7 ms·

I'm genuinely curious --- how come nobody thought of doing this (being some kind of platinum member and just putting it out there for all to use) all these year

by atonse 13y ago

I'm genuinely curious --- how come nobody thought of doing this (being some kind of platinum member and just putting it out there for all to use) all these years during the fighting about h.264 vs the open web and yada yada? What Cisco did seems to have put an end to all those debates, and h.264 is available for all, with patents intact, etc.

samspenc 13y ago
It costs Cisco $6 million a year to do this. I wonder if any of the beneficiaries (Firefox, etc) are pitching in. That sounds like loose change, but probably stuck up in bureaucratic decision-making at anyone who thought of this before. ("Why are we spending $6 million a year to make it free for everyone else again?") EDIT/UPDATE: In the second paragraph, I was referring to other companies and why they didn't do this earlier. It clearly brings Cisco quite a bit of goodwill to do this, and to see more video flowing on the web.
- pkaye 13y ago
  I doubt it costs Cisco anything extra because they probably need the distribution rights for other products they develop (for example WebEx.) Besides it a good PR benefit for them with minimal incremental cost.
  - cfluffy 13y ago
    It costs Cisco lots (I work at cisco) as we were not close to paying the 6.5 million cap before this. Mozilla has been contributing to the code and making sure the project runs well but not towards any MPEG-LA payments. There are probably a bunch of reasons Cisco did this but making interoperable video just work on the internet would be at the top of the list. That's good for Cisco and others.
- indrax 13y ago
  Cisco benefits from video on the internet being a big thing.
pslam 13y ago
No, it hasn't put an end to debate at all. This is an ugly workaround and still requires Cisco to build binaries on your behalf. It's quite a stretch of "open" and certainly not "free" (not that it claims to be). There is still ongoing work to create a better, free standard.
- mlinksva 13y ago
  VP8 exists, and is free VP9 exists, is better and free (in Chrome, will be in Firefox release in a few months) There is still ongoing work to create a better, encumbered codec, h.265 There is going work to create a much better, free codec, Dalaa Now is a good time to finally break free of encumbered video codecs. If not now, when. :)
  - Hannan 13y ago
    Just for anyone else who hadn't heard of it yet and searches for it, it's apparently spelled "Daala".
  - josephlord 13y ago
    Now is a great time for the next generation if VP9 really is patent free or fully licensed OR Daala is ready to take on H.265 AND that Free solution matches or beats H.265 AND that Free solution can get itself in hardware (particularly mobile) solutions in the same timeframe as H.265. The other possibility for the Free next generation solution is if H.265 licensing is unreasonable (as H.263 was and H.264 wasn't). For the current codec generation the ship has sailed, the deployed base of H.264 devices means the battle is over. [Edit: replaced 'open' with 'Free']
    - natevancouver 13y ago
      * Due to the nature of patents, “patent-free” tech does not exist. * At scale H.264 is crazy cheap. It costs $6.5 million for YouTube to serve 72 billion hours of video. Still, it is infinitely more expensive than free.
      - 13y ago
wmf 13y ago
Fluendo does this with MP3, but that license is only $50K instead of millions. People proposed this idea repeatedly to Mozilla back in the day but they rejected it. Maybe they feel their hands are somehow cleaner if Cisco is paying instead of them.
- gcb1 13y ago
  moz would have to foot the 6mi. cisco pays 6mi, and them mpegla returns 3mi to them for their patents in the pool. and if the format becomes ubiquitous, they get any few billions from this same pool from their competitors when they also license it. they are still the bad guy in this.
technomancy 13y ago
"Free as in as long as you don't try to compile your own." If you think that addresses the issues at play, you haven't been paying attention to both sides of the debate.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Open source does not mean free to build & use. It means open source.
  - LukeShu 13y ago
    Open source means these things: http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/osd "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:" Without being able to build and use it, the "derived works" section can't be met.
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      That reads more like the GPL than a definition of what open source means. What, then, do you call code that provides the source but does not allow you free distribution of both the source & binaries? "The source is open but it's not open source"?
      - wmf 13y ago
        Usually that's called shared source.
  - technomancy 13y ago
    That's exactly what I'm saying; open source misses the point. This is a free software issue.
anon4 13y ago
Why can't they just build ffmpeg (with only h.264 enabled), instead of their own implementation of h.264?
- Sanddancer 13y ago
  ffmpeg is lgpl-encumbered. Openh264 is under the much more open BSD license.
  - dpe82 13y ago
    For WebRTC they also need an encoder. ffmpeg uses libx264 for encoding H.264, which is GPL.
sliverstorm 13y ago
I'm still confused why Cisco is even allowed to do this. Do they pay a flat license fee to MPEG-LA for unlimited usage? I would think they would pay per-seat like most video codecs.
- garblegarble 13y ago
  It is, but there's a cap of $6.5M/year (and they'd get some of that back as payment for their patents in the pool)

