebM: unencumbered by patents, free, Free, open source, can be implemented by anyone - wherever, whenever, however.

H264: none of the above, but instead of being developed by a single company, it was developed by a few big shots.

And somehow, H264 is more open?

Reply Parent Score: 11

TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Exactly.

How anyone can be so out-of-touch and not be dropped-on-the-head stupid amazes me.

They were able to form sentences, punctuate things correctly, spell properly, and overall form things into cohesive paragraphs.

Yet they somehow think "Many companies is more open than one. Period."

*head implodes*

Reply Parent Score: 8

atsureki Member since:
2006-03-12

WebM: unencumbered by patents, free, Free, open source, can be implemented by anyone - wherever, whenever, however.

H264: none of the above, but instead of being developed by a single company, it was developed by a few big shots.

And somehow, H264 is more open?


Greater than or equal to, yes. Open is a separate dimension from free and/or Free.

And WebM is not patent-free, though it is, as you say, unencumbered, in the sense that it is licensed Freely for free.

But being open, anyone can indeed implement h.264, wherever and whenever, but the "however" is a problem - a freeness problem. Depending on implementation, royalties may be levied.

But that kind of openness, despite its shortage of Freedom, is beneficial to the Web, because it solves the single vendor problem both in theory and in the real world. No one is stuck going to MPEG-LA simply to make it work.

In the absence of adequate specs, this is not the case with WebM or Flash. I believe you personally have brought up several times during this whole saga that Flash is a supposedly open spec as well. But in practice, for Flash to run on any computer requires huge cooperative investment between Adobe and the platform developer. Apple takes some heat for not playing along to get support on iOS, but the Xoom, for all its enthusiasm about Flash, can't run it either. Working implementations of Flash outside of mainstream PCs simply don't exist, with or without Adobe's involvement. That's a hell of a single vendor problem, and really calls into question even the freeness of Flash. It takes a tremendous outlay of resources to get it working, and that cost trickles down.

Whether the same problem will arise with WebM remains to be seen, as development in that area is currently obscured by h.264 + native app solutions on smartphones.

Bottom line, I don't believe giving something away is inherently good, nor is charging for something inherently evil, and when you factor out openness, that's essentially what we're left with.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Open is a separate dimension from free and/or Free.
Yeah, you do seem to live in a separate dimension.

No one is stuck going to MPEG-LA simply to make it work.

Of course you are. x264 is unusable without a MPEG-LA licence.

Reply Parent Score: 6

TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

You are the absolute _master_ of doublethink.

Reply Parent Score: 3

shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Open is not separate from free. It's essentially dependent on freedom of usage. Open in terms of technology means that there is no monopoly, no one can pull a plug on it, and anyone can use it freely. Nothing of the above applies to H264. So it's not at all open.

Reply Parent Score: 4