5 ms·

Saying that Google "won" is an absurd statement. What was the competition? What Google did was smart. The fear of patent infringement was likely the biggest

Saying that Google "won" is an absurd statement. What was the competition? What Google did was smart. The fear of patent infringement was likely the biggest issue VP8 had. They've taken that off the table. But saying they've won seems to imply that someone lost. MPEG-LA didn't have to make a deal with them. But they got enough money that is was worth it to them. As far as they're concerned they get money from Google now, plus all the fees from everyone else. That's a "win" for MPEG-LA. Both Apple and MS pay for H264. I'm sure both would be happy to not have to pay for a codec (although H264 will be around for a long time, even in the worst case). Microsoft's position on VP8 has been pretty clear... they're not shipping it (but maybe will now), but aren't opposed to it. This was a smart move. But doesn't mean that there are winners and losers. And certainly there was no bluff that was called. Paying to license patents from a patent holder is hardly calling their bluff.

thomholwerda 14y ago
VP8 went from (according to the MPEG-LA and its proponents) legally dangerous to a better option (at least legally) than H.264, covering more users and more usage scenarios (namely, not just non-commercial, but commercial too), and for free to users, to boot. So yes, VP8 (and thus Google) won.
- lnanek2 14y ago
  That's like saying someone claimed they didn't order something at a restaurant while the restaurant claimed they did. The person pays anyway and the restaurant is happy and they don't get in trouble. Did the person win? Google has claimed for a long time VP8 was clear of patents. This is them giving up.
  - fpgeek 14y ago
    Doesn't it depend on how much they paid? If the person paid for much less than the restaurant was asking and/or for less than a court case would cost, I'd say they won. And as long as the size of Google's MPEG-LA payment isn't visible in their next earnings report (remember the MPEG-LA was claiming hundreds of millions of willful infringements), I'd say Google won, too.
    - tripzilch 14y ago
      > Doesn't it depend on how much they paid? If the person paid for much less than the restaurant was asking and/or for less than a court case would cost, I'd say they won. I guess that's a matter of opinion then. Because if the person really didn't order (or receive) any meal, and they still had to pay anything to clear up matters, I wouldn't say they won. At most I'd say they got off relatively well, considering circumstances. The restaurant, however, getting any money for a meal they didn't make, is a clear winner. On the other hand (and I'm not sure how/if this holds up in the analogy because I'm not entirely clear about what's going on with the Google/MPEG-LA thing) if the restaurant did prepare the meal they claim the person ordered (but who didn't), assuming they got less than the costs of the meal, both are losers. Which figures because miscommunication often lead to waste.
  - randomfool 14y ago
    The analogy breaks down when the agreement applies not only to Google, but also everyone else using VP8/9. So yeah, Google may have paid the restaurant for their meal but now everyone else who goes to that restaurant and orders the same thing now gets it for free. If you're hungry, I'd recommend ordering what Google ordered and eating for free.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  As much as I wish this were the case and admire VP8 as you do, I don't think this is really true yet: >covering more users and more usage scenarios given that I'm not aware of any phone, set top box, AV accessory, etc that supports VP8 accelerated decoding.
