3 ms·

What do you _mean_ by "resolving"? You want adobe to buy H.264 and give it away for free? That's pretty much impossible. You can't just throw around the word "

by pavs 17y ago

What do you _mean_ by "resolving"? You want adobe to buy H.264 and give it away for free? That's pretty much impossible. You can't just throw around the word "resolve" things without understanding the complexity or nature of the possible solutions.

swombat 17y ago
I mean "do 'stuff' that makes the problem 'go away'". As a former management consultant, and now a start-up founder, believe me, I speak from experience when I say every problem of this kind is solvable if you want to do it badly enough.
- pavs 17y ago
  There is only "one stuff" they can do to make the problem go away (in your words "resolving licensing issues"), which is, they can buy H.264 and give it away for free (open source it), which is impossible without making themselves bankrupt. The other stuff that I can think of is that they can use Ogg Theora, which is hardly a solution, considering (IMO) it is an inferior codec.
  - swombat 17y ago
    "There is only one way to do X" = the way narrow-minded, uncreative people see the world.
  - lftl 17y ago
    they can buy H.264 and give it away for free (open source it), which is impossible without making themselves bankrupt. As the discussion around H.264/Theora etc has heated up I've started wondering about this. There are now at least 3 rather large players with relatively deep pockets that all have licensed h.264 for products they essentially give away. So what if Google, Apple, and Adobe all pooled together and purchased the patents for h.264 and licensed it for free (or possibly a free non-commercial license, and force any other big players using it to chip in). I wonder what the price tag on that would be.
    - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
      I can't believe this number is correct, but one of the Xiph guys claimed that the MPEG 2 patents (i.e. DVDs), which are all still in force and built on top of for MPEG-4 part2 and part 10 (i.e H.264) took in $67 dollars for every person on the planet in 2008. That's half a trillion dollars in a year, and that's not even counting revenue they get from MPEG-4 or the audio codecs.
- swombat 17y ago
  What's with the group downvotes, folks? I stopped responding to this guy because his points are worthless. I'd rather the space on this page was used up by intelligent discussion rather than needless debate over a concept that is obvious to anyone who actually does any kind of ambiguous, difficult work (e.g. running a start-up, being a consultant, and generally being anything more than an employee who takes orders). Please don't force me to waste space and energy arguing this stupid point.
  - george_morgan 17y ago
    It doesn't surprise me you were a management consultant. You're getting downvotes for repeating simplistic abstracts, without suggesting anything close to a reasonable course of action. "How do we fix this problem?" "Well, all problems can be fixed by fixing the problem." "Ok, so how do we do that?" "Simple, fix the problem." "Right."
    - swombat 17y ago
      Ultimately, every solution I propose will have issues. This is why I did not outline a specific solution. Because they're all stupid until one of them becomes the right one because of specific circumstances, people, etc. That is the nature of difficult problem-solving. If it was easy, people like you might be able to do it. Here are a few possible solutions, though, off the top of my head right now - I'm sure someone closer to the problem could find more, better potential solutions: 1) Release the player code without the codecs. 2) Obtain a special license from the people that own H.264 to be allowed to release the source code. 3) Get some kind of agreement that the owners of H.264 won't sue Adobe and release the source code. 4) Do so without getting the agreement - maybe they won't sue. 5) Transmit ownership of the code to a different legal entity and release the code via that entity. 6) Slowly migrate to a new codec that can be released (e.g. Ogg). 7) Release the code with Ogg support without the H.264 part. 8) Buy the code patent. 9) Start a public relations campaign to convince the owners to open up H.264 for everyone. 10) Start a public relations campaign to convince the courts to overturn H.264 (say, on grounds that it harms the public good). That's just off the top of my head. Yes, they all have problems, but they're all starting points - and there's no evidence that Adobe explored any of those or any others. If you can't think of twice as many potential solutions, your brain is effectively the size of a pea when it comes to creative problem-solving. And if "management-speak" language stops you from understanding a good point, you're a fucking retard. Downvote away.
- invisible 17y ago
  They could just wait 18 years - that's one feasible option. I'd suppose it wouldn't benefit them greatly though.

