An Open Letter from the President of the United States of Google(blogs.msdn.com)
blogs.msdn.com
An Open Letter from the President of the United States of Google
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/tims/archive/2011/01/11/an-open-letter-from-the-president-of-the-united-states-of-google.aspx
12 comments
>You don't actually have to pay your pants off with royalties to some group
Really? How is paying a few cents a user 'paying your pants off' ?
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/h264-patents-how-much-do-they...
Really? How is paying a few cents a user 'paying your pants off' ?
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/h264-patents-how-much-do-they...
$6.5 million per year buys a lot of pants where I come from.
This reminds me about the scare tactics adopted about Congress's earmarks, where a large number was thrown around without context to obfuscate the issue. You need to put the 6.5 million in perspective.
The 6.5 million is for developers of encoders/decoders, not websites (it's capped at 100k for video sites). If you sell a million copies of an encoder, your royalty will be $0.20 times 900k = $180k (first 100k is free). Is it really too much to ask $0.20 for developing most of the technology on which you are basing your business?
For 250K subscribers to a SUBSCRIPTION video site, big bad MPEG-LA wants $25k, CAPPED at 100k for users >1M.
I'm pretty sure this is a negligible amount for a subscription site. And remember, free sites don't pay.
The 6.5 million is for developers of encoders/decoders, not websites (it's capped at 100k for video sites). If you sell a million copies of an encoder, your royalty will be $0.20 times 900k = $180k (first 100k is free). Is it really too much to ask $0.20 for developing most of the technology on which you are basing your business?
For 250K subscribers to a SUBSCRIPTION video site, big bad MPEG-LA wants $25k, CAPPED at 100k for users >1M.
I'm pretty sure this is a negligible amount for a subscription site. And remember, free sites don't pay.
Right. Because the current price they're charging is going to be all that they're ever going to charge until the patents expire.
Or, you know, what's actually going to happen is the price being kept low until H.264 is well-entrenched, and then being jacked up when there's no competition.
Or, you know, what's actually going to happen is the price being kept low until H.264 is well-entrenched, and then being jacked up when there's no competition.
So you agree that 100k/6.5 million would not unreasonable for the entity which would be charged that amount?
The linked article addresses inflation also. The licensors agree to not raise royalties by more than 10% per year. Unless you definition of "jacked up" encompasses 10% rise.
I see ideological reasons to support a free standard, but not business ones. YMMV.
The linked article addresses inflation also. The licensors agree to not raise royalties by more than 10% per year. Unless you definition of "jacked up" encompasses 10% rise.
I see ideological reasons to support a free standard, but not business ones. YMMV.
English is free even for commercial use.
كما هي اللغة العربية التي لا تقدر بثمن، مع انها لا تكلف قرشاً
Upvoted in hopes of translation...
"So is the Arabic language; which is priceless, even though it doesn't cost a penny".
Trouble is, I can only say that in formal Arabic, not any particular dialect. I must be the only native Arabic speaker without a native dialect (imagine a native English speaker who speaks only in Shakespearean)
Trouble is, I can only say that in formal Arabic, not any particular dialect. I must be the only native Arabic speaker without a native dialect (imagine a native English speaker who speaks only in Shakespearean)
Child of an international marriage, growing up overseas?
Yes, I am two quarters and a half, and so is my fiancee. Our child will have a nationality in 5 continents.
You must have exclusively learnt Arabic at school then.
"The language is Arabic, which are invaluable, even though it does not cost a penny" - according to google translate.
[deleted]
The language is Arabic, which is priceless,
Not too sure about - مع انها لا تكلف قرشاً
Not too sure about - مع انها لا تكلف قرشاً
Not equivalent; HTML5 video is still being defined and is not yet in the mainstream.
[deleted]
If English was as only developed and entrenched as H.264 is currently when Esperanto was introduced, I know I would be willing to take the very minor setback.
Childish?
Suddently reminded me to the web page that criticizes Mac apps from the store
Suddently reminded me to the web page that criticizes Mac apps from the store
Nice parodi, but besides the (huge) costs of switching, Esperanto (with an Ascii character set rather than the the current (Polish?) letters) would properly be better by far than English.
