9 ms·

It's not only about royalty's. For example, Apple happily pays the H264 fees for its iPhones and iPods. Having a free alternative won't make that stop, the reas

by pieter 17y ago

It's not only about royalty's. For example, Apple happily pays the H264 fees for its iPhones and iPods. Having a free alternative won't make that stop, the reason they use H264 is because there are a lot of hardware acceleration chips out there which they can use. As long as those aren't available for this new codec (or Ogg for that matter), and they aren't in most of the iPhones / iPods currently out there, Apple won't support this codec.

ZeroGravitas 17y ago
a) the whole hardware acceleration thing is 99% myth. The core elements of standard video codecs are all accelerated the same way. Apple (ironically) buying a combined hardware/software solution for its devices that it doesn't have the right or the capability to upgrade is a radically different proposition from no acceleration possible/available. b) Apple was making those statements from a position of strength, they didn't have to be particularly convincing or true to work in that political forum. Though they're still holding a lot of cards, they're much weaker in a world with a technically acceptable, Google-backed, royalty-free codec in the wild. Previously it wasn't in Apple's interests to bother, now things might be different. It's not like Apple owned or controlled H.264 or any other Quicktime codec either. c) one of the On2 sub-companies that Google just bought (called Hantro) builds video acceleration chips for mobile phones.
- ivankirigin 17y ago
  I'm not sure (a) is true. I've worked with advanced DSPs, like TI's DM-642. It's popular to do H.264 compression. The hardware acceleration in DSPs like this have nothing do to with H.264 codecs, you're right. But the software libraries to do the best in class compression are H.264. And I'm not going to write my own compression algorithm. So the choice is lower quality or licensing libraries to take care of the compression. The software for this DSP would certainly be a hell of a lot cheaper with a Google backed solution. And it might even be free.

by pieter 17y ago

ZeroGravitas 17y ago

a) the whole hardware acceleration thing is 99% myth. The core elements of standard video codecs are all accelerated the same way. Apple (ironically) buying a combined hardware/software solution for its devices that it doesn't have the right or the capability to upgrade is a radically different proposition from no acceleration possible/available. b) Apple was making those statements from a position of strength, they didn't have to be particularly convincing or true to work in that political forum. Though they're still holding a lot of cards, they're much weaker in a world with a technically acceptable, Google-backed, royalty-free codec in the wild. Previously it wasn't in Apple's interests to bother, now things might be different. It's not like Apple owned or controlled H.264 or any other Quicktime codec either. c) one of the On2 sub-companies that Google just bought (called Hantro) builds video acceleration chips for mobile phones.

ivankirigin 17y ago
I'm not sure (a) is true. I've worked with advanced DSPs, like TI's DM-642. It's popular to do H.264 compression. The hardware acceleration in DSPs like this have nothing do to with H.264 codecs, you're right. But the software libraries to do the best in class compression are H.264. And I'm not going to write my own compression algorithm. So the choice is lower quality or licensing libraries to take care of the compression. The software for this DSP would certainly be a hell of a lot cheaper with a Google backed solution. And it might even be free.