Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 10th Mar 2013 13:07 UTC
Multimedia, AV A few days ago, Google and the MPEG-LA announced that they had come to an agreement under which Google received a license for techniques in VP8 that may infringe upon MPEG-LA patents (note the 'if any'). Only a few days later, we learn the real reason behind Google and the MPEG-LA striking a deal, thanks to The H Open, making it clear that the MPEG-LA has lost. Big time. Update: Chris Montgomery: "The wording suggests Google paid some money to grease this along, and the agreement wording is interesting [and instructive] but make no mistake: Google won. Full stop."
Thread beginning with comment 555090
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
A basic question
by Tony Swash on Mon 11th Mar 2013 11:16 UTC
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

This is a genuine question, I am not trying to score any points, I just don't follow this stuff as closely as some other seem to.

My question is this. In the real world what is VP8 used for? By that I mean who is using VP8 to deliver video, how widespread is VP8 use?

A supplementary question: are there are sources of video that are only being delivered via VP8 which are not accompanied by delivery using other codecs?

Hope those questions made sense. This issue obviously is quite heated and I am trying to work out the scale of this issue in real world situations.

Reply Score: -1

RE: A basic question
by Alfman on Mon 11th Mar 2013 12:52 in reply to "A basic question"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

"My question is this. In the real world what is VP8 used for? By that I mean who is using VP8 to deliver video, how widespread is VP8 use?"

I don't know the answer, but you already asked the exact same question here, and lemur2 already gave you a good starting point which you seem to have completely ignored in re-asking your question.

http://www.osnews.com/thread?554708


"A supplementary question: are there are sources of video that are only being delivered via VP8 which are not accompanied by delivery using other codecs?"


You of all people should know that Apple's banned users from installing WebM on their portable devices. This means publishers who want to reach apple mobile users would have to serve H264 as well. Although merely irritating from a publishing standpoint, the real shame is from a licensing standpoint because publishers still have to license H264 due to apple's codec restrictions.

If enough publishers were to leave iOS users out in the cold, maybe apple would have enough sympathy for their own users to allow them to install WebM. Now that MPEG-LA and google have settled patent claims, it would be truly a disservice for apple's users to disallow web streaming using the royalty free codec.

Edited 2013-03-11 13:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: A basic question
by Tony Swash on Mon 11th Mar 2013 17:50 in reply to "RE: A basic question"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22


I don't know the answer, but you already asked the exact same question here, and lemur2 already gave you a good starting point which you seem to have completely ignored in re-asking your question.



My bad. I checked that thread a couple of times but haven't since the response was posted, sorry.

Thanks your own response to my question by the way.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: A basic question
by Tony Swash on Mon 11th Mar 2013 18:02 in reply to "RE: A basic question"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Now that MPEG-LA and google have settled patent claims, it would be truly a disservice for apple's users to disallow web streaming using the royalty free codec.



Why and how? Again I am not looking to argue about the rights and wrongs of this issue but I am interested in the practical consequences for end users and I can't really see what sort of content iOS users, say, are not getting access to by not utilising VP8. Isn't all content effectively available to iOS users via non-VP8 codecs? If tomorrow Apple allowed VP8 on iOS what new content would open up for it's customers?

I really am not arguing the pros and cons here, if the licensing deal means VP8 is now unproblematic patent wise then I can't see what Apple has to gain by keepin git off iOS and would expect them to allow it, although in today's environment of vigorous IP litigation I would imagine the Apple management would probably want so pretty clear legal advice that VP8 did not open them up to legal action.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: A basic question
by Deviate_X on Mon 11th Mar 2013 14:21 in reply to "A basic question"
Deviate_X Member since:
2005-07-11

This is a genuine question, I am not trying to score any points, I just don't follow this stuff as closely as some other seem to.

My question is this. In the real world what is VP8 used for? By that I mean who is using VP8 to deliver video, how widespread is VP8 use?

A supplementary question: are there are sources of video that are only being delivered via VP8 which are not accompanied by delivery using other codecs?

Hope those questions made sense. This issue obviously is quite heated and I am trying to work out the scale of this issue in real world situations.



I think the no.1 use of VP8 is to create arguments in threads about open vs. closed.

What about reality??

Is WebM a better quality, smaller size, eat less battery?

What does it mean when the end user can't encode to WebM with Adobe, Microsoft or Apple.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: A basic question
by TechGeek on Mon 11th Mar 2013 15:07 in reply to "RE: A basic question"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14


What does it mean when the end user can't encode to WebM with Adobe, Microsoft or Apple.



Well for one, Adobe, Microsoft, and Apple are all creators of H.264.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: A basic question
by BallmerKnowsBest on Mon 11th Mar 2013 19:51 in reply to "A basic question"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

Hope those questions made sense. This issue obviously is quite heated and I am trying to work out the scale of this issue in real world situations.


Yes, they make perfect sense... at least, if we interpret your "questions" as thinly-veiled variations of your standard "Why Apple is so great" sales pitch. Both questions are obvious examples of bragging-by-implication, E.g "how widespread is VP8 use" is a painfully-obvious attempt to brag that H.264 use is more widespread (and in typical fanboy fashion, you're bragging about a detail that has no actual relevance).

Or, for those who have some actual post-secondary education: Tony is using an older-than-dirt debate tactic known as "the Socratic Method" - where you ask questions that are deliberately phrased to lead people to a specific conclusion. It's occasionally used to good effect, but most often it's just used as a weaselly method of disguising statements as questions (though it's not like I expect any better from anyone who would coin a phrase like "Apple-phobe").

Problem is, it doesn't really work when it's so clearly telegraphed.

Reply Parent Score: 3