Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Google & MPEG LA Reach VP8 Agreement

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
    It's too late - but then, it was already too late before VP8 was released. The catch is the recording devices - if I film something using my camera, it's in H264, not VP8. And I'm *not* going to spend time transcoding it, just for the sake of using a codec with a better license.
    True that is now, but now that MPEG-LA has backed off attacking VP8/9 at the moment there could well be incentive for video device makers to soon adopt vp8/9 as the standard as they'll avoid having to pay royalties per device produced to MPEG-LA for using h.264 encoding. This could be done by firmware updates in most devices.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
      It's too late - but then, it was already too late before VP8 was released. The catch is the recording devices - if I film something using my camera, it's in H264, not VP8. And I'm *not* going to spend time transcoding it, just for the sake of using a codec with a better license.
      Too late for what? To become the HTML5 standard video codec? The way you repeat this 'too late' like a mantra makes me think you are just reflecting you employer's (Apple) dislike for anything from Google.

      If vp8 is supported by every browser as part of HTML5, not to mention WebRTC, then it will be used by tons of online services as not only is it a standard, but also it is free of cost through royalties.

      Comment


      • #18
        Google settled rather than eat it hard in the courts from Apple, Microsoft, Panasonic, Sony, etc.

        H.265 will be the defacto moving foward, as well.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
          Too late for what? To become the HTML5 standard video codec? The way you repeat this 'too late' like a mantra makes me think you are just reflecting you employer's (Apple) dislike for anything from Google.

          If vp8 is supported by every browser as part of HTML5, not to mention WebRTC, then it will be used by tons of online services as not only is it a standard, but also it is free of cost through royalties.
          Work for Apple? Hardly... I'm just being realistic about this. I have a device that records video, and like most such devices, it does so in H264. Ergo, any video content I post online is going to be uploaded in H264.

          Nice as it would be to see a more open standard catch on, it's not going to happen.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
            Work for Apple? Hardly...
            LOL sorry, I mixed you up with Deanjo whom I was discussing with right before, in my defence your screen names aren't entirely dissimilar.

            As for your video statement, it doesn't matter which format you upload in, practically every online video site transcodes the video before they enable it for streaming, not only that but they also accept video in alot more formats than h264.

            If vp8 becomes the HTML5 standard video codec that means that any site serving video can use royalty free vp8 to stream video to any HTLM5 supported browser, again no matter what the original format was in.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
              That makes it a bit clearer, but... So MPEG LA wanted to find proof that VP8 was covered by software patents, but couldn't find enough, and now they officially gave up? It doesn't sound like a particularly important change...
              There is no significant change for individual users, but it affect many corporations who don't want pay for MPEG-4.
              The potential risk of being sued by MPEG LA will make many companies use MPEG-4 instead of WebM.

              Now we may see wider usage of WebM, and hoping Google will continue to improve its image quality (WebM is terrible for HD compared with x264 implementation).

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by xeekei View Post
                VP8 isn't as good as H.264 I'm afraid. We need VP9! But I guess they're waiting for WebM to be adopted everywhere.
                Not true anymore:

                http://pacoup.com/2012/12/20/vp8-web...december-2012/

                But yeah, besides WebRTC, this ship has already sailed. So VP9 better be at least as good as h.265, but they need to finish it this year, and have chips have support for it next year, otherwise it might be too late again to see widespread adoption of it.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                  LOL sorry, I mixed you up with Deanjo whom I was discussing with right before, in my defence your screen names aren't entirely dissimilar.
                  I haven't worked for Apple for 5 years now.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Krysto View Post
                    Not true anymore:

                    http://pacoup.com/2012/12/20/vp8-web...december-2012/

                    But yeah, besides WebRTC, this ship has already sailed. So VP9 better be at least as good as h.265, but they need to finish it this year, and have chips have support for it next year, otherwise it might be too late again to see widespread adoption of it.
                    The author has updated it and provided a better comparision:
                    https://gist.github.com/Hupotronic/4645784

                    Here are some words from its conclusion:
                    H.264 encoded with the latest x264 offers notably higher quality while encoding almost twice as fast as VP8 encoded with the latest libvpx offering. If you see a test claiming that VP8 is better than H.264 quality-wise, it is very likely that the comparison was done poorly, either by mistake or intentionally.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                      I haven't worked for Apple for 5 years now.
                      Then you need to e-mail me and update your status!

