Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 25th Mar 2013 21:09 UTC
Legal Late last week, Nokia dropped what many consider to be a bomb on the WebM project: a list of patents that VP8 supposedly infringes in the form of an IETF IPR declaration. The list has made the rounds around the web, often reported as proof that VP8 infringes upon Nokia's patents. All this stuff rang a bell. Haven't we been here before? Yup, we have, with another open source codec called Opus. Qualcomm and Huawei made the same claims as Nokia did, but they turned out to be complete bogus. As it turns out, this is standard practice in the dirty business of the patent licensing industry.
Thread beginning with comment 556641
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Big picture...
by bowkota on Tue 26th Mar 2013 09:09 UTC in reply to "Big picture..."
bowkota
Member since:
2011-10-12

here's a bigger picture for you.

VP8 is and has been inferior to H.264 in every single way. Performance, power savings, adoption, you name it.

Moving forward, H265 and VP9 will turn out the same.
Have a look at the amount of info on each one of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VP9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding

Good thing VP9 is "open". Look at the endless amount of information on it and the wide spread adoption. Oh no wait, thats H.265 !

Reply Parent Score: -3

RE[2]: Big picture...
by Valhalla on Tue 26th Mar 2013 10:20 in reply to "RE: Big picture..."
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24


VP8 is and has been inferior to H.264 in every single way. Performance, power savings, adoption, you name it.

Adoption, obviously given how long h264 has been around. Power savings, I have not seen any comparison between hardware based h264 and vp8, do you have any links? Performance, depends on what you mean by 'performance', decoding/encoding speed? visual quality (here h264 is better due to excellent mature encoders like x264 but certainly not by a wide margin) ?

And it's certainly not inferior in cost.

Good thing VP9 is "open". Look at the endless amount of information on it and the wide spread adoption. Oh no wait, thats H.265 !

Yes it's open, here is the git repository where you can follow the actual development in real-time, modify/build it yourself and use it, send patches, examine the code.

http://git.chromium.org/gitweb/?p=webm/libvpx.git;a=summary

The vp9 spec is not yet finalized but there are design documentation and progress reports:

http://downloads.webmproject.org/ngov2012/pdf/04-ngov-project-updat...

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-videocodec-4.pd...

http://downloads.webmproject.org/ngov2012/pdf/02-ngov-product-requi...

What part of your definition of open does this fail to qualify for?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Big picture...
by moondevil on Tue 26th Mar 2013 12:12 in reply to "RE[2]: Big picture..."
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

What part of your definition of open does this fail to qualify for?


Free from patents.

Until there is a world wide change to patent law, open source software will no longer hold to the dream it once had if the developers can get sued at any given moment.

This is an advantage of commercial software over open source.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Big picture...
by Kochise on Tue 26th Mar 2013 10:30 in reply to "RE: Big picture..."
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Perhaps because H265 patented obvious themes for consumption, performance and since it's an evolution of H264, doesn't require to change everything for an implementer POV ? Perhaps also the mpegla 'mafia' that 'force' industrials that have some parts into the play to get cut-off of royalties back ?

Hard to say, because obviously everything is made to hold technical progress and freedom with proprietary racket. If it was at least free, but not !

Kochise

Edited 2013-03-26 10:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Big picture...
by Radio on Tue 26th Mar 2013 10:35 in reply to "RE: Big picture..."
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

So, h.265, a codec developed and owned by major companies who are willing to earn royalties from it and lock competition out, is likely to become widespread? What a surprise!

And how lucky we are, us, end-users! Corporations know what is best for us! Let us prosternate in deference! Please milk me.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Big picture...
by lemur2 on Tue 26th Mar 2013 10:56 in reply to "RE: Big picture..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

here's a bigger picture for you.

VP8 is and has been inferior to H.264 in every single way. Performance, power savings, adoption, you name it.


VP8 is not inferior in performance to h.264 except for just one factor: encoding speed. In every other respect VP8 can match or exceed h.264 performance.

