Originally posted by smitty3268
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
What's Cooking For Mesa & X.Org This Summer?
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by deanjo View PostHardly, the first intial release of VP8 was 2010-05-19, h264 standard dates back to 2003.
For that matter, VP8 didn't bring very much that wasn't already present in VP7 before that. VP8 was mostly a simplification/optimization update to that codec.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View PostXvMC (MPEG2) for r600g is basically already done (Michael K?nig), right?
I would say that it is exactly the right time to look at expanding this to more complex codecs and more modern APIs.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by deanjo View PostTrue however h264 has been around for a long time now with nobody challenging their ip.
Given that VP8 and h264 are so similar in many ways, wouldn't it make sense that any submarine patents against one would likely hold against the other as well? Then the only difference is that prices for h264 and VP8 would both go up, but going from free -> charging something would be much worse that a slight price increase for h264.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by XorEaxEax View PostWell, MPEGLA doesn't offer any protection to any of their licencees (as in those actually paying money to use the technology) so it's not as if you'd expect that Google would do this when they aren't even charging anyone anything to use their tech.
MPEGLA's attempt at an attack on VP8 is nothing but a continuation of them trying to corner the video codec market, and VP8 is particularly dangerous to them since it's free and aimed at the web, which is something even all MPEGLA members have realised is where the future lie.
I'd say that this desperate move of trying to borrow patents from someone else in regards to VP8 shows how well Google actually examined the patent situation before they released VP8, since MPEGLA already has tons of video codec related patents under their umbrella and still they are pleading for outside help.
Leave a comment:
-
Well, MPEGLA doesn't offer any protection to any of their licencees (as in those actually paying money to use the technology) so it's not as if you'd expect that Google would do this when they aren't even charging anyone anything to use their tech.
MPEGLA's attempt at an attack on VP8 is nothing but a continuation of them trying to corner the video codec market, and VP8 is particularly dangerous to them since it's free and aimed at the web, which is something even all MPEGLA members have realised is where the future lie.
I'd say that this desperate move of trying to borrow patents from someone else in regards to VP8 shows how well Google actually examined the patent situation before they released VP8, since MPEGLA already has tons of video codec related patents under their umbrella and still they are pleading for outside help.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by XorEaxEax View PostWhat MPEGLA challenge? You mean MPEGLA pleading that anyone with patents in regards to VP8 would contact them?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by deanjo View PostYa, there is that as well. I also think there is a bit of hesitation of committing too much to VP8 until this MPEGLA challenge is settled.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by XorEaxEax View PostThat, and that Google themselves already have a handpicked team working full time on VP8, it's hardly a project in need of coders. And given that VP8, despite being fully open and royalty free, is not really a 'community project', I'd say there are much better summer of code targets out there.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: