<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_22_0921255</id>
	<title>Free Software Foundation Urges Google To Free VP8</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1266838320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>jamesswift writes <i>"The FSF have written an open letter to Google <a href="http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/google-free-on2-vp8-for-youtube">urging them to free the VP8</a> codec with an irrevocable royalty-free licence: 'With its purchase of the On2 video compression technology company having been completed on Wednesday February 16, 2010, Google now has the opportunity to make free video formats the standard, freeing the web from both Flash and the proprietary H.264 codec.'"</i>

Also from the letter: <i>"The world would have a new free format unencumbered by software patents. Viewers, video creators, free software developers, hardware makers -- everyone -- would have another way to distribute video without patents, fees, and restrictions. The free video format Ogg Theora was already at least as good for web video (<a href="http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/comparison.html">see a comparison</a>) as its nonfree competitor H.264, and we never did agree with your objections to using it. But since you made the decision to purchase VP8, presumably you're confident it can meet even those objections, and using it on YouTube is a no-brainer."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>jamesswift writes " The FSF have written an open letter to Google urging them to free the VP8 codec with an irrevocable royalty-free licence : 'With its purchase of the On2 video compression technology company having been completed on Wednesday February 16 , 2010 , Google now has the opportunity to make free video formats the standard , freeing the web from both Flash and the proprietary H.264 codec .
' " Also from the letter : " The world would have a new free format unencumbered by software patents .
Viewers , video creators , free software developers , hardware makers -- everyone -- would have another way to distribute video without patents , fees , and restrictions .
The free video format Ogg Theora was already at least as good for web video ( see a comparison ) as its nonfree competitor H.264 , and we never did agree with your objections to using it .
But since you made the decision to purchase VP8 , presumably you 're confident it can meet even those objections , and using it on YouTube is a no-brainer .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>jamesswift writes "The FSF have written an open letter to Google urging them to free the VP8 codec with an irrevocable royalty-free licence: 'With its purchase of the On2 video compression technology company having been completed on Wednesday February 16, 2010, Google now has the opportunity to make free video formats the standard, freeing the web from both Flash and the proprietary H.264 codec.
'"

Also from the letter: "The world would have a new free format unencumbered by software patents.
Viewers, video creators, free software developers, hardware makers -- everyone -- would have another way to distribute video without patents, fees, and restrictions.
The free video format Ogg Theora was already at least as good for web video (see a comparison) as its nonfree competitor H.264, and we never did agree with your objections to using it.
But since you made the decision to purchase VP8, presumably you're confident it can meet even those objections, and using it on YouTube is a no-brainer.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227912</id>
	<title>Do no evil.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266843660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>mhhh well now is the time where we can see if Google is here to make the world a better place or just another caitalist company.</p><p>Do no evil != Help make the World a better place</p><p>BTW, any Slashdot devs online? This website is a fucking pain to use on tiny computers suchas the N900. This is supposed to be a site for nerds<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... you know, for people who like to us gadgets.<br>Slashdot sucks a little more each day, I think it is time to say good bye and never come back.<br>This nerd is getting of the Slashdot ride, next stop Chandot.org</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>mhhh well now is the time where we can see if Google is here to make the world a better place or just another caitalist company.Do no evil ! = Help make the World a better placeBTW , any Slashdot devs online ?
This website is a fucking pain to use on tiny computers suchas the N900 .
This is supposed to be a site for nerds .... you know , for people who like to us gadgets.Slashdot sucks a little more each day , I think it is time to say good bye and never come back.This nerd is getting of the Slashdot ride , next stop Chandot.org</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mhhh well now is the time where we can see if Google is here to make the world a better place or just another caitalist company.Do no evil != Help make the World a better placeBTW, any Slashdot devs online?
This website is a fucking pain to use on tiny computers suchas the N900.
This is supposed to be a site for nerds .... you know, for people who like to us gadgets.Slashdot sucks a little more each day, I think it is time to say good bye and never come back.This nerd is getting of the Slashdot ride, next stop Chandot.org</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230216</id>
	<title>Re:solution?</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1266859260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think Microsoft will sell them their patents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think Microsoft will sell them their patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think Microsoft will sell them their patents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227920</id>
	<title>yay just what the world needs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266843660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>yet another codec implementation trying to push it's way to the top.
<p>
the reasons they oppose h.264 are stupid for a start, it has about the most generous licensing i've ever seen. hence the reason it has been so widely adopted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yet another codec implementation trying to push it 's way to the top .
the reasons they oppose h.264 are stupid for a start , it has about the most generous licensing i 've ever seen .
hence the reason it has been so widely adopted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yet another codec implementation trying to push it's way to the top.
the reasons they oppose h.264 are stupid for a start, it has about the most generous licensing i've ever seen.
hence the reason it has been so widely adopted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228398</id>
	<title>Re:It's the "about" that kills</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266848220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>the GPL isn't free software either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the GPL is n't free software either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the GPL isn't free software either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228738</id>
	<title>Re:Better solution</title>
	<author>yabos</author>
	<datestamp>1266850560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And then Google owns it instead of another company.  Not much different.  Do you think they'd just pay billions of dollars so they can make it free?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And then Google owns it instead of another company .
Not much different .
Do you think they 'd just pay billions of dollars so they can make it free ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then Google owns it instead of another company.
Not much different.
Do you think they'd just pay billions of dollars so they can make it free?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227934</id>
	<title>No one company owns H.264</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266843780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>No one company owns H.264. The patents are spread out across about two dozen companies listed on <a href="http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensors.aspx" title="mpegla.com">the licensors page</a> [mpegla.com]. Some of them, like Apple and Microsoft, have market capitalizations close to that of Google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one company owns H.264 .
The patents are spread out across about two dozen companies listed on the licensors page [ mpegla.com ] .
Some of them , like Apple and Microsoft , have market capitalizations close to that of Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one company owns H.264.
The patents are spread out across about two dozen companies listed on the licensors page [mpegla.com].
Some of them, like Apple and Microsoft, have market capitalizations close to that of Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31240250</id>
	<title>The train has left the station.</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1266855660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Many hardware devices already have H.264 decoding built into the chip, ranging from set-top boxes to the iPhone.</i> </p><p>There are 762 corporate licensees for <a href="http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensees.aspx" title="mpegla.com">AVC/H.264 Licensees</a> [mpegla.com] is 762 - and the list just keeps on growing.</p><p>Canonical is here. Apple. Google. Microsoft.</p><p>The big names in OEM manufacturing. In networking [Cisco].</p><p> In brand-name consumer electronics. [LG and Samsung] In military hardware [Lockheed Martin]. In cable, broadcast and satellite television - most visibly those based in China and Japan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many hardware devices already have H.264 decoding built into the chip , ranging from set-top boxes to the iPhone .
There are 762 corporate licensees for AVC/H.264 Licensees [ mpegla.com ] is 762 - and the list just keeps on growing.Canonical is here .
Apple. Google .
Microsoft.The big names in OEM manufacturing .
In networking [ Cisco ] .
In brand-name consumer electronics .
[ LG and Samsung ] In military hardware [ Lockheed Martin ] .
In cable , broadcast and satellite television - most visibly those based in China and Japan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many hardware devices already have H.264 decoding built into the chip, ranging from set-top boxes to the iPhone.
There are 762 corporate licensees for AVC/H.264 Licensees [mpegla.com] is 762 - and the list just keeps on growing.Canonical is here.
Apple. Google.
Microsoft.The big names in OEM manufacturing.
In networking [Cisco].
In brand-name consumer electronics.
[LG and Samsung] In military hardware [Lockheed Martin].
In cable, broadcast and satellite television - most visibly those based in China and Japan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31231250</id>
	<title>Re:Of codecs and commerce</title>
	<author>arose</author>
	<datestamp>1266862560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You cannot compare ogg vorbis to h.264 using youtube as a guide using the methods in the article, it was a very bad test from the start.</p></div></blockquote><p>
You can't? Not even when people complain that Theora isn't good enough for Youtube? Why can't you compare it to what Youtube actually does in that case?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can not compare ogg vorbis to h.264 using youtube as a guide using the methods in the article , it was a very bad test from the start .
You ca n't ?
Not even when people complain that Theora is n't good enough for Youtube ?
Why ca n't you compare it to what Youtube actually does in that case ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You cannot compare ogg vorbis to h.264 using youtube as a guide using the methods in the article, it was a very bad test from the start.
You can't?
Not even when people complain that Theora isn't good enough for Youtube?
Why can't you compare it to what Youtube actually does in that case?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229488</id>
	<title>Re:Problem still remains</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266855480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1) A stupid name. Sorry, but names matter and Ogg Theora is a bad one. When I've mentioned Ogg before (since I like Vorbis audio files) I get some very "Huh?" reactions form non-techies. VP8 is a good name, sounds like a nice tech acronym like MP3.</p></div><p>Abbreviation is a simple fix for that.  Hypothetically:  Ogg Theora 8.0 = OT8.  Hardly different from your "superior" VP8, so potentially an awesome name.
</p><p>
Granted, that was only your first argument, so perhaps the weakest.  But there's a cascade effect.  Since "stupid name" is easy to correct, the path to "not obscure" (point 2) is less rocky, which leads to "greater install base" (point 3).  In fact, the more I consider your arguments, the less water they hold.  Please rethink and try again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) A stupid name .
Sorry , but names matter and Ogg Theora is a bad one .
When I 've mentioned Ogg before ( since I like Vorbis audio files ) I get some very " Huh ?
" reactions form non-techies .
VP8 is a good name , sounds like a nice tech acronym like MP3.Abbreviation is a simple fix for that .
Hypothetically : Ogg Theora 8.0 = OT8 .
Hardly different from your " superior " VP8 , so potentially an awesome name .
Granted , that was only your first argument , so perhaps the weakest .
But there 's a cascade effect .
Since " stupid name " is easy to correct , the path to " not obscure " ( point 2 ) is less rocky , which leads to " greater install base " ( point 3 ) .
In fact , the more I consider your arguments , the less water they hold .
Please rethink and try again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) A stupid name.
Sorry, but names matter and Ogg Theora is a bad one.
When I've mentioned Ogg before (since I like Vorbis audio files) I get some very "Huh?
" reactions form non-techies.
VP8 is a good name, sounds like a nice tech acronym like MP3.Abbreviation is a simple fix for that.
Hypothetically:  Ogg Theora 8.0 = OT8.
Hardly different from your "superior" VP8, so potentially an awesome name.
Granted, that was only your first argument, so perhaps the weakest.
But there's a cascade effect.
Since "stupid name" is easy to correct, the path to "not obscure" (point 2) is less rocky, which leads to "greater install base" (point 3).
In fact, the more I consider your arguments, the less water they hold.
Please rethink and try again.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228982</id>
	<title>Re:Not a good letter.</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1266852300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Making a video codec patent free is really difficult,<br>&gt; since submarine patents are always a threat.<br><br>Which makes me wonder why everyone is always so keen to make new video formats.  Why not just use one of the ones that's twenty years old?  All the patents would be expired, then.  Are the video formats from the late eighties really all deficient in some important way?  With all the formats that were floating around back then, competing to cram more video into less space, it's difficult to imagine that NONE of them can meet our needs in this decadent era of cheap storage, extravagant bandwidth, and powerful multi-core CPUs.  What am I missing?</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Making a video codec patent free is really difficult , &gt; since submarine patents are always a threat.Which makes me wonder why everyone is always so keen to make new video formats .
Why not just use one of the ones that 's twenty years old ?
All the patents would be expired , then .
Are the video formats from the late eighties really all deficient in some important way ?
With all the formats that were floating around back then , competing to cram more video into less space , it 's difficult to imagine that NONE of them can meet our needs in this decadent era of cheap storage , extravagant bandwidth , and powerful multi-core CPUs .
