

Google boosts open video by funding ARM Theora codec - CoryOndrejka
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/04/google-boosts-open-video-by-funding-arm-theora-codec.ars

======
ZeroGravitas
Did we have to change the headline to fit in with the recent Apple theme on
HN?

Actual title: "Google boosts open video by funding ARM Theora codec"

Also, while I'm criticizing the tile, 'schizophrenia' as a metaphor for being
in two minds about something is both tasteless and inaccurate:

[http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/5...](http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/54/10/1402)

~~~
Tichy
According to a cursory page search, the word "Apple" doesn't even appear
anywhere in the article. I find that annoying (misleading headline).

------
tvon
Again, please don't editorialize in the headline, it kills the potential for
real discussion.

------
acg
Neither. Google has a an interest in getting video to work on multiple
platforms, it seems clearer that html5 will be the future of youtube. However
Google's codec of choice does not work well on mobile platforms. Doesn't this
make mobile consumption of video easier for all vendors? A win for all, but
most of all the service provider.

~~~
CoryOndrejka
Maybe I'm not grokking your comment, but it seems to be saying that h.264
doesn't work well on mobile, which the various mobile webkit browsers would
seems to contradict.

If instead you're saying that Ogg Theora is the future of Google, again I
don't get it, since Google has defended their choice of h.264 for YouTube on
technical/performance grounds several times.

~~~
acg
I'm sure they are committed to H264. But this is a case of providing a good
alternative that's cheaper for all. This move supports their acquisition of
On2, presumably technology developed for the theora codec would be useful in
later On2 codecs.

I say it's appears to be the future as there is less to pay in terms of
patents. Making is cheaper to produce a device that uses the network services
that google provides. Giving google more traffic for it's video service. As
more are able to afford network devices and more software clients can be
written.

It perhaps helps Chrome OS too if it's on a tablet?

~~~
yuvi
Chrome uses FFmpeg, which already has a good amount of ARM optimizations and
is around 10% faster than Theorarm on my Cortex-A8.

Maybe it's in the same vein as summer of code?

~~~
acg
<http://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html>

_Q: Is it perfectly alright to incorporate the whole FFmpeg core into my own
commercial product?_

 _A: You might have a problem here. There have been cases where companies have
used FFmpeg in their products. These companies found out that once you start
trying to make money from patented technologies, the owners of the patents
will come after their licensing fees. Notably, MPEG LA is vigilant and
diligent about collecting for MPEG-related technologies._

~~~
yuvi
You can disable compilation of MPEG codecs if it makes you feel safer.

But I don't see what that has to do with my comment.

~~~
acg
Sorry I thought you were suggesting that ffmpeg means that products developed
by Google are not subject to license fees. We were talking about the future
landscape of video not what happens now: Google are investing in the future.

E264 contains MPEG LA technology. Using ffmpeg for E264 would still mean that
Google will pay fees/license the technology.

I'm sure Google's action is to encourage a practical replacement for E264.
Then, at least, there is grounds to negotiate better licensing terms.

