Ah, yes, you're right about that. I was thinking about this only in relation to the Internet. I doubt Google wants to create a competing codec that transcends Internet usage. I mean, they probably didn't call it "webM" for nothing.
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
Ah, yes, you're right about that. I was thinking about this only in relation to the Internet. I doubt Google wants to create a competing codec that transcends Internet usage. I mean, they probably didn't call it "webM" for nothing.
Have you noticed it's called "Web"+"N"? There is no reason you can't have a more efficient codec for the web/computers, and a different one for physical media.
The blog is a pretty interesting read. If Garrett-Glaser is to be trusted, Google could be in for a bag of hurt. He calls WebM "a patent time bomb waiting to happen" and gives good evidence to back up his claim. Overall, it looks like WebM could have become a decent replacement for H.264 -- if Google hadn't rushed it. But with H.265 on the horizon and Google's stubborn view that WebM is as good as it gets, Google might be left in the dust.
Nope, the claim about patents and open sourced video codecs were made seperately, explicitely. Steve Jobs is just peddling the MPEG-LA's FUD as his own :
http://hugoroy.eu/jobs-os.php
So yes, Apple is very much against Royalty free codecs. It is against "Open".
This shows how much you actually know.
For a start there is no masturbating or sexual stimulation over Google.
Secondly, Google would not have to buy entire companies to buy IP.
Thirdly, most corporations are evil. Its just Google is just a fallen angel instead of a hell spawn.
Fourthly, that last bit I cut out is irrelevant. I was not talking about H264 at all, and WebM isnt aimed at anything other than web use.
****.
Apple owns ONE patent, US 7,292,636
Here's the full list, 56 pages of some very serious and BIG players in the entertainment industry.
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avc-att1.pdf
Now will you please stop with the Apple-hate and ****!
Problem is VP8 isn't. But, that's a minor setback as long as it proves to be patent free!
I don't hate Apple. Now we've just got to see if MPEG-LA or Google has the stones to prove anything in court.
When did MacFanboys turn into Linux Freetards?
I think that largely depends on what the patent holders behind H.264 will do after 2016. If you and I (i.e. end users) will have to pay for uploading a YouTube video, I wouldn't be so sure about it.
Even if the free alternative is technically inferior. (And I'm convinced about H.264's superiority today.)
Well, I care because we're finally getting to the point where hardware from all manufacturers can play the same video format. Is anyone building a smartphone that doesn't play H.264 these days?
Remember the days when MS 'Play-for-sure' devices and iPods didn't cross paths much because MS wasn't playing AACs back then and iPods wouldn't take WMAs? Isn't it nice that everyone's playing along nicely in the audio world now? (Somewhat by other players accepting AACs, but mostly by offical stores adopting MP3s instead of DRM'd files.)
And now we're pretty much there with video...you can feel pretty safe that a new smartphone will play H.264. But thowing this new format into the mix is probably going to disrupt that and you'll see some devices supporting one and some supporting the other and we're gonna go back to having the type of device you own limiting what video you can view.
You know, kind of like Flash sites on the iPhone now. That whold thing is a mess...and now you're asking to introduce more mess onto the video side of it? We should be trying to reduce these problems...not create more of them.
Yeah, I know...you want it in Firefox on your computer. Great, I understand why this is good on desktops and laptops. But there's more to the computer world than that. It's gonna F-up the whole mobile-hardware market.
And I call that pissing in my cereal. So don't think that your opinions don't have consequences for other people too.
Yes i know about that stuff, problem is this "All video codecs are covered by patents. A patent pool is being assembled to go after Theora and other "open source" codecs now" doesn't mean that Apple are after them. Apple isn't creating a patent pool, he's merely stating the facts.
It's only logical, Apple have nothing to gain on having theora and others being shut down. I don't see what evil he's doing?
Unless Apple is the one assembling the patent pool to go after Theora, then this conclusion can't be drawn from his answer. His point is right, whether you like it or not. Just because something is open source doesn't mean that it's automatically non-infringing. This is the world we live in and until voters decide to change it, then EVERY company is incentivized to patent innovations and protect those patents.
Is Google Spreading Themselves Too Thin?
Google seems to have suddenly entered a LOT of different computing areas very quickly lately. Phones, Operating Systems, Developer Storage, TV, now video?
You can't discount their size, financial resources, and capacity, but I'm having a hard time trying to pinpoint where they are going. I worry the quality of their products will be quickly diluted.
Apple seems more focused. Their acquisitions seem to have purpose, be it processor technology, or mobile advertising or maps. We see the results quite quickly as they integrate these things into their products and services.
I guess only time will tell.