What am I missing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Making a video codec patent free is really difficult,&gt; since submarine patents are always a threat.Which makes me wonder why everyone is always so keen to make new video formats.
Why not just use one of the ones that's twenty years old?
All the patents would be expired, then.
Are the video formats from the late eighties really all deficient in some important way?
With all the formats that were floating around back then, competing to cram more video into less space, it's difficult to imagine that NONE of them can meet our needs in this decadent era of cheap storage, extravagant bandwidth, and powerful multi-core CPUs.
What am I missing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31245000</id>
	<title>Re:Way too late to displace H.264</title>
	<author>Sir Homer</author>
	<datestamp>1266943440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's really not true. Blu-ray uses VC-1 also. VC-1 is the SMPTE (TV broadcast) standard, not H.264. The H.264 codec is far from being an total industry standard at this point. The real "industry standard" is MPEG-2, since all DVD movies (much popular then Bluray anyway) are all MPEG-2 movies. That's why an MPEG-2 codec costs $2.00 per unit with no upper cap, while H.264 is only 20 cents per unit, despite being a far better technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's really not true .
Blu-ray uses VC-1 also .
VC-1 is the SMPTE ( TV broadcast ) standard , not H.264 .
The H.264 codec is far from being an total industry standard at this point .
The real " industry standard " is MPEG-2 , since all DVD movies ( much popular then Bluray anyway ) are all MPEG-2 movies .
That 's why an MPEG-2 codec costs $ 2.00 per unit with no upper cap , while H.264 is only 20 cents per unit , despite being a far better technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's really not true.
Blu-ray uses VC-1 also.
VC-1 is the SMPTE (TV broadcast) standard, not H.264.
The H.264 codec is far from being an total industry standard at this point.
The real "industry standard" is MPEG-2, since all DVD movies (much popular then Bluray anyway) are all MPEG-2 movies.
That's why an MPEG-2 codec costs $2.00 per unit with no upper cap, while H.264 is only 20 cents per unit, despite being a far better technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227860</id>
	<title>What about Dirac?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266843000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about Dirac, the HD codec developed by the BBC? It has at least two Free implementations, and there are probably no patents?<br>Does anyone here have a pointer to a comparison taking Dirac into account, both for low and high bitrates?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about Dirac , the HD codec developed by the BBC ?
It has at least two Free implementations , and there are probably no patents ? Does anyone here have a pointer to a comparison taking Dirac into account , both for low and high bitrates ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about Dirac, the HD codec developed by the BBC?
It has at least two Free implementations, and there are probably no patents?Does anyone here have a pointer to a comparison taking Dirac into account, both for low and high bitrates?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227836</id>
	<title>Not a good letter.</title>
	<author>fenix849</author>
	<datestamp>1266842700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This might make me unpopular here, but the whole letter is poorly worded and written in the wrong spirit.

Initially it's ok, but then it all starts sounding a little bit desperate, and by the end it's demanding and almost threatening.

Imo.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This might make me unpopular here , but the whole letter is poorly worded and written in the wrong spirit .
Initially it 's ok , but then it all starts sounding a little bit desperate , and by the end it 's demanding and almost threatening .
Imo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This might make me unpopular here, but the whole letter is poorly worded and written in the wrong spirit.
Initially it's ok, but then it all starts sounding a little bit desperate, and by the end it's demanding and almost threatening.
Imo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229086</id>
	<title>Google would setup vp8.googlecode.com already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266853140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are moving to another container, it has already decided that h264 is way to go.</p><p>The company that Google acquired made couple of big mistakes back in H264 take off... Stupid pricing policy, failure to convince chip manufacturers, failure to convince mobile manufacturers, horrible support for anything except Windows including Mac Quicktime Framework (ask Toshiba/MS what happens) so they failed, Google needed a codec that they can control without any patent troll risks so they acquired them. I have originally thought that Google had courage to actually do things FSF imagine but no, it doesn't seem to be case. Perhaps, there may be a good ending and Google could say "That is the idea, we are consulting with thousands of lawyers and IT patent professionals right now."</p><p>In reality, there are less than 10 companies and couple of organizations decides where will the video compression on billions of devices/computers will head to. Perhaps, FSF should visit EBU HQ, BBC and ask them what convinced them to plan broadcasting in H264. It doesn't work like "Google has decided, throw away that $2M AVID studio, we are installing VLC and airing in VP8 now."</p><p>They should really visit a TV station you know and see how the original content is created, compressed and broadcasted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are moving to another container , it has already decided that h264 is way to go.The company that Google acquired made couple of big mistakes back in H264 take off... Stupid pricing policy , failure to convince chip manufacturers , failure to convince mobile manufacturers , horrible support for anything except Windows including Mac Quicktime Framework ( ask Toshiba/MS what happens ) so they failed , Google needed a codec that they can control without any patent troll risks so they acquired them .
I have originally thought that Google had courage to actually do things FSF imagine but no , it does n't seem to be case .
Perhaps , there may be a good ending and Google could say " That is the idea , we are consulting with thousands of lawyers and IT patent professionals right now .
" In reality , there are less than 10 companies and couple of organizations decides where will the video compression on billions of devices/computers will head to .
Perhaps , FSF should visit EBU HQ , BBC and ask them what convinced them to plan broadcasting in H264 .
It does n't work like " Google has decided , throw away that $ 2M AVID studio , we are installing VLC and airing in VP8 now .
" They should really visit a TV station you know and see how the original content is created , compressed and broadcasted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are moving to another container, it has already decided that h264 is way to go.The company that Google acquired made couple of big mistakes back in H264 take off... Stupid pricing policy, failure to convince chip manufacturers, failure to convince mobile manufacturers, horrible support for anything except Windows including Mac Quicktime Framework (ask Toshiba/MS what happens) so they failed, Google needed a codec that they can control without any patent troll risks so they acquired them.
I have originally thought that Google had courage to actually do things FSF imagine but no, it doesn't seem to be case.
Perhaps, there may be a good ending and Google could say "That is the idea, we are consulting with thousands of lawyers and IT patent professionals right now.
"In reality, there are less than 10 companies and couple of organizations decides where will the video compression on billions of devices/computers will head to.
Perhaps, FSF should visit EBU HQ, BBC and ask them what convinced them to plan broadcasting in H264.
It doesn't work like "Google has decided, throw away that $2M AVID studio, we are installing VLC and airing in VP8 now.
"They should really visit a TV station you know and see how the original content is created, compressed and broadcasted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230528</id>
	<title>Re:What about Dirac?</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1266860580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At low bitrates, Dirac produces lower-quality output than Theora.  At high bitrates it's quite good.  Something to do with Dirac being designed for high-quality archival video, not today's web video.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At low bitrates , Dirac produces lower-quality output than Theora .
At high bitrates it 's quite good .
Something to do with Dirac being designed for high-quality archival video , not today 's web video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At low bitrates, Dirac produces lower-quality output than Theora.
At high bitrates it's quite good.
Something to do with Dirac being designed for high-quality archival video, not today's web video.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229010</id>
	<title>Re:Well thats the FSF for you</title>
	<author>shaka</author>
	<datestamp>1266852540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please study your history and particularly the state of computing in the early eighties, when Stallman founded the FSF. He looked at the future of computing and he saw a bunch of big companies with a proprietary Unix version each, and new players like Apple and Microsoft. Had the Internet been built on that foundation, not to mention robotics, AI and rapid prototyping, today would be a very different world.</p><p>It's easy for you to point your finger and talk about "the real world", now that GCC, Linux and the free BSDs exist. Now imagine a company like Google, except they have to pay licenses for the OS, compilers and interpreters, databases, video and audio conversion. Imagine yourself using computers and not having any control of what goes on, with corporations controlling everything from the BIOS up.</p><p>Richard Stallman changed the world. "Reactionary", indeed. Do tell, dear Viol8, what you ever accomplished out there in the "real world"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please study your history and particularly the state of computing in the early eighties , when Stallman founded the FSF .
He looked at the future of computing and he saw a bunch of big companies with a proprietary Unix version each , and new players like Apple and Microsoft .
Had the Internet been built on that foundation , not to mention robotics , AI and rapid prototyping , today would be a very different world.It 's easy for you to point your finger and talk about " the real world " , now that GCC , Linux and the free BSDs exist .
Now imagine a company like Google , except they have to pay licenses for the OS , compilers and interpreters , databases , video and audio conversion .
Imagine yourself using computers and not having any control of what goes on , with corporations controlling everything from the BIOS up.Richard Stallman changed the world .
" Reactionary " , indeed .
Do tell , dear Viol8 , what you ever accomplished out there in the " real world " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please study your history and particularly the state of computing in the early eighties, when Stallman founded the FSF.
He looked at the future of computing and he saw a bunch of big companies with a proprietary Unix version each, and new players like Apple and Microsoft.
Had the Internet been built on that foundation, not to mention robotics, AI and rapid prototyping, today would be a very different world.It's easy for you to point your finger and talk about "the real world", now that GCC, Linux and the free BSDs exist.
Now imagine a company like Google, except they have to pay licenses for the OS, compilers and interpreters, databases, video and audio conversion.
Imagine yourself using computers and not having any control of what goes on, with corporations controlling everything from the BIOS up.Richard Stallman changed the world.
"Reactionary", indeed.
Do tell, dear Viol8, what you ever accomplished out there in the "real world"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227880</id>
	<title>Better solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266843300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not just buy h.264 outright? What's the market cap for the company that owns it? It's got to be a drop in the bucket compared to licencing fees down the road, plus what they paid (<b>1 billion dollars</b>) for YouTube.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just buy h.264 outright ?
What 's the market cap for the company that owns it ?
It 's got to be a drop in the bucket compared to licencing fees down the road , plus what they paid ( 1 billion dollars ) for YouTube .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just buy h.264 outright?
What's the market cap for the company that owns it?
It's got to be a drop in the bucket compared to licencing fees down the road, plus what they paid (1 billion dollars) for YouTube.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227910</id>
	<title>Re:Not a good letter.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266843660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's exactly what I thought... bring on the flames</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's exactly what I thought... bring on the flames</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's exactly what I thought... bring on the flames</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31233526</id>
	<title>Re:Not a good letter.</title>
	<author>Randle\_Revar</author>
	<datestamp>1266869580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Why not just use one of the ones that's twenty years old?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Are the video formats from the late eighties really all deficient in some important way?<br>Yes, they suck. Many of the improvements one might make to them to make them not suck would be the same patented techniques used by modern codecs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Why not just use one of the ones that 's twenty years old ?
... Are the video formats from the late eighties really all deficient in some important way ? Yes , they suck .
Many of the improvements one might make to them to make them not suck would be the same patented techniques used by modern codecs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Why not just use one of the ones that's twenty years old?
... Are the video formats from the late eighties really all deficient in some important way?Yes, they suck.
Many of the improvements one might make to them to make them not suck would be the same patented techniques used by modern codecs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229000</id>
	<title>Even Google can't implement VP8</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1266852480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you check the size of h264/mp4 SP implemented devices, Android, iPad, iPod like "trendy" new stuff is a drop in the ocean.</p><p>Companies who actually broadcasts and sells content looks for the size of the market, the share of the market and yes, in that case non smart phones (billions!) are also mattering with the advent of 3G and even EDGE.</p><p>Lets say, if you invent a codec which will effectively erase h264 in terms of quality&amp;bandwidth, h264/mp4 and even mpeg-2 will still stay since that device in your hand and connected device to your TV has some kind of impossible to replace chip.</p><p>I think FSF and "Free codec" thinks everyone uses the latest device/trendy PC and somehow, Google will magically add VP8 to it. How? They don't even see the real magic thing about H264, it is scalability and compatibility. Most of "Real is spyware" trolls or "MS is dying" people doesn't know it but... H264 and AAC(+) is the first time the entire industry agreed on a single codec. Device manufacturers, software vendors, chip manufacturers, cell phone manufacturers have all said "OK, regardless of our evil World domination plans, there is nothing that can match H264".</p><p>For the first time in media history, Real, MS, Satellite Boxes, Apple, Cell phones, Media devices, Blu Ray are all using the very same codec with little difference which makes it extremely easy and cheap for the actual content creators. When a TV professional hears about Linux, he pictures a Da Vinci box (lovely thing based on Linux), not the 1\% Desktop... Thanks to iPhone/iPod and actually rising market share, Apple matters but Apple has already decided back when nobody except media professionals and codec nerds knew about it. It is H264.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you check the size of h264/mp4 SP implemented devices , Android , iPad , iPod like " trendy " new stuff is a drop in the ocean.Companies who actually broadcasts and sells content looks for the size of the market , the share of the market and yes , in that case non smart phones ( billions !
