Putting x264 developer's technical analysis of WebM into perspective

Re:Putting x264 developer's technical analysis of WebM into ... by jrockway on Thursday May 20, 2010 @09:17PM (#1366056)

The technical analysis is sound -- technically, WebM is not as good as H.264. But considering it's mostly for cat videos, it doesn't really matter.

The super high quality stuff will take an extra minute or two to download, but you won't have to pay a licensing fee for it. The movie and the hardware and software that play it will be much cheaper. A compromise, yes, but not a really difficult one.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Putting x264 developer's technical analysis of WebM into ... by javanix on Thursday May 20, 2010 @10:30PM (#1366183)

The super high quality stuff will take an extra minute or two to download, but you won't have to pay a licensing fee for it.

I'm not so sure about that. Yesterday's analysis seemed to predict some questionable usage of H.264 bits in the encoder.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Putting x264 developer's technical analysis of WebM into ... by jrockway on Thursday May 20, 2010 @11:31PM (#1366288)

If that turns out to be the case, then everyone should go back to H.264. But honestly, I have a feeling that Google looked into this before they decided to use it for YouTube. Remember that patents cover exactly what they describe, not things similar to what they describe.

Google could always also just buy the patent, if it turns out to be a problem. Basically, I am not ready to dismiss this yet. I trust Google's legal team over one H.264 programmer.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Putting x264 developer's technical analysis of WebM into ... by av500 on Friday May 21, 2010 @01:09AM (#1366451)

So far the only thing Google said is "they are very confident" which legally means nothing. They are not going to indemnify everybody that gets sued over VP8, are they?

[ Parent | on HN ]