Google seems to have suddenly entered a LOT of different computing areas very quickly lately. Phones, Operating Systems, Developer Storage, TV, now video?
You can't discount their size, financial resources, and capacity, but I'm having a hard time trying to pinpoint where they are going. I worry the quality of their products will be quickly diluted.
Apple seems more focused. Their acquisitions seem to have purpose, be it processor technology, or mobile advertising or maps. We see the results quite quickly as they integrate these things into their products and services.
I guess only time will tell.
Quoting that article (emphasis mine):
In its HTML5 support, IE9 will support playback of H.264 video as well as VP8 video when the user has installed a VP8 codec on Windows.
So in other words, you will need to install a VP8 codec yourself and IE9 will be able to use it to decode video. This is not the same as Microsoft shipping the codec or incorporating it into their products; in particular it avoids Microsoft being liable if and when the patent infringement lawsuits start flying.
Most of the rest of that article is dedicated to pointing out the advantages of h264 - the well-tested codec which is shipped with Windows 7 and hardware support.
Codec stability and security might be a relevant point; anecdotal evidence so far is that the only really good VP8 spec is the reference codec implementation which doesn't bode well for independent implementations of the standard.
And if there are people with patents on this stuff waiting in the wings to pounce once it becomes popular - by no means a certainly but surely a distinct possibility - I think caution is the right approach.
I really have no idea why this is being cast as a big Apple vs. Google fight. I think Google are trying to do the right thing but I'm not 100% confident that they will succeed.
Are you guys dreaming?
... Where is your brain at? I read in this forum the posts from Apple and Jobs bashers, lauding Google's virtue and apparent openness... This is all BS!
Google's make their revenue from Ad and every search is an occasion for Google to place ads... By offering an 'open' standard they are just trying to channel through their initiative more ads. Their idea is to control the entire flow of information to deliver value to Google and to its customers (i.e. corporations and small / medium businesses) Its like Vegas, where the Casino wins all the time... Here the Casino is Google.
Apple has been the pioneer in so many markets and Google is just stepping on a path Apple has paved... They see an opportunity and they try to kill any potential alternative (remember: embrace to kill). So, no thanks... No GoogleTV, no Google Standard... I switched to Wolfram Alpha + Bing and it is as good if not better than Google.
I read also a lot of comments about how poor AppleTV is... IMHO, AppleTV is right on target! Apple has created a flow to deliver media content to the customer in a quite elegant way at a time where no one wanted to even try. Sure Apple has developed this flow to sell more macs, Ipods, Apple TVs...They would have been stupid not to! I enjoy Apple TV today because this is simple, I choose what I want, when i want, I do not have any ad to watch (Hulu Anyone?)... Apple TV, always seen as gadget by SJ, is an experimentation for Apple... They set the right level of expectation AND they certainly respect the Content Owners Rights, whether users like it or not.
For me Google TV is going to be crap delivered to your living room: unlike major broadcast companies, Google will not create, produce, deliver a movie, a show, a TV show... They will just keep on pimping, like they do today... Apple does not have the goal to control the information... Apple just said:
- There are people who are ready to pay to watch/listen (customers),
- There are companies who are producing content (studios, Broadcasters),
- Apple is selling good hardware and software...
So, Why not find a compromise and make a win, win, win for all... And the rights of creators are respected... Anyone on this forum is a creator who would like to see their work stolen / not paid for?
Google is a pimp of modern times and their last attempt at TV business is just another form of milking the end users without taking any risk or proposing a real innovative approach. Now, people are going to say: what about Apple's intention to deliver ads thru the apps? People are free to buy ad supported or Ad free apps... With Google there is only one option: you have ads whether you like it or not and , oh by the way, we are also tracking your surfing habits at the same time...
Thanks Apple, I stick with you!
_____________________
Remember: With Google you are not watching TV... The TV is watching you!
... Where is your brain at? I read in this forum the posts from Apple and Jobs bashers, lauding Google's virtue and apparent openness... This is all BS!
Google's make their revenue from Ad and every search is an occasion for Google to place ads... By offering an 'open' standard they are just trying to channel through their initiative more ads. Their idea is to control the entire flow of information to deliver value to Google and to its customers (i.e. corporations and small / medium businesses) Its like Vegas, where the Casino wins all the time... Here the Casino is Google.
Apple has been the pioneer in so many markets and Google is just stepping on a path Apple has paved... They see an opportunity and they try to kill any potential alternative (remember: embrace to kill). So, no thanks... No GoogleTV, no Google Standard... I switched to Wolfram Alpha + Bing and it is as good if not better than Google.
