4 ms·

Dropping Flash for video playback would be nice, yes. But making the shift from plugin-based playback to HTML5 video is an opportunity. And it's really the onl

by jbri 16y ago

Dropping Flash for video playback would be nice, yes. But making the shift from plugin-based playback to HTML5 video is an opportunity. And it's really the only chance that the web as a whole is going to get - if Flash video dies and H.264 through <video> becomes the dominant format, then the web is going to be stuck with that, and the MPEG-LA will rake it in from anyone who wants to make a product that involves web video. That is a terrible position to be in. The best option is to make a clean break here and now, and leave patent-encumbered video codecs behind at the same time as Flash for video playback is left behind. Playing through a Flash container is fine for legacy videos, and long-term there's no real downside to pushing unencumbered formats for HTML5.

kenjackson 16y ago
While free is generally better than not free, the cost of licensing from MPEG-LA is relatively cheap. Terms may have changed last I looked, but it's something like twenty five cents per paid subscriber per year, the first 50,000 subscribers are free with a $1M cap. The same goes for sold encoders/decoders. So companies like Google, Adobe, and Microsoft have to pay $1M per year at most. A smaller site that charges, like PluralSight, probably pays $0. This really isn't about money. It's about control.
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  Last time I checked it was capped at roughly $5million per year and had been increasing by 10% (the maximum allowed) per year, every year since the licensing began (though in two-year steps, i.e. just over 20% each two years). I have seen multiple people claim that it's only allowed to go up by 10% every five years. You obviously are claiming a different scheme again. Just the fact that there's so much confusion about price is in itself a mark against this method of creating (so-called) RAND standards.
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    You're right. The fee apparently goes up starting this year to $6.5M. Here's a link that talks about it: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/h264-patents-how-much-do-they-really-cost/2122 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/h264-patents-how-much-do-they...

by jbri 16y ago

kenjackson 16y ago

While free is generally better than not free, the cost of licensing from MPEG-LA is relatively cheap. Terms may have changed last I looked, but it's something like twenty five cents per paid subscriber per year, the first 50,000 subscribers are free with a $1M cap. The same goes for sold encoders/decoders. So companies like Google, Adobe, and Microsoft have to pay $1M per year at most. A smaller site that charges, like PluralSight, probably pays $0. This really isn't about money. It's about control.

ZeroGravitas 16y ago
Last time I checked it was capped at roughly $5million per year and had been increasing by 10% (the maximum allowed) per year, every year since the licensing began (though in two-year steps, i.e. just over 20% each two years). I have seen multiple people claim that it's only allowed to go up by 10% every five years. You obviously are claiming a different scheme again. Just the fact that there's so much confusion about price is in itself a mark against this method of creating (so-called) RAND standards.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  You're right. The fee apparently goes up starting this year to $6.5M. Here's a link that talks about it: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/h264-patents-how-much-do-they-really-cost/2122 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/h264-patents-how-much-do-they...