| |||||||||||||
Mozilla reconsiders H.264Mozilla reconsiders H.264Posted Mar 22, 2012 4:08 UTC (Thu) by AndreE (subscriber, #60148)Parent article: Mozilla reconsiders H.264
I would really like some information as to failings of WebM. It would nice to have some analysis. Is it seriously lacking with respect quality/utilization/power? Was MPEG-LA correct in asserting that it is also patent encumbered? Basically, why did Google back down?
(Log in to post comments)
Mozilla reconsiders H.264 Posted Mar 22, 2012 7:45 UTC (Thu) by alankila (subscriber, #47141) [Link]
WebM might have been bought and developed as a strategic weapon, to be deployed if necessary. Holding control of the codec used over one of the most important video sites on the Internet certainly gives you some leverage. Perhaps it was done merely to ensure that demands from the H.264 patent holders would be limited from above by the cost of performing full-on switch to WebM.
Mozilla reconsiders H.264 Posted Mar 22, 2012 10:15 UTC (Thu) by AndreE (subscriber, #60148) [Link]
If it was bought for that purpose, why the huge fanfare about it being patent and royalty free and about support open web standards? Why the promises re Chrome? Google buy plenty of technology for strategic purposes and to build up their patent portfolio and aren't shy about it.
It seems pretty clear that the initial plans have changed, and it would be nice to hear more from Google.
Mozilla reconsiders H.264 Posted Mar 22, 2012 9:03 UTC (Thu) by Seegras (subscriber, #20463) [Link]
They can assert what they wish; be it for WebM or for H.264. Unless a court decides it's valid, the whole point is moot. And since software patents are patents on math anyway, they are invalid everywhere, even in the USA. It's just the question of when the courts will realise this.
Mozilla reconsiders H.264 Posted Mar 22, 2012 10:04 UTC (Thu) by AndreE (subscriber, #60148) [Link]
I'm talking about the realities of the situation. Patents are being granted, licensed, and upheld right now as we speak. Let's not pretend they are irrelevant
Mozilla reconsiders H.264 Posted Mar 22, 2012 10:14 UTC (Thu) by AndreE (subscriber, #60148) [Link]
If it was bought for that purpose, why the huge fanfare about it being patent and royalty free and about support open web standards? Why the promises re Chrome? Google buy plenty of technology for strategic purposes and to build up their patent portfolio and aren't shy about it.
It seems pretty clear that the initial plans have changed, and it would be nice to hear more from Google.
Mozilla reconsiders H.264 Posted Mar 22, 2012 11:48 UTC (Thu) by slashdot (guest, #22014) [Link]
H.264 is technically the best codec overall, and has the best existing encoder overall (x264) and has the most hardware support.
That's fundamentally why people use it.
The ideal outcome is somehow neutralizing the patents, not replacing it with something else, since that's going to be worse.
|
|||||||||||||