3 ms·

I wouldn't say it's the only reason. H264/5 are not royalty-free codecs. YouTube is a powerful tool Google can use to push a royalty-free codec, much like Apple

by untog 7y ago

I wouldn't say it's the only reason. H264/5 are not royalty-free codecs. YouTube is a powerful tool Google can use to push a royalty-free codec, much like Apple used the iPhone to push people off Flash. It's one of few areas I agree with Google being heavy handed.

stephenr 7y ago
What, over and above the H.264 licensing that covers them for 1080p content? It’s google doing what google always does: pushing a google controlled thing to become a “standard”.
- untog 7y ago
  It's an open source, royalty free codec. I'd much rather use that than one owned and licensed by a private organisation, no matter whether Google develops it or not.
  - stephenr 7y ago
    It’s still patent encumbered, and if you happen to sue Google, because they do something shitty, you lose your patent grant.
    - untog 7y ago
      How does that make H264 preferable?
      - stephenr 7y ago
        It's not operated by a company with a penchant for abusing its 800 pound gorilla status?