by atonse 13y ago

samspenc 13y ago

It costs Cisco $6 million a year to do this. I wonder if any of the beneficiaries (Firefox, etc) are pitching in. That sounds like loose change, but probably stuck up in bureaucratic decision-making at anyone who thought of this before. ("Why are we spending $6 million a year to make it free for everyone else again?") EDIT/UPDATE: In the second paragraph, I was referring to other companies and why they didn't do this earlier. It clearly brings Cisco quite a bit of goodwill to do this, and to see more video flowing on the web.

pkaye 13y ago
I doubt it costs Cisco anything extra because they probably need the distribution rights for other products they develop (for example WebEx.) Besides it a good PR benefit for them with minimal incremental cost.
- cfluffy 13y ago
  It costs Cisco lots (I work at cisco) as we were not close to paying the 6.5 million cap before this. Mozilla has been contributing to the code and making sure the project runs well but not towards any MPEG-LA payments. There are probably a bunch of reasons Cisco did this but making interoperable video just work on the internet would be at the top of the list. That's good for Cisco and others.
indrax 13y ago
Cisco benefits from video on the internet being a big thing.

pslam 13y ago

No, it hasn't put an end to debate at all. This is an ugly workaround and still requires Cisco to build binaries on your behalf. It's quite a stretch of "open" and certainly not "free" (not that it claims to be). There is still ongoing work to create a better, free standard.

mlinksva 13y ago
VP8 exists, and is free VP9 exists, is better and free (in Chrome, will be in Firefox release in a few months) There is still ongoing work to create a better, encumbered codec, h.265 There is going work to create a much better, free codec, Dalaa Now is a good time to finally break free of encumbered video codecs. If not now, when. :)
- Hannan 13y ago
  Just for anyone else who hadn't heard of it yet and searches for it, it's apparently spelled "Daala".
- josephlord 13y ago
  Now is a great time for the next generation if VP9 really is patent free or fully licensed OR Daala is ready to take on H.265 AND that Free solution matches or beats H.265 AND that Free solution can get itself in hardware (particularly mobile) solutions in the same timeframe as H.265. The other possibility for the Free next generation solution is if H.265 licensing is unreasonable (as H.263 was and H.264 wasn't). For the current codec generation the ship has sailed, the deployed base of H.264 devices means the battle is over. [Edit: replaced 'open' with 'Free']
  - natevancouver 13y ago
    * Due to the nature of patents, “patent-free” tech does not exist. * At scale H.264 is crazy cheap. It costs $6.5 million for YouTube to serve 72 billion hours of video. Still, it is infinitely more expensive than free.
    - 13y ago

wmf 13y ago

Fluendo does this with MP3, but that license is only $50K instead of millions. People proposed this idea repeatedly to Mozilla back in the day but they rejected it. Maybe they feel their hands are somehow cleaner if Cisco is paying instead of them.

gcb1 13y ago
moz would have to foot the 6mi. cisco pays 6mi, and them mpegla returns 3mi to them for their patents in the pool. and if the format becomes ubiquitous, they get any few billions from this same pool from their competitors when they also license it. they are still the bad guy in this.

technomancy 13y ago

"Free as in as long as you don't try to compile your own." If you think that addresses the issues at play, you haven't been paying attention to both sides of the debate.

sliverstorm 13y ago
Open source does not mean free to build & use. It means open source.
- LukeShu 13y ago
  Open source means these things: http://opensource.org/osd http://opensource.org/osd "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:" Without being able to build and use it, the "derived works" section can't be met.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    That reads more like the GPL than a definition of what open source means. What, then, do you call code that provides the source but does not allow you free distribution of both the source & binaries? "The source is open but it's not open source"?
    - wmf 13y ago
      Usually that's called shared source.
- technomancy 13y ago
  That's exactly what I'm saying; open source misses the point. This is a free software issue.

anon4 13y ago

Why can't they just build ffmpeg (with only h.264 enabled), instead of their own implementation of h.264?

Sanddancer 13y ago
ffmpeg is lgpl-encumbered. Openh264 is under the much more open BSD license.
- dpe82 13y ago
  For WebRTC they also need an encoder. ffmpeg uses libx264 for encoding H.264, which is GPL.

sliverstorm 13y ago

I'm still confused why Cisco is even allowed to do this. Do they pay a flat license fee to MPEG-LA for unlimited usage? I would think they would pay per-seat like most video codecs.

garblegarble 13y ago
It is, but there's a cap of $6.5M/year (and they'd get some of that back as payment for their patents in the pool)