Yes, and one of those third parties is Microsoft. They're going with H.264 support in IE9. Google vs. Apple might be an interesting armwrestling match, but Google vs. Apple+Microsoft? Good luck with that one, Google.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Jobs Responds to Google's WebM Video Standard Announcement as Patent Questions Begin to Surface
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thanks for the new info. I hadn't seen that yet.
But there's nothing wrong with being polite when you educate, you know. I'm here to learn, you don't have to treat me like I'm an a$$hole or something. If I got that because I insulted you first by accident then I appologize for that.
But they offer so much more.
Including a Linux operating system that does what is advertised (SNAP)
I'm sorry, all i could see was jobs replying with a link to a blog, where a X264 developer had made some statements wich could very well be true.
This does not mean that apple hates the codec, just that it might not be safe to use at all.
New info I posted on the 19th when you made this same claim.
And until someone comes forward with an actual lawsuit and it goes through the court, this is MPEG-LA FUD as usual. Something Steve seems happy to propagate himself when he repeats the MPEG-LA mantra "Every video codec infringes on patents held by us... er.. the MPEG-LA"
Except Microsoft has said that VP8 is something that will work in IE9 for HTML5 video.
Agreed. Let's hope Google is right and bring this to fruition. Unfortunately, if past history is any indication, once the lawsuits start rolling, this will only slow if not stop its adoption. Better the devil you know (H.264) than the devil you don't.
I only know Mozilla and Opera don't intend to support it. That's already a chunk of ~35% of the Internet. (If you know more, please enlighten me with some statistics about codec usage on the web, because I couldn't find anything on Google from independent sources.)
Even if H.264 is the most popular format: So was .GIF, until Unisys started to ask licensing fees, which led to the development of .PNG, which was released a year after and quickly became the superior format.
Yep. Total clusterfrak and German high court just opened the door to software patents.
New info I posted on the 19th when you made this same claim.
And until someone comes forward with an actual lawsuit and it goes through the court, this is MPEG-LA FUD as usual. Something Steve seems happy to propagate himself when he repeats the MPEG-LA mantra "Every video codec infringes on patents held by us... er.. the MPEG-LA"
Except Microsoft has said that VP8 is something that will work in IE9 for HTML5 video.
Doesn't Apple own some patents for H264?
What on earth are they scared about.
I'm not liking Mr. Jobs' arrogance
i always picture him sitting in his office replying to emails, smacking gum like a valley girl while scoffing and rolling his eyes at nearly everything.
Google you're turning into an Apple with MS tendencies
I, generally speaking, don't have any problems with Google. It's moves like this though that just don't make any sense, instead they add frustration to the end users (us) by receiving poor inconsistent web experiences. Instead of adopting a standard (that Apple happens to support) they proceed to market their own as an obvious f-u to Apple and ultimately us. Really??? Open standards are put in place so that end users get consistent feedback from the web. I'd much rather support a standards set by a consortium vs a corporation.
I, generally speaking, don't have any problems with Google. It's moves like this though that just don't make any sense, instead they add frustration to the end users (us) by receiving poor inconsistent web experiences. Instead of adopting a standard (that Apple happens to support) they proceed to market their own as an obvious f-u to Apple and ultimately us. Really??? Open standards are put in place so that end users get consistent feedback from the web. I'd much rather support a standards set by a consortium vs a corporation.
Apple owns patents for H.264. What they are scared about ? Not being in control. I think this was pretty apparent from all their recent moves. Apple doesn't want to have to implement something they don't control, for fear that it affects their bottom line.
Except when the consortium charges fees, and potentially can charge even more fees from a broader audience at any time. H.264 is a ticking time bomb.
H.264 is not just about the internet. Blueray use it, broadcast stations use it. satelite networks use it etc. Its a very powerful and flexible codec.
Problem is it's very hard to make a competing codec due to the complexity of encoding video. I would think a lot of smart people have spent a lot of time trying.
New info I posted on the 19th when you made this same claim.
Ok, let's turn this around. You just keep saying the same thing over and over: We shouldn't be afraid of this format.
Ok, I'll accept that. You don't have to convince me.
But I need you to stop the defense mode and go on the offensive with your arguments: Why should I care? What good does this do me?
True, but the patent/licensing issues of GIF lead to (and sped up) the development of PNG. If Unisys didn't do what they did, we might still be using GIF, or an improved version of GIF. Now we're using a completely different alternative.
Hate to interrupt your wet-dream, but to buy "the offending patents", Google would also have to buy out some major corporations which actually own the IP/patents for H.264, such as those in the movie industry and hardware manufacturers.
Oh, and about using dirt they have in their databases? Google claims to be NOT EVIL, and even though it is heading in that direction, I'm sure it is not going to commit a Federal offence to enforce its technology on the web.
-----------------
H.264 is the basis for every DVD/BlueRay player on the market, because these discs are encoded using H.264. Apple & Microsoft licence H.264 and build-it into the OS, not just Quicktime or WMPlayer.
H.264 also offers true HD, as in 1920x1080, but will also scale down to 320x240 video and offer the same high quality. VP8 doesn't yet offer true HD for DVD/BR players, only for internet playback.
AMD, ARM, and Nvidia collaborating with Google will mean nothing if the DVD/BR and the entire film industry don't play ball.
Everyone arguing about H.264-vs-VP8 is biased one way or the other. This is verified by the fact that only Apple is being singled-out (Apple's involvement with MPEG-LA is far smaller than that of Microsoft) by almost every blogger and his/her Uncle.
Sit back and enjoy what you can now. If VP8 finally makes it in the market, it will be just one very infinitesimal bit of the whole internet -- just one cog in the whole complicated machine.
Propagate? He answered to an email. It's not like he's on a crusade or something. Besides, the opposite is also true. Who's to claim he's wrong until proven?
So now it's Apple instead of Microsoft playing the "licensing issues" card? Please don't.
Nice move by Google on that regard. I thought that unlike MS, Apple got what open-source & royalty-free meant.
Nice move by Google on that regard. I thought that unlike MS, Apple got what open-source & royalty-free meant.
I don't need to convince you of anything. Just stop pissing in everyone else's cereals man.
I care because I use Firefox. End of story.
Actually, that is false.
Yes, Mozilla, and Opera won't support it. Doesn't mean it wont work.
e.g., Mozilla and Opera don't support Flash, but it works on there too, doesn't it?
The reason is plugins. Both support plugins, and will pretty much play back any video codec that they encounter through those plugins if the codec is installed on their OS. This will be true of all Windows and Mac users.
So basically the Mozilla and Opera arguments are just posturing, since their browsers will play it back as well as they do pretty much any video today. (actually, it will be exactly how they play back quicktime video on macs, or wmv video on windows, which are also video formats which they don't support, but somehow seem to work...)
No. Jobs at worst is arguing technical and patent issues - not licensing issues.
I don't see the point about arguing over this mess at all. VP8 vs H.264 is only of interest to those making money on the patents them selfs. As users all we have to worry about is "is it safe to use it without being sued?"
I sure hope it's safe to use VP8, it would solve a lot of problems. But i wouldn't count on it.
I sure hope it's safe to use VP8, it would solve a lot of problems. But i wouldn't count on it.
I think he's like the big-headed queen from Alice in Wonderland
"Bring me the pig!" lol