W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2014

Re: Comments on the EME opinion

From: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 09:38:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAEnTvdAvufDPvQG5hq2-tRowNdQctcgJ=VzAhjEfusQhFN3KoA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi>
Cc: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>, www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi> wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Domenic Denicola
> <domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote:
>
> I think the question of what it would take for the relevant services
> to want to use RF codecs is a question best answered by
> representatives of the relevant services.
>

​Equivalent quality and ubiquitous device support.

For better or worse, H.264 is supported on every TV, Set-Top-Box, Phone,
Tablet, desktop browser and indeed pretty much anything else that can play
video. The ability to serve all these devices with one set of encodes
provides cost savings that far exceed the royalty costs.

​It is not a question of not wanting to use RF codecs but just a question
of choosing the lowest cost solution, considering all the costs, not just
licensing.

[There is a secondary question of licensing cost risk. The licensing costs
for H.264 are quite well understood, but the situation for some other
codecs is less certain and this uncertainty can also be considered as a
cost if you feel up to quantifying the risk].

...Mark​



>
> --
> Henri Sivonen
> hsivonen@hsivonen.fi
> https://hsivonen.fi/
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2014 16:38:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:57:06 UTC