  - syjer 14y ago
    From the list http://wiki.webmproject.org/hardware/arm-socs http://wiki.webmproject.org/hardware/arm-socs I would say some devices on the market should already support hw vp8 decoding.
    - drivebyacct2 14y ago
      Hm. I'd love to be wrong, I'll try some of them when I get home with my webm videos.
      - syjer 14y ago
        From http://wiki.webmproject.org/hardware/devices http://wiki.webmproject.org/hardware/devices it looks like that the raspberry pi support hw decoding (edit: but maybe it's not supported at the driver level...)
        drivebyacct2 14y ago
        Ah, looks like the only thing I'd have off that list is the Samsung Nexus 10 and it's packed away in a box. I presume it being on that list means it works, still a pretty tiny fraction. I'm sure that will grow, especially after this good news.
espadrine 14y ago
Nobody has lost because the fight has moved on. VP8 being a safer choice isn't reassuring, since it isn't much of a choice anymore. Welcome the new fight, VP9 vs. H.265 vs. Daala.
- thomholwerda 14y ago
  This agreement covers VP9 as well.
  - magila 14y ago
    Only to the extent that it uses the same techniques as VP8. Anything new (read: anything which might infringe on H.265 related patents) is still subject to threats from MPEG-LA.
    - thomholwerda 14y ago
      Yes, but this applies to any and all software - including H.26{5,6,7,8,9}. Sadly.
- ZeroGravitas 14y ago
  In his response to this MPEG-LA news Xiphmont (in response to a troll comment) claims Xiph are contributing to VP9, including writing the spec, so it may well be that VP9 aka VP.next is merging with Daala and the IETF Internet Video Codec project. It makes sense to me as Google and the IETF both provide some level of defence against all this patent BS, which would be pragmatic for Xiph to take advantage of.
randomfool 14y ago
Strongly disagree. > As far as they're concerned they get money from Google now, plus all the fees from everyone else. They get money from Google now (presumably, but we don't know the details), and they get money from h264 users- but they do not get anything from any other VP8/9 users. H264 users are now paying for something that VP8 users get for free. Just when h265 is nearing release, MPEG-LA is effectively giving up all claims to the competing technology- VP9. I see no way that this does not eat into h265 adoption and h265 is going to have to be technologically far superior to VP9 to justify the licensing fees. > doesn't mean that there are winners and losers There's a clear winner- you and I. There's now a completely free alternative to h264.
- taligent 14y ago
  > completely free alternative to h264 As a user H.264 was already free. As a developer H.264 was already free.
  - randomfool 14y ago
    There are licensing costs built into OSes shipping h264, devices built with HW decoders, online movies rented with it, etc.
    - taligent 14y ago
      So by having VP8 I save a few cents off the price of an OS upgrade or new device. And in exchange I get significantly poorer quality video.
      - skeletonjelly 14y ago
        For every copy of Windows 8 Basic sold, Microsoft saves $2 by not including. That adds up! http://www.extremetech.com/computing/142796-how-to-play-dvds-and-blu-ray-discs-in-windows-8 http://www.extremetech.com/computing/142796-how-to-play-dvds...
      - gillianseed 14y ago
CamperBob2 14y ago
They've taken that off the table. If only patents worked that way.
shmerl 14y ago
Read the linked article: http://xiphmont.livejournal.com/59893.html http://xiphmont.livejournal.com/59893.html to see how exactly Google has won.

