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 555095
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: A basic question
by Alfman on Mon 11th Mar 2013 12:52 UTC 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[3]: A basic question
by Alfman on Mon 11th Mar 2013 20:19 in reply to "RE[2]: A basic question"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Tony Swash,

"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 this a rewording of your original question? I'm sorry but I still don't know of a list. And because I use VLC as my video software, I can play just about all media without even taking notice of what codec it uses. It just works.


I see a lot of products designed to help iOS users transcode videos for their ipads, so it would seem there are at least some iOS users who are not content that their ipads don't allow them to play webm content.

http://www.anymp4.com/video-converter/how-to-convert-webm-video-to-...

http://www.webmediaconverter.com/convert-webm-to-ipad.html

http://www.techisky.com/how-to/convert-webm-to-iphone-ipad-ipod.htm...

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: A basic question
by Valhalla on Mon 11th Mar 2013 23:55 in reply to "RE[2]: A basic question"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

If tomorrow Apple allowed VP8 on iOS what new content would open up for it's customers?

As of now, nothing. If webm becomes the standard (and thus mandatory) video codec for HTML5 then you would likely need it for alot of online content, of course since Apple supports HTML5 it would have to support webm in this case.

Also if/when Google stops supporting h.264 on Youtube in favour of webm (they say they are still going through with it, though personally I think it very much depends on webm becoming the official HTML5 video codec) you will need VP8/VP9 to watch the content. It won't make a practical difference for iOS though as you already need the Google Youtube app unless I'm mistaken.

And of course if w3c accepts (as expected) WebRTC as a standard for browser video chat/voice calls then Apple will likely enable that in Safari on OSX atleast.

Reply Parent Score: 5