) are also mattering with the advent of 3G and even EDGE.Lets say , if you invent a codec which will effectively erase h264 in terms of quality&amp;bandwidth , h264/mp4 and even mpeg-2 will still stay since that device in your hand and connected device to your TV has some kind of impossible to replace chip.I think FSF and " Free codec " thinks everyone uses the latest device/trendy PC and somehow , Google will magically add VP8 to it .
How ? They do n't even see the real magic thing about H264 , it is scalability and compatibility .
Most of " Real is spyware " trolls or " MS is dying " people does n't know it but... H264 and AAC ( + ) is the first time the entire industry agreed on a single codec .
Device manufacturers , software vendors , chip manufacturers , cell phone manufacturers have all said " OK , regardless of our evil World domination plans , there is nothing that can match H264 " .For the first time in media history , Real , MS , Satellite Boxes , Apple , Cell phones , Media devices , Blu Ray are all using the very same codec with little difference which makes it extremely easy and cheap for the actual content creators .
When a TV professional hears about Linux , he pictures a Da Vinci box ( lovely thing based on Linux ) , not the 1 \ % Desktop... Thanks to iPhone/iPod and actually rising market share , Apple matters but Apple has already decided back when nobody except media professionals and codec nerds knew about it .
It is H264 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you check the size of h264/mp4 SP implemented devices, Android, iPad, iPod like "trendy" new stuff is a drop in the ocean.Companies who actually broadcasts and sells content looks for the size of the market, the share of the market and yes, in that case non smart phones (billions!
) are also mattering with the advent of 3G and even EDGE.Lets say, if you invent a codec which will effectively erase h264 in terms of quality&amp;bandwidth, h264/mp4 and even mpeg-2 will still stay since that device in your hand and connected device to your TV has some kind of impossible to replace chip.I think FSF and "Free codec" thinks everyone uses the latest device/trendy PC and somehow, Google will magically add VP8 to it.
How? They don't even see the real magic thing about H264, it is scalability and compatibility.
Most of "Real is spyware" trolls or "MS is dying" people doesn't know it but... H264 and AAC(+) is the first time the entire industry agreed on a single codec.
Device manufacturers, software vendors, chip manufacturers, cell phone manufacturers have all said "OK, regardless of our evil World domination plans, there is nothing that can match H264".For the first time in media history, Real, MS, Satellite Boxes, Apple, Cell phones, Media devices, Blu Ray are all using the very same codec with little difference which makes it extremely easy and cheap for the actual content creators.
When a TV professional hears about Linux, he pictures a Da Vinci box (lovely thing based on Linux), not the 1\% Desktop... Thanks to iPhone/iPod and actually rising market share, Apple matters but Apple has already decided back when nobody except media professionals and codec nerds knew about it.
It is H264.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230812</id>
	<title>Re:Problem still remains</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1266861480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google already does run multiple encodings of your submission: lower bitrate, HQ, HD... the submissions process decides what kind of encodings to do.</p><p>They are not going to support Ogg Theora for the simple reason it'll cost them money. The CODEC is not as efficient as H.264, so they wind up with higher bitrates or lower quality.</p><p>But moving to VP8, they could absolutely offer VP8 versions. These could play on PCs after an update, and if VP8 really is of higher coding efficiency than H.264, Google would save money. Their big expense is bandwidth, not CPU cycles or storage. I believe Google would be happy to pay off some bandwidth with a little extra storage and a few more encoding cycles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google already does run multiple encodings of your submission : lower bitrate , HQ , HD... the submissions process decides what kind of encodings to do.They are not going to support Ogg Theora for the simple reason it 'll cost them money .
The CODEC is not as efficient as H.264 , so they wind up with higher bitrates or lower quality.But moving to VP8 , they could absolutely offer VP8 versions .
These could play on PCs after an update , and if VP8 really is of higher coding efficiency than H.264 , Google would save money .
Their big expense is bandwidth , not CPU cycles or storage .
I believe Google would be happy to pay off some bandwidth with a little extra storage and a few more encoding cycles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google already does run multiple encodings of your submission: lower bitrate, HQ, HD... the submissions process decides what kind of encodings to do.They are not going to support Ogg Theora for the simple reason it'll cost them money.
The CODEC is not as efficient as H.264, so they wind up with higher bitrates or lower quality.But moving to VP8, they could absolutely offer VP8 versions.
These could play on PCs after an update, and if VP8 really is of higher coding efficiency than H.264, Google would save money.
Their big expense is bandwidth, not CPU cycles or storage.
I believe Google would be happy to pay off some bandwidth with a little extra storage and a few more encoding cycles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230218</id>
	<title>Re:Problem still remains</title>
	<author>cynyr</author>
	<datestamp>1266859260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>so don't reencode the back library, or do so slowly as resources allow and drop a codec for the new videos, say the flv ones. so old videos are in flv and h264+acc, new ones are in h264+aac and vp8+acc. Old devices are SoL but thats "progress"</htmltext>
<tokenext>so do n't reencode the back library , or do so slowly as resources allow and drop a codec for the new videos , say the flv ones .
so old videos are in flv and h264 + acc , new ones are in h264 + aac and vp8 + acc .
Old devices are SoL but thats " progress "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so don't reencode the back library, or do so slowly as resources allow and drop a codec for the new videos, say the flv ones.
so old videos are in flv and h264+acc, new ones are in h264+aac and vp8+acc.
Old devices are SoL but thats "progress"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229886</id>
	<title>Re:Better solution</title>
	<author>suffe</author>
	<datestamp>1266857400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not to sound rude but how do you actually look at the world? Does it seem like magic to you? Does it not occur to you that the value of a (theoretical) company that owns all the h.265 IP will be pretty much exactly the current value of the future license fees - any debt + any other property and future options?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to sound rude but how do you actually look at the world ?
Does it seem like magic to you ?
Does it not occur to you that the value of a ( theoretical ) company that owns all the h.265 IP will be pretty much exactly the current value of the future license fees - any debt + any other property and future options ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to sound rude but how do you actually look at the world?
Does it seem like magic to you?
Does it not occur to you that the value of a (theoretical) company that owns all the h.265 IP will be pretty much exactly the current value of the future license fees - any debt + any other property and future options?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31242180</id>
	<title>The source is the problem, not the wording</title>
	<author>LostMyBeaver</author>
	<datestamp>1266919860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FSF has a background of being considered a liberal, damn near terrorist group by politicians and corporate leaders. The FSF has many good sides, but is politically is known for attempting to bully corporations and political leaders into seeing their way of thinking. I can't think of specific examples of threats, but Richard Stallman has been known to berate political leaders (his attempted encounter with the French president comes to mind) for not permitting him to sidestep the song and dance which makes politics politics.<br><br>When loud mouthed critics start making big stinks about political issues without taking the time to recognize how they are in fact deterring the exact causes they are "fighting for" they do more damage than good. Leaders of companies and governments are highly dependent on cooperation from political opponents and possibly hostile board members that would like nothing better than to label them as "liberal pussies who shouldn't be in charge of anything". There were somewhat legitimate conspiracy theories that the Vietnam War could have ended sooner if the politicians didn't have to worry about looking like they were "Doing what John Lennon told them to" when he would immaturely berate them publicly for their stupidity.<br><br>Richard Stallman has gained Michael Moore status. Meaning that leaders have to wait a certain period after they've had their tie raids before doing the things they had intended to do anyway. Before they can support a cause, they have to do damage control to detach the cause from the loud mouthed buffoons that insist on making the causes political death traps before they can support the changes.<br><br>Google is a company that has been very supportive of open source in the past and more than likely will be. They might be able to launch VP8 under a free license now by saying "Well, we were planning on doing it when we bought the company". But the FSF needs to learn when to fight for things and they also need to learn when to just sit back and wait a while before making too much noise.<br><br>This is an excellent example of a time where it would have been best to let Google have a chance to breath. After all, before committing VP8 to the open source, they need to let a pile of patent attorneys find out every possible portion of the code which could be considered patentable and then perform patent searches to try and eliminate the possibilities of VP8 being hit by submarine patents. Now that Google owns VP3, it's entirely possible submarine patents will surface, but it would be far more intelligent to let VP8 out into the open and make it an integral part of the web first. Google then can have a chance, after letting the suits find submarine patents to produce a VP9 codec which avoids them.<br>
&nbsp;</htmltext>
<tokenext>FSF has a background of being considered a liberal , damn near terrorist group by politicians and corporate leaders .
The FSF has many good sides , but is politically is known for attempting to bully corporations and political leaders into seeing their way of thinking .
I ca n't think of specific examples of threats , but Richard Stallman has been known to berate political leaders ( his attempted encounter with the French president comes to mind ) for not permitting him to sidestep the song and dance which makes politics politics.When loud mouthed critics start making big stinks about political issues without taking the time to recognize how they are in fact deterring the exact causes they are " fighting for " they do more damage than good .
Leaders of companies and governments are highly dependent on cooperation from political opponents and possibly hostile board members that would like nothing better than to label them as " liberal pussies who should n't be in charge of anything " .
There were somewhat legitimate conspiracy theories that the Vietnam War could have ended sooner if the politicians did n't have to worry about looking like they were " Doing what John Lennon told them to " when he would immaturely berate them publicly for their stupidity.Richard Stallman has gained Michael Moore status .
Meaning that leaders have to wait a certain period after they 've had their tie raids before doing the things they had intended to do anyway .
Before they can support a cause , they have to do damage control to detach the cause from the loud mouthed buffoons that insist on making the causes political death traps before they can support the changes.Google is a company that has been very supportive of open source in the past and more than likely will be .
They might be able to launch VP8 under a free license now by saying " Well , we were planning on doing it when we bought the company " .
But the FSF needs to learn when to fight for things and they also need to learn when to just sit back and wait a while before making too much noise.This is an excellent example of a time where it would have been best to let Google have a chance to breath .
After all , before committing VP8 to the open source , they need to let a pile of patent attorneys find out every possible portion of the code which could be considered patentable and then perform patent searches to try and eliminate the possibilities of VP8 being hit by submarine patents .
Now that Google owns VP3 , it 's entirely possible submarine patents will surface , but it would be far more intelligent to let VP8 out into the open and make it an integral part of the web first .
Google then can have a chance , after letting the suits find submarine patents to produce a VP9 codec which avoids them .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>FSF has a background of being considered a liberal, damn near terrorist group by politicians and corporate leaders.
The FSF has many good sides, but is politically is known for attempting to bully corporations and political leaders into seeing their way of thinking.
I can't think of specific examples of threats, but Richard Stallman has been known to berate political leaders (his attempted encounter with the French president comes to mind) for not permitting him to sidestep the song and dance which makes politics politics.When loud mouthed critics start making big stinks about political issues without taking the time to recognize how they are in fact deterring the exact causes they are "fighting for" they do more damage than good.
Leaders of companies and governments are highly dependent on cooperation from political opponents and possibly hostile board members that would like nothing better than to label them as "liberal pussies who shouldn't be in charge of anything".
