3 ms·

The alternative is worse(H.264)

kuschku 10y ago
H.264 is worse, but at least it's available with pretty straightforward license terms (just pay). VP.9's license might actually violate antitrust laws.
- themihai 10y ago
  VP9 is a open and royalty free video coding format. You are safe as long as you don't sue Google for VP9 patent infringements. It seems to target MPEG so that if they sue Google their license is revoked and Google can claim patents infringements as well. That being said I take VP9 anytime over h.264. It's not only about the payment to MPEG but your license can also be revoked or not granted in the first place. How f is that compared to VP9?
  - kuschku 10y ago
    Yes, but imagine you're a startup which has developed a bunch of awesome new algorithms, and patented them. And now you want to use them in combination with VP.9. As soon as you do, Google can use your algorithms and patents without ever paying you, and you can't sue them for it, or your product can't use VP.9 anymore. How fucked up is that? That's a huge cost there for startups that's always treated as "free" while in reality it can be selling out your entire product for a video codec.
    - themihai 10y ago
      Something tells me that you are wrong. Just because Edge is shipped with VP9 support that doesn't mean the MS grants all the windows patents to Google, right? Of course if you want to develop a VP9++ and patent it that could be an issue but I don't think that's necessary a bad thing for the codecs industry. Last thing I want is another proprietary codec to lock the content on specific players.
- vetinari 10y ago
  > H.264 is worse, but at least it's available with pretty straightforward license terms (just pay). That's pretty much discriminating against a wide range of software - namely Free and Open Source. VP9 on the other hand, is compatible with a such development model.
  - kuschku 10y ago
    Sure, yet VP9 is discriminating against about every startup with innovative patented algorithms that also wants to support VP.9 At the example of Pied Piper from SiliconValley: If they used VP.9 for video encoding before compressing and sending it, Google/hooli would now have the right to use their (potentially) patented algorithm for whatever they want, without ever getting sued. Now that's great, eh?
    - vetinari 10y ago
      The VPx cross-license does not work that way. You are granted patents to use VPx (you can not use these patents outside VPx scope) and you are granting patents necessary to use VPx[1]. If you have some other patents that are not necessary for the VPx, they are not subject of the cross-license. [1] - "that must necessarily be infringed by the act of Exploiting Licensed Products in the Licensed Field of Use"

H.264 is worse, but at least it's available with pretty straightforward license terms (just pay). VP.9's license might actually violate antitrust laws.

themihai 10y ago
VP9 is a open and royalty free video coding format. You are safe as long as you don't sue Google for VP9 patent infringements. It seems to target MPEG so that if they sue Google their license is revoked and Google can claim patents infringements as well. That being said I take VP9 anytime over h.264. It's not only about the payment to MPEG but your license can also be revoked or not granted in the first place. How f is that compared to VP9?
- kuschku 10y ago
  Yes, but imagine you're a startup which has developed a bunch of awesome new algorithms, and patented them. And now you want to use them in combination with VP.9. As soon as you do, Google can use your algorithms and patents without ever paying you, and you can't sue them for it, or your product can't use VP.9 anymore. How fucked up is that? That's a huge cost there for startups that's always treated as "free" while in reality it can be selling out your entire product for a video codec.
  - themihai 10y ago
    Something tells me that you are wrong. Just because Edge is shipped with VP9 support that doesn't mean the MS grants all the windows patents to Google, right? Of course if you want to develop a VP9++ and patent it that could be an issue but I don't think that's necessary a bad thing for the codecs industry. Last thing I want is another proprietary codec to lock the content on specific players.
vetinari 10y ago
> H.264 is worse, but at least it's available with pretty straightforward license terms (just pay). That's pretty much discriminating against a wide range of software - namely Free and Open Source. VP9 on the other hand, is compatible with a such development model.
- kuschku 10y ago
  Sure, yet VP9 is discriminating against about every startup with innovative patented algorithms that also wants to support VP.9 At the example of Pied Piper from SiliconValley: If they used VP.9 for video encoding before compressing and sending it, Google/hooli would now have the right to use their (potentially) patented algorithm for whatever they want, without ever getting sued. Now that's great, eh?
  - vetinari 10y ago
    The VPx cross-license does not work that way. You are granted patents to use VPx (you can not use these patents outside VPx scope) and you are granting patents necessary to use VPx[1]. If you have some other patents that are not necessary for the VPx, they are not subject of the cross-license. [1] - "that must necessarily be infringed by the act of Exploiting Licensed Products in the Licensed Field of Use"