VP8 is actually less computationally expensive to decode than h.264. This is because VP8 puts much of the "hard work" into the encoder process rather than the decoder.

If by "power savings", you actually meant a hardware decoder versus a software one, be advised that VP8 is a part of the Android Multimedia Supported Formats:

http://developer.android.com/guide/appendix/media-formats.html

Here is a list of ARM SoCs (which are used in mobile phones and tablets) from different manufacturers showing which support VP8 and which do not:

http://wiki.webmproject.org/hardware/arm-socs

Unless you buy Apple gear then your (recent) mobile device is more likely than not to support VP8 decode in hardware. VP8 is getting quite prevalent in terms of adoption, just about every current Android device on the market would support VP8 decode in hardware.

Since VP8 is easier to decode than h.264, and since it now has hardware decoding in mobile SoCs, then VP8 is actually likely to out-perform h.264 in terms of power savings.

Good thing VP9 is "open". Look at the endless amount of information on it and the wide spread adoption. Oh no wait, thats H.265 !


"Open" means royalty-free, anyone may implement it. That is most certainly VP9 and not h.265.

Here is an alpha-version implementation of VP9 you may wish to investigate:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57561111-93/googles-new-vp9-video-...

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Big picture...
by saynte on Tue 26th Mar 2013 12:26 in reply to "RE[2]: Big picture..."
saynte Member since:
2007-12-10

[quote]
VP8 is not inferior in performance to h.264 except for just one factor: encoding speed. In every other respect VP8 can match or exceed h.264 performance.
[/quote]

What? Didn't you claim this months ago and couldn't provide any evidence for it?

http://www.osnews.com/thread?542644

The conclusion from most comparisons is that x264 outperforms VP8 encoders in quality/bit. So VP8 is inferior in two ways: encoding speed and quality. Maybe the quality is acceptable, but it's still inferior to what a good H.264 encoder can provide.

I'd be happy to see some direct comparison that shows otherwise, but until then maybe you can stop repeating this unfounded claim?

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[3]: Big picture...
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Mar 2013 13:29 in reply to "RE[2]: Big picture..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

VP8 is not inferior in performance to h.264 except for just one factor: encoding speed. In every other respect VP8 can match or exceed h.264 performance.


This is rubbish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VP8

In a comparison done in May 2011, the libvpx encoder was found to be slow compared to common H.264 encoders and used up to 213% more data for the same quality video, when used in videoconferencing applications.


over twice as much data! So obviously it is not as good.

Edited 2013-03-26 13:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Big picture...
by ndrw on Wed 27th Mar 2013 00:01 in reply to "RE[2]: Big picture..."
ndrw Member since:
2009-06-30

VP8 is not inferior in performance to h.264 except for just one factor: encoding speed. In every other respect VP8 can match or exceed h.264 performance.


Encoder also happens to a part of the system that is exposed to patent issues. Luckily, it's also a part that is the most flexible in dealing with them - all known issues can be worked around (at worst encoder will be slower) and, even if you inadvertently trip on a patent, you can still control the damage by simply updating the code.

OTOH, it is really difficult to infringe on patents in a specification of the data format, unless the specification mandates such infringement. Some do, but it does not happen by accident - you have to force conforming implementations to use specific patented techniques.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Big picture...
by zima on Mon 1st Apr 2013 22:25 in reply to "RE[2]: Big picture..."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Here is a list of ARM SoCs (which are used in mobile phones and tablets) from different manufacturers showing which support VP8 and which do not:

http://wiki.webmproject.org/hardware/arm-socs

Unless you buy Apple gear then your (recent) mobile device is more likely than not to support VP8 decode in hardware. VP8 is getting quite prevalent in terms of adoption, just about every current Android device on the market would support VP8 decode in hardware.

You purposefully misrepresent the situation. Qualcomm SoCs don't support VP8 in hw - and Qualcomm is the gorilla in the room, in great many Android handsets.

Edited 2013-04-01 22:32 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2