There were somewhat legitimate conspiracy theories that the Vietnam War could have ended sooner if the politicians didn't have to worry about looking like they were "Doing what John Lennon told them to" when he would immaturely berate them publicly for their stupidity.Richard Stallman has gained Michael Moore status.
Meaning that leaders have to wait a certain period after they've had their tie raids before doing the things they had intended to do anyway.
Before they can support a cause, they have to do damage control to detach the cause from the loud mouthed buffoons that insist on making the causes political death traps before they can support the changes.Google is a company that has been very supportive of open source in the past and more than likely will be.
They might be able to launch VP8 under a free license now by saying "Well, we were planning on doing it when we bought the company".
But the FSF needs to learn when to fight for things and they also need to learn when to just sit back and wait a while before making too much noise.This is an excellent example of a time where it would have been best to let Google have a chance to breath.
After all, before committing VP8 to the open source, they need to let a pile of patent attorneys find out every possible portion of the code which could be considered patentable and then perform patent searches to try and eliminate the possibilities of VP8 being hit by submarine patents.
Now that Google owns VP3, it's entirely possible submarine patents will surface, but it would be far more intelligent to let VP8 out into the open and make it an integral part of the web first.
Google then can have a chance, after letting the suits find submarine patents to produce a VP9 codec which avoids them.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31232768</id>
	<title>Re:Not a good letter.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266866820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely agree!  Threatening, disparaging, demeaning do not convince, these methods only trigger the defensive response.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely agree !
Threatening , disparaging , demeaning do not convince , these methods only trigger the defensive response .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely agree!
Threatening, disparaging, demeaning do not convince, these methods only trigger the defensive response.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31237766</id>
	<title>Re:Problem still remains</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1266840000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Well Google has an advantage in that they are large and respected. If they open up VP8 and say "Here's the docs to implement hardware decoding, we'll be supporting this standard well in to the future," companies might be interested in it.</p></div> </blockquote><p>They'll be more interested in it if Google goes beyond just doing that and also pays for someone to make a hardware decoder for it (but doesn't demand exclusivity on it), and includes it alongside hardware H.264 decoding in, say, the "Nexus Two" phone, or a Google-branded ChromeOS netbook or something like that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well Google has an advantage in that they are large and respected .
If they open up VP8 and say " Here 's the docs to implement hardware decoding , we 'll be supporting this standard well in to the future , " companies might be interested in it .
They 'll be more interested in it if Google goes beyond just doing that and also pays for someone to make a hardware decoder for it ( but does n't demand exclusivity on it ) , and includes it alongside hardware H.264 decoding in , say , the " Nexus Two " phone , or a Google-branded ChromeOS netbook or something like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well Google has an advantage in that they are large and respected.
If they open up VP8 and say "Here's the docs to implement hardware decoding, we'll be supporting this standard well in to the future," companies might be interested in it.
They'll be more interested in it if Google goes beyond just doing that and also pays for someone to make a hardware decoder for it (but doesn't demand exclusivity on it), and includes it alongside hardware H.264 decoding in, say, the "Nexus Two" phone, or a Google-branded ChromeOS netbook or something like that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227906</id>
	<title>Re:Problem still remains</title>
	<author>Stumbles</author>
	<datestamp>1266843480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think the lose of hardware compatibility or lose of functionality has ever stopped businesses making stupid decisions. If that were so, then Adobe would have fixed Flash a l o n g time ago from being a big resource hog.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think the lose of hardware compatibility or lose of functionality has ever stopped businesses making stupid decisions .
If that were so , then Adobe would have fixed Flash a l o n g time ago from being a big resource hog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think the lose of hardware compatibility or lose of functionality has ever stopped businesses making stupid decisions.
If that were so, then Adobe would have fixed Flash a l o n g time ago from being a big resource hog.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230860</id>
	<title>the posted article does not say Theora is as good</title>
	<author>YesIAmAScript</author>
	<datestamp>1266861600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Summary says:<br>'The free video format Ogg Theora was already at least as good for web video (see a comparison) as its nonfree competitor H.264'</p><p>Except the source linked (at see a comparison) says:</p><p>'In the case of the 499kbit/sec H.264 I believe that under careful comparison many people would prefer the H.264 video.'</p><p>This is the only comparison statement made versus H.264 in that article and H.264 comes out on top. The article primarily uses H.263 as a reference, stating that H.264 isn't used in mainstream streamed internet video, we all know is no longer true.</p><p>It would be great if slashdot at least checked the summaries a little bit.</p><p>Also note that is a very low-end profile for H.264, any one of you can make a lot better looking version of Big Buck Bunny at 499kbit/sec simply using ffmpeg.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Summary says : 'The free video format Ogg Theora was already at least as good for web video ( see a comparison ) as its nonfree competitor H.264'Except the source linked ( at see a comparison ) says : 'In the case of the 499kbit/sec H.264 I believe that under careful comparison many people would prefer the H.264 video .
'This is the only comparison statement made versus H.264 in that article and H.264 comes out on top .
The article primarily uses H.263 as a reference , stating that H.264 is n't used in mainstream streamed internet video , we all know is no longer true.It would be great if slashdot at least checked the summaries a little bit.Also note that is a very low-end profile for H.264 , any one of you can make a lot better looking version of Big Buck Bunny at 499kbit/sec simply using ffmpeg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Summary says:'The free video format Ogg Theora was already at least as good for web video (see a comparison) as its nonfree competitor H.264'Except the source linked (at see a comparison) says:'In the case of the 499kbit/sec H.264 I believe that under careful comparison many people would prefer the H.264 video.
'This is the only comparison statement made versus H.264 in that article and H.264 comes out on top.
The article primarily uses H.263 as a reference, stating that H.264 isn't used in mainstream streamed internet video, we all know is no longer true.It would be great if slashdot at least checked the summaries a little bit.Also note that is a very low-end profile for H.264, any one of you can make a lot better looking version of Big Buck Bunny at 499kbit/sec simply using ffmpeg.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227988</id>
	<title>Theora vs h264</title>
	<author>qbast</author>
	<datestamp>1266844200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Theora as good as h264? Yeah, sure. Sorry, VP3 (which Theora is based on) is previous generation codec, comparable to h263. There is no way for it to be as good as h264 unless you use crappy encoder or wrong settings. I like it how Theora apologists compare YouTube videos encoded to achieve balance between size, quality and decoding speed to Theora on maxed out settings and twist it into "they are comparable". Here is more realistic comparison: <a href="http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~nick/theora-soccer/" title="stanford.edu" rel="nofollow">http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~nick/theora-soccer/</a> [stanford.edu] which shows that Theora requires 60\% more bandwidth than h264 for similar quality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Theora as good as h264 ?
Yeah , sure .
Sorry , VP3 ( which Theora is based on ) is previous generation codec , comparable to h263 .
There is no way for it to be as good as h264 unless you use crappy encoder or wrong settings .
I like it how Theora apologists compare YouTube videos encoded to achieve balance between size , quality and decoding speed to Theora on maxed out settings and twist it into " they are comparable " .
Here is more realistic comparison : http : //www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/ ~ nick/theora-soccer/ [ stanford.edu ] which shows that Theora requires 60 \ % more bandwidth than h264 for similar quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theora as good as h264?
Yeah, sure.
Sorry, VP3 (which Theora is based on) is previous generation codec, comparable to h263.
There is no way for it to be as good as h264 unless you use crappy encoder or wrong settings.
I like it how Theora apologists compare YouTube videos encoded to achieve balance between size, quality and decoding speed to Theora on maxed out settings and twist it into "they are comparable".
Here is more realistic comparison: http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~nick/theora-soccer/ [stanford.edu] which shows that Theora requires 60\% more bandwidth than h264 for similar quality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229378</id>
	<title>Re:Not a good letter.</title>
	<author>smallfries</author>
	<datestamp>1266854640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A clue?</p><p>Point to a single codec from the 80s that would offer a compression ratio comparable in any sense to a modern codec. It is not hard at all to imagine that codecs (not formats as you mistaken say) have progressed massively in two decades of constant vision research.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A clue ? Point to a single codec from the 80s that would offer a compression ratio comparable in any sense to a modern codec .
It is not hard at all to imagine that codecs ( not formats as you mistaken say ) have progressed massively in two decades of constant vision research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A clue?Point to a single codec from the 80s that would offer a compression ratio comparable in any sense to a modern codec.
It is not hard at all to imagine that codecs (not formats as you mistaken say) have progressed massively in two decades of constant vision research.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228028</id>
	<title>What for?</title>
	<author>DMiax</author>
	<datestamp>1266844560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems to me they are just summing up all the discussions happened on Slashdot after the acquisition, and what almost everyone hoped for/believed.</p><p>Do they really have a chance at influencing Google's decision? Plus Google is already known to open source the technologies it wants to push, if only because adopters would be scared of Google's control. So even if they do open V8, was this useful at all?</p><p>Or maybe they just want to put their signature in case Google follows their expectation: "See, we made them do it"...</p><p>On the other hand it seems that some one at Google <a href="http://blog.xkcd.com/2008/10/08/youtube-audio-preview/" title="xkcd.com">follows suggestions from XKCD</a> [xkcd.com], so the FSF could be in luck too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me they are just summing up all the discussions happened on Slashdot after the acquisition , and what almost everyone hoped for/believed.Do they really have a chance at influencing Google 's decision ?
Plus Google is already known to open source the technologies it wants to push , if only because adopters would be scared of Google 's control .
So even if they do open V8 , was this useful at all ? Or maybe they just want to put their signature in case Google follows their expectation : " See , we made them do it " ...On the other hand it seems that some one at Google follows suggestions from XKCD [ xkcd.com ] , so the FSF could be in luck too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me they are just summing up all the discussions happened on Slashdot after the acquisition, and what almost everyone hoped for/believed.Do they really have a chance at influencing Google's decision?
Plus Google is already known to open source the technologies it wants to push, if only because adopters would be scared of Google's control.
So even if they do open V8, was this useful at all?Or maybe they just want to put their signature in case Google follows their expectation: "See, we made them do it"...On the other hand it seems that some one at Google follows suggestions from XKCD [xkcd.com], so the FSF could be in luck too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230572</id>
	<title>Re:Pedant point</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1266860700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Point of order: Flash is not a video codec</p></div><p>Being more pedantic: they didn't say it was.</p><p>Flash's most popular feature <em>for end users</em> is that it allows them to watch videos embedded on a lot of websites. If HTML5 standardized on a single widely-supported codec, Flash's #1 reason for being would disappear overnight. Yeah, a few people would miss an online game or two, but those have nothing on the popularity of Youtube and other Flash-based video sites.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Point of order : Flash is not a video codecBeing more pedantic : they did n't say it was.Flash 's most popular feature for end users is that it allows them to watch videos embedded on a lot of websites .
If HTML5 standardized on a single widely-supported codec , Flash 's # 1 reason for being would disappear overnight .
Yeah , a few people would miss an online game or two , but those have nothing on the popularity of Youtube and other Flash-based video sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Point of order: Flash is not a video codecBeing more pedantic: they didn't say it was.Flash's most popular feature for end users is that it allows them to watch videos embedded on a lot of websites.
If HTML5 standardized on a single widely-supported codec, Flash's #1 reason for being would disappear overnight.
Yeah, a few people would miss an online game or two, but those have nothing on the popularity of Youtube and other Flash-based video sites.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227978</id>
	<title>It's the "about" that kills</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266844080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it has about the most generous licensing i've ever seen.</p></div><p>But it's the "about" that kills. A software license that includes the H.264 terms will never qualify under Free Software Foundation's definition of free software, the Debian Free Software Guidelines, or Open Source Initiative's Open Source Definition.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it has about the most generous licensing i 've ever seen.But it 's the " about " that kills .
A software license that includes the H.264 terms will never qualify under Free Software Foundation 's definition of free software , the Debian Free Software Guidelines , or Open Source Initiative 's Open Source Definition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it has about the most generous licensing i've ever seen.But it's the "about" that kills.
