Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 25th Mar 2013 21:09 UTC
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 556796
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-03-03
Member since:
2007-02-17
Kochise
Agreed. As you say, not only is it not that much of a quality difference (at quality levels as used on the web), but also one can match that quality per bit using VP8 by choosing a higher profile for VP8. There will be a penalty to pay in terms of encoding time, but as long as one is prepared to pay that encoding-time penalty, then with VP8 one can still achieve the same performance as h.264 in all other parameters (for the video quality levels that are commonly used over the web).