Oh sure, all Google has to do is dislodge half a decade of 264 adoption across the computer and consumer electronics industries, get the codec into silicon for mobile devices, get the encoder widely distributed in professional compression/editing software, convince professional compressionists to learn the nuances specific to VP8 (how it handles chrominance, luminance, artifacting, etc., relative to 264, and how to adjust inputs for that), convince all the professionals who've invested in 264 encoding to throw out their equipment and buy new stuff, and get decoders out to hundreds of millions of end-users.
All of which only requires that it be wildly, obviously better than 264, in order to justify such a migration, meaning it needs to have profound advantages other than its political correctness among everything-should-be-free advocates who, beyond their politics, don't know anything about digital media. Oh, and not get sued for patent infringement anyways, whether or not it's true, by bottom-feeding lawyers and their idiot juror allies in the infamous west Texas district, who'd love a slice of that Google cash cow. Not gonna happen. Zero chance. Move on. On May 13, 8:08 am, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: > Wow, for something as generic as h.264 you sure get around Apple a > lot, more than twice as much as you get around unicorns. > Anyway, how about the prospect of Google cornering the market, by > releasing VP8 which they got from their On2 purchase? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