A software license that includes the H.264 terms will never qualify under Free Software Foundation's definition of free software, the Debian Free Software Guidelines, or Open Source Initiative's Open Source Definition.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229144</id>
	<title>Re:Not a good letter.</title>
	<author>shaka</author>
	<datestamp>1266853500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sometimes I find [RMS and the FSF] as annoying as the beggars that shake the cup of coins under your nose to make you give them something. No fucking way.</p></div><p>Really? Stallman asked you for money? Funny, because I never heard about him asking for anything in return for GCC and GDB. Intel, <a href="http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/buy-or-renew/#compilers" title="intel.com">on the other hand</a> [intel.com]...</p><p><em>Intel&#174; Compiler Suite Professional Edition for Linux: $1,349</em></p><p>Whoa!</p><p>As <a href="/comments.pl?sid=1558680&amp;cid=31228762" title="slashdot.org">FlyingBishop said here before me</a> [slashdot.org], quid pro quo. A lot of people owe RMS and the FSF <em>a lot</em>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes I find [ RMS and the FSF ] as annoying as the beggars that shake the cup of coins under your nose to make you give them something .
No fucking way.Really ?
Stallman asked you for money ?
Funny , because I never heard about him asking for anything in return for GCC and GDB .
Intel , on the other hand [ intel.com ] ...Intel   Compiler Suite Professional Edition for Linux : $ 1,349Whoa ! As FlyingBishop said here before me [ slashdot.org ] , quid pro quo .
A lot of people owe RMS and the FSF a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes I find [RMS and the FSF] as annoying as the beggars that shake the cup of coins under your nose to make you give them something.
No fucking way.Really?
Stallman asked you for money?
Funny, because I never heard about him asking for anything in return for GCC and GDB.
Intel, on the other hand [intel.com]...Intel® Compiler Suite Professional Edition for Linux: $1,349Whoa!As FlyingBishop said here before me [slashdot.org], quid pro quo.
A lot of people owe RMS and the FSF a lot.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31233494</id>
	<title>Re:Problem still remains</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1266869400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Many hardware devices already have H.264 decoding built into the chip, ranging from set-top boxes to the iPhone. Moving away would mean losing ability to run on these target devices (or run at an unacceptable frame rate).</p></div><p>Well I think you're right and this is a big issue.  If VP8 were to displace H264, it would have to be a long-term goal that Google would need to work for.  First, they'd need to make sure that VP8 was compelling.  Offering it all royalty-free definitely helps, but it's not clear that it's enough to get everyone on board.  A lot has already been invested in H264, and it'd take some investment to move away from it.  It'd definitely help if they could demonstrate some superior capabilities of the codec.
</p><p>Second, Google would need to make sure there was hardware support.  This would take some time to develop, but the real problem is that it'd take years to phase out existing H264 devices.  It's easy enough to install a new codec in Windows and OSX, but installing a new hardware chip in my iPod/iPad/iPhone/AppleTV/Zune/Droid/whatever to support hardware decoding is harder.  So in the meantime, while these old devices are being phased out, everyone would need to support both H264 and VP8.
</p><p>Now don't get me wrong.  I would love to see Google release a high-quality royalty free codec.  If it came out, I'd love to see everyone use that codec in a completely open container format.  Like if the default video format in Windows Media, Quicktime, and VLC were all the same high-quality codec in the same high-quality container format, that would be fantastic.  It just doesn't seem to me to be something that can be achieved in the short term.  It seems like a long-term (multi-year) goal.
</p><p>I'd really love to see some of these things hashed out publicly.  Do Apple and Microsoft have a reason for not supporting MKV containers?  Do they have valid legal/technical objections, or have they just not bothered?  If they have technical objections, can they offer those objections to a group who could then respond or offer possible changes to MKV to address those issues?  I'd love to have some transparency in these things, since it affects all of us.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many hardware devices already have H.264 decoding built into the chip , ranging from set-top boxes to the iPhone .
Moving away would mean losing ability to run on these target devices ( or run at an unacceptable frame rate ) .Well I think you 're right and this is a big issue .
If VP8 were to displace H264 , it would have to be a long-term goal that Google would need to work for .
First , they 'd need to make sure that VP8 was compelling .
Offering it all royalty-free definitely helps , but it 's not clear that it 's enough to get everyone on board .
A lot has already been invested in H264 , and it 'd take some investment to move away from it .
It 'd definitely help if they could demonstrate some superior capabilities of the codec .
Second , Google would need to make sure there was hardware support .
This would take some time to develop , but the real problem is that it 'd take years to phase out existing H264 devices .
It 's easy enough to install a new codec in Windows and OSX , but installing a new hardware chip in my iPod/iPad/iPhone/AppleTV/Zune/Droid/whatever to support hardware decoding is harder .
So in the meantime , while these old devices are being phased out , everyone would need to support both H264 and VP8 .
Now do n't get me wrong .
I would love to see Google release a high-quality royalty free codec .
If it came out , I 'd love to see everyone use that codec in a completely open container format .
Like if the default video format in Windows Media , Quicktime , and VLC were all the same high-quality codec in the same high-quality container format , that would be fantastic .
It just does n't seem to me to be something that can be achieved in the short term .
It seems like a long-term ( multi-year ) goal .
I 'd really love to see some of these things hashed out publicly .
Do Apple and Microsoft have a reason for not supporting MKV containers ?
Do they have valid legal/technical objections , or have they just not bothered ?
If they have technical objections , can they offer those objections to a group who could then respond or offer possible changes to MKV to address those issues ?
I 'd love to have some transparency in these things , since it affects all of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many hardware devices already have H.264 decoding built into the chip, ranging from set-top boxes to the iPhone.
Moving away would mean losing ability to run on these target devices (or run at an unacceptable frame rate).Well I think you're right and this is a big issue.
If VP8 were to displace H264, it would have to be a long-term goal that Google would need to work for.
First, they'd need to make sure that VP8 was compelling.
Offering it all royalty-free definitely helps, but it's not clear that it's enough to get everyone on board.
A lot has already been invested in H264, and it'd take some investment to move away from it.
It'd definitely help if they could demonstrate some superior capabilities of the codec.
Second, Google would need to make sure there was hardware support.
This would take some time to develop, but the real problem is that it'd take years to phase out existing H264 devices.
It's easy enough to install a new codec in Windows and OSX, but installing a new hardware chip in my iPod/iPad/iPhone/AppleTV/Zune/Droid/whatever to support hardware decoding is harder.
So in the meantime, while these old devices are being phased out, everyone would need to support both H264 and VP8.
Now don't get me wrong.
I would love to see Google release a high-quality royalty free codec.
If it came out, I'd love to see everyone use that codec in a completely open container format.
Like if the default video format in Windows Media, Quicktime, and VLC were all the same high-quality codec in the same high-quality container format, that would be fantastic.
It just doesn't seem to me to be something that can be achieved in the short term.
It seems like a long-term (multi-year) goal.
I'd really love to see some of these things hashed out publicly.
Do Apple and Microsoft have a reason for not supporting MKV containers?
Do they have valid legal/technical objections, or have they just not bothered?
If they have technical objections, can they offer those objections to a group who could then respond or offer possible changes to MKV to address those issues?
I'd love to have some transparency in these things, since it affects all of us.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228158</id>
	<title>out of *1000's of possible degrees +/- 0...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266846000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>as a group, we can only operate in a range of about 150 degrees, &amp; most of that must be above 0.</p><p>no better time to learn to count... (on some things that we have no concrete understanding of)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as a group , we can only operate in a range of about 150 degrees , &amp; most of that must be above 0.no better time to learn to count... ( on some things that we have no concrete understanding of ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as a group, we can only operate in a range of about 150 degrees, &amp; most of that must be above 0.no better time to learn to count... (on some things that we have no concrete understanding of)?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228248</id>
	<title>Pedant point</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1266847020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> freeing the web from both Flash and the proprietary H.264 codec.'</p></div><p>Point of order: Flash is not a video codec - it is a rich internet application platform which includes streaming video capability. Flash <i>video</i> is a "container" format which can use a variety of (proprietary) codecs including On2 VP6 and H.264.

</p><p>So, whatever the other arguments against Flash, on the issue of potential future H.264 patent problems its no better or worse than HTML5+H.264.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>freeing the web from both Flash and the proprietary H.264 codec .
'Point of order : Flash is not a video codec - it is a rich internet application platform which includes streaming video capability .
Flash video is a " container " format which can use a variety of ( proprietary ) codecs including On2 VP6 and H.264 .
So , whatever the other arguments against Flash , on the issue of potential future H.264 patent problems its no better or worse than HTML5 + H.264 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> freeing the web from both Flash and the proprietary H.264 codec.
'Point of order: Flash is not a video codec - it is a rich internet application platform which includes streaming video capability.
Flash video is a "container" format which can use a variety of (proprietary) codecs including On2 VP6 and H.264.
So, whatever the other arguments against Flash, on the issue of potential future H.264 patent problems its no better or worse than HTML5+H.264.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31233678</id>
	<title>Re:What about Dirac?</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1266870120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Regular Dirac (versus Dirac Pro) seems to be pretty comparable to H.264, though it's current implementations are very slow, and still pretty experimenty.  Dirac is open AND royalty-free, at least from the BBC's perspective. They did not file any patents on it.</p><p>It's not certain to be free of patent encumberance, though, particularly in countries, unlike the UK, where software patents reign supreme. Dirac is based on wavelets, like JPEG 2000 or the commercial CineForm CODEC. There's some claims that it will offer a higher coding efficiency at the same apparent video quality as H.264, others that claim twice the coding efficiency of MPEG-2 for HD, which puts it in the same general ballpark as H.264 (typically 2x-3x), VC-1, Theora, and other modern DCT-based CODECs.</p><p>The big problem with Dirac right now is speed.. you need a decent dual-core CPU to get smooth 720/30p playback. Being non-DCT, it's not going to get any help from the typical hardware acceleration on device, but might benefit from some of the low-level graphics card accelerations, or maybe something using OpenCL. And probably just more software optimizations. I've played around with it a bit, but then encoder was slow enough that I didn't get much joy out of it (this was using the dirac-research encoder, which is higher quality than the Schr&#246;dinger version, but also known to be slow). Quality looked great. I'm kind of partial to wavelet encoders these days, too. Maybe it's from 20+ years of staring at DCT encoded video, but it just seems to me that, even where there are artifacts, they tend to be more "organic", so you notice them less.</p><p>And this is especially profound given how well one's brain adapts... your brain learns to filter out the bad stuff in video you watch repeatedly. When I first got into digital video... ok, it still sucked, back in the 80s. And into the 90s. But after awhile, I could certainly still see DCT blocking (when you run an overly aggressive low-pass filter after DCT conversion, you start to see block boundaries when you uncompress. Try pretty much any VideoCD for examples of this, and it's still visible on DVD and HD sources, particularly HD from satellite or Comcast). But my brain did adapt... both ways. When I occasionally went back to analog, I was amazed... "how did I ever live with this crap" was the usual thought. Of course, if I spent a year watching nothing but old SVHS and Hi8 tapes, I'd start liking it ok again, and then be horrified at my DVDs. Well, ok, horrified by my TiVo Series 1. Anyway, if you look at new basic technology, like wavelet vs. DCT, and it doesn't have big visual issues, that's a very good sign you're onto something good.</p><p>Dirac Pro is being poised as a open CODEC for professional work, probably in competition with CineForm, Apple Intermediate CODEC, AVC Intra, and other professionally suited, intra-frame only CODECs. The specs are finalized, and this has been accepted by SMPTE as the VC-2 CODEC. This is not of interest for web video. I use CineForm sometimes for video editing... you need about 50GB/hour for 1440x1080/60i video in Cineform, or about 120GB/hour for 1920x1080/60p video in Cineform. I was actually looking into Dirac Pro as a replacement for Cineform (another is SMPTE VC-3, which is also called Adobe DNxHD, also intended for professional use).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Regular Dirac ( versus Dirac Pro ) seems to be pretty comparable to H.264 , though it 's current implementations are very slow , and still pretty experimenty .