thomholwerda 14y ago

VP8 went from (according to the MPEG-LA and its proponents) legally dangerous to a better option (at least legally) than H.264, covering more users and more usage scenarios (namely, not just non-commercial, but commercial too), and for free to users, to boot. So yes, VP8 (and thus Google) won.

lnanek2 14y ago
That's like saying someone claimed they didn't order something at a restaurant while the restaurant claimed they did. The person pays anyway and the restaurant is happy and they don't get in trouble. Did the person win? Google has claimed for a long time VP8 was clear of patents. This is them giving up.
- fpgeek 14y ago
  Doesn't it depend on how much they paid? If the person paid for much less than the restaurant was asking and/or for less than a court case would cost, I'd say they won. And as long as the size of Google's MPEG-LA payment isn't visible in their next earnings report (remember the MPEG-LA was claiming hundreds of millions of willful infringements), I'd say Google won, too.
  - tripzilch 14y ago
    > Doesn't it depend on how much they paid? If the person paid for much less than the restaurant was asking and/or for less than a court case would cost, I'd say they won. I guess that's a matter of opinion then. Because if the person really didn't order (or receive) any meal, and they still had to pay anything to clear up matters, I wouldn't say they won. At most I'd say they got off relatively well, considering circumstances. The restaurant, however, getting any money for a meal they didn't make, is a clear winner. On the other hand (and I'm not sure how/if this holds up in the analogy because I'm not entirely clear about what's going on with the Google/MPEG-LA thing) if the restaurant did prepare the meal they claim the person ordered (but who didn't), assuming they got less than the costs of the meal, both are losers. Which figures because miscommunication often lead to waste.
- randomfool 14y ago
  The analogy breaks down when the agreement applies not only to Google, but also everyone else using VP8/9. So yeah, Google may have paid the restaurant for their meal but now everyone else who goes to that restaurant and orders the same thing now gets it for free. If you're hungry, I'd recommend ordering what Google ordered and eating for free.
drivebyacct2 14y ago
As much as I wish this were the case and admire VP8 as you do, I don't think this is really true yet: >covering more users and more usage scenarios given that I'm not aware of any phone, set top box, AV accessory, etc that supports VP8 accelerated decoding.
- syjer 14y ago
  From the list http://wiki.webmproject.org/hardware/arm-socs http://wiki.webmproject.org/hardware/arm-socs I would say some devices on the market should already support hw vp8 decoding.
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    Hm. I'd love to be wrong, I'll try some of them when I get home with my webm videos.
    - syjer 14y ago
      From http://wiki.webmproject.org/hardware/devices http://wiki.webmproject.org/hardware/devices it looks like that the raspberry pi support hw decoding (edit: but maybe it's not supported at the driver level...)
      - drivebyacct2 14y ago
        Ah, looks like the only thing I'd have off that list is the Samsung Nexus 10 and it's packed away in a box. I presume it being on that list means it works, still a pretty tiny fraction. I'm sure that will grow, especially after this good news.

espadrine 14y ago

Nobody has lost because the fight has moved on. VP8 being a safer choice isn't reassuring, since it isn't much of a choice anymore. Welcome the new fight, VP9 vs. H.265 vs. Daala.

thomholwerda 14y ago
This agreement covers VP9 as well.
- magila 14y ago
  Only to the extent that it uses the same techniques as VP8. Anything new (read: anything which might infringe on H.265 related patents) is still subject to threats from MPEG-LA.
  - thomholwerda 14y ago
    Yes, but this applies to any and all software - including H.26{5,6,7,8,9}. Sadly.
ZeroGravitas 14y ago
In his response to this MPEG-LA news Xiphmont (in response to a troll comment) claims Xiph are contributing to VP9, including writing the spec, so it may well be that VP9 aka VP.next is merging with Daala and the IETF Internet Video Codec project. It makes sense to me as Google and the IETF both provide some level of defence against all this patent BS, which would be pragmatic for Xiph to take advantage of.

randomfool 14y ago

Strongly disagree. > As far as they're concerned they get money from Google now, plus all the fees from everyone else. They get money from Google now (presumably, but we don't know the details), and they get money from h264 users- but they do not get anything from any other VP8/9 users. H264 users are now paying for something that VP8 users get for free. Just when h265 is nearing release, MPEG-LA is effectively giving up all claims to the competing technology- VP9. I see no way that this does not eat into h265 adoption and h265 is going to have to be technologically far superior to VP9 to justify the licensing fees. > doesn't mean that there are winners and losers There's a clear winner- you and I. There's now a completely free alternative to h264.

taligent 14y ago
> completely free alternative to h264 As a user H.264 was already free. As a developer H.264 was already free.
- randomfool 14y ago
  There are licensing costs built into OSes shipping h264, devices built with HW decoders, online movies rented with it, etc.
  - taligent 14y ago
    So by having VP8 I save a few cents off the price of an OS upgrade or new device. And in exchange I get significantly poorer quality video.
    - skeletonjelly 14y ago
      For every copy of Windows 8 Basic sold, Microsoft saves $2 by not including. That adds up! http://www.extremetech.com/computing/142796-how-to-play-dvds-and-blu-ray-discs-in-windows-8 http://www.extremetech.com/computing/142796-how-to-play-dvds...
    - gillianseed 14y ago

CamperBob2 14y ago

They've taken that off the table. If only patents worked that way.

shmerl 14y ago

Read the linked article: http://xiphmont.livejournal.com/59893.html http://xiphmont.livejournal.com/59893.html to see how exactly Google has won.