At least we would have no more grammar fights - the entirety of Esperanto grammar is significantly shorter than the linked article.
And don't worry, you would still have Wikipedia [http://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/].
As for Klingon, well I guess that remains a pipedream.
At least we would have no more grammar fights - the entirety of Esperanto grammar is significantly shorter than the linked article.
And don't worry, you would still have Wikipedia [http://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/].
As for Klingon, well I guess that remains a pipedream.
Good luck with the whole poetry thing in a language with no ambiguity to it.
I'm pretty sure I've seen poetry in Lojban which is specifically design for lack of ambiguity. YMMV, but it's possible to have poetry without ambiguity in my opinion.
As a matter of fact, there is a lot of poetry in Esperanto. "but no grammar fights" --- not so; a lot of grammar fights as well :P
English -> Chinese might have been a more apt analogy, particularly as China are pushing heavily for royalty free standards (and will simply take your patent if you try to hold up the standard) as part of their plans for world domination.
It is a good analogy but it would be more appropriate to use a theocracy or a benovelonet dictatorship that wants to take over the world. It cam free everyone of dangerous choices that way.
[deleted]
[deleted]
title doesn't really match the article content
As usual, the devil is in the details. Check where his links actually go, he's not really talking about Esperanto...
[deleted]
It does, look at the links. It's tongue-in-cheek.
Brilliant, I like how this is a spoof of what Google is doing with h264 .
Of course, facebook's been doing this the whole time and it's been pissing people off, but most of those people were developers who signed on to this ever-changing environment.
Deprecating a format that most people use is a little harsh. On the other hand, it is once again a symptom of intellectual monopoly protected by the government. Apple can charge people for the codec, and google won't have it. Makes sense.
I would like to highlight this fact. A lot of the problems we are encountering are symptoms of intellectual monopolies (as Thomas Jefferson preferred to call it) granted by the government. The activities of the RIAA, Interval Licensing, pharma companies, and Disney may grab headlines, but they are perfectly viable in a system that is set up to grant, and then go to great lengths to enforce, copyright and patent protection.
How can we in the west criticize China's "zi-lu" laws, discount Baidu and Tencent for following their country's laws (see http://www.quora.com/Why-does-Facebook-get-so-much-more-hype...) but at the same time pass laws like this:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/u-k-passes-internet-di...
and this:
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/91378/feds-seize-domain-names-o...
Seems due process goes out the window when copyright is involved. The same western nations that are against censorship of the internet in China, censor the internet as soon as copyright comes up. I am not sure this situation is very stable -- something has to change.
Of course, facebook's been doing this the whole time and it's been pissing people off, but most of those people were developers who signed on to this ever-changing environment.
Deprecating a format that most people use is a little harsh. On the other hand, it is once again a symptom of intellectual monopoly protected by the government. Apple can charge people for the codec, and google won't have it. Makes sense.
I would like to highlight this fact. A lot of the problems we are encountering are symptoms of intellectual monopolies (as Thomas Jefferson preferred to call it) granted by the government. The activities of the RIAA, Interval Licensing, pharma companies, and Disney may grab headlines, but they are perfectly viable in a system that is set up to grant, and then go to great lengths to enforce, copyright and patent protection.
How can we in the west criticize China's "zi-lu" laws, discount Baidu and Tencent for following their country's laws (see http://www.quora.com/Why-does-Facebook-get-so-much-more-hype...) but at the same time pass laws like this:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/u-k-passes-internet-di...
and this:
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/91378/feds-seize-domain-names-o...
Seems due process goes out the window when copyright is involved. The same western nations that are against censorship of the internet in China, censor the internet as soon as copyright comes up. I am not sure this situation is very stable -- something has to change.
The parallels (to VP8) with the blog post pretty much end there, as you don't actually have to pay your pants off with royalties to some group, just because you are teaching English (h264).
I really like ironic humor, but this one didn't get to me.