3 ms·

I understand what Nokia is doing here. Their entire business was trashed by Android/iPhone, and now they are trying to drum up enough cash to survive long enou

I understand what Nokia is doing here. Their entire business was trashed by Android/iPhone, and now they are trying to drum up enough cash to survive long enough to rehabilitate the business. It makes sense. What I don't understand is why Google cares so much about VP8/x. What does Google get even if they "win"? It seems winning puts them in a worse situation as it just makes things like forking Chrome / Android easier.

drivebyacct2 14y ago
Google wants a free, royalty-free codec. What does them using it have anything to do with Chrome or Android?
- jcampbell1 14y ago
  Right now creating a commercial fork of Chrome or Android requires paying the MPEGLA $5M/year. > Google wants a free, royalty-free codec. But why? That is what I don't understand. The $5M/year in royalties is peanuts for Google. I suppose the 2015 deadline for web video is their issue, and they don't want to be in a bad negotiating position over YouTube. Just to be clear, I personally want a royalty free codec, and think this type of software patent should be abolished.
  - eridius 14y ago
    Google still needs H.264 for youtube. They can get rid of the player in Chrome, but they still need to serve it up, unless they're willing to completely sacrifice any hope of playing videos on iOS (and given how much they make off of iOS I'd be shocked if they did that).
    - cpeterso 14y ago
      But Google only has to pay $5M/year in H.264 royalties. That's cheap (in relative terms). It's not like Google is paying $1/view on YouTube.
    - ZeroGravitas 14y ago
      Google could send VP8 to iOS today if they wanted, YouTube is a Google app now, not an Apple app with Google content. They send vp8 to the Nintendo Wii app.
      - eridius 14y ago
        And leave everyone using MobileSafari out in the cold?
- cbhl 14y ago
  I think if you go back to the mission, it all ties together. They want an efficient way to store and deliver all the videos that you create with your Android device and consume in Chrome.
ZeroGravitas 14y ago
It's complicated, and I wouldn't rule out simple disgust at obvious rent seeking behaviour, but yes even at 13 million a year and going up by 15% per annum I'm not sure the money works out on saved licences alone. I assume that, like many of their more audacious bets, the idea is to remove a pointless tax on innovation on the web and including the potential for interference in their business models going forward. Just like Apple did back in 2002: http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass-high-tech/2002/02/apple-computer-fights-mpeg-las-royalty-fee.html?page=all http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass-high-tech/2002/0...

drivebyacct2 14y ago

Google wants a free, royalty-free codec. What does them using it have anything to do with Chrome or Android?

jcampbell1 14y ago
Right now creating a commercial fork of Chrome or Android requires paying the MPEGLA $5M/year. > Google wants a free, royalty-free codec. But why? That is what I don't understand. The $5M/year in royalties is peanuts for Google. I suppose the 2015 deadline for web video is their issue, and they don't want to be in a bad negotiating position over YouTube. Just to be clear, I personally want a royalty free codec, and think this type of software patent should be abolished.
- eridius 14y ago
  Google still needs H.264 for youtube. They can get rid of the player in Chrome, but they still need to serve it up, unless they're willing to completely sacrifice any hope of playing videos on iOS (and given how much they make off of iOS I'd be shocked if they did that).
  - cpeterso 14y ago
    But Google only has to pay $5M/year in H.264 royalties. That's cheap (in relative terms). It's not like Google is paying $1/view on YouTube.
  - ZeroGravitas 14y ago
    Google could send VP8 to iOS today if they wanted, YouTube is a Google app now, not an Apple app with Google content. They send vp8 to the Nintendo Wii app.
    - eridius 14y ago
      And leave everyone using MobileSafari out in the cold?
cbhl 14y ago
I think if you go back to the mission, it all ties together. They want an efficient way to store and deliver all the videos that you create with your Android device and consume in Chrome.

ZeroGravitas 14y ago

It's complicated, and I wouldn't rule out simple disgust at obvious rent seeking behaviour, but yes even at 13 million a year and going up by 15% per annum I'm not sure the money works out on saved licences alone. I assume that, like many of their more audacious bets, the idea is to remove a pointless tax on innovation on the web and including the potential for interference in their business models going forward. Just like Apple did back in 2002: http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass-high-tech/2002/02/apple-computer-fights-mpeg-las-royalty-fee.html?page=all http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass-high-tech/2002/0...