undefined | Better HN

0 pointsyaur11y ago0 comments

Both of those companies have been around long enough to remember the hell caused by there being a bunch of competing codecs in the 90s before the two main bodies that make video standards agreed to go the same direction. Google is the new kid that wants them to try something they have already watch fail again.

0 comments

cm311y ago

If you want one standard for everybody it better not exclude innovators without deep pockets and require licensing fees to use the standard everybody's supposed to use. The world doesn't just consist of TV stations, video production workstations and iPhones or Samsung TVs all licensing H.26*. Participators in creating a technical standard must be compensated for the their work but if it's a standard for everyday use by everyone what are the arguments for requiring licensing fees?

yaurOP11y ago

Having a license pool incentives continued research into video compression and provides a less risky environment for all participants (this a problem that Google bought their way out of).

Overall the licensing structure and costs are reasonable IMO except that software decoders that are given away for free shouldn't incur licensing costs.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsyaur11y ago0 comments

0 comments

cm311y ago

yaurOP11y ago

Having a license pool incentives continued research into video compression and provides a less risky environment for all participants (this a problem that Google bought their way out of).

Overall the licensing structure and costs are reasonable IMO except that software decoders that are given away for free shouldn't incur licensing costs.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse