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

Microsoft backs H.264.

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–95 of 95 posts

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#91

Post by kenjackson »

haberman wrote: post #90
kenjackson wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could ask the same question of MPEG-LA: they don't indemnify their customers either. But Microsoft does. Why doesn't Google?

I wasn't aware that they did -- interesting. But actually that only covers "any Microsoft software licensed for a fee for your end use." [0] Since Google does not charge end-users for any of its software that it distributes, you could argue that Google's indemnification program is just as extensive as Microsoft's. [0] http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/D/0/9D0A6265-A509-4...

Really? That's your argument? If that's your argument an equally valid one is you get what you pay for. ;-)

As a consumer you stick with WebM and all that the royalty freeness buys you. I'll stick with H264 knowing that MS has already paid the royalty, the patent pool has virtually every player in the game, and MS indemnifies me as an end user. We'll call it a day.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#92

Post by haberman »

kenjackson wrote: post #91
haberman wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't aware that they did -- interesting. But actually that only covers "any Microsoft software licensed for a fee for your end use." [0] Since Google does not charge end-users for any of its software that it distributes, you could argue that Google's indemnification program is just as extensive as Microsoft's. [0] http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/D/0/9D0A6265-A509-4...

Really? That's your argument? If that's your argument an equally valid one is you get what you pay for. ;-) As a consumer you stick with WebM and all that the royalty freeness buys you. I'll stick with H264 knowing that MS has already paid the royalty, the patent pool has virtually every player in the game, and MS indemnifies me as an end user. We'll call it a day.

Sounds fine if all you want to do is go home, watch TV, and surf the Internet. But if that's what you're doing, you're probably not going to get sued anyway.

This is a community of entrepreneurs. What's at stake here is the next YouTube. If you're just a fledgling startup that shows videos online, can you afford a sudden surge in popularity, or will it bankrupt you in patent royalties? Can you estimate your future costs in royalties, or is it subject to change when MPEG-LA thinks it can get some more money from you? If you want to use video in some disruptive new medium, what will MPEG-LA decide to charge for that once they see its promise? Or will they refuse to license the patents at all for this purpose, in favor of giving MPEG-LA members exclusive dibs on this new medium?

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#93

Post by recoiledsnake »

haberman wrote: post #92
kenjackson wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? That's your argument? If that's your argument an equally valid one is you get what you pay for. ;-) As a consumer you stick with WebM and all that the royalty freeness buys you. I'll stick with H264 knowing that MS has already paid the royalty, the patent pool has virtually every player in the game, and MS indemnifies me as an end user. We'll call it a day.

Sounds fine if all you want to do is go home, watch TV, and surf the Internet. But if that's what you're doing, you're probably not going to get sued anyway. This is a community of entrepreneurs. What's at stake here is the next YouTube. If you're just a fledgling startup that shows videos online, can you afford a sudden surge in popularity, or will it bankrupt you in patent royalties? Can you estimate your future co…

I think the MPEG-LA's terms are pretty good for the next Youtube. First free web video is free. If you charge your customers, for the first 100K subscribers, it's free.

100,001 - 250,000 subscribers/year = $25,000; 250,001 - 500,000 subscribers/year = $50,000; 500,001 - 1,000,000 subscribers/year = $75,000; and more than 1,000,000 subscribers/year = $100,000.

That's about 10 to 25 cents per paying customer PER YEAR with first 100K subscribers free. And there are limits and caps on the increases.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#94

Post by beej71 »

anonymous246 wrote: post #77
beej71 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't afford to make a popular browser, though. Sure I can fork one in a second, but if people started using it a lot, I'd be screwed. Only make a popular browser if you're rich enough to support H.264, I think is the lesson.

Both commonly used OS's (Windows and Mac) have OS-level services to play H.264. No need for browser to license anything. In this instance, Mozilla has gone out of it's way to not use the OS-level facility, forcing Microsoft to write a plugin to make that happen.

Well, FWIW, I disagree with Firefox not using it if its free to use.

However, I still totally object to H.264 being a requirement in the spec.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#95

Post by CrystalCox »

haberman wrote: post #51
kenjackson wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say you know the H264 devil a little better. Why? Because its spec and patents have been extremely well documented for a decade (or so), commented on, and implemented (there are at least 10 implementations I know of). Whereas WebM's details first came to light less than a year ago. You're right that it is possible that either still violate some patent out in the wild. BUT if you were to weigh the odds -- a nearly…

What I'd "call even money on" is that patent holders who are looking for a piece of the video decoding royalty pie would have jumped on the MPEG-LA gravy train already. I also would bet that Google's legal team knows what they're doing.

Are you Kidding, Court Corruption STOPS the Real Inventors of the MPEG LA video Decoding - iViewit Technology invented it and has no rights.. DeniedPatent.com
Post reply on HN