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 556688
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[11]: Here we go again
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 26th Mar 2013 14:30 UTC in reply to "RE[10]: Here we go again"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Anyway it requires you encoding the video 4 times.


Which raises the question why you oppose the adoption of VP8/9. If VP8/9 gets declared mandatory-to-implement (like Opus), Apple will have no choice but to implement it or become non-compliant with web standards. This would mean VP8/9 becomes a baseline - requiring only one, single encode.

Why do you oppose this?

Rome wasn't built in a day, and H.264 is not an option in any way, shape, or form because it's proprietary and thus incompatible with the open web. VP8/9 is the only viable option to solve this issue, whether you like it or not.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[12]: Here we go again
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Mar 2013 14:41 in reply to "RE[11]: Here we go again"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Which raises the question why you oppose the adoption of VP8/9. If VP8/9 gets declared mandatory-to-implement (like Opus), Apple will have no choice but to implement it or become non-compliant with web standards. This would mean VP8/9 becomes a baseline - requiring only one, single encode.

Why do you oppose this?


I don't.

I just don't think it matters as much as you do as there are two decent already existing solutions that work now. and have decent GPU acceleration support.

h265 will likely have this also.

Rome wasn't built in a day, and H.264 is not an option in any way, shape, or form because it's proprietary and thus incompatible with the open web. VP8/9 is the only viable option to solve this issue, whether you like it or not.


The open web what does it really mean?

If the majority of people can use flash or h264 to view video content, then surely that is open enough?

What kinda frustrates me is this idealistic notion that every single part of the net must be 100% free, it just isn't going to happen.

Who f--king cares if some large company has to give another large company a pile of cash ... it doesn't change actually viewing the content for the end user does it? Which is the whole point of using the internet.

Even the x264 developers on that git hub reckons that patent free codec won't happen in time so it won't matter.

At the end of the day the only approach you can take is the pragmatic one which at the moment is flash and h264.

Edited 2013-03-26 14:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[13]: Here we go again
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 26th Mar 2013 14:45 in reply to "RE[12]: Here we go again"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

If the majority of people can use flash or h264 to view video content, then surely that is open enough?


It isn't. The MPEG-LA has made it VERY clear they will NOT shy away from suing individuals if they violate the H.264 licenses. Considering anybody who makes money off an encoded video violates said license (since even professional cameras and software do not allow for commercial usage of H.264 content), this is far less unlikely than you think.

The web should not move from one crippling and shackling technology - Flash - to another - H.264. That's moving sideways, not forwards.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[13]: Here we go again
by Radio on Tue 26th Mar 2013 15:26 in reply to "RE[12]: Here we go again"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Who f--king cares if some large company has to give another large company a pile of cash ... it doesn't change actually viewing the content for the end user does it?

And you think only those companies exist and will exist? If I launch a video startup, should I cough up money too? And my website? And my app? Everybody just has to pay when it couldn't, when it shouldn't - which is exactly the principle that made the internet what it is: a very low cost, a very low barrier of entry to the basic tools of exchange and communication, enabling anybody and his dog to build contacts, a community, a business, a movement?

You haven't understood anything about the internet. You should pay 100 dollar for each new post you write, maybe you'll understand. We're entitled to it anyway, for the time, the storage space, the computational power you are wasting. Cough up the money or shut up?

Edited 2013-03-26 15:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[13]: Here we go again
by lemur2 on Wed 27th Mar 2013 05:27 in reply to "RE[12]: Here we go again"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Which raises the question why you oppose the adoption of VP8/9. If VP8/9 gets declared mandatory-to-implement (like Opus), Apple will have no choice but to implement it or become non-compliant with web standards. This would mean VP8/9 becomes a baseline - requiring only one, single encode.

Why do you oppose this?


I don't.

I just don't think it matters as much as you do as there are two decent already existing solutions that work now. and have decent GPU acceleration support.

h265 will likely have this also.
"

VP8 has fine GPU acceleration support where it is needed (ARM SoCs for mobile devices):

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

VP9 will likely have this also.

Reply Parent Score: 1