Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
The Alliance for Open Media would put an end to this problem [of patent licenses and royalties]. The group's first aim is to produce a video codec that's a meaningful improvement on HEVC. Many of the members already have their own work on next-generation codecs; Cisco has Thor, Mozilla has been working on Daala, and Google on VP9 and VP10. Daala and Thor are both also under consideration by the IETF's netvc working group, which is similarly trying to assemble a royalty-free video codec."
Posted Sep 1, 2015 18:56 UTC (Tue)
by leoc (guest, #39773)
[Link] (60 responses)
Posted Sep 1, 2015 19:04 UTC (Tue)
by davidstrauss (guest, #85867)
[Link]
Posted Sep 1, 2015 19:40 UTC (Tue)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link]
This is why they have consistently been the enemy of any attempt to standardize a royalty-free codec.
Posted Sep 1, 2015 20:05 UTC (Tue)
by tao (subscriber, #17563)
[Link] (21 responses)
Posted Sep 1, 2015 20:49 UTC (Tue)
by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
[Link] (15 responses)
Posted Sep 1, 2015 21:28 UTC (Tue)
by ssmith32 (subscriber, #72404)
[Link] (11 responses)
Posted Sep 2, 2015 12:18 UTC (Wed)
by waucka (guest, #63097)
[Link] (10 responses)
Posted Sep 2, 2015 16:16 UTC (Wed)
by Lennie (subscriber, #49641)
[Link] (8 responses)
Posted Sep 2, 2015 16:43 UTC (Wed)
by waucka (guest, #63097)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Sep 2, 2015 17:21 UTC (Wed)
by Lennie (subscriber, #49641)
[Link] (5 responses)
There were slides to back up this claim based on testing at some IETF RTCWEB WorkGroup meeting.
Not sure how easy it would be to find those.
Posted Sep 2, 2015 17:52 UTC (Wed)
by waucka (guest, #63097)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Sep 2, 2015 17:58 UTC (Wed)
by Lennie (subscriber, #49641)
[Link]
RTCWeb is the IETF WorkingGroup that creates protocols for WebRTC (real time peer2peer video, audio and data communication for the browser)
Posted Sep 8, 2015 3:43 UTC (Tue)
by yehuday (guest, #93707)
[Link]
video encode decode will always be HW based, especially with future standards adding complexity to improve compression
Posted Sep 2, 2015 18:39 UTC (Wed)
by magila (guest, #49627)
[Link] (1 responses)
In my experience running the CPUs at full speed on my Nexus 5 drains the battery around 2% per minute, a rate which would make streaming video a non-starter for most people. I'd need to see some hard evidence that SW decode is viable for 1080p streaming to convince me of it.
Posted Sep 4, 2015 9:42 UTC (Fri)
by epa (subscriber, #39769)
[Link]
Posted Sep 8, 2015 17:02 UTC (Tue)
by zlynx (guest, #2285)
[Link]
All that you need to disprove it is a buggy phone app that goes into a CPU loop while in your pocket. 30 minutes later you will have no battery charge and a very hot pocket.
CPU use is minimal BECAUSE applications are careful to NOT use overuse it.
Posted Sep 8, 2015 20:04 UTC (Tue)
by ssmith32 (subscriber, #72404)
[Link]
Posted Sep 1, 2015 21:41 UTC (Tue)
by iabervon (subscriber, #722)
[Link]
Posted Sep 1, 2015 22:06 UTC (Tue)
by bmur (guest, #52954)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Sep 2, 2015 15:21 UTC (Wed)
by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
[Link]
Posted Sep 1, 2015 20:52 UTC (Tue)
by leoc (guest, #39773)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Sep 2, 2015 8:26 UTC (Wed)
by jengelh (guest, #33263)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Sep 2, 2015 15:34 UTC (Wed)
by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
[Link]
Getting a hardware decode functional block added to the major SoC designs as soon as possible could make this a slam dunk, without that there is no way in the world any of this succeeds in moving the center of gravity away from MPEG-LA, especially since there are billions of devices out there right now that will still be there years from now that obviously will never have hardware decode for anything other than H.264, so that will have to be supported for a long long time.
Posted Oct 4, 2015 9:51 UTC (Sun)
by ghane (guest, #1805)
[Link] (1 responses)
Imagine if Google said only Chrome would see 1080 videos, Firefox, etc, would be limited. All for "technical codec" reasons.
