GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
It will be interesting to see how the h.264 owners respond to this. If Jobs is to believed, it will be another big payday for the lawyers. Still, if Google moves YouTube to open codecs, it may be able to knock h.264 for a loop.
Also on the video codec front, and also with a Xiph connection, atamido writes "Google has released On2's VP8 video codec to the world, royalty-free. It is packaging it with Vorbis audio, in a subset of the Matroska container, and calling it WebM. It's not branded as an exclusively Google project — Mozilla and Opera are also contributors. Builds of your favorite browsers with full support are available."
It is finally released, and my fears of Google 'just sitting on VP8' has vanished.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hangdog42
It will be interesting to see how the h.264 owners respond to this. If Jobs is to believed, it will be another big payday for the lawyers. Still, if Google moves YouTube to open codecs, it may be able to knock h.264 for a loop.
I am very intrigued and curious as to what exactly Jobs & co. are gonna do about it as well. Google holds the patents for VP8 essentially. What are they going to do? Bring a patent lawsuit against Google? I really would like to see how fast that case is going to be thrown out. Google bought the rights to VP8 from On2, if Jobs & co. has a problem with that, maybe they can take it up with On2, which I'm sure they will just laugh at them and point them towards Google again, thus throwing Jobs & co. for a loop as well.
This is a major win for the OSS community, and Google for a change has done something right. There is absolutely nothing that the owners & those who prefer H.264 can really do, except (to put it rather crudely), bend over and just take it up the tailpipe like they deserve!
I was looking for the source code for FirefoxWebM, and I'm not sure if what I linked to is the right thing or not. The version numbers seem wonky to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeebizz
Google holds the patents for VP8 essentially. What are they going to do? Bring a patent lawsuit against Google?
If I understand Jobs threat right, he is claiming that VP8 actually infringes on h.264 patents. In fact he seems to claim that it is impossible to build any video codec that doesn't infringe on h.264 in some way. I suspect that masses of lawyers armed with enormous manure-flinging instruments will be arriving on the field of battle in short order.
If I understand Jobs threat right, he is claiming that VP8 actually infringes on h.264 patents. In fact he seems to claim that it is impossible to build any video codec that doesn't infringe on h.264 in some way. I suspect that masses of lawyers armed with enormous manure-flinging instruments will be arriving on the field of battle in short order.
Then why bring a lawsuit so late? Why didn't he & others like him not bring such a patent case when On2 still retained the rights to VP8? This is all rather suspect to me, and this just proves how two-faced Jobs is too. Claiming on one hand to be for open web standards, then essentially becoming a litigious backstabber. Its like he is Jekyll & Hyde!
It is clear then that he holds no real reverence for open standards, and only hides behind it when it serves him, then it can be discarded like a used handkerchief.
I really don't know why they waited, but I have the sneaking suspicion that the iPod/iPhone/iPad have something to do with it. Prior to that, Apple didn't seem to care what ran on its hardware, but ever since the iPod came out they've realized just how far they can go in controlling the entire "user experience". iTunes is a decent place to get music, but it is also a monumental control lever for Apple and the app store goes even further. Heck, Jobs is dictating what tools developers can use now! I suspect that an open video codec is at least perceived to threaten Jobs control over the iPhone and iPad.
Of course I never really understood Apple, so I'm probably wrong. Maybe it is just payback for Android.
Well if Jobs wants all out control of the ipad/iphone thats fine, I couldn't give two shits about it. I don't have either, and I have never bought nor will ever buy anything from Apple. I hope that developers realize that perhaps it is not really worth the hassle in developing for Apple anyways, then again if the price is high enough I am sure most of them will of course sell out to Apple.
If this is Jobs' way of trying to get back at Android, then once my contract with Verizon is up for renewal, I will be asking for the Droid. Thats one more Droid customer Jobs is going to have to deal with now.
Also this could be a coup for Droid anyways. Google did not impose any restrictions of what tool to use, at least not that I can find. So maybe if enough devs. jump ship to Droid because of Jobs' pigheadedness, it might give Jobs a nice kick in the bum as he so deserves anyways.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.