11–20 of 111 posts
Luckily it's going to be W3C standard, and Apple and MS won't be able to use their lame excuses to avoid implementing it in their browsers, like they did for Vorbis, VP8 and etc.
Luckily it's going to be W3C standard, and Apple and MS won't be able to use their lame excuses to avoid implementing it in their browsers, like they did for Vorbis, VP8 and etc.
Microsoft actually helped with the development of Opus according to the article. :)
Luckily it's going to be W3C standard, and Apple and MS won't be able to use their lame excuses to avoid implementing it in their browsers, like they did for Vorbis, VP8 and etc.
Doesn't Apple's lame excuse of unknown patents apply to all technologies?
I went into the article thinking why isn't OGG good enough, and the xkcd joke about 15 different standards. I left pleased about this new standard (from an advert, any downsides?) but need some patent assurances. If Mozilla are happy will everyone be?
I went into the article thinking why isn't OGG good enough, and the xkcd joke about 15 different standards. I left pleased about this new standard (from an advert, any downsides?) but need some patent assurances. If Mozilla are happy will everyone be?
Unfortunately, according to Wikipedia, Skype holds software patents on parts of the algorithm. Even though they said they'd make them avaiable royalty-free, this still means it isn't completely free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't Apple's lame excuse of unknown patents apply to all technologies?
Potentially yes. But Microsoft and Apple not supporting VP8 & WebM probably has more to do with these companies being part of MPEG LA (a firm which sell licenses for H.264 related patents).
Those listening test results are impressive. I wonder how it performs at higher bitrates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't Apple's lame excuse of unknown patents apply to all technologies?
Potentially yes. But Microsoft and Apple not supporting VP8 & WebM probably has more to do with these companies being part of MPEG LA (a firm which sell licenses for H.264 related patents).
Microsoft(and probably Apple too) pays more than what it gets from the pool, so that doesn't make sense.
(2010) Some discussion about CELT / Opus from the author of x264: http://pbox.ca/16cbg
Just checking, CELT & Opus are the same thing? Seems like they're saying that Opus is a merge of CELT & SILK
SILK is a speech codec developed by Skype whereas CELT is a general purpose audio codec developed by Xiph.org. Opus can use either of them (to encode speech or e.g. music, respectively) or it can use both codecs simultaneously for high-quality speech.
I went into the article thinking why isn't OGG good enough, and the xkcd joke about 15 different standards. I left pleased about this new standard (from an advert, any downsides?) but need some patent assurances. If Mozilla are happy will everyone be?
Unfortunately, according to Wikipedia, Skype holds software patents on parts of the algorithm. Even though they said they'd make them avaiable royalty-free, this still means it isn't completely free.