1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Google releases open-source WebM codec

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 20 May 2010.

  1. CardJoe

    CardJoe Freelance Journalist

    Joined:
    3 Apr 2007
    Posts:
    11,343
    Likes Received:
    292
  2. barndoor101

    barndoor101 Bring back the demote thread!

    Joined:
    25 Oct 2009
    Posts:
    1,694
    Likes Received:
    110
    excellent news
     
  3. Unknownsock

    Unknownsock New Member

    Joined:
    13 Jul 2009
    Posts:
    444
    Likes Received:
    1
    Firefox is back again!
     
  4. mi1ez

    mi1ez Active Member

    Joined:
    11 Jun 2009
    Posts:
    1,442
    Likes Received:
    18
    Just we need! Good work G!
     
  5. StoneyMahoney

    StoneyMahoney New Member

    Joined:
    10 Jul 2009
    Posts:
    287
    Likes Received:
    13
    The patent pool held by the MPEG-LA is so far-reaching that some of it's members to claim no-one can make a commercial video codec anymore without violating some of their IP. That would seem to indicate the purpose of the MPEG-LA pool is not only to protect H.264 and it's licensing terms, but also to form a global monopoly on *all* video encoding.

    On the other hand, this could very well be ill-informed FUD with no legal basis, tested or otherwise, as they haven't mentioned which patents they're talking about. On2 also had it's own patent pool covering it's VP codecs, and (considering how old video encoding is) it's likely there is considerable prior art, throwing additional doubt on how valid the more fundamental patents in this argument actually are.

    I also read that, thanks to the licensing terms of the MPEG-LA, you don't just owe royalties on video in it's final distribution format. If any MPEG-LA controlled format was used for recording or as an intermediary, you also owe them royalties for that as soon as you publish, no matter what format you used.
     
  6. Nedsbeds

    Nedsbeds Badger, Slime, Weasel!!

    Joined:
    16 May 2002
    Posts:
    1,972
    Likes Received:
    9
    how does this fit with hardware support? obviously there are a lot of phones/mobile devices with hardware for specific codecs. Will they be able to also work with webM?
     
  7. flibblesan

    flibblesan Destroyer

    Joined:
    27 Jul 2005
    Posts:
    1,421
    Likes Received:
    55
    Excellent news. One more thing we needed for an open web.
     
  8. somewhereoveryonda

    somewhereoveryonda You'll never know when to buy!

    Joined:
    6 May 2010
    Posts:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    This had to happen sometime!
     
  9. HourBeforeDawn

    HourBeforeDawn a.k.a KazeModz

    Joined:
    26 Oct 2006
    Posts:
    2,637
    Likes Received:
    6
    but how is the overhead? is it less then H.264? so that even net books wont have issues with playback? will there be GPU processing support for it? I mean I would like to know more then just that its open source.
     
  10. SinnerG

    SinnerG New Member

    Joined:
    13 Nov 2009
    Posts:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Google annoys me sometimes with their manner of forcing a "standard" onto people by opensourcing it.
     
  11. ch424

    ch424 Design Warrior

    Joined:
    26 May 2004
    Posts:
    3,112
    Likes Received:
    41
    Low, yes, yes and yes.
     
  12. barndoor101

    barndoor101 Bring back the demote thread!

    Joined:
    25 Oct 2009
    Posts:
    1,694
    Likes Received:
    110
    nobody is being forced to use it. but when you have a choice between an open-source product, and one that will bend you over in the near future, which would you rather have?
     
  13. chrisb2e9

    chrisb2e9 Dont do that...

    Joined:
    18 Jun 2007
    Posts:
    4,056
    Likes Received:
    45
    exactly, if there is a good standard and its free, then it looks like a win win for the consumer.
     
  14. general22

    general22 New Member

    Joined:
    26 Dec 2008
    Posts:
    190
    Likes Received:
    1
    I don't see where anybody is being forced to do anything. Anyway this is good news and at least with google behind the codec there is enough legal muscle to protect it from patent troll lawsuits in the future.
     
  15. HourBeforeDawn

    HourBeforeDawn a.k.a KazeModz

    Joined:
    26 Oct 2006
    Posts:
    2,637
    Likes Received:
    6
    really? then ya Im all for it. :)
     
  16. Elledan

    Elledan New Member

    Joined:
    4 Feb 2009
    Posts:
    948
    Likes Received:
    34
    MPEG-LA just announced it's assembling a patent pool for use against VP8. Didn't take them very long. I seem to recall mentioning this happening in my recent interviews with The Register and such on Wild Fox.

    I guess it just underlines as you state that these patents are so far-reaching that there can be no 'free' codec, and that it's only a matter of time before Theora gets whacked upside down as well.
     
  17. steveo_mcg

    steveo_mcg New Member

    Joined:
    26 May 2005
    Posts:
    5,841
    Likes Received:
    80
    Whilst there might be dubious patents that could affect WebM the question becomes do the patent trolls have the funds to go against google? I doubt it, look at what they did to blue destiny records
     
  18. barndoor101

    barndoor101 Bring back the demote thread!

    Joined:
    25 Oct 2009
    Posts:
    1,694
    Likes Received:
    110
    the answer is obvious. tactical nuke patent trolls.
     
  19. TWeaK

    TWeaK Member

    Joined:
    28 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    521
    Likes Received:
    7
    Whether they're forcing people into it or not, having a widely adobted open source standard is a good thing. By being open source, any problems or potential optimisations will more than likely quickly be spotted and dealt with. The fact that Google's behind it doesn't generate them any extra revenue, only good publicity.
     
  20. Shagbag

    Shagbag All glory to the Hypnotoad!

    Joined:
    9 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    320
    Likes Received:
    4
    this is just FUD by the MPEG-LA. Google paid 125m to get VP8. Does anyone really think they didn't do their homework beforehand? The MPEG-LA have just come proved they are full of ****.
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page