3 ms·

I'm sure they are committed to H264. But this is a case of providing a good alternative that's cheaper for all. This move supports their acquisition of On2, pr

by acg 17y ago

I'm sure they are committed to H264. But this is a case of providing a good alternative that's cheaper for all. This move supports their acquisition of On2, presumably technology developed for the theora codec would be useful in later On2 codecs. I say it's appears to be the future as there is less to pay in terms of patents. Making is cheaper to produce a device that uses the network services that google provides. Giving google more traffic for it's video service. As more are able to afford network devices and more software clients can be written. It perhaps helps Chrome OS too if it's on a tablet?

yuvi 17y ago
Chrome uses FFmpeg, which already has a good amount of ARM optimizations and is around 10% faster than Theorarm on my Cortex-A8. Maybe it's in the same vein as summer of code?
- acg 17y ago
  http://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html http://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html Q: Is it perfectly alright to incorporate the whole FFmpeg core into my own commercial product? A: You might have a problem here. There have been cases where companies have used FFmpeg in their products. These companies found out that once you start trying to make money from patented technologies, the owners of the patents will come after their licensing fees. Notably, MPEG LA is vigilant and diligent about collecting for MPEG-related technologies.
  - yuvi 17y ago
    You can disable compilation of MPEG codecs if it makes you feel safer. But I don't see what that has to do with my comment.
    - acg 17y ago
      Sorry I thought you were suggesting that ffmpeg means that products developed by Google are not subject to license fees. We were talking about the future landscape of video not what happens now: Google are investing in the future. E264 contains MPEG LA technology. Using ffmpeg for E264 would still mean that Google will pay fees/license the technology. I'm sure Google's action is to encourage a practical replacement for E264. Then, at least, there is grounds to negotiate better licensing terms.

by acg 17y ago

yuvi 17y ago

Chrome uses FFmpeg, which already has a good amount of ARM optimizations and is around 10% faster than Theorarm on my Cortex-A8. Maybe it's in the same vein as summer of code?

acg 17y ago
http://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html http://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html Q: Is it perfectly alright to incorporate the whole FFmpeg core into my own commercial product? A: You might have a problem here. There have been cases where companies have used FFmpeg in their products. These companies found out that once you start trying to make money from patented technologies, the owners of the patents will come after their licensing fees. Notably, MPEG LA is vigilant and diligent about collecting for MPEG-related technologies.
- yuvi 17y ago
  You can disable compilation of MPEG codecs if it makes you feel safer. But I don't see what that has to do with my comment.
  - acg 17y ago
    Sorry I thought you were suggesting that ffmpeg means that products developed by Google are not subject to license fees. We were talking about the future landscape of video not what happens now: Google are investing in the future. E264 contains MPEG LA technology. Using ffmpeg for E264 would still mean that Google will pay fees/license the technology. I'm sure Google's action is to encourage a practical replacement for E264. Then, at least, there is grounds to negotiate better licensing terms.