6 ms·

* Due to the nature of patents, “patent-free” tech does not exist. * At scale H.264 is crazy cheap. It costs $6.5 million for YouTube to serve 72 billion hours

* Due to the nature of patents, “patent-free” tech does not exist. * At scale H.264 is crazy cheap. It costs $6.5 million for YouTube to serve 72 billion hours of video. Still, it is infinitely more expensive than free.

josephlord 13y ago
20 year old tech can avoid patent problems but I share you scepticism about the status of VP8/9. Agree H.264 is cheap but I think you underestimate how cheap. Internet delivered video that is not subscription or pay per view is free! http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avcweb.pdf http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avcweb.pdf I'm actually sceptical that VP9 will be good enough and patent safe enough to dislodge H.265. From what I've read about Daala I suspect it will too late to the battle. I suspect hardware support for H.265 is already well under way that a convincing improvement would be necessary to stop H.265 dominating the next decade. The advocates for Free codecs need to forget about H.264 and focus on a compelling argument to beat H.265 and get their chosen answer into hardware developments NOW. In 12 months it will be too late if it isn't already. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate the development of these and other codecs, they are a factor in keeping the license prices reasonable.
- mlinksva 13y ago
  From what I understand, Daala is aimed at the generation after VP9/H.265, eg https://lwn.net/Articles/571978/ https://lwn.net/Articles/571978/ But I suspect you're right about VP9/H.265 decisions being made now, and royalty free alternatives keeping prices down even when the alternatives don't win a lot of market share (could say the same about the never-winning "linux desktop" -- it gets negligible seats, but may have shifted $$$ from Microsoft profit to consumers over the years).
  - josephlord 13y ago
    That might be the plan for Daala but it really needs to be MUCH better to make another generational change worthwhile. I don't think VP9 can win the current fight to be honest. I doubt it is patent free, or good enough. I also wonder if Google can cooperate in the way required to build support for it outside of its Android family.
    - nitrogen 13y ago
      VP9 is licensed for all MPEG-LA patents, so it has that going for it.
      - josephlord 13y ago
        1) I think that was VP8. I don't know if those patents are licensed for use with other codecs or the extent to which VP9 uses the same technology. 2) MPEG LA doesn't have patents they invite patent owners to contribute them to patent pools for a cut of revenue. Where companies have not been involved with the development of standards they are not obliged to license them on FRAND basis so there is more reason not to join a pool. Nokia at least is in the pool for various MPEG standards but not VP8, there may be others waiting to troll if large scale use occurs. 3) Nokia hadn't joined the VP8 pool and was actually using a VP8 relevant patent against an Android manufacturer. I don't know the current status of this case but if you have a link to recent news I would be grateful.
        magicalist 13y ago
        1) No, it included VP9[1] 2) Yes, that's why agreements with the MPEGLA are actually with the member companies (as mentioned in [1]) 3) That was Nokia asserting against HTC three times. The first one was dismissed, the second one was rejected[2]. I'm having trouble finding any information about the third (which is at the ITC, not in a court), so it may still be ongoing. [1] http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachments/88/n-13-03-07.pdf http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachme... [2] http://www.osnews.com/story/27245/VP8_does_not_infringe_on_Nokia_patent http://www.osnews.com/story/27245/VP8_does_not_infringe_on_N...
        josephlord 13y ago
        Thanks for the information. 1) According to that link the VP8 patents are licensed for use in VP9 (which I had forgotten or didn't know) but there is still the possibility of new patent from existing licensees in addition to additional patent holders coming forwards. 3) The reference you give is to one of the patents but there are more than one involved. As far as I know it is still an ongoing open issue.

josephlord 13y ago

20 year old tech can avoid patent problems but I share you scepticism about the status of VP8/9. Agree H.264 is cheap but I think you underestimate how cheap. Internet delivered video that is not subscription or pay per view is free! http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avcweb.pdf http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avcweb.pdf I'm actually sceptical that VP9 will be good enough and patent safe enough to dislodge H.265. From what I've read about Daala I suspect it will too late to the battle. I suspect hardware support for H.265 is already well under way that a convincing improvement would be necessary to stop H.265 dominating the next decade. The advocates for Free codecs need to forget about H.264 and focus on a compelling argument to beat H.265 and get their chosen answer into hardware developments NOW. In 12 months it will be too late if it isn't already. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate the development of these and other codecs, they are a factor in keeping the license prices reasonable.

mlinksva 13y ago
From what I understand, Daala is aimed at the generation after VP9/H.265, eg https://lwn.net/Articles/571978/ https://lwn.net/Articles/571978/ But I suspect you're right about VP9/H.265 decisions being made now, and royalty free alternatives keeping prices down even when the alternatives don't win a lot of market share (could say the same about the never-winning "linux desktop" -- it gets negligible seats, but may have shifted $$$ from Microsoft profit to consumers over the years).
- josephlord 13y ago
  That might be the plan for Daala but it really needs to be MUCH better to make another generational change worthwhile. I don't think VP9 can win the current fight to be honest. I doubt it is patent free, or good enough. I also wonder if Google can cooperate in the way required to build support for it outside of its Android family.
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    VP9 is licensed for all MPEG-LA patents, so it has that going for it.
    - josephlord 13y ago
      1) I think that was VP8. I don't know if those patents are licensed for use with other codecs or the extent to which VP9 uses the same technology. 2) MPEG LA doesn't have patents they invite patent owners to contribute them to patent pools for a cut of revenue. Where companies have not been involved with the development of standards they are not obliged to license them on FRAND basis so there is more reason not to join a pool. Nokia at least is in the pool for various MPEG standards but not VP8, there may be others waiting to troll if large scale use occurs. 3) Nokia hadn't joined the VP8 pool and was actually using a VP8 relevant patent against an Android manufacturer. I don't know the current status of this case but if you have a link to recent news I would be grateful.
      - magicalist 13y ago
        1) No, it included VP9[1] 2) Yes, that's why agreements with the MPEGLA are actually with the member companies (as mentioned in [1]) 3) That was Nokia asserting against HTC three times. The first one was dismissed, the second one was rejected[2]. I'm having trouble finding any information about the third (which is at the ITC, not in a court), so it may still be ongoing. [1] http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachments/88/n-13-03-07.pdf http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachme... [2] http://www.osnews.com/story/27245/VP8_does_not_infringe_on_Nokia_patent http://www.osnews.com/story/27245/VP8_does_not_infringe_on_N...
        josephlord 13y ago
        Thanks for the information. 1) According to that link the VP8 patents are licensed for use in VP9 (which I had forgotten or didn't know) but there is still the possibility of new patent from existing licensees in addition to additional patent holders coming forwards. 3) The reference you give is to one of the patents but there are more than one involved. As far as I know it is still an ongoing open issue.