How is your version any less speculative than any other presented out there? They've already done a ton of research into their patents verses others out there. They have to because of potential liability. If someone could win against VP8 then they could win against H.264 too. Especially considering we'd been doing video for many years prior to H.264 and VP8.
For it to be truly secure there would have to be a non-maskable, hardware key combined with some biometrics that prove you really are who you say you are. So it would literally have to be YOU holding YOUR PHONE to make the stuff work.
But, having said that, it would REALLY suck to lose your phone at that point, much worse than losing your wallet/purse.
I don't think you're being funny... but truth be told everything you describe could be done today without ever needing a second core or the ability to run multiple apps at the same time.
That would be the beauty of what I described... it wouldn't have to be connected to the Internet, it could just all be handled "locally" within your house network. The proximity of the device could be the key to making it work and not just remote commands sent. I realize there will always be risks, but there are ways to make it more safe.
I do, however, agree that opening up your house and appliances to the Internet is a bad idea in general.
That's exactly the way I see things headed. We will all be carrying around our "computer" and storage with us, and public places will simply augment it with larger screens and keyboard (as Motorola suggests) or in many other ways. In this way we buy the applications we use for our personal computing devices (PCD) and then have access to them everywhere we go. No more of this crap of buying software four times over for four machines at home.
Imagine walking into the living room and your PCD magically becomes the remote for your TV, VCR, DVR, or whatever. Then you walk into the kitchen and you can control the microwave, stove, and other devices with it. Walk out of the house and your phone allows you to remotely set the alarm and lock the doors. It becomes the key to your car once you are in it or allows you to remote start it. You walk near a printer at work with it and print the document you grabbed from home. The possibilities are endless.
I made a comment about dual/quad core phones a while back and was laughed at. It will happen folks and sooner than you suspect. Phones are quickly becoming our primary computing device, or at least the centerpiece of our electronic lives.
It's not about playing Doom on a smart phone, it's about the phone being able to do everything we ask it to do without having to wait too long.
WebM and Chrome are both open sourced under public licenses. To say Google "owns" them is to not understand how these open licenses work. Also, the patents behind VP8 have been released, irrevocably, to the public.
I'm with others on this one... I don't think Google cares if it has to pay or not. Money is not exactly something Google has a shortage of.
They do, however, want to be able to freely make and distribute products to others that can, in turn, use them to make other products... without having to worry about their customers being sued into the ground, as is happening now.
Google wants Android to succeed, make no mistake. And "freely implementing" H.264 in Android does not allow their customers to freely USE Android without coughing up money for the rights. This is all about protecting Google's interests, not its bottom line.
Google thrives by providing free stuff to people that allows them to better understand them and thereby feeding them ads that meet their needs and wants. Having other companies sue the users of their products doesn't exactly help Google.
You don't get it. Video decoding hardware is very specific in what parts of what codecs it supports, and it can't be upgraded through software. The x264 devs already determined that WebM contains algorithms that don't translate well to efficient hardware, and that it will be a huge resource hog compared to current h264 solutions, until dedicated WebM hardware is released to the market.
Oh, I get it. This is a very similar situation to the earlier days of video cards that supported "Windows acceleration" instead of more generic graphical acceleration. Software is fluid and has been since the dawn of computers. Device makers have lots of options to allow them to accelerate H.264 content without some artificial lockout of other technology, especially when that technology has been around for MANY years.
WebM is based on technology that predates H.264 by years (VP3.2 was the first open version, on which VP8/WebM are based, from 2001, versus 2003 for H.264). This is not "new" in any sense of the word I am familiar with.
If your "iGadgets" can't be updated with software to support new codecs or variations in existing codecs, then I fear you have already wasted your money on crappy technology.
Slashdot Mirror
iOS may be Vader some day later but now it's just a small fry?
How is your version any less speculative than any other presented out there? They've already done a ton of research into their patents verses others out there. They have to because of potential liability. If someone could win against VP8 then they could win against H.264 too. Especially considering we'd been doing video for many years prior to H.264 and VP8.
Will everyone be shocked because they request credit card, banking and cell phone information too?
THEY CAN DO THAT???!??!?! :p
For it to be truly secure there would have to be a non-maskable, hardware key combined with some biometrics that prove you really are who you say you are. So it would literally have to be YOU holding YOUR PHONE to make the stuff work.
