4 ms·
Potentially yes. But Microsoft and Apple not supporting VP8 & WebM probably has more to do with these companies being part of MPEG LA (a firm which sell license
by ajasmin 14y ago
Potentially yes. But Microsoft and Apple not supporting VP8 & WebM probably has more to do with these companies being part of MPEG LA (a firm which sell licenses for H.264 related patents).
- wmf 14y agoIf Apple was opposed to Vorbis, I imagine they would be equally opposed to any new audio codec. http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-December/013154.html http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-Dec...
- alayne 14y agoThat seems like a leap. Ogg codecs were always questionable to me because they are owned by xiph.org, rather than some other more widely accepted standards body.
- metajack 14y agoWe tried to get IETF and W3C interested. They barely talked to us. The most we could do was a Vorbis over RTP draft that I wrote. The next best option was to incorporate as a 501c3 and run our own standards body, similar to the XSF in the XMPP world. The times have changed though, and the IETF is now receptive to this type of work (although it didn't happen without a political battle). Note that many of the Opus contributors are Xiph.org contributors as well.
- recoiledsnake 14y ago>But Microsoft and Apple not supporting VP8 & WebM probably has more to do with these companies being part of MPEG LA (a firm which sell licenses for H.264 related patents). Microsoft(and probably Apple too) pays more than what it gets from the pool, so that doesn't make sense.
- protomyth 14y agoI think Microsoft and Apple are more into known quantities and what is implemented in hardware.
- taligent 14y agoIt has nothing to do with that. And everything to do with VP8/WebM being a proprietary, non standard at the time that the world consolidated on H.264. That and the fact that H.264 had hardware support when the iPods and Zunes were taking off.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- cageface 14y agoYou keep using this word "proprietary". I don't think it means what you think it means. How is a codec I can download in complete source form and use in any way I like without licensing anything or answering to anybody "proprietary"? The fact that we live in a world full of patent trolls that will sue you for tying your shoelaces doesn't make every codebase without explicit corporate patent indemnity "proprietary".
- taligent 14y agoProprietary: "something that is used, produced, or marketed under exclusive legal right of the inventor or maker." The WebM trademarks and copyright are owned by Google. Yes you have a license to use WebM as it is today. But Google can make the next version closed source and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it. And of course companies are going to use Google's 'official' WebM regardless if it is open or closed source leaving you screwed.
- cageface 14y agoWow you're really reaching here now, aren't you? The bitstream format and software are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License and the BSD license, respectively. By your definition anything not in the public domain is proprietary.
- Flimm 14y agoSo to be clear, you admit that WebM isn't proprietary, but future versions could be? That's true of every open source project on the planet, that's how copyright law works.