Posted Oct 8, 2015 3:36 UTC (Thu)
by flussence (guest, #85566)
[Link]
That's been happening since Chromium 1.0 (albeit with less aggressive browser-sniffing). Their browser engine has been a testbed for all kinds of experiments Google wants to do in the name of network performance: SPDY/HTTP2, QUIC, bleeding-edge versions of libvpx, WebP support, etc.
Posted Sep 1, 2015 20:33 UTC (Tue)
by lamawithonel (subscriber, #86149)
[Link]
Posted Sep 1, 2015 21:16 UTC (Tue)
by b7j0c (guest, #27559)
[Link]
Posted Sep 1, 2015 21:49 UTC (Tue)
by pwfxq (subscriber, #84695)
[Link]
Posted Sep 1, 2015 23:23 UTC (Tue)
by roc (subscriber, #30627)
[Link] (31 responses)
Posted Sep 1, 2015 23:41 UTC (Tue)
by SEJeff (guest, #51588)
[Link] (27 responses)
Posted Sep 1, 2015 23:52 UTC (Tue)
by roc (subscriber, #30627)
[Link] (7 responses)
Really the only thing that can stop free codecs now is if the HEVC licensing landscape shifts dramatically and offers sane licensing terms. No sign of that happening yet.
Posted Sep 1, 2015 23:55 UTC (Tue)
by roc (subscriber, #30627)
[Link] (6 responses)
Still, if the rest of the industry avoids HEVC, being an HEVC patent licensor won't be worth much.
Posted Sep 2, 2015 0:52 UTC (Wed)
by jmspeex (subscriber, #51639)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Sep 2, 2015 2:58 UTC (Wed)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (4 responses)
Apple has _ALWAYS_ fought against royalty-free codecs. They fought against Vorbis. They fought against Theora. They fought against Vp8 and now they are fighting against it now.
So I don't know why exactly Apple is so motivated to strike down any attempt to 'free the internet', but they have been very consistent in this regard. Microsoft is a much friendlier company then Apple has been.
Posted Sep 2, 2015 5:45 UTC (Wed)
by pwfxq (subscriber, #84695)
[Link] (2 responses)
I don't know about Cisco, but I doubt they really care one way or the other. Oh I think Cisco *do* care. In the past few years they've bought Tandberg, Jabber & WebEx. All video based products which will have H.264 licensing costs. Then there's their video conferencing & video IP telephony endpoints too. If Cisco can save royalty payments, it would be bad business not to. Some of their newer kit supports royalty-free codecs. (Opus if memory serves) I get the impression they're going to want to push down the royalty-free codec route quite hard. Look what they've done with Linux. In the past, their Linux appliances used to use Redhat. Now they all use CentOS instead.
Posted Sep 2, 2015 8:56 UTC (Wed)
by luya (subscriber, #50741)
[Link]
Posted Sep 3, 2015 17:27 UTC (Thu)
by rahvin (guest, #16953)
[Link]
Posted Sep 2, 2015 12:35 UTC (Wed)
by nhasan (guest, #1699)
[Link]
Posted Sep 2, 2015 0:19 UTC (Wed)
by ldo (guest, #40946)
[Link] (18 responses)
This is why Apple is in the weird position of having to continue borrowing large amounts of money, even while it is supposedly so “profitable”.
Posted Sep 2, 2015 3:00 UTC (Wed)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (17 responses)
Consumer debt is a crippling thing, but business debt is not such a bad thing if you have good accountants.
Posted Sep 3, 2015 17:32 UTC (Thu)
by rahvin (guest, #16953)
[Link] (16 responses)
As you say this is contrary to what people are led to believe for personal finances so don't understand that business finances are a different game. But the reality is that debt used properly on the consumer side can be a good thing too. Margin investment, borrowing money to invest, is common.
It could also be argued that if you can borrow money on your house at 3% and invest that at 6% you'd be foolish not to load up your house with maximum debt and take that free 3%. Though there is a line of thought that risking your home on an investment is poor planning as your home is only one of a couple assets that are exempt in bankruptcy.