Dirac is open AND royalty-free , at least from the BBC 's perspective .
They did not file any patents on it.It 's not certain to be free of patent encumberance , though , particularly in countries , unlike the UK , where software patents reign supreme .
Dirac is based on wavelets , like JPEG 2000 or the commercial CineForm CODEC .
There 's some claims that it will offer a higher coding efficiency at the same apparent video quality as H.264 , others that claim twice the coding efficiency of MPEG-2 for HD , which puts it in the same general ballpark as H.264 ( typically 2x-3x ) , VC-1 , Theora , and other modern DCT-based CODECs.The big problem with Dirac right now is speed.. you need a decent dual-core CPU to get smooth 720/30p playback .
Being non-DCT , it 's not going to get any help from the typical hardware acceleration on device , but might benefit from some of the low-level graphics card accelerations , or maybe something using OpenCL .
And probably just more software optimizations .
I 've played around with it a bit , but then encoder was slow enough that I did n't get much joy out of it ( this was using the dirac-research encoder , which is higher quality than the Schr   dinger version , but also known to be slow ) .
Quality looked great .
I 'm kind of partial to wavelet encoders these days , too .
Maybe it 's from 20 + years of staring at DCT encoded video , but it just seems to me that , even where there are artifacts , they tend to be more " organic " , so you notice them less.And this is especially profound given how well one 's brain adapts... your brain learns to filter out the bad stuff in video you watch repeatedly .
When I first got into digital video... ok , it still sucked , back in the 80s .
And into the 90s .
But after awhile , I could certainly still see DCT blocking ( when you run an overly aggressive low-pass filter after DCT conversion , you start to see block boundaries when you uncompress .
Try pretty much any VideoCD for examples of this , and it 's still visible on DVD and HD sources , particularly HD from satellite or Comcast ) .
But my brain did adapt... both ways .
When I occasionally went back to analog , I was amazed... " how did I ever live with this crap " was the usual thought .
Of course , if I spent a year watching nothing but old SVHS and Hi8 tapes , I 'd start liking it ok again , and then be horrified at my DVDs .
Well , ok , horrified by my TiVo Series 1 .
Anyway , if you look at new basic technology , like wavelet vs. DCT , and it does n't have big visual issues , that 's a very good sign you 're onto something good.Dirac Pro is being poised as a open CODEC for professional work , probably in competition with CineForm , Apple Intermediate CODEC , AVC Intra , and other professionally suited , intra-frame only CODECs .
The specs are finalized , and this has been accepted by SMPTE as the VC-2 CODEC .
This is not of interest for web video .
I use CineForm sometimes for video editing... you need about 50GB/hour for 1440x1080/60i video in Cineform , or about 120GB/hour for 1920x1080/60p video in Cineform .
I was actually looking into Dirac Pro as a replacement for Cineform ( another is SMPTE VC-3 , which is also called Adobe DNxHD , also intended for professional use ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regular Dirac (versus Dirac Pro) seems to be pretty comparable to H.264, though it's current implementations are very slow, and still pretty experimenty.
Dirac is open AND royalty-free, at least from the BBC's perspective.
They did not file any patents on it.It's not certain to be free of patent encumberance, though, particularly in countries, unlike the UK, where software patents reign supreme.
Dirac is based on wavelets, like JPEG 2000 or the commercial CineForm CODEC.
There's some claims that it will offer a higher coding efficiency at the same apparent video quality as H.264, others that claim twice the coding efficiency of MPEG-2 for HD, which puts it in the same general ballpark as H.264 (typically 2x-3x), VC-1, Theora, and other modern DCT-based CODECs.The big problem with Dirac right now is speed.. you need a decent dual-core CPU to get smooth 720/30p playback.
Being non-DCT, it's not going to get any help from the typical hardware acceleration on device, but might benefit from some of the low-level graphics card accelerations, or maybe something using OpenCL.
And probably just more software optimizations.
I've played around with it a bit, but then encoder was slow enough that I didn't get much joy out of it (this was using the dirac-research encoder, which is higher quality than the Schrödinger version, but also known to be slow).
Quality looked great.
I'm kind of partial to wavelet encoders these days, too.
Maybe it's from 20+ years of staring at DCT encoded video, but it just seems to me that, even where there are artifacts, they tend to be more "organic", so you notice them less.And this is especially profound given how well one's brain adapts... your brain learns to filter out the bad stuff in video you watch repeatedly.
When I first got into digital video... ok, it still sucked, back in the 80s.
And into the 90s.
But after awhile, I could certainly still see DCT blocking (when you run an overly aggressive low-pass filter after DCT conversion, you start to see block boundaries when you uncompress.
Try pretty much any VideoCD for examples of this, and it's still visible on DVD and HD sources, particularly HD from satellite or Comcast).
But my brain did adapt... both ways.
When I occasionally went back to analog, I was amazed... "how did I ever live with this crap" was the usual thought.
Of course, if I spent a year watching nothing but old SVHS and Hi8 tapes, I'd start liking it ok again, and then be horrified at my DVDs.
Well, ok, horrified by my TiVo Series 1.
Anyway, if you look at new basic technology, like wavelet vs. DCT, and it doesn't have big visual issues, that's a very good sign you're onto something good.Dirac Pro is being poised as a open CODEC for professional work, probably in competition with CineForm, Apple Intermediate CODEC, AVC Intra, and other professionally suited, intra-frame only CODECs.
The specs are finalized, and this has been accepted by SMPTE as the VC-2 CODEC.
This is not of interest for web video.
I use CineForm sometimes for video editing... you need about 50GB/hour for 1440x1080/60i video in Cineform, or about 120GB/hour for 1920x1080/60p video in Cineform.
I was actually looking into Dirac Pro as a replacement for Cineform (another is SMPTE VC-3, which is also called Adobe DNxHD, also intended for professional use).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228238</id>
	<title>Re:Not a good letter.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266846960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RMS and the FSF has bigger entitlement issues than most pirates. The world doesn't owe you a free implementation of anything, but in his mind you always owe the community and should release everything under the GPL. Even the release groups tend to say if you like it, buy it. When TPB has had some official releases, they've been with a paypal link for those who enjoyed it. FSF? They just insist. Sometimes I find them as annoying as the beggars that shake the cup of coins under your nose to make you give them something. No fucking way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RMS and the FSF has bigger entitlement issues than most pirates .
The world does n't owe you a free implementation of anything , but in his mind you always owe the community and should release everything under the GPL .
Even the release groups tend to say if you like it , buy it .
When TPB has had some official releases , they 've been with a paypal link for those who enjoyed it .
FSF ? They just insist .
Sometimes I find them as annoying as the beggars that shake the cup of coins under your nose to make you give them something .
No fucking way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RMS and the FSF has bigger entitlement issues than most pirates.
The world doesn't owe you a free implementation of anything, but in his mind you always owe the community and should release everything under the GPL.
Even the release groups tend to say if you like it, buy it.
When TPB has had some official releases, they've been with a paypal link for those who enjoyed it.
FSF? They just insist.
Sometimes I find them as annoying as the beggars that shake the cup of coins under your nose to make you give them something.
No fucking way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229414</id>
	<title>Way too late to displace H.264</title>
	<author>gig</author>
	<datestamp>1266855060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could you replace the CD with something else in 1995? That was when the CD was as old and entrenched as H.264 is now. It's way too late. You should be lobbying MPEG-LA to keep H.264 free after 2016 (like Apple does) not lobbying Google to get a Blu-Ray/HD-DVD thing started. (BTW Blu-Ray is H.264.) Content publishers are even warier of multiple formats than users because it kills media buying.</p><p>Further, it's only PC's that have a choice of software codec, and even there it comes at the expense of battery life, decoding a non-standard codec on your CPU instead of H.264 on your GPU with more efficiency. On mobiles you have a built-in H.264 decoder only, that's it. The PC as the center of the digital universe is as pass&#233; as the CD. Video is what plays on iPods (H.264) and smartphones (H.264) and set-tops (H.264). It is actually pathetic to think that the Web is going to come late to the video game and rewrite history when you consider how Microsoft does not even support the video tag yet.</p><p>Start thinking about the successor to H.264, and better yet, start building it, write some code.</p><p>Google is firmly behind H.264 because in YouTube they have a video business. YouTube is H.264 in the back end. There's no alternative to ISO standard H.264 if you want people to actually see your content, same as in 1995 there was no alternative to CD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could you replace the CD with something else in 1995 ?
That was when the CD was as old and entrenched as H.264 is now .
It 's way too late .
You should be lobbying MPEG-LA to keep H.264 free after 2016 ( like Apple does ) not lobbying Google to get a Blu-Ray/HD-DVD thing started .
( BTW Blu-Ray is H.264 .
) Content publishers are even warier of multiple formats than users because it kills media buying.Further , it 's only PC 's that have a choice of software codec , and even there it comes at the expense of battery life , decoding a non-standard codec on your CPU instead of H.264 on your GPU with more efficiency .
On mobiles you have a built-in H.264 decoder only , that 's it .
The PC as the center of the digital universe is as pass   as the CD .
Video is what plays on iPods ( H.264 ) and smartphones ( H.264 ) and set-tops ( H.264 ) .
It is actually pathetic to think that the Web is going to come late to the video game and rewrite history when you consider how Microsoft does not even support the video tag yet.Start thinking about the successor to H.264 , and better yet , start building it , write some code.Google is firmly behind H.264 because in YouTube they have a video business .
YouTube is H.264 in the back end .
There 's no alternative to ISO standard H.264 if you want people to actually see your content , same as in 1995 there was no alternative to CD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could you replace the CD with something else in 1995?
That was when the CD was as old and entrenched as H.264 is now.
It's way too late.
You should be lobbying MPEG-LA to keep H.264 free after 2016 (like Apple does) not lobbying Google to get a Blu-Ray/HD-DVD thing started.
(BTW Blu-Ray is H.264.
) Content publishers are even warier of multiple formats than users because it kills media buying.Further, it's only PC's that have a choice of software codec, and even there it comes at the expense of battery life, decoding a non-standard codec on your CPU instead of H.264 on your GPU with more efficiency.
On mobiles you have a built-in H.264 decoder only, that's it.
The PC as the center of the digital universe is as passé as the CD.
Video is what plays on iPods (H.264) and smartphones (H.264) and set-tops (H.264).
It is actually pathetic to think that the Web is going to come late to the video game and rewrite history when you consider how Microsoft does not even support the video tag yet.Start thinking about the successor to H.264, and better yet, start building it, write some code.Google is firmly behind H.264 because in YouTube they have a video business.
YouTube is H.264 in the back end.
There's no alternative to ISO standard H.264 if you want people to actually see your content, same as in 1995 there was no alternative to CD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230646</id>
	<title>Re:Problem still remains</title>
	<author>Criminally Insane Ro</author>
	<datestamp>1266860940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems that Youtube deletes the original upon compression. AFAIK google video doesn't. You can download the original video through a bookmarklet/favelet, unless downloading was disabled.


Not totally on-topic, but I've always wondered what codec google video uses? It's quality and downloading speed always seemed great. Wikipedia says it uses Divx, but how is that possible if Divx isn't even part of Flash or the FLV standards?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems that Youtube deletes the original upon compression .
AFAIK google video does n't .
You can download the original video through a bookmarklet/favelet , unless downloading was disabled .
Not totally on-topic , but I 've always wondered what codec google video uses ?
It 's quality and downloading speed always seemed great .
Wikipedia says it uses Divx , but how is that possible if Divx is n't even part of Flash or the FLV standards ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems that Youtube deletes the original upon compression.
AFAIK google video doesn't.
