Hacker News Reader

Comment by pygy_ | Hacker News Reader

They do. That's an advantage that H.264 has over the alternatives: it is ubiquitous on phones and tablets.

because the phone browser is "sold" to you. When you buy a phone, even if you are going to wipe out the OS and install something else, you already paid hundreds of dollars on licensing. Heck microsoft quarter only had a profit because of license fees on android.

It is the microsoft taxes on PC all over again. Only this time MPEGLA learned the lesson from MP3 and got their licensing claws sharpened.

Phones (and virtually any other electronic product) contain dozens of licensed technologies including ARM, Wi-Fi, 3G/4G, etc. Do you object to those as well, or just codecs?

One step at a time. Fight for open codecs today, and maybe 50 years from now we'll reach a 100% open stack, from hardware to software and wireless protocols, that provides a free baseline available for implementation by any company or individual without royalties.

To all licenses i will not use mostly.

where i came from it is forbidden to sell one product and force you on another. Like you can't buy a car and be forced to only use gas from one brand. Likewise i still feel it is wrong to sell a hardware and force you on a certain software.

A patent license is not a product. A patent license is a permission to use a technology used in the product you buy.

I mean it as "a practical advantage regarding user reach", not a technical or economical advantage.

I agree with you that patent encumbered technologies don't have their place in open standards. The current situation sucks.

Hundreds of dollars on licensing?

only company that mentioned the royalties they pay microsoft was HTC and they are paying $5. and HTC is a very close partner to microsoft. others probably pay more.

And microsoft licenses are only bulling, it is not even useful. So i'm guessing it would get close to $100 per device.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com