3 ms·

In no way better? Isn't VP9 free, whereas H.264 requires patent licenses?

• niftich 10y ago
  Not for H.264 made available at no cost on the public Internet [1]: "Internet Broadcast AVC Video (not title-by-title, not subscription) - no royalty for life of the AVC Patent Portfolio License" For any other uses (like Netflix, Youtube RED, and other subscription, pay-per-view and similarly commercial uses), once a company exceeds the yearly cap in license payments, they need not pay more. In 2016 the cap is $8.125 million, from 2017 to 2020 the cap is $9.75 million. [1] http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Documents/avcweb.pdf http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Documents/avcweb.pdf
  • ensignavenger 10y ago
    But that is still not "in no way better."
  • clouddrover 10y ago
    > Not for H.264 made available at no cost on the public Internet [1]: That's only the content license. You still have to pay for the encoder and the decoder. > from 2017 to 2020 the cap is $9.75 million. So using VP9 saves them $9.75 million per year in licensing fees alone, never mind the bandwidth cost savings from better compression. That's a strong financial incentive to switch to VP9 today and AV1 later when it's ready.