On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Karsten Silz <[email protected]> wrote: > I beg to differ. Consumers consume - video content in our case. So > they don't pay H.264 license fees (Microsoft / Apple / Adobe do, and I > know consumers indirectly pay in the end, but it's such a small amount > since license fees are capped), which levels the playing field among > the codecs.
Consumers pay in more than just monetary costs. Even though the license fees are small for the heavy weights, this is not a true statement for smaller companies and really just works to make the established players that much more established. If a new "royalty free" codec were to gain popularity, this should help drive down the costs of new companies creating devices that can work with that codec along with smaller companies making commercial software support for it. -- 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.
