![]() I can tell you right now that VP8 has zero chance of impacting broadcasting, where the big money is.Īs I said, with so little threat they seem to make too much noise about it. If you had any clue how entrenched H.264 is already (meaning in part that the checks have already cleared), you may realize how little of a threat VP8 is - aside of being inferior in most regards. I’m not telling you not to use that as your default position, but I am saying it’s absurd… which it is. I’m just not that naive to assume everyone engaging in patent lawsuits is doing so because they’re trembling out of fear of the “competition”. It’s absurd that you ignore the reality, in which most software patent aggressors (who are not pure trolls who have nothing except patents) do exactly that – use their patents to hinder competitors. It’s absurd how some of you think every time a company starts flexing their patent muscle it’s because they’re in fear of competition, just “trolling” to be assholes, and never about actually legally protecting their interests. Therefore all MPEG-LA is doing here, is fear mongering and spreading FUD to deter WebM adoption. However VP8 was designed around H.264 patents, so there is no “rip offs” there. ![]() VP8 on the other hand is way more scary for them. They never tried to attack it though, since it’s not a real competitor. They claimed before that Theora has some “rip offs”. All MPEG-LA cares about is money, and they are scared that market penetration of H.264 will be weakened by VP8. Even my webcam supports hardware encoding of H.264 just like Intel’s newest chips. Yes, for MPEG5, we should ask for an open codec, but the current standard across all industries is MPEG4. Choosing WebM only shows ignorance of the standards out there. If you are a WebM fan that wants to live H.264 free, it’s your choice, but please don’t push it on the rest of us. Somehow, I’m pretty sure that the silicon that comes with most computers of the past 5 years already includes a license for H.264, just like most consumer operating systems. Licensing is not an issue anymore as on OS X you’ve had support for a long time, Windows supports it natively since Vista and for Linux you have codecs from fluendo. Even Mozilla came to their senses and decided to add H.264 support in Firefox. Unless you convince the broadcast industry to also switch to it. WebM is cute as a concept, but ridiculous. Based on industry trends, instead of dropping H.264 they should also be adding VC1. ![]() TV is H.264 in HD and in some countries also for SD.ĭigital downloads (legal or pirated) are mostly in H.264 (except for a few that use VC1).īlu-Ray is wither H.264 or VC1. It’s supported on all devices using hardware acceleration which for mobile devices is the only reasonable way to go.įurthermore most content is available in H.264. Without going into the whole H.264 is evil debate, why would they do that?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |