4 ms·

"Google dropping this codec actually helps prevent h.264's monopoly." How about a Google monopoly? At least h.264 is owned by a number of different companies.

by redial 16y ago

"Google dropping this codec actually helps prevent h.264's monopoly." How about a Google monopoly? At least h.264 is owned by a number of different companies. Never mind that almost everyone agrees that it is the better codec.

Pewpewarrows 16y ago
You can't have a monopoly on a product like WebM that's now open sourced.
- recoiledsnake 16y ago
  In real life you easily can, because of incompatibilities with the existing software. Eg. Chrome and Android are technically open-source but their direction and development are completely governed by Google. If you make changes and are unable to convince Google to incorporate them, the video generated by your software will be incompatible with all the millions of WebM decoders out there.
  - zppx 16y ago
    I do not care about WebM or H.264 since I dislike both, my comment will concern the license and the situation. WebM have a Apache style license, you can grab the source, fork it and develop your codec, and you're not even obligated to open a repository including your changes, they can remain closed. Google will not stop you from doing so and guarantees that he will not sue you asking for royalties, since a license like the Apache license gives the use of the patent for free. The case of Android and Chrome is simple, Google employes the majority of developers in both projects, however Google does not employes the majority of Linux kernel developers an as a result much of the Android code isn't in the kernel.org code. Similarly the directions of Webkit is decided by the two main committers: Google and Apple.
    - recoiledsnake 16y ago
      I am talking about practicality or the chances of it happening. Anyone can do what they want, but if it's incompatible with the 800lb gorilla's offering, it's basically a moot point.
    - Locke1689 16y ago
      Actually, recoiledsnake's scenario has already happened. The VP8 "spec" isn't a spec at all, it's just copy pasted C code. Unfortunately, they also chose to reuse the same code for the encoder and the decoder. This means bugs in either one can propagate into both. There was already one of these bugs found, fixed, and had a patch applied to the source tree. Google came in and reverted that patch because too much video had already been encoded with the bug in the encoder. This is exactly what happened with IE6, where bugs in the product become de facto requirements on the web. Maybe the H264 spec drones on and on but at least it's a spec. The VP8 "spec" is just a mandate from Google. A shitty one, at that. I'll take the small risk of patent litigation among only the biggest players for an open specification and standard any day. Of course, there's also the fact that H264 is way better than VP8 which it seems like no one cares about.
      - true_religion 16y ago
        It was a 'bug fix' that caused a major regression. What would you have them do?
        Locke1689 16y ago
        Write a spec, not a "bitstream guide," so that this problem doesn't happen in the first place? Or at least admit that your spec is not finalized and is, in reality, a piece of crap that needs wide peer review first.
- redial 16y ago
  Like GCC or WebKit or Java? Being open source does not mean nobody owns it.
  - jarek 16y ago
    Who has a monopoly on Webkit?
spiffworks 16y ago
What does owning a video codec even mean if you make it royalty-free? Is there a concern that if webm becomes widely used Google will use its control of the code to harm competitors? In that case, you should know that the webm project is in fact run as a separate project from Google[1]. [1]http://www.webmproject.org/about/supporters/ http://www.webmproject.org/about/supporters/
haberman 16y ago
> How about a Google monopoly? At least h.264 is owned by a number of different companies. It's amazing to me. In the 90s Microsoft's overt policy was "embrace, extend, extinguish," and it called the GPL a "cancer," the MPAA was launching war against DeCSS, and Amazon.com was flexing its one-click patent against competitors. Open source developers had no powerful allies. Now you have a powerful company like Google that releases millions of lines of open source, sponsors college students to work on open source, fights for openness standards in wireless spectrum auctions, fights for open standards like HTML5, open sources its entire mobile operating system, and in its latest move, buys a video codec company for $106 million and promptly pledges all of the patents for use by anybody. And yet some people would prefer the codec whose rights are effectively owned by a known patent troll (MPEG-LA) because "at least [it] is owned by a number of different companies." It goes to show that you can never please everyone.
- Locke1689 16y ago
  I don't know what kind of fantasy world you live in where the only reason you could like H264 is because it's patented. I like H264 because VP8 is an inferior technology.
- recoiledsnake 16y ago
  Why doesn't Google release the source code of the flavor of Linux that it uses after earning tens of billions basically leveraging Linux code? Google open sources things that are not central to it's business, just like every other company out there. MPEG-LA cannot be a patent troll let alone a known one, because it's a loose organization of companies that agree on a standard to prevent fragmentation of video and let people deal with one entity instead of a thousand. Those individual companies could be trolls. >fights for open standards like HTML5 Really? Then this move to remove support for H.264 will get Flash even more entrenched because it would be the easiest way for content providers to get WebM video working on IE9 and Safari. Flash has already announced upcoming support for WebM.
  - irons 16y ago
    MPEG-LA cannot be a patent troll let alone a known one, because it's a loose organization of companies that agree on a standard to prevent fragmentation of video and let people deal with one entity instead of a thousand. Also, the licensing terms are fixed at a maximum 10% rise per five-year renewal. Given the lifespan of patents, that's a low ceiling.