You can download the original video through a bookmarklet/favelet, unless downloading was disabled.
Not totally on-topic, but I've always wondered what codec google video uses?
It's quality and downloading speed always seemed great.
Wikipedia says it uses Divx, but how is that possible if Divx isn't even part of Flash or the FLV standards?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31238946</id>
	<title>Re:Google could do real good with this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266846780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, yes I agree.</p><p>Google</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , yes I agree.Google</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, yes I agree.Google</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227884</id>
	<title>Re:Problem still remains</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266843300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What prevent youtube from using multiple codec? It not like they are runing out of space. They could guess the best fit from browser strings and allow to change in preference option.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What prevent youtube from using multiple codec ?
It not like they are runing out of space .
They could guess the best fit from browser strings and allow to change in preference option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What prevent youtube from using multiple codec?
It not like they are runing out of space.
They could guess the best fit from browser strings and allow to change in preference option.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230206</id>
	<title>Re:Well thats the FSF for you</title>
	<author>rattaroaz</author>
	<datestamp>1266859200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry that I don't have any mod point to mod you up.  So I'll go one further.  Many people are claiming that Stallman is becoming a irrelevant and out of touch.  The reality is that he is becoming less out of touch than he was in the 1980's.  He was a MASSIVE radical back then, as the concept of Free software did not even exist.  He was really a freak, with regard to his philosophies.  As time is going by, he is becoming less radical despite not changing his principles all these years, just because his ideas of user Freedom is becoming more accepted by many.  However, as many more people are moving to Free software, many of them are trying to push back with proprietary software, thinking that Stallman is something new.  He's not.  The rest of the world is just having a hard time meeting him where he was almost 25 years ago, and kicking and screaming along the way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry that I do n't have any mod point to mod you up .
So I 'll go one further .
Many people are claiming that Stallman is becoming a irrelevant and out of touch .
The reality is that he is becoming less out of touch than he was in the 1980 's .
He was a MASSIVE radical back then , as the concept of Free software did not even exist .
He was really a freak , with regard to his philosophies .
As time is going by , he is becoming less radical despite not changing his principles all these years , just because his ideas of user Freedom is becoming more accepted by many .
However , as many more people are moving to Free software , many of them are trying to push back with proprietary software , thinking that Stallman is something new .
He 's not .
The rest of the world is just having a hard time meeting him where he was almost 25 years ago , and kicking and screaming along the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry that I don't have any mod point to mod you up.
So I'll go one further.
Many people are claiming that Stallman is becoming a irrelevant and out of touch.
The reality is that he is becoming less out of touch than he was in the 1980's.
He was a MASSIVE radical back then, as the concept of Free software did not even exist.
He was really a freak, with regard to his philosophies.
As time is going by, he is becoming less radical despite not changing his principles all these years, just because his ideas of user Freedom is becoming more accepted by many.
However, as many more people are moving to Free software, many of them are trying to push back with proprietary software, thinking that Stallman is something new.
He's not.
The rest of the world is just having a hard time meeting him where he was almost 25 years ago, and kicking and screaming along the way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31237882</id>
	<title>Stop spreading BS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266840480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm all for Theora and I think it should become the web standard. But it doesn't come close to H.264 qualitywise. Maybe it never will, because the format is frozen and has less features than H.264, so there's a limit to future encoder optimization. From my experience, Theora is better than H.263 and on a par with MPEG-4 ASP. It needs about double the bitrate of H.264 for comparable quality.</p><p>Even Greg Maxwell, author of that (methodically flawed for reasons I needn't repeat because it has been thoroughly criticized here) comparison doesn't pretend it's "at least as good as H.264":</p><blockquote><div><p>competitive and even superior to <strong>some</strong> of the files that Google is distributing today on YouTube.</p></div></blockquote><p> - "some" meaning the H.263-encoded files!</p><blockquote><div><p>In the case of the 499kbit/sec H.264 I believe that under careful comparison many people would prefer the H.264 video. However, the difference is not especially great.</p></div></blockquote><p>How does "many would prefer A to B" equal to "B is as least as good as A"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm all for Theora and I think it should become the web standard .
But it does n't come close to H.264 qualitywise .
Maybe it never will , because the format is frozen and has less features than H.264 , so there 's a limit to future encoder optimization .
From my experience , Theora is better than H.263 and on a par with MPEG-4 ASP .
It needs about double the bitrate of H.264 for comparable quality.Even Greg Maxwell , author of that ( methodically flawed for reasons I need n't repeat because it has been thoroughly criticized here ) comparison does n't pretend it 's " at least as good as H.264 " : competitive and even superior to some of the files that Google is distributing today on YouTube .
- " some " meaning the H.263-encoded files ! In the case of the 499kbit/sec H.264 I believe that under careful comparison many people would prefer the H.264 video .
However , the difference is not especially great.How does " many would prefer A to B " equal to " B is as least as good as A " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm all for Theora and I think it should become the web standard.
But it doesn't come close to H.264 qualitywise.
Maybe it never will, because the format is frozen and has less features than H.264, so there's a limit to future encoder optimization.
From my experience, Theora is better than H.263 and on a par with MPEG-4 ASP.
It needs about double the bitrate of H.264 for comparable quality.Even Greg Maxwell, author of that (methodically flawed for reasons I needn't repeat because it has been thoroughly criticized here) comparison doesn't pretend it's "at least as good as H.264":competitive and even superior to some of the files that Google is distributing today on YouTube.
- "some" meaning the H.263-encoded files!In the case of the 499kbit/sec H.264 I believe that under careful comparison many people would prefer the H.264 video.
However, the difference is not especially great.How does "many would prefer A to B" equal to "B is as least as good as A"?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228074</id>
	<title>Re:Not a good letter.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266845100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention that writing that H.264 is proprietary is wrong.</p><p>It's patent-encumbered, yes, and as such non-free, but it is nonetheless a non-proprietary standard as AFAIK the full documentation is available.</p><p>BTW, the JPEG standard is also patent-encumbered, which is why only a subset of the features described in the standard are usually implemented (lossless coding, hierarchical coding, arithmetic coding are usually left out of the implementation).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention that writing that H.264 is proprietary is wrong.It 's patent-encumbered , yes , and as such non-free , but it is nonetheless a non-proprietary standard as AFAIK the full documentation is available.BTW , the JPEG standard is also patent-encumbered , which is why only a subset of the features described in the standard are usually implemented ( lossless coding , hierarchical coding , arithmetic coding are usually left out of the implementation ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention that writing that H.264 is proprietary is wrong.It's patent-encumbered, yes, and as such non-free, but it is nonetheless a non-proprietary standard as AFAIK the full documentation is available.BTW, the JPEG standard is also patent-encumbered, which is why only a subset of the features described in the standard are usually implemented (lossless coding, hierarchical coding, arithmetic coding are usually left out of the implementation).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230082</id>
	<title>Re:This ! Is ! GOO-GLE !</title>
	<author>warmflatsprite</author>
	<datestamp>1266858660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, all the hardware / processing requirement are moot given it's freaking Google we're talking about.</p></div><p>It's far from moot.  Converting their entire video library carries real monetary and time costs that are quite significant -- even to Google.  Google is still a business.  It would stand to reason that they'd incur these costs only if it made business sense -- that is, if there is some direct or indirect return on investment.  We'll see whether or not they find the ROI to be compelling.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , all the hardware / processing requirement are moot given it 's freaking Google we 're talking about.It 's far from moot .
Converting their entire video library carries real monetary and time costs that are quite significant -- even to Google .
Google is still a business .
It would stand to reason that they 'd incur these costs only if it made business sense -- that is , if there is some direct or indirect return on investment .
We 'll see whether or not they find the ROI to be compelling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, all the hardware / processing requirement are moot given it's freaking Google we're talking about.It's far from moot.
Converting their entire video library carries real monetary and time costs that are quite significant -- even to Google.
Google is still a business.
It would stand to reason that they'd incur these costs only if it made business sense -- that is, if there is some direct or indirect return on investment.
We'll see whether or not they find the ROI to be compelling.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229618</id>
	<title>Re:Not a good letter.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266856140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, the FSF is populist here, trying to get some credit in case google decides to free the codec...</p><p>Thank you very much dear FSF, what would we do without you ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the FSF is populist here , trying to get some credit in case google decides to free the codec...Thank you very much dear FSF , what would we do without you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the FSF is populist here, trying to get some credit in case google decides to free the codec...Thank you very much dear FSF, what would we do without you ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229376</id>
	<title>Re:Problem still remains</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266854640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty much lays it all out.<br>Just like back in the old days the question was "Will it run Lotus 123" the question now is will it play on an iPhone.<br>H.264 is most likely going to win because it already has. iPhones and iPods already support it. Most smart phones already support it. Video card makers are rushing to support it.<br>You have hardware support for it now and that is what counts. I would love to have a free and open video codec but since h.264 is out there now it most likely going to be it for now. If Google can get Apple on board you may have a chance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty much lays it all out.Just like back in the old days the question was " Will it run Lotus 123 " the question now is will it play on an iPhone.H.264 is most likely going to win because it already has .
iPhones and iPods already support it .
Most smart phones already support it .
Video card makers are rushing to support it.You have hardware support for it now and that is what counts .
I would love to have a free and open video codec but since h.264 is out there now it most likely going to be it for now .
If Google can get Apple on board you may have a chance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty much lays it all out.Just like back in the old days the question was "Will it run Lotus 123" the question now is will it play on an iPhone.H.264 is most likely going to win because it already has.
iPhones and iPods already support it.
Most smart phones already support it.
Video card makers are rushing to support it.You have hardware support for it now and that is what counts.
I would love to have a free and open video codec but since h.264 is out there now it most likely going to be it for now.
If Google can get Apple on board you may have a chance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228418</id>
	<title>Re:Well thats the FSF for you</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1266848400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I doubt anyone except a few dyed in the wool fanbois or anyone who's worked in the real world for more than 6 months take much notice of what the FSF says anymore</p></div><p>Wait a second there. I agree to some extent with your view on the FSF's poor PR skills, but they are still an extremely important organization to whom a lot of engineers and software developers are indebted to.  FYI, I am no FSF fanboi and I have worked in the industry (mostly IT) for the last 15 years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt anyone except a few dyed in the wool fanbois or anyone who 's worked in the real world for more than 6 months take much notice of what the FSF says anymoreWait a second there .
I agree to some extent with your view on the FSF 's poor PR skills , but they are still an extremely important organization to whom a lot of engineers and software developers are indebted to .
FYI , I am no FSF fanboi and I have worked in the industry ( mostly IT ) for the last 15 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt anyone except a few dyed in the wool fanbois or anyone who's worked in the real world for more than 6 months take much notice of what the FSF says anymoreWait a second there.
I agree to some extent with your view on the FSF's poor PR skills, but they are still an extremely important organization to whom a lot of engineers and software developers are indebted to.