But, having said that, it would REALLY suck to lose your phone at that point, much worse than losing your wallet/purse.
You forgot the:
???
Profit!!!
They could try "Xbox Rox"...
I don't think you're being funny... but truth be told everything you describe could be done today without ever needing a second core or the ability to run multiple apps at the same time.
That would be the beauty of what I described... it wouldn't have to be connected to the Internet, it could just all be handled "locally" within your house network. The proximity of the device could be the key to making it work and not just remote commands sent. I realize there will always be risks, but there are ways to make it more safe.
I do, however, agree that opening up your house and appliances to the Internet is a bad idea in general.
Here is the "official" statement: http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/
The wiki page uses different wording:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vp8
According to the WebM site, the only way you could lose your rights to use the patents is if you sue them.
You read that wrong: http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/
It says that if YOU sue them or help someone sue them then YOUR rights to use the patents expires, not everyone.
I was referring to the phone makers using Android in their devices, since they are the "customers" of Google.
That's exactly the way I see things headed. We will all be carrying around our "computer" and storage with us, and public places will simply augment it with larger screens and keyboard (as Motorola suggests) or in many other ways. In this way we buy the applications we use for our personal computing devices (PCD) and then have access to them everywhere we go. No more of this crap of buying software four times over for four machines at home.
Imagine walking into the living room and your PCD magically becomes the remote for your TV, VCR, DVR, or whatever. Then you walk into the kitchen and you can control the microwave, stove, and other devices with it. Walk out of the house and your phone allows you to remotely set the alarm and lock the doors. It becomes the key to your car once you are in it or allows you to remote start it. You walk near a printer at work with it and print the document you grabbed from home. The possibilities are endless.
If you weren't AC, I'd mod you up just for using "farknuckles".
Why anyone would say otherwise is a mystery to me.
Are you new to this planet? :p People say things all the time that are less than true for many different reasons.
I'm sure old ones won't magically spawn a second core... :p
It would be truly hilarious if Steve Jobs used the handle "nibbles".
I made a comment about dual/quad core phones a while back and was laughed at. It will happen folks and sooner than you suspect. Phones are quickly becoming our primary computing device, or at least the centerpiece of our electronic lives.
It's not about playing Doom on a smart phone, it's about the phone being able to do everything we ask it to do without having to wait too long.
WebM and Chrome are both open sourced under public licenses. To say Google "owns" them is to not understand how these open licenses work. Also, the patents behind VP8 have been released, irrevocably, to the public.
It's the "Doesn't Really Matter" button. Duh!
I'm with others on this one... I don't think Google cares if it has to pay or not. Money is not exactly something Google has a shortage of.
They do, however, want to be able to freely make and distribute products to others that can, in turn, use them to make other products... without having to worry about their customers being sued into the ground, as is happening now.
Google wants Android to succeed, make no mistake. And "freely implementing" H.264 in Android does not allow their customers to freely USE Android without coughing up money for the rights. This is all about protecting Google's interests, not its bottom line.
Google thrives by providing free stuff to people that allows them to better understand them and thereby feeding them ads that meet their needs and wants. Having other companies sue the users of their products doesn't exactly help Google.
It's open and free like a franchise is open and free.
You really need to work on your anger management. You're really not angry enough yet.
You don't get it. Video decoding hardware is very specific in what parts of what codecs it supports, and it can't be upgraded through software. The x264 devs already determined that WebM contains algorithms that don't translate well to efficient hardware, and that it will be a huge resource hog compared to current h264 solutions, until dedicated WebM hardware is released to the market.
Oh, I get it. This is a very similar situation to the earlier days of video cards that supported "Windows acceleration" instead of more generic graphical acceleration. Software is fluid and has been since the dawn of computers. Device makers have lots of options to allow them to accelerate H.264 content without some artificial lockout of other technology, especially when that technology has been around for MANY years.
WebM is based on technology that predates H.264 by years (VP3.2 was the first open version, on which VP8/WebM are based, from 2001, versus 2003 for H.264). This is not "new" in any sense of the word I am familiar with.
Netflix will also be a big player in how this all plays out.
If your "iGadgets" can't be updated with software to support new codecs or variations in existing codecs, then I fear you have already wasted your money on crappy technology.