by redial 16y ago

Pewpewarrows 16y ago

You can't have a monopoly on a product like WebM that's now open sourced.

recoiledsnake 16y ago
In real life you easily can, because of incompatibilities with the existing software. Eg. Chrome and Android are technically open-source but their direction and development are completely governed by Google. If you make changes and are unable to convince Google to incorporate them, the video generated by your software will be incompatible with all the millions of WebM decoders out there.
- zppx 16y ago
  I do not care about WebM or H.264 since I dislike both, my comment will concern the license and the situation. WebM have a Apache style license, you can grab the source, fork it and develop your codec, and you're not even obligated to open a repository including your changes, they can remain closed. Google will not stop you from doing so and guarantees that he will not sue you asking for royalties, since a license like the Apache license gives the use of the patent for free. The case of Android and Chrome is simple, Google employes the majority of developers in both projects, however Google does not employes the majority of Linux kernel developers an as a result much of the Android code isn't in the kernel.org code. Similarly the directions of Webkit is decided by the two main committers: Google and Apple.
  - recoiledsnake 16y ago
    I am talking about practicality or the chances of it happening. Anyone can do what they want, but if it's incompatible with the 800lb gorilla's offering, it's basically a moot point.
  - Locke1689 16y ago
    Actually, recoiledsnake's scenario has already happened. The VP8 "spec" isn't a spec at all, it's just copy pasted C code. Unfortunately, they also chose to reuse the same code for the encoder and the decoder. This means bugs in either one can propagate into both. There was already one of these bugs found, fixed, and had a patch applied to the source tree. Google came in and reverted that patch because too much video had already been encoded with the bug in the encoder. This is exactly what happened with IE6, where bugs in the product become de facto requirements on the web. Maybe the H264 spec drones on and on but at least it's a spec. The VP8 "spec" is just a mandate from Google. A shitty one, at that. I'll take the small risk of patent litigation among only the biggest players for an open specification and standard any day. Of course, there's also the fact that H264 is way better than VP8 which it seems like no one cares about.
    - true_religion 16y ago
      It was a 'bug fix' that caused a major regression. What would you have them do?
      - Locke1689 16y ago
        Write a spec, not a "bitstream guide," so that this problem doesn't happen in the first place? Or at least admit that your spec is not finalized and is, in reality, a piece of crap that needs wide peer review first.
redial 16y ago
Like GCC or WebKit or Java? Being open source does not mean nobody owns it.
- jarek 16y ago
  Who has a monopoly on Webkit?

spiffworks 16y ago

What does owning a video codec even mean if you make it royalty-free? Is there a concern that if webm becomes widely used Google will use its control of the code to harm competitors? In that case, you should know that the webm project is in fact run as a separate project from Google[1]. [1]http://www.webmproject.org/about/supporters/ http://www.webmproject.org/about/supporters/

haberman 16y ago

> How about a Google monopoly? At least h.264 is owned by a number of different companies. It's amazing to me. In the 90s Microsoft's overt policy was "embrace, extend, extinguish," and it called the GPL a "cancer," the MPAA was launching war against DeCSS, and Amazon.com was flexing its one-click patent against competitors. Open source developers had no powerful allies. Now you have a powerful company like Google that releases millions of lines of open source, sponsors college students to work on open source, fights for openness standards in wireless spectrum auctions, fights for open standards like HTML5, open sources its entire mobile operating system, and in its latest move, buys a video codec company for $106 million and promptly pledges all of the patents for use by anybody. And yet some people would prefer the codec whose rights are effectively owned by a known patent troll (MPEG-LA) because "at least [it] is owned by a number of different companies." It goes to show that you can never please everyone.

Locke1689 16y ago
I don't know what kind of fantasy world you live in where the only reason you could like H264 is because it's patented. I like H264 because VP8 is an inferior technology.
recoiledsnake 16y ago
Why doesn't Google release the source code of the flavor of Linux that it uses after earning tens of billions basically leveraging Linux code? Google open sources things that are not central to it's business, just like every other company out there. MPEG-LA cannot be a patent troll let alone a known one, because it's a loose organization of companies that agree on a standard to prevent fragmentation of video and let people deal with one entity instead of a thousand. Those individual companies could be trolls. >fights for open standards like HTML5 Really? Then this move to remove support for H.264 will get Flash even more entrenched because it would be the easiest way for content providers to get WebM video working on IE9 and Safari. Flash has already announced upcoming support for WebM.
- irons 16y ago
  MPEG-LA cannot be a patent troll let alone a known one, because it's a loose organization of companies that agree on a standard to prevent fragmentation of video and let people deal with one entity instead of a thousand. Also, the licensing terms are fixed at a maximum 10% rise per five-year renewal. Given the lifespan of patents, that's a low ceiling.