Google Wave - Developer Preview Video

[Rakib]

Google is paying because it has to do it. It doesn't want to pay license but since to many is using h.264 as the video codec for html5, they must support it.

Opera will support h.264 trough gstreamer, which is a free open source framework.
http://www.gstreamer.net/

MS has several patents concerning h.264, so yes they support h.264. About webml support, they won't support it natively, but it will appear as a missing plugin that can be installed, I'm sure you have seen that missing plugin window before.

[psishock]

About webml support, they won't support it natively, but it will appear as a missing plugin that can be installed

well kinda wrong.
WebM just came out, IE8 did a couple of months before, so using logic, its naturally it's not shipped with webm by default, but can download now as a plugin. But IE9 will have native support out from the box, that's what i was trying to say.

Actually windows media player will support it too, flash player will support it too, free browsers will support is too, and video cards will support it too (hardware accelerated video)... so pretty much everybody except Apple.

I'm sure you have seen that missing plugin window before.

nah, im staying far as much as i can, from that horrible complex of program, called IE .
(aside from racist jokes, i really haven't used IE for anything more than a few compatibility checks, when making some web pages. Using 100% ff builds like minefield or palemoon, but have all of the other competitors, and their cool features on my radar)

Google is paying because it has to do it. It doesn't want to pay license but since to many is using h.264 as the video codec for html5, they must support it.

Bingo Rakib, they aren't paying for h264 because don't have anything better to spend their cash for, but because h264 is widely popular and Google tries to support the popular trendy stuffs (as will Chrome have native support for Adobe Flash too). As most of the companies, Google wants to have the biggest share too, and he can afford to invest, but free/ opensource fags like firefox does not want anything proprietary on their codes. They couldn't let let people build their own stuffs from the source freely afterwards, and that would go against everything they built before.

Opera will support h.264 trough gstreamer, which is a free open source framework.

and you can use many "workarounds" with the other browsers too, and will still be illegal. They didnt payed royalties, you didn't payed royalties, and we have the fact that h264 is still proprietary.

well, to be accurate, gstreamer itself is not illegal, but the usage of proprietary codec, like h264 (through any wrapper), without paying royalties still is.

[Saga Musix]

we're talking about the web here Jojo

...where semi-HQ video is already available today as "live streaming" material, and in the near future, real HQ video will dominate the web. Don't tell me you can't foresee this.
Also, VP8 is not as efficient as x264, meaning that even with low quality video, x264 will produce better output at a lower bitrate. Please don't be a google fanboy and just accept the truth.

but the usual video sharing pages will have the advantage with the VP8, and it can be developer further any time.

Once the codec specifications are published, they can not be altered anymore, unless you release a "new" revision of the codec, meaning that everyone has to update their decoding sources. Improving existing encoders is a different thing than rewriting specifications.

x264 is a "free" but kinda illegal implementation of h264, you actually need a license to use it.

O_o It's not illegal. You have to pay license fees for using an encoder, yes, but that does not mean that a free encoder is illegal in any sense.

But IE9 will have native support out from the box, that's what i was trying to say.

Wrong. You will need the codec plugin to be installed in order to use VP8. That's what M$ say themselves about their VP8 plans.

Sorry, but somehow you're just trying to make the world look a lot nicer than it actually is. But it really isn't that bright. VP8 is not the perfect video codec, it's just a good try at being one.

[psishock]

...where semi-HQ video is already available today as "live streaming" material, and in the near future, real HQ video will dominate the web. Don't tell me you can't foresee this.

yep, in the near future will surely, but i could not describe when will that exactly be, 4, 6, 8 years? We will surely have even more powerful codecs on that time, for instance h265 can be expected around 2012. But right now, i will definitely stick with semi HQ video for a couple of years, adsl speeds wont grow that rapidly.

Also, VP8 is not as efficient as x264, meaning that even with low quality video, x264 will produce better output at a lower bitrate. Please don't be a google fanboy and just accept the truth.

while i am a google fanboy, i can surely accept any sane facts, and you know that (i'm a tech savy person also). Well for now, i was only using x264 and was very happy with the compression and the quality (on any high or low bitrates) also. What i know about VP8 didn't came from my own experience, but on their claims. They can lie of course, in this case the whole argument is invalid and will continue to use x264 in future, time will tell anyway. I was just happy because (in theory) a free/open source codec was able to top the h264, so we will not work in the grey area anymore.

Once the codec specifications are published, they can not be altered anymore, unless you release a "new" revision of the codec, meaning that everyone has to update their decoding sources. Improving existing encoders is a different thing than rewriting specifications.

i see, good point.

Wrong. You will need the codec plugin to be installed in order to use VP8. That's what M$ say themselves about their VP8 plans.

i've heard that version. And also i've heard the news that they are reconsidering that decision. So if everything goes right, they will ship it VP8 bundled.

O_o It's not illegal. You have to pay license fees for using an encoder, yes, but that does not mean that a free encoder is illegal in any sense.

oO' well x264 is an h.264 encoder, its totally based on that specification, which is patented and proprietary, and while nobody payed royalties to Apple to use that patented technology, it makes x264 illegal also. But it's kinda a gray area nowdays, similar to mp3, because its very popular already and nobody will chase down individuals, but it was a huge trouble for bigger companies like opera and firefox. With your logic, they could just use embed x264 and "avoid" paying royalties, but the issue isn't near that simple.

[Saga Musix]

mp3 is not a gray area and I think it's the same with h264: you are allowed to write as many encoders as you want, but you have to pay for using them. Regarding mp3s, individuals producing non-commercial mp3s are not required to pay any license fees. So for example it's OK to use LAME to encode your MP3s, as long as you don't make any money from it. Another reason to not use MP3...

[Sam_Zen]

Well, I remember the uprise when I start using OGG for expected reasons like this with mp3...

[uncloned]

http://mp3licensing.com/royalty/emd.html

is the expected result of that mp3 license

[AlisterFlint]

we're good, if we keep it under $100.000 yearly  

[Sam_Zen]

Aaahh.. what a relief !

[Rakib]

Ohm Force is using the ideas from google wave to incorporate it in their own music studio, called ohm studio. From the presentation video it looks promising.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4eRu7iHR_I&feature=player_embedded#!