Chris DiBona writes: > this issue is actually not about submarined patents (more like > aircraft carrier patents) or tricky corner cases for the lgpl., but > that the internet users prefer more quality in their > codecs/megabyte/second.
I'm not so sure. YouTube is very popular despite the fact that its video clips resemble the transmission from the moon landing in 1969. And JPEG2000 achieves better pictures/megabyte than JPEG, but internet users are not calling for it. Saving a megabyte here and there is less important than having a video format that is free and open for all to use. Dailymotion.com has understood this and their recent offerings using <video> and Ogg Theora is laudable [1]. This was exactly what I've been hoping for, and arguing for, since the <video> element was proposed [2][3]. [1] http://blog.dailymotion.com/2009/05/27/watch-videowithout-flash/ [2] http://people.opera.com/howcome/2007/video/ [3] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5545573096553082541 At Google, you have a unique opportunity to be part of this. You have the video clips, the disks, the processing power, and the talent to launch a service that will firmly establish <video> and Ogg Theora as the video solution for the web. However, it seems that Google doesn't care much for having a free and open video format. Most of the bits you put out on the web are in patent-encumbered formats, and this doesn't seem to bother you. Rather, you promote patent-encumbered formats in your new experimental service [4]. [4] http://www.youtube.com/html5 The web is based on free and open formats. Google would not have existed without the web. It will be a terrible tragedy if you tip the scales in favor of patent-encumbered formats on the web. We expect higher standards from you. -h&kon Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª howc...@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
