4 ms·
Google wants a free, royalty-free codec. What does them using it have anything to do with Chrome or Android?
by 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 agoRight 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 agoGoogle 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 agoBut 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 agoGoogle 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 agoAnd leave everyone using MobileSafari out in the cold?
- cbhl 14y agoI 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.