WebM - free license, no guarantees of indemnification
H.264 - paid license, no guarantees of indemnification
Any argument that circumvents the above fact is agenda-driven. People know that WebM is the better choice; but are instead trying to find a roundabout way of keeping their H.264 encoders relevant.
One of the main tenets of reasoning for Flash being a proprietary blackbox is because of its all-encompassing safety net for video, other codecs. No one wanted to hear about that, because at the end of the day people were concerned with their iOS battery life.
So excuse me if I, after finally abandoning Flash myself, feel this is quiet the hypocriticism of the open web movement. It again, seems like it's about battery life and very little to do with freedom of web technology.
And are you claiming that Google has no agenda? It might be one you support, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
No, I entirely anticipate an agenda - but that doesn't mean it exists. My hope is that Google will do the right thing and offer indemnification. Hoping doesn't do anything, of course, but neither does propping up the MPEG LA's argument of what ifs.
Google offers free services and tools of all kinds, so to single out WebM is highly agenda-driven, IMO.
Disclosure: I own a MBA, PC, iPhone, iPad and work on a iMac at my office. I don't own a single Google hardware product.
Sorry - we crossed over - I deleted my original while you were writing this.
Honestly though the points you make here don't seem to have a lot to do with the question.
If Google is going to make claims that things are open, they should be held up to scrutiny. If they are not, then we simply collude with them in weakening the term.
Google claims that a highly complicated piece of code that does pretty much the same thing as another highly complicated piece of code covered by 1700 patents does is patent free and safe to use.
They want other people to stake their money on testing this claim.
"Google offers free services and tools of all kinds, so to single out WebM is highly agenda-driven, IMO."
By that argument, any discussion of individual Google products would be "agenda driven". That's absurd.
They want other people to stake their money on testing this claim.
This is why I believe these rants about WebM are agenda-driven. Who says Google wants people to front the responsibility? This is your claim. I don't think Google bought WebM for the purpose of screwing the implementors. That doesn't mean I think we're all safe, it just means we need more information before jumping to conclusions. It also does not mean we should use WebM without discretion.
By that argument, any discussion of individual Google products would be "agenda driven". That's absurd.
It's absurd to disregard that out of all the possible Google technologies (maps, android, API), WebM is considered most harmful. Especially since most who share this vision are Apple users (again, so am I). I can't ignore the obvious, stitched together, lop-sided point of view.
In case you hadn't noticed this is a thread about the MPEG-LA and WebM. Saying that discussing WebM here is evidence of some kind of weird agenda is crazy talk.
No. There is a difference between debate and suppression. I'm fine with highlighting WebM's faults - but not creating them out of thin air for what appears to be nothing more than a red herring, to vilify WebM with intentions that Google may or may not have.
For WebM to be a free equivalent, Google would have to indemnify users against that list of patents. If Google is sure that the patents are not infringed, why doesn't it at least do that?
H.264 - paid license, no guarantees of indemnification
Any argument that circumvents the above fact is agenda-driven. People know that WebM is the better choice; but are instead trying to find a roundabout way of keeping their H.264 encoders relevant.