Posted Sep 3, 2015 21:18 UTC (Thu)
by spaetz (guest, #32870)
[Link] (8 responses)
Except that I have to pay ca. 50% income and other taxes on these 6% interest, making your offer unattractive.Interest payments on my mortgage on the other hand do not reduce my income,,ie cannot be deducted from my tax bill (different from firms) so that is not appealing either. In addition, this extra income will increase my income tax rate (yay progressive tax rates!!!) on my remaining income too, so I might be worse off after all. It would be nice if life were easy and things black and white :-) ...
Posted Sep 6, 2015 10:33 UTC (Sun)
by jospoortvliet (guest, #33164)
[Link] (7 responses)
If you have a tax system where making more money results in less income-after-taxes, that's a pretty bad situation. Even if it only happens in very rare circumstances... NL had that problem in the 80's and 90's, which is why they reformed the tax system so it pretty much never happens. Though, they piled up loads of new rules since then so I bet we're back to a situation where it is possible...
Posted Sep 7, 2015 9:39 UTC (Mon)
by NAR (subscriber, #1313)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Sep 7, 2015 12:32 UTC (Mon)
by nye (subscriber, #51576)
[Link] (1 responses)
wat
Posted Oct 4, 2015 9:55 UTC (Sun)
by ghane (guest, #1805)
[Link]
Posted Sep 13, 2015 8:00 UTC (Sun)
by jospoortvliet (guest, #33164)
[Link]
Seems a pretty good system to me: rewards working. As long as you have a good pension system, that is, so people who work will get a decent pension.
Posted Sep 7, 2015 20:38 UTC (Mon)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (2 responses)
We had this problem in Britain, too. I can't remember the details, but it was something like a 98% top rate of income tax - yes for every £100 gross, you got £2 net in your pocket. That applied to investment income. But investment income had a 15% surcharge on top, so for every £100 of investment income you paid £98 in income tax AND £15 in investment surcharge :-(
But, for the low paid (like me) THIS STILL HAPPENS :-( A lot of our benefits system is based on "for every pound you earn, you lose a pound of benefits". Crazy! and it gets worse - if you have two benefits, you can often lose a pound on each, so as a low paid worker you can lose several pounds benefit for every pound you earn. And other benefits are different, but just as bad - I had a "pay rise" 18 months ago or so - for an extra £75 pay, it took me over a "magic feature" so I lost the entire benefit - £60 - so for an extra day's work, I took home £15 :-( but a lot of benefits are like that - earn £1 under the magic limit and you get everything, £1 over and you lose the lot.
What I'd like to see is two "Catch all" figures - a "maximum marginal rate" where you can opt to pay that on ALL your income, and then that's it - no more income taxes. So the high income people have an upper limit they can opt in to. And, equally, at the bottom you have a similar rate you can opt into (set at the same figure as the high paid people?), and any income taxed like that is exempt from benefit calculations, so you can collect benefits and take home some of your earnings. And then the low paid can opt out when their income rises enough.
Cheers,
Posted Sep 13, 2015 8:05 UTC (Sun)
by jospoortvliet (guest, #33164)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Sep 13, 2015 18:43 UTC (Sun)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
Likewise, shared services should be a shared cost, waste disposal etc. The trouble with telling "people" (both corporate and real) to make their own arrangements is that many won't bother, so those who are honest end up paying the majority of a larger bill :-(
Get round the problem of rich people becoming corporations by doing what we Brits do already (not necessarily that well, though) and tax "benefits in kind".
And maybe tax expenses? It wouldn't go down too well, but if you make the company liable for tax on employees' expenses, maybe at one rate below the employee's top marginal rate, that won't impact the people at the bottom much but will impact on senior employees getting paid mostly through such claims.
Cheers,
Posted Sep 7, 2015 12:54 UTC (Mon)
by nye (subscriber, #51576)
[Link] (6 responses)
More to the point, it's usual to borrow money to buy a house, and very rarely do people claim that this is a bad thing - basically only when somebody has been suckered into buying something for more than its true value. For most of us, taking out a mortgage is the only viable long-term strategy.
The reason that personal finances generally appear different to commercial finances is that in practice very little personal expenditure is actually an investment by any useful definition - either because what you are buying is not an asset, or is one that depreciates very rapidly.
Posted Sep 7, 2015 18:09 UTC (Mon)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link]
Posted Sep 8, 2015 16:59 UTC (Tue)
by zlynx (guest, #2285)
[Link] (4 responses)
Quite a few people do claim it as a bad thing actually. Not that it is a bad thing for an individual, but for society.
