[samps]

> For what it's worth, there are hundreds of patents in the total MPEG-LA pool.

Furthermore, it's not clear what Apple would stand to gain by enforcing its two patents that may or may not be relevant to Theora. Maybe I'm wrong, but media patent enforcement doesn't seem to be one of Apple's core businesses (HTC lawsuit notwithstanding). There are plenty of other companies, though, that likely have a vested interest in protecting their much-larger video patent portfolios.

I think it would be wrong to assume at this point that Apple is instigating patent litigation against Theora. Occam's razor would encourage the view that Apple knows the people who want to take down Theora and is rationally fearful of them.

[jcl]

Apple stands to gain more than just licensing fees by threatening any non-H.264 codec. As Steve Jobs points out in his "Thoughts on Flash", Apple has millions of devices in the wild whose hardware is optimized exclusively for H.264. If any other video format gains dominance, the devices will not work nearly as well (cutting the battery life by half just to play an older codec, in his example).

[samps]

It's a good point that Apple's mobile devices are invested in H.264, but do you really think that -- were Theora successful and safe from litigation -- Apple wouldn't put a hypothetical Theora decoder in the iPhone? It doesn't seem rational to me to oppose Theora just because current hardware doesn't support it. Consider, for example, how Apple has largely left FireWire (its own technology) behind in favor of USB. Apple is a very "out with the old" company.

[Terretta]

No, his example referenced a little known fact about H.264, comparing hardware decodable H.264 versus non-hardware-decodable H.264. The iPhone isn't playing some other codec.

H.264 can be encoded, using the same tools, in a way that can, or cannot, be hardware decoded.

[jcl]

I was pretty sure he was referring to VP6-encoded Flash video, not some version of H.264 that is harder to decode. Could you provide more information on non-hardware-decodable versions?

[Terretta]

VP6-encoded Flash video doesn't run on the iPhone, so that's not what he was referring to.

I believe Jobs is talking about comparing two videos on the iPhone, with hardware accelerated video lasting 10 hours and non-accelerated video lasting 5 hours. You may not notice if you're not paying attention to battery while you watch video.

To the sibling comment here, I'm not referring to profiles. I'm referring to the fact that various implementations of H.264 encoders produce content that, depending on the implementation, may or may not be accelerated by the iPhone's PowerVR SGX 535.

One can produce a pair of H.264 encoded in .mp4 container movies, encoded from the same mpeg2ts original, one of which can use hardware acceleration, and the other of which cannot.

(I haven't had the chance to check yet if Adobe's 'Gala' responds the same way to such files on the desktop Macs Gala supports.)

[vetinari]

He probably means H.264 profiles.

iPhone (and Android phones) can decode only certain profiles (Baseline), and up to certain levels (depending on resolution). Even hardware assisted decoding with PC graphics cards can accelerate only up to certain level (usually high@4.1, but some nvidias can decode high@5).

The rest is more complex than hardware assisted decoders are able to decode and pure software codec has to be used.

[astrange]

iPhone supports High profile just fine.

[vetinari]

IPhone does not support high profile by any stretch of imagination. Why don't you go and check Apple documentation? There's a technote for that.

Or just try playing high@ video on iphone.

[ZeroGravitas]

iPhones don't even support Main profile (though some suggest that the 3GS actually has enough power to do so, it's only software limited by Apple to keep the line homogenous).

Search for "Baseline Profile" on this page for the full details:

http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html