I read also a lot of comments about how poor AppleTV is... IMHO, AppleTV is right on target! Apple has created a flow to deliver media content to the customer in a quite elegant way at a time where no one wanted to even try. Sure Apple has developed this flow to sell more macs, Ipods, Apple TVs...They would have been stupid not to! I enjoy Apple TV today because this is simple, I choose what I want, when i want, I do not have any ad to watch (Hulu Anyone?)... Apple TV, always seen as gadget by SJ, is an experimentation for Apple... They set the right level of expectation AND they certainly respect the Content Owners Rights, whether users like it or not.
For me Google TV is going to be crap delivered to your living room: unlike major broadcast companies, Google will not create, produce, deliver a movie, a show, a TV show... They will just keep on pimping, like they do today... Apple does not have the goal to control the information... Apple just said:
- There are people who are ready to pay to watch/listen (customers),
- There are companies who are producing content (studios, Broadcasters),
- Apple is selling good hardware and software...
So, Why not find a compromise and make a win, win, win for all... And the rights of creators are respected... Anyone on this forum is a creator who would like to see their work stolen / not paid for?
Google is a pimp of modern times and their last attempt at TV business is just another form of milking the end users without taking any risk or proposing a real innovative approach. Now, people are going to say: what about Apple's intention to deliver ads thru the apps? People are free to buy ad supported or Ad free apps... With Google there is only one option: you have ads whether you like it or not and , oh by the way, we are also tracking your surfing habits at the same time...
Thanks Apple, I stick with you!
_____________________
Remember: With Google you are not watching TV... The TV is watching you!
Gnurble Flurble Wurble....
Remember, Apple is in the Ad business now... and the media business...
This isn't Apple vs Google.
It is MPEG-LA vs the world. When Industry put the patent pools in their hands they created a monster. Larry Horn is a patent troll, who has started another line of buisness suing the same people he collects royalties for in the H.264 pool:
http://www.osnews.com/story/23258/MPEG-LA-owned_Patent_Troll_Sues_Smartphone_Makers
You would have to be Naive in the extreme to think this Troll isn't going to go after every attempt at video compression where they don't get a cut.
Don't hate Jobs for pointing this out, Hate Larry Horn for being the scum sucking patent troll that he is.
It is MPEG-LA vs the world. When Industry put the patent pools in their hands they created a monster. Larry Horn is a patent troll, who has started another line of buisness suing the same people he collects royalties for in the H.264 pool:
http://www.osnews.com/story/23258/MPEG-LA-owned_Patent_Troll_Sues_Smartphone_Makers
You would have to be Naive in the extreme to think this Troll isn't going to go after every attempt at video compression where they don't get a cut.
Don't hate Jobs for pointing this out, Hate Larry Horn for being the scum sucking patent troll that he is.
And that is exactly what you are missing.
Just because someone claims X is patent-free, does not mean X is patent-free.
Replace X with MP3, GIF, Ogg Theora, or now, VP8.
The entire point is that, sure, Google claims that its patent free. But they also claimed (as an official response to the EU) they were not storing Wifi data. However, many believe that it is indeed infringing patents, held by some of the biggest players in teh A/V market.
While its true that H.264 is still subject to submarine patents, the fact that no one has come out with a lawsuit claiming patent-violation after it has been used in every Blu-Ray created, or used in every iTunes video downloaded, or used to encode every new Youtube video uploaded, or used to deliver most of the new videos delivered through the Flash plugin, or has become the most popular codec that HW decoders on mobile devices can handle, makes it a pretty safe bet that no one is likely to come out and sue anyone anymore.
If VP8 does indeed violate patents held by firms other than On2 (and Google), as is extremely likely, the only difference between VP8 and H.264 will be:
1) VP8 is a poorer algorithm
2) Its a poorer, unclear spec
3) It was created by one company, as opposed to a bunch of big A/V players who came together to make a standard
Everything else, including the licensing issues, would be the same.
See now the problem with that is Google has included in the "open source license" that they won't indemnify anyone.
They offer it up but won't protect it. Nor will they back it up for any other company.
And I updated my post saying "You can choose to buy Ad free apps or Ad supported apps"... Thanks for noting it... Now: how does your reply bring any added value to this discussion?
When you win a patent lawsuit, you get awarded damages. If the offender is so small that it does not cause much if any damages, there is no point in filing a lawsuit and going through legal expenses in the first place. VP8 needs to become successful and widespread first, before anybody would bother filing a suit. You may want to call it FUD, and yes sometimes it may be just that, but there is logic behind this strategy. You cannot decide that the threats are empty if nobody files a lawsuit next week.
So wait... Steve is calling WebM a mess and not ready for primetime... YET... he's force feeding HTML5 to the masses? Pot, Kettle!