What has happened is that instead of housing property being sold for its actual value, it is now being sold for what buyers can comfortably borrow. This resulted in a major shift in housing prices and a vast increase in real estate bubbles.
Posted Sep 9, 2015 10:19 UTC (Wed)
by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167)
[Link] (2 responses)
And the result is that we had to stop letting ordinary people borrow more than they could afford, even though it seems like just spelling it out would be enough the dream of "owning our own home" would drive people to do irrational things and we had to ban it in the UK.
We still have many thousands of people who've spent their working life "paying for the house" but were never actually paying for the house, just keeping the loan interest payments at bay, so when they stop paying they owe as much as ever. These deals were explained, they're pretty up front about what you're signing up to, and that you need to have a plan for how you'll actually pay the capital back, but because of this powerful desire to "own a home" people ignored the obvious problems and signed up.
In London the resulting bubble, and the relative physical security of the country has meant it no longer even matters if locals can afford a house, with or without a mortgage, the buyers are foreign, often crooks, looking to hide money in property. So the market no longer has anything whatever to do with who can afford to live there, or anything like that. If smuggling diamonds is paying better this year, or if there's a squeeze on corrupt government officials in South American oil producing states, the money flows into London, seizing up the housing market.
Posted Sep 9, 2015 17:14 UTC (Wed)
by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Sep 10, 2015 15:54 UTC (Thu)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
Since house prices never fell, betting on them going up forever was safe, right? Right?
Posted Sep 9, 2015 10:33 UTC (Wed)
by nye (subscriber, #51576)
[Link]
Fair enough, but I think that's a separate issue really because, as you say, it's not bad for the *individual*.
It's unfortunate that the game is one where all possible moves are bad, and the least bad option for a given individual is often the one that's worst for the group as a whole.
Posted Sep 2, 2015 15:17 UTC (Wed)
by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
[Link] (2 responses)
That's an extension of the status quo but I'm not sure how much pressure you think this puts on Apple since they are not paying for any of the bandwidth or storage used in this case, Google, Netflix pay on one end and the subscriber pays on the other, Apple is not involved anywhere. I'd be pretty hard to pin higher data usage charges on Apple in a way that changes customer behavior, especially as Apple targets more upmarket customers who may see higher costs as a badge of exclusivity.
Posted Sep 2, 2015 23:30 UTC (Wed)
by roc (subscriber, #30627)
[Link]
Posted Sep 4, 2015 3:18 UTC (Fri)
by ncm (guest, #165)
[Link]
Posted Sep 2, 2015 0:44 UTC (Wed)
by jmspeex (subscriber, #51639)
[Link]
Posted Sep 2, 2015 4:32 UTC (Wed)
by eru (subscriber, #2753)
[Link] (3 responses)
The linked-to-article notes previous free codec efforts have always been bogged down by patent claims crawling from the woodwork, and "We talked to Alliance representatives from Microsoft and Google about how they would avoid a recurrence of these issues in the future. They did not offer any concrete plans. " Given the way patents work, this cannot be avoided. Even claims that turn out to be wrong have to be investigated, slowing the development and adoption. Others have to be worked around. By the time they are done, their code might not be competitive with some new "H.266" developed in the usual way.
Posted Sep 2, 2015 5:23 UTC (Wed)
by roc (subscriber, #30627)
[Link] (2 responses)
And as a counter-point, consider Opus, where patent claims haven't really been a problem.
Posted Sep 2, 2015 8:51 UTC (Wed)
by moltonel (subscriber, #45207)
[Link] (1 responses)
Thor has hired an army of lawyers to scrutinize its technology and avoid non-owned patents.
VP9/10 is based on previous versions which have quite a decent patent record.
Of course nothing is completely failsafe in the patent world, but these codecs have a better than usual chance of being really Free.
Posted Sep 2, 2015 13:20 UTC (Wed)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link]
IP laws are a mess and they are heavily biased against people who don't have deep pockets and on-staff lawyers. The only people that really have a voice to change anything are larger corporations with ties with the Washington elite. Otherwise anybody advocating patent reform is otherwise persona non grata in the political arena and trying to turn it into a election issue is a exercise in futility.
So if these corporations see free codecs as a advantage and they are genuine in their interest to see this through then it's may turn out to be a very positive thing.