                      Seriously my apologies then.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Why do you guys read this announcement as "LA gave up, they couldn't find any patents"? It's pretty obvious to me that it's "Google finally caved in and paid us, so now we're BFFs for two versions".

                        Even if they had zero patents, it would be in their interest to continue to imply they do have some. Unless someone made a nice offer.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by curaga View Post
                          Why do you guys read this announcement as "LA gave up, they couldn't find any patents"? It's pretty obvious to me that it's "Google finally caved in and paid us, so now we're BFFs for two versions".
                          Exactly, if there wasn't any validity to MPEG-LA's claims then why settle? It's not like an extended court case would have drained googles bank account.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            To remove the looming threats of MPEG-LA's on manufacturers considering using VP8. They were using a common patent troll tactic - threaten with lawsuit if they don't pay up. Many of the small developers pay the trolls just to get rid of them, and that's exactly what Google did here. Not idealistic at all, and I don't like it, but it was a very efficient and pragmatic way to solve the problem, and get manufacturers and software vendors to support VP8 without any fear of lawsuits.

                            VP8 is also the standard codec for WebRTC. This looming threat of lawsuits could've also hurt the adoption of WebRTC, at least for a few more years until there would have been a lawsuit, and settled things once and for all - if ever.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                              Then you need to e-mail me and update your status!

                              Seriously my apologies then.
                              No problem. I know you guys like to harp on Apple but a bit of a history lesson here for you about me. I have worked for the "evil empires" and I have worked for the "underdogs". I have worked on projects under every major license there is, proprietary and open. To tell you the truth, licensing as a whole, turns my stomach no matter what license it is but I also respect the right of coder who absolutely, unequivocally have the right to determine how his code used. If he decides to lock it away from prying eyes, that is his right and his reasons for doing so are neither right nor wrong, just his decision. Too me, freedom of choice trumps all.

                              I don't dwell on idealismís but I do understand the necessities of what some see as evils. In an ideal world, I would not have to worry about feeding the family, I would not have to lock my vehicles and wish that I could make everyones world a happy place. Unfortunately, that only happens in fairy tales so I make the best I can with the resource available. I'm one of the oldest members of the SuSE/openSUSE crowd and proud of it. I love to reflect and see it's humble beginnings of a German oriented slackware fork to see it mature into it's own entity. I love the fact that it is a community directed distro now where the END USER is the primary concern. Canonicals hijinx as of late is something years in the making and foreseeable if you did not buy the whole "our upstream is debian" excuse. There are distro's that actually care about the entire ecosystem like Redhat and openSUSE but Shuttleworth has always, in my eyes, been an opportunist that hides in sheeps clothing. Canonical and him don't give a shit about the greater good of the entire ecosystem. I rate them with the likes of Oracle, lots of lip flapping and no action to improve things. At least with the likes of MS and Apple, they are relatively upfront where they are coming from. There are two sides to every coin, and I have worked both sides of that. I don't like how people immediately deem xyz is evil and zyx is good especially when they have no real practical experience in side a or side b. I have a unique perspective that is shared by only a few that have been privileged to see how everything actually works on either end of the spectrum and both have their merits in the real world.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Krysto View Post
                                To remove the looming threats of MPEG-LA's on manufacturers considering using VP8. They were using a common patent troll tactic - threaten with lawsuit if they don't pay up. Many of the small developers pay the trolls just to get rid of them, and that's exactly what Google did here. Not idealistic at all, and I don't like it, but it was a very efficient and pragmatic way to solve the problem, and get manufacturers and software vendors to support VP8 without any fear of lawsuits.
                                If google trully believed that WebM did not infringe then they would not have "settled" but offer indemnity to users. Google rattled the sword only to keep it sheathed and then offered a peacekeeping.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X