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 556740
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Big picture...
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Mar 2013 18:15 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Big picture..."
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

Actually it proves then that VP8 is still a bit crap for video conferencing.

H264 is better, whatever way you shake it whether it is perceivable or not. Most of the web is already using it.

Edited 2013-03-26 18:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[8]: Big picture...
by galvanash on Tue 26th Mar 2013 19:34 in reply to "RE[7]: Big picture..."
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Actually it proves then that VP8 is still a bit crap for video conferencing.


All it proves is that Google, like everyone else that does video conferencing, is using h.263/h.264/SVC - because that is the industry standard for video conferencing... Not the "defacto" standard, the ITU standard... At least at this point in time.

H264 is better, whatever way you shake it whether it is perceivable or not. Most of the web is already using it.


But there is no standard for web video. And the reason there is no standard is because of h.264 patent holders killing it in committee. We would all be using Theora now as a baseline if that were not the case.

The fact that most of the web is using it doesn't do any good for people that need a royalty free codec. I personally could not care less about what everyone else is using - I care about what everyone can use - and not everyone can use h.264.

You can make all the arguments you want about how h.264 is better. I personally think Theora (as bad as it is) is better than h.264 - because I don't have to pay anyone to use it...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[9]: Big picture...
by lucas_maximus on Tue 26th Mar 2013 20:42 in reply to "RE[8]: Big picture..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I don't care about what everyone can use, because there is always someone that will only change from a rotary telephone because they have to.

You cannot support everyone well, you can only support the majority well.

Also Where is this royalty thing coming from?

There is no charge for streaming. Only for people that make an encoder or an decoder.

WHERE IS THIS ROYALTY FOR WEB CONTENT COMING FROM? There is no charge from the MPEG-LA for streaming broadcasts.

It keeps on being brought up but it isn't relevant to web content, which is what web standards relates to.

Edited 2013-03-26 20:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Big picture...
by zima on Fri 29th Mar 2013 16:44 in reply to "RE[7]: Big picture..."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Google Talk / Gmail uses even something somewhat better than your ordinary H264 (Vidyo is mentioned at one point during the installation of the Gmail video plugin)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vidyo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalable_Video_Coding

Edited 2013-03-29 16:50 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2