Posted Sep 2, 2015 14:09 UTC (Wed)
by branden (guest, #7029)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Sep 3, 2015 17:35 UTC (Thu)
by rahvin (guest, #16953)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Sep 7, 2015 20:57 UTC (Mon)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
I've said this before, but if a troll starts suing the little guys, the big guys should strike and sue for a "declaration of non-infringement". That'll kill a lot of the patents very quickly ...
And if the troll says "we think you might infringe these patents" (which is what I would hope would happen) they are smoked out for a campaign of invalidation :-)
Cheers,
Posted Sep 2, 2015 21:48 UTC (Wed)
by Seegras (guest, #20463)
[Link] (14 responses)
Posted Sep 3, 2015 8:42 UTC (Thu)
by cate (subscriber, #1359)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Sep 3, 2015 17:15 UTC (Thu)
by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106)
[Link]
If merely changing the encoding parameters to something slightly less optimal were enough to get around the patent, I don't think this would be nearly as much of a problem. The main issue is the monopoly granted on the math itself: the encoding _technique_, not the parameters.
Posted Sep 5, 2015 12:23 UTC (Sat)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
It only becomes "not maths" when you start using non-deterministic (ie ALL) hardware that is not guaranteed to produce the same result every time (and even then, you can MODEL the hardware, which IS MATHS, by using probability theory).
In other words, anything in the spec IS MATHS. Any programmatical implementation of the spec IS MATHS. Only when you add the instructions to the hardware does it cease to be maths, and telling a piece of general-purpose hardware to carry out the instructions it's designed to carry out does not a new patentable invention make.
In other words, this idea the American patent lawyers seem to have that sticking a CD into the CD drive of a PC makes a new invention, is a mockery of logic.
Cheers,
Posted Sep 8, 2015 16:51 UTC (Tue)
by zlynx (guest, #2285)
[Link] (10 responses)
Once someone implements detailed 3D printing, self-organizing or reprogrammable matter, where are patents then if math cannot be patented?
If the boundary on patents is "has an effect in the real world" well then algorithms for video codecs result in video playback via computer hardware which emits light which certainly does have a physical, real world effect.
Posted Sep 8, 2015 17:37 UTC (Tue)
by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106)
[Link]
It's the computer hardware which has the real-world effect, not the algorithm. The algorithm is just an abstract mathematical description of how the outputs relate to the inputs, it does not and cannot have any real-world effect on its own.
Posted Sep 8, 2015 19:21 UTC (Tue)
by tao (subscriber, #17563)
[Link]
Posted Sep 11, 2015 20:52 UTC (Fri)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (6 responses)
We're back to the old PREscribe/DEscribe dichotomy. Maths DEscribes reality, it does not PREscribe reality. As such, they are two very distinct beasts. This can be seen very clearly, in the difference between a mathematical proof and a scientific proof. If you can prove something correct, then it's maths. If you can only prove something wrong, it's science.
In other words, if you can prove something correct, then it's not reality because you have no way of knowing FOR 100% SURE CERTAIN, that reality is actually going to do what the maths tells you it should - and in fact, we know as a matter of absolute certain fact, that if you use maths to predict what is going to happen, you have to use probability theory which instantly says "you can't predict what is definitely going to happen, only what is likely to happen".
Cheers,
Posted Sep 12, 2015 20:13 UTC (Sat)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link] (2 responses)
Gödel proved that there exist correct statements that are unprovable in any given system (if the system is sufficiently complex). I don't think that makes those statements not-math, just not provable (from within the given system).
Posted Sep 12, 2015 20:22 UTC (Sat)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (1 responses)
As for Godel, I think that proof can be put simply as "arithmetic doesn't add up" :-)
The proof basically says, I think, that any self-aware logic is capable of making contradictory statements - that is an inevitable property of being self-aware. In other words, no logic system is capable of proving itself correct.
Cheers,
Posted Sep 12, 2015 20:47 UTC (Sat)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link]
Not quite. The first proof shows that if a system is powerful enough ("powerful" being basic arithmetic; Peano numbers are strong enough), it has theorems which are true, but not provable within the system. The second shows that if a system contains a statement about its own consistency, it is inconsistent (no sufficiently powerful system can prove itself consistent).
Basically, if you want *all* true statements within a system, you must also admit false statements. Or you can miss out on "some" true statements. Generally, the second is preferred.
