I love this "don't have to pay anything until at least 2015" argument. It is BS and doesn't make anything better. So it's cool that they don't charge anything until 2015, therefor helping the spread of the format. Then once 2015 hits they charge whatever they want and make a killing....oh and damn it's kind of too late to go back because when it was free it was made the standard. 4 years of free is cool though, it makes up for the 100 years of being charged later on.
@Cringer I don't think any of these parties know what they're going to do in 2015. It's not the MPEG-LA that decides, it's the 26 patent holders in the group -- many of whom will have to pay their own huge fees for distributing video if royalties go into effect.
It's not wonderful that there's a clock, but I don't think we can run around predicting 26 huge technology companies are going to just up and act against their own interests five years from now.
@Nilay Patel Ok, but the comment of "using H.264 to distribute free internet video to end users doesn't cost a thing, and won't cost anything until at least 2015. After that, it's up in the air," is what I am focusing on. Lets make up a fee come 2016 or so of $1 per video watched on a website. I am guessing Microsoft, Apple, Sony and any of the other "26 huge technology companies" would be just fine paying that for several dozen videos on their sites. Perhaps even Engadget with AOL's backing could. When you start getting to TiPB or PreCentral or smaller tech sites, now they might have to start watching what they throw up on their site, or they are forced to link to one of the big guys. Some small time blogger throws up some dumb home movie he made that makes and because of the fees has to pay 1,000's in fees. I am fairly confident those 26 huge technology companies have the ability to figure out a number that brings them profit while not screwing themselves over. Those 26 companies only have 26 websites after all, and there are millions out there to make a few dollars off of.
@Ben64 The fees you quoted are not what I am discussing.
@Cringer Those are all valid concerns, and I don't fault you for raising them. I think it all comes down to how pessimistic you are, and how well you think you can predict what the world will look like in 5 years.
@Nilay Patel I don't think this is a question of being pessimistic. Assuming they will do everything they can to control the market is quite realistic - that's what Hollywood tried and still tries to do with inventions in PVRs, web streaming and such. One thing large corporations are crazy for are business models. Hollywood is all about business models - that's why its so hard for them to accept RS-DVR, iTunes, Netflix, Hulu, etc. - because these are entirely new models, never tried before and they don't know how to predict it's behaviour. The same may now go for large technology corporations such as Sony, Philips or Thomson. For ages they made money selling technology (CDs, DVDs, BluRay, WiFi, etc.), and now, with Theora, there is someone giving technology for free, effectively putting them out of business. They know that Internet will be the next delivery medium, and they are all in the delivery medium business. I think it may be difficult for them to switch from a technology-perspective (selling standards), to a products-perspective (selling devices working with standards).
The new FiOS HD DVR, arguably the biggest update since Verizon released a DVR, thanks to its external storage support, enhanced multi-room functionality and slick new 16x9 HD user interface.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I love this "don't have to pay anything until at least 2015" argument. It is BS and doesn't make anything better. So it's cool that they don't charge anything until 2015, therefor helping the spread of the format. Then once 2015 hits they charge whatever they want and make a killing....oh and damn it's kind of too late to go back because when it was free it was made the standard. 4 years of free is cool though, it makes up for the 100 years of being charged later on.
@Cringer Actually it's pretty clear that the price range is somewhere around 0 to 5 million a year, not however much they want.
@Cringer I don't think any of these parties know what they're going to do in 2015. It's not the MPEG-LA that decides, it's the 26 patent holders in the group -- many of whom will have to pay their own huge fees for distributing video if royalties go into effect.
It's not wonderful that there's a clock, but I don't think we can run around predicting 26 huge technology companies are going to just up and act against their own interests five years from now.
@Nilay Patel Ok, but the comment of "using H.264 to distribute free internet video to end users doesn't cost a thing, and won't cost anything until at least 2015. After that, it's up in the air," is what I am focusing on. Lets make up a fee come 2016 or so of $1 per video watched on a website. I am guessing Microsoft, Apple, Sony and any of the other "26 huge technology companies" would be just fine paying that for several dozen videos on their sites. Perhaps even Engadget with AOL's backing could. When you start getting to TiPB or PreCentral or smaller tech sites, now they might have to start watching what they throw up on their site, or they are forced to link to one of the big guys. Some small time blogger throws up some dumb home movie he made that makes and because of the fees has to pay 1,000's in fees. I am fairly confident those 26 huge technology companies have the ability to figure out a number that brings them profit while not screwing themselves over. Those 26 companies only have 26 websites after all, and there are millions out there to make a few dollars off of.
@Ben64 The fees you quoted are not what I am discussing.
@Cringer Those are all valid concerns, and I don't fault you for raising them. I think it all comes down to how pessimistic you are, and how well you think you can predict what the world will look like in 5 years.
@Nilay Patel I don't think this is a question of being pessimistic. Assuming they will do everything they can to control the market is quite realistic - that's what Hollywood tried and still tries to do with inventions in PVRs, web streaming and such. One thing large corporations are crazy for are business models. Hollywood is all about business models - that's why its so hard for them to accept RS-DVR, iTunes, Netflix, Hulu, etc. - because these are entirely new models, never tried before and they don't know how to predict it's behaviour. The same may now go for large technology corporations such as Sony, Philips or Thomson. For ages they made money selling technology (CDs, DVDs, BluRay, WiFi, etc.), and now, with Theora, there is someone giving technology for free, effectively putting them out of business. They know that Internet will be the next delivery medium, and they are all in the delivery medium business. I think it may be difficult for them to switch from a technology-perspective (selling standards), to a products-perspective (selling devices working with standards).