http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/more-about-chrome-html-video-codec.html
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 8:22 PM, P T Withington <[email protected]> wrote: > This article points out that there is no license fee required if you have no > fees on your content. So, for instance, u-toob pays no license fees. > > But you are right. This could be an attempt by Google to force a > re-examination of the H.264 royalty schemes. > > Amusing that Firefox on Windows can play H.264 using a plug-in from Microsoft > (the latter presumably picking up the tab for the royalties). I think this > is the same situation on OS X, that Safari just uses the built-in Quicktime > H.264 CODEC, for which Apple have already picked up the royalty tab. > > [Interestingly, I had to recently buy an MPEG-2 codec (as a plug-in for > Quicktime). Apparently this is the format used by video on my DVR (what the > difference is between mp4 and mp2 is, I do not know). I'm sure Verizon don't > realize this, or they would want to bill me extra for it, but I can plug my > mac into the firewire jack on my Verizon DVR and 'record' to my Mac's hard > drive, digital video of whatever is playing. I wanted to preserve the clip > from the NBC coverage of the IronMan Championships where Neil was shown for > her 'Nanosecond of Fame'.] > > On 2011-01-13, at 14:04, Henry Minsky wrote: > >> maybe it will cause the MPEG licensing association to drop their licensing >> fees. According to >> the article by Mark Pilgrim in Dive Into HTML5, it's something like $2500 - >> $10,000 to get a license >> to 'broadcast' if you're sending video to above 100K users. >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 1:37 PM, P T Withington <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Google's dropping H.264 from Chrome a step backward for openness >>> http://bit.ly/hqfoNx >>> >>>> Prior to Google's decision, the migration from H.264-via-Flash to >>> H.264-via-<video> looked likely. Internet Explorer 9, Safari, and Chrome >>> were all to include native, built-in support for the codec, and even Firefox >>> users would be able to use H.264 video through Microsoft's plugin for that >>> browser. This would have represented great progress. >>> >>> Source: >>> http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2011/01/googles-dropping-h264-from-chrome-a-step-backward-for-openness.ars/ >>> See if people are clicking on this link:http://bit.ly/hqfoNx+ >>> Try the bit.ly sidebar to see who is talking about a page on the web: >>> http://bit.ly/pages/sidebar >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Henry Minsky >> Software Architect >> [email protected] > > >
