Right now creating a commercial fork of Chrome or Android requires paying the MPEGLA $5M/year.
> Google wants a free, royalty-free codec.
But why? That is what I don't understand. The $5M/year in royalties is peanuts for Google. I suppose the 2015 deadline for web video is their issue, and they don't want to be in a bad negotiating position over YouTube.
Just to be clear, I personally want a royalty free codec, and think this type of software patent should be abolished.
Google still needs H.264 for youtube. They can get rid of the player in Chrome, but they still need to serve it up, unless they're willing to completely sacrifice any hope of playing videos on iOS (and given how much they make off of iOS I'd be shocked if they did that).
Google could send VP8 to iOS today if they wanted, YouTube is a Google app now, not an Apple app with Google content. They send vp8 to the Nintendo Wii app.
> Google wants a free, royalty-free codec.
But why? That is what I don't understand. The $5M/year in royalties is peanuts for Google. I suppose the 2015 deadline for web video is their issue, and they don't want to be in a bad negotiating position over YouTube.
Just to be clear, I personally want a royalty free codec, and think this type of software patent should be abolished.