Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

VP8 vs H.264 – Which One is Better?

gist.github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 61 posts

Re: VP8 vs H.264 – Which One is Better?

#51

Post by protomyth »

shmerl wrote: post #49
protomyth wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Motorola released their GSM required patents under FRAND licensing. Google buys Motorola and tries to use those same patents in a fight with Apple and Motorola (dragging Qualcomm in with them). Google has to agree with the FTC not to do that. Why would Apple or Microsoft believe Google's patent and royalty free license given their behavior with Motorola's prior promises?

Apple and MS just don't like open codecs, period. That's the whole reason they sabotage them. It's not about belief - it's about the struggle between closed and open.

Apple and MS don't like legal uncertainty and additional risks in choosing technologies. Open never entered into it. People also forget some of the problem both companies had with MPEG-LA.

Re: VP8 vs H.264 – Which One is Better?

#52

Post by shmerl »

protomyth wrote: post #50
shmerl wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true, and Google explicitly granted their free usage, thus the codec is open in all senses of the word. I'd expect the same story with VP9. So what's your point? http://www.webmproject.org/license/bitstream/ http://www.webmproject.org/license/software/ http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/

Google went back on what Motorola had already pledged when they bought them. What assurance does anyone have that Google won't do the same again?

Motorola was bought from beginning to use as a leverage tool against patent trolls like Apple and MS. What did you expect? VPx is intended to be open from beginning by Google.

Re: VP8 vs H.264 – Which One is Better?

#53

Post by shmerl »

protomyth wrote: post #51
shmerl wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple and MS just don't like open codecs, period. That's the whole reason they sabotage them. It's not about belief - it's about the struggle between closed and open.

Apple and MS don't like legal uncertainty and additional risks in choosing technologies. Open never entered into it. People also forget some of the problem both companies had with MPEG-LA.

That's bunk. H.264 has as much legal uncertainty as VP8. This didn't stop them from using it. Naturally they just have allergy on open codecs.

Re: VP8 vs H.264 – Which One is Better?

#54

Post by protomyth »

shmerl wrote: post #52
protomyth wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google went back on what Motorola had already pledged when they bought them. What assurance does anyone have that Google won't do the same again?

Motorola was bought from beginning to use as a leverage tool against patent trolls like Apple and MS. What did you expect? VPx is intended to be open from beginning by Google.

Basically, I expect patents licensed a certain way for an important standard to stay licensed that way.

Your post, makes my point. Why would Apple and MS expect Google not to do it again?

Re: VP8 vs H.264 – Which One is Better?

#55

Post by protomyth »

shmerl wrote: post #53
protomyth wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple and MS don't like legal uncertainty and additional risks in choosing technologies. Open never entered into it. People also forget some of the problem both companies had with MPEG-LA.

That's bunk. H.264 has as much legal uncertainty as VP8. This didn't stop them from using it. Naturally they just have allergy on open codecs.

H.264 has a group of companies and a lot of lawyers backing it up. VP8 has Google's word. It is not bunk and has nothing to do with open codecs.

Re: VP8 vs H.264 – Which One is Better?

#56

Post by shmerl »

protomyth wrote: post #54
shmerl wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Motorola was bought from beginning to use as a leverage tool against patent trolls like Apple and MS. What did you expect? VPx is intended to be open from beginning by Google.

Basically, I expect patents licensed a certain way for an important standard to stay licensed that way. Your post, makes my point. Why would Apple and MS expect Google not to do it again?

You can never expect that, because you have no guarantee against unexpected patent trolling. Apple and MS are just looking for excuse to sabotage open codecs. But real threats come from themselves and unknown patent trolls.

Re: VP8 vs H.264 – Which One is Better?

#57

Post by shmerl »

protomyth wrote: post #55
shmerl wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's bunk. H.264 has as much legal uncertainty as VP8. This didn't stop them from using it. Naturally they just have allergy on open codecs.

H.264 has a group of companies and a lot of lawyers backing it up. VP8 has Google's word. It is not bunk and has nothing to do with open codecs.

> H.264 has a group of companies and a lot of lawyers backing it up.

How can it help against some patent troll who can appear tomorrow and threaten H.264 users? No army of lawyers can help against that. So all this rhetoric is completely useless. Legally VP8 is as good as H.264. The only reason for them to avoid is to retain their monopolistic grip on codecs usage.

Re: VP8 vs H.264 – Which One is Better?

#58

Post by protomyth »

shmerl wrote: post #56
protomyth wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically, I expect patents licensed a certain way for an important standard to stay licensed that way. Your post, makes my point. Why would Apple and MS expect Google not to do it again?

You can never expect that, because you have no guarantee against unexpected patent trolling. Apple and MS are just looking for excuse to sabotage open codecs. But real threats come from themselves and unknown patent trolls.

The FTC would seem to disagree with you as they believe patent commitments to standards are not changeable after the standard is adopted. Once again Apple and MS don't care if its open, they care about stability.

Re: VP8 vs H.264 – Which One is Better?

#59

Post by protomyth »

shmerl wrote: post #57
protomyth wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

H.264 has a group of companies and a lot of lawyers backing it up. VP8 has Google's word. It is not bunk and has nothing to do with open codecs.

> H.264 has a group of companies and a lot of lawyers backing it up. How can it help against some patent troll who can appear tomorrow and threaten H.264 users? No army of lawyers can help against that. So all this rhetoric is completely useless. Legally VP8 is as good as H.264. The only reason for them to avoid is to retain their monopolistic grip on codecs usage.

As opposed to handing a monopolistic grip to Google? A lot of money and a lot of lawyers can do a lot of vetting.

Re: VP8 vs H.264 – Which One is Better?

#60

Post by shmerl »

protomyth wrote: post #58
shmerl wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can never expect that, because you have no guarantee against unexpected patent trolling. Apple and MS are just looking for excuse to sabotage open codecs. But real threats come from themselves and unknown patent trolls.

The FTC would seem to disagree with you as they believe patent commitments to standards are not changeable after the standard is adopted. Once again Apple and MS don't care if its open, they care about stability.

FTC can't protect against patent trolling. Did you read what's written above?
Post reply on HN