Now a system can be proven by *another* system to be consistent, but it brings up an interesting thought that the proven system then would necessarily be not powerful enough to give a proof of its prover (since, I think, then the prover would be able to prove itself). So a system can never be proven consistent by a proven-consistent system (since you can can never "tie the knot" without the whole thing falling back to "inconsistent").
Posted Sep 14, 2015 16:57 UTC (Mon)
by zlynx (guest, #2285)
[Link] (2 responses)
This is exactly the change that the future is bringing. This is why I was arguing that patents need to cover math.
Because in the future, math WILL prescribe reality through 3D printing, self assembling matter and nanotechnology of other sorts.
I can send you a mathematical description of an object, and if you have the right hardware on your end, that description becomes reality.
Posted Sep 14, 2015 18:50 UTC (Mon)
by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106)
[Link]
Not that patents are a good idea in general, for math or anything else—as evidence, just go back and reread those two sentences to see how the pro-patent mindset has left you scrambling for a way to turn abundance back into scarcity—but it isn't necessary to grant patents on math to prevent the scenario you describe. If you have a patent on a device, that patent will apply to the output of a 3D printer just as much as it would apply to the same device manufactured any other way. In other words, the existence of 3D printing has no effect whatsoever on the patent system aside from ease of enforcement. The problem of enforcement is not addressed by expanding the definition of eligible subject matter.
Posted Sep 14, 2015 23:13 UTC (Mon)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link]
Patents aren't for specific objects. Patents – at least in reasonable places rather than the patent-crazy USA, where you could probably get a patent on blowing your nose if that was novel enough – are for specific technical processes to make objects.
Posted Sep 11, 2015 20:56 UTC (Fri)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
The problem with patenting maths, is that it is easy to show that such patents foreclose ALL solutions to the defined problem. This is unacceptable according to patent law and theory. The only way to patent maths is to define the problem.
And the whole point of patents is to protect *solutions* to said problem, but also leave the door wide open for others to provide *alternative* solutions to the *same* problem. If you've just patented the problem, you've just slammed, padlocked, and welded shut that door ...
Cheers,
Without Apple, this ain't going anywhere. Might as well link to that xkcd comic about standards...
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
decode/encode of HD videos very intensive on CPU.
from my experience you need at least 2 to 4 dedicated DSPs to do that in a relatively low power fashion and that's wasting a lot of precious silicon
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Regardless what comes of this effort, Google would never exclude iOS users from youtube.
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
According to this article on The Register, Apple & Cisco have agreed to co-operate. One possibility is that Apple will agree to support Cisco's codecs.
Apple/Cisco co-operation
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Cisco & Royalty Free Codecs
CentOS is part of Red Hat so it is a win-win situation. =)
Cisco & Royalty Free Codecs
Cisco & Royalty Free Codecs
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Re: Likely as long as they stay the most profitable company in the world...
Re: Likely as long as they stay the most profitable company in the world...
Re: Likely as long as they stay the most profitable company in the world...
Re: Likely as long as they stay the most profitable company in the world...
Re: Likely as long as they stay the most profitable company in the world...
Re: Likely as long as they stay the most profitable company in the world...
Re: Likely as long as they stay the most profitable company in the world...
Re: Likely as long as they stay the most profitable company in the world...
Re: Likely as long as they stay the most profitable company in the world...
Re: Likely as long as they stay the most profitable company in the world...
Wol
Re: Likely as long as they stay the most profitable company in the world...
Re: Likely as long as they stay the most profitable company in the world...
Wol
Re: Likely as long as they stay the most profitable company in the world...
Re: Likely as long as they stay the most profitable company in the world...
Re: Likely as long as they stay the most profitable company in the world...
Re: Likely as long as they stay the most profitable company in the world...
Re: Likely as long as they stay the most profitable company in the world...
Re: Likely as long as they stay the most profitable company in the world...
Re: Likely as long as they stay the most profitable company in the world...
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Wonder if even possible :-(
Wonder if even possible :-(
Wonder if even possible :-(
Wonder if even possible :-(
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, others, aim for royalty-free video codecs (Ars Technica)
Wol
No they don't
No they don't
No they don't
No they don't
Wol
No they don't
No they don't
No they don't
No they don't
Wol
No they don't
No they don't
Wol
No they don't
No they don't
No they don't
No they don't
No they don't
Wol