by pavs 17y ago

swombat 17y ago

I mean "do 'stuff' that makes the problem 'go away'". As a former management consultant, and now a start-up founder, believe me, I speak from experience when I say every problem of this kind is solvable if you want to do it badly enough.

pavs 17y ago
There is only "one stuff" they can do to make the problem go away (in your words "resolving licensing issues"), which is, they can buy H.264 and give it away for free (open source it), which is impossible without making themselves bankrupt. The other stuff that I can think of is that they can use Ogg Theora, which is hardly a solution, considering (IMO) it is an inferior codec.
- swombat 17y ago
  "There is only one way to do X" = the way narrow-minded, uncreative people see the world.
- lftl 17y ago
  they can buy H.264 and give it away for free (open source it), which is impossible without making themselves bankrupt. As the discussion around H.264/Theora etc has heated up I've started wondering about this. There are now at least 3 rather large players with relatively deep pockets that all have licensed h.264 for products they essentially give away. So what if Google, Apple, and Adobe all pooled together and purchased the patents for h.264 and licensed it for free (or possibly a free non-commercial license, and force any other big players using it to chip in). I wonder what the price tag on that would be.
  - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
    I can't believe this number is correct, but one of the Xiph guys claimed that the MPEG 2 patents (i.e. DVDs), which are all still in force and built on top of for MPEG-4 part2 and part 10 (i.e H.264) took in $67 dollars for every person on the planet in 2008. That's half a trillion dollars in a year, and that's not even counting revenue they get from MPEG-4 or the audio codecs.
swombat 17y ago
What's with the group downvotes, folks? I stopped responding to this guy because his points are worthless. I'd rather the space on this page was used up by intelligent discussion rather than needless debate over a concept that is obvious to anyone who actually does any kind of ambiguous, difficult work (e.g. running a start-up, being a consultant, and generally being anything more than an employee who takes orders). Please don't force me to waste space and energy arguing this stupid point.
- george_morgan 17y ago
  It doesn't surprise me you were a management consultant. You're getting downvotes for repeating simplistic abstracts, without suggesting anything close to a reasonable course of action. "How do we fix this problem?" "Well, all problems can be fixed by fixing the problem." "Ok, so how do we do that?" "Simple, fix the problem." "Right."
  - swombat 17y ago
    Ultimately, every solution I propose will have issues. This is why I did not outline a specific solution. Because they're all stupid until one of them becomes the right one because of specific circumstances, people, etc. That is the nature of difficult problem-solving. If it was easy, people like you might be able to do it. Here are a few possible solutions, though, off the top of my head right now - I'm sure someone closer to the problem could find more, better potential solutions: 1) Release the player code without the codecs. 2) Obtain a special license from the people that own H.264 to be allowed to release the source code. 3) Get some kind of agreement that the owners of H.264 won't sue Adobe and release the source code. 4) Do so without getting the agreement - maybe they won't sue. 5) Transmit ownership of the code to a different legal entity and release the code via that entity. 6) Slowly migrate to a new codec that can be released (e.g. Ogg). 7) Release the code with Ogg support without the H.264 part. 8) Buy the code patent. 9) Start a public relations campaign to convince the owners to open up H.264 for everyone. 10) Start a public relations campaign to convince the courts to overturn H.264 (say, on grounds that it harms the public good). That's just off the top of my head. Yes, they all have problems, but they're all starting points - and there's no evidence that Adobe explored any of those or any others. If you can't think of twice as many potential solutions, your brain is effectively the size of a pea when it comes to creative problem-solving. And if "management-speak" language stops you from understanding a good point, you're a fucking retard. Downvote away.
invisible 17y ago
They could just wait 18 years - that's one feasible option. I'd suppose it wouldn't benefit them greatly though.