[AndrewDucker]

Patent-free video is good for the web, and makes it more likely to get broad support. So good for Google.

DRM in HTML5 means that you don't need Flash/Silverlight to play Netflix, etc. Which means that you can support video more easily. So good for Google.

[azakai]

> DRM in HTML5 means that you don't need Flash/Silverlight to play Netflix, etc. Which means that you can support video more easily.

You still need a closed-source DRM module, as a replacement for Flash or Silverlight. It doesn't make it any easier in that respect. It does provide a standard API between such DRM modules, though.

But yes, this is good for Google, as it does own one such DRM module (Widevine). So Google can push its own DRM and does not need to rely on third parties like Flash or Silverlight.

[AndrewDucker]

Yes, you still need the closed module - but all it does is decoding, which means that it's much smaller than Flash/Silverlight.

I wish the video companies didn't insist on it, but if we need to have something to keep them happy, I'd rather it was a simple decoder than a whole plugin runtime.

[threeseed]

Except that VP9 isn't patent-free. MPEG LA and other patent holders simply haven't bothered to flex their muscles because VP9 adoption is pretty much non-existant.

That's why I much prefer H.265. It is a defacto standard.

[patrickaljord]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VP8#History

> In March 2013, MPEG LA announced that it had dropped its effort to form a VP8 patent pool after reaching an agreement with Google to license the patents that it alleges "may be essential" for VP8 implementation, and granted Google the right to sub-license these patents to any third-party user of VP8 or VP9.[26][27] This deal has cleared the way for possible MPEG standardisation as its royalty-free internet video codec, after Google submitted VP8 to the MPEG committee in January 2013.

[nitrogen]

I think you may be confusing de facto with de jure. And MPEGLA has been very noisy about VP8 and 9.

[psykovsky]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. MPEG LA sue Google for a technology invented/bought(and patented) by Google? Is that it? I think I need more details to understand what you truly mean.