FYI, I am no FSF fanboi and I have worked in the industry (mostly IT) for the last 15 years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228752</id>
	<title>Is this a joke?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266850680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Making VP8 patent-free won't magically add VP8 hardware acceleration to the millions of iPhone, iPod, iPad, Blackberries, PSP and other devices out there.</p><p>H.264 is the current standard, get over it already.</p><p>VP8 needs to be <em>at least equal</em> or <strong>better</strong> than the upcoming <strong>H.265</strong> to have any chance of becoming a standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Making VP8 patent-free wo n't magically add VP8 hardware acceleration to the millions of iPhone , iPod , iPad , Blackberries , PSP and other devices out there.H.264 is the current standard , get over it already.VP8 needs to be at least equal or better than the upcoming H.265 to have any chance of becoming a standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Making VP8 patent-free won't magically add VP8 hardware acceleration to the millions of iPhone, iPod, iPad, Blackberries, PSP and other devices out there.H.264 is the current standard, get over it already.VP8 needs to be at least equal or better than the upcoming H.265 to have any chance of becoming a standard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227822</id>
	<title>Problem still remains</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266842580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The two issues that prevented YouTube from using the Ogg Theora codec still apply.</p><p>Many hardware devices already have H.264 decoding built into the chip, ranging from set-top boxes to the iPhone. Moving away would mean losing ability to run on these target devices (or run at an unacceptable frame rate).<br>The alternative would be to have two versions of the video stored, but they're currently already doing this for Mobile YouTube and regular YouTube, and adding a third wouldn't make much sense.</p><p>The cost of transcoding all the videos again is also another issue. Doing this to all the videos at once is somewhat pointless - currently, if you try and watch a video that isn't already encoded for the mobile device, YouTube will attempt to transcode the video on the fly and send it out directly.</p><p>I guess this could be done, but while storage is relatively inexpensive, it kinda doesn't make much business sense; the patent licensing cost Google about zilch already, so it'd just cost them more for all these extra "features".</p><p>Then again, if they piss off Mozilla, there goes marketshare/traffic/revenue. Put it the other way though, the other browsers (including IE) could just as easily implement H.264 and then gain users from those who can't use FF to play their favourite dancing cat videos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The two issues that prevented YouTube from using the Ogg Theora codec still apply.Many hardware devices already have H.264 decoding built into the chip , ranging from set-top boxes to the iPhone .
Moving away would mean losing ability to run on these target devices ( or run at an unacceptable frame rate ) .The alternative would be to have two versions of the video stored , but they 're currently already doing this for Mobile YouTube and regular YouTube , and adding a third would n't make much sense.The cost of transcoding all the videos again is also another issue .
Doing this to all the videos at once is somewhat pointless - currently , if you try and watch a video that is n't already encoded for the mobile device , YouTube will attempt to transcode the video on the fly and send it out directly.I guess this could be done , but while storage is relatively inexpensive , it kinda does n't make much business sense ; the patent licensing cost Google about zilch already , so it 'd just cost them more for all these extra " features " .Then again , if they piss off Mozilla , there goes marketshare/traffic/revenue .
Put it the other way though , the other browsers ( including IE ) could just as easily implement H.264 and then gain users from those who ca n't use FF to play their favourite dancing cat videos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The two issues that prevented YouTube from using the Ogg Theora codec still apply.Many hardware devices already have H.264 decoding built into the chip, ranging from set-top boxes to the iPhone.
Moving away would mean losing ability to run on these target devices (or run at an unacceptable frame rate).The alternative would be to have two versions of the video stored, but they're currently already doing this for Mobile YouTube and regular YouTube, and adding a third wouldn't make much sense.The cost of transcoding all the videos again is also another issue.
Doing this to all the videos at once is somewhat pointless - currently, if you try and watch a video that isn't already encoded for the mobile device, YouTube will attempt to transcode the video on the fly and send it out directly.I guess this could be done, but while storage is relatively inexpensive, it kinda doesn't make much business sense; the patent licensing cost Google about zilch already, so it'd just cost them more for all these extra "features".Then again, if they piss off Mozilla, there goes marketshare/traffic/revenue.
Put it the other way though, the other browsers (including IE) could just as easily implement H.264 and then gain users from those who can't use FF to play their favourite dancing cat videos.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227952</id>
	<title>Bad comparison linked</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266844020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That comparison is known to be flawed, for example, it does not list the instantaneous bitrates and frame types for the respective frames.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That comparison is known to be flawed , for example , it does not list the instantaneous bitrates and frame types for the respective frames .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That comparison is known to be flawed, for example, it does not list the instantaneous bitrates and frame types for the respective frames.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228464</id>
	<title>Re:Problem still remains</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1266848700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You appear to be making pragmatic arguments.  Obviously you don't live in the same universe as the FSF.  If you did, you'd understand that practical concerns such as backward-compatibility are far less important than abstract ideological purity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You appear to be making pragmatic arguments .
Obviously you do n't live in the same universe as the FSF .
If you did , you 'd understand that practical concerns such as backward-compatibility are far less important than abstract ideological purity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You appear to be making pragmatic arguments.
Obviously you don't live in the same universe as the FSF.
If you did, you'd understand that practical concerns such as backward-compatibility are far less important than abstract ideological purity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229946</id>
	<title>Re:Not a good letter.</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1266857760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just on this topic:</p><p><i>1. Making a video codec patent free is really difficult, since submarine patents are always a threat.</i></p><p>Highly unlikely.  US patent law states that a patent must be disclosed a year (I believe it's a year, anyway) after filing.  If you wish to postpone publication, then you give up the right to file the patent overseas, and I *highly* doubt most corporations are willing to pay that price.</p><p>Before the laws were changed, yes, submarine patents were a problem.  But these days it's simply not an issue, and it's about time people stopped worrying about this little bugbear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just on this topic : 1 .
Making a video codec patent free is really difficult , since submarine patents are always a threat.Highly unlikely .
US patent law states that a patent must be disclosed a year ( I believe it 's a year , anyway ) after filing .
If you wish to postpone publication , then you give up the right to file the patent overseas , and I * highly * doubt most corporations are willing to pay that price.Before the laws were changed , yes , submarine patents were a problem .
But these days it 's simply not an issue , and it 's about time people stopped worrying about this little bugbear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just on this topic:1.
Making a video codec patent free is really difficult, since submarine patents are always a threat.Highly unlikely.
US patent law states that a patent must be disclosed a year (I believe it's a year, anyway) after filing.
If you wish to postpone publication, then you give up the right to file the patent overseas, and I *highly* doubt most corporations are willing to pay that price.Before the laws were changed, yes, submarine patents were a problem.
But these days it's simply not an issue, and it's about time people stopped worrying about this little bugbear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31232280</id>
	<title>Why did you think...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266865200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...they bought On2? I mean, is there any other reason? Would they have even gone for it if they had discovered legitimate submarine patents affecting VP8 like (for example Nokia's) claim to affect VP3 (and thus Theora)?</p><p>No. On2 have one asset - the codecs. Google have one goal in this - to get an agreed standard baseline HTML5 codec that's good enough for Youtube agreed in all browsers and mobile devices. VP8, or a simple fork of VP8, is the best candidate for that. (Given that Theora might have the Nokia patent issue, and frankly isn't anywhere near as good as H.264, being more at the H.263 level, it can't quite make the grade, which is probably pretty much why On2 gave VP3 out like that.)</p><p>If they can get a verifiably free, minimum-grey-areas codec with an efficiency similar to or better than H.264 (and VP8 does fit those criteria - VP8 minimum-profile decoding is fast enough in software that it can be done in hardware devices), then Google can finally submit it to the other HTML5 partners for consideration, and perhaps all parties can FINALLY agree on a codec everyone can implement (Google on the grounds that it's good enough for Youtube, Opera and Mozilla on the grounds that it will hopefully patent-free, Apple will take some persuading but if their devices can do it it well enough and they can be convinced the risk of submarine patents is no higher than with MPEG-LA it should be possible, and MS will eventually cave in sometime around IE10, maybe).</p><p>I dearly hope it works out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...they bought On2 ?
I mean , is there any other reason ?
Would they have even gone for it if they had discovered legitimate submarine patents affecting VP8 like ( for example Nokia 's ) claim to affect VP3 ( and thus Theora ) ? No .
On2 have one asset - the codecs .
Google have one goal in this - to get an agreed standard baseline HTML5 codec that 's good enough for Youtube agreed in all browsers and mobile devices .
VP8 , or a simple fork of VP8 , is the best candidate for that .
( Given that Theora might have the Nokia patent issue , and frankly is n't anywhere near as good as H.264 , being more at the H.263 level , it ca n't quite make the grade , which is probably pretty much why On2 gave VP3 out like that .
) If they can get a verifiably free , minimum-grey-areas codec with an efficiency similar to or better than H.264 ( and VP8 does fit those criteria - VP8 minimum-profile decoding is fast enough in software that it can be done in hardware devices ) , then Google can finally submit it to the other HTML5 partners for consideration , and perhaps all parties can FINALLY agree on a codec everyone can implement ( Google on the grounds that it 's good enough for Youtube , Opera and Mozilla on the grounds that it will hopefully patent-free , Apple will take some persuading but if their devices can do it it well enough and they can be convinced the risk of submarine patents is no higher than with MPEG-LA it should be possible , and MS will eventually cave in sometime around IE10 , maybe ) .I dearly hope it works out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...they bought On2?
I mean, is there any other reason?
Would they have even gone for it if they had discovered legitimate submarine patents affecting VP8 like (for example Nokia's) claim to affect VP3 (and thus Theora)?No.
On2 have one asset - the codecs.
Google have one goal in this - to get an agreed standard baseline HTML5 codec that's good enough for Youtube agreed in all browsers and mobile devices.
VP8, or a simple fork of VP8, is the best candidate for that.
(Given that Theora might have the Nokia patent issue, and frankly isn't anywhere near as good as H.264, being more at the H.263 level, it can't quite make the grade, which is probably pretty much why On2 gave VP3 out like that.
)If they can get a verifiably free, minimum-grey-areas codec with an efficiency similar to or better than H.264 (and VP8 does fit those criteria - VP8 minimum-profile decoding is fast enough in software that it can be done in hardware devices), then Google can finally submit it to the other HTML5 partners for consideration, and perhaps all parties can FINALLY agree on a codec everyone can implement (Google on the grounds that it's good enough for Youtube, Opera and Mozilla on the grounds that it will hopefully patent-free, Apple will take some persuading but if their devices can do it it well enough and they can be convinced the risk of submarine patents is no higher than with MPEG-LA it should be possible, and MS will eventually cave in sometime around IE10, maybe).I dearly hope it works out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31231270</id>
	<title>Re:solution?</title>
	<author>SiChemist</author>
	<datestamp>1266862560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think Apple will sell them their patents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think Apple will sell them their patents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think Apple will sell them their patents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227808</id>
	<title>A new type of license...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266842280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...a "Free as in Beer" license would be probably sound better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...a " Free as in Beer " license would be probably sound better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...a "Free as in Beer" license would be probably sound better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227984</id>
	<title>...and it smelled of pot and patchouli</title>
	<author>RobotRunAmok</author>
	<datestamp>1266844200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm just sayin'...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just sayin'.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just sayin'...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228242</id>
	<title>This ! Is ! GOO-GLE !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266847020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, all the hardware / processing requirement are moot given it's freaking Google we're talking about. Given the resources they have at their disposal, adding yet another codec to the bunch of other formats in which the video are available isn't going to be such a demanding task (in worst case if they definitely need to free resources, they could kick out one of the older not-used-anymore formats, like Sorenson or whatever).</p><p>The main problem is the going to be the hardware support. Specially since VP8 is touted as having potential to be better quality as h264 : consequently it could also be more computationally complex (unlike Theora). But mobile hardware is also making progress in term of advanced programmability : the latest most popular ARM platform include a GPU (PowerVR) whose makers (Imagination Technology) are members of the OpenCL board. And it's not like if Google didn't have the resources to tackle that problem too.<br>In addtion to that (and unlike Xiph), Google has enough popularity and market significance to leverage in order to persuade manufacturer to consider including a VP8-decoding core to their packages.</p><p>I would half-expect that the 2010 edition of Google Summer of Code includes a couple of projects to port the latest Google's VP8 variation onto OpenCL and onto VHDL/Verilog on Opencores.<br>With late 2010 / early 2011 android phones featuring GPGPU+DSP accelerated VP8 on their OMAPs after updating to the latest version.<br>And late 2011 with the dedicated hardware VP8 implementation finding its way into CPU packages with ARM Cortex 9 or 10 in the next crop of Google ChromOS Netbooks.</p><p>That is all pure speculation, but isn't that much un-realistic and could pretty much happen (though GPGPU-accelerated Theora and dedicated hardware Theora have in fact already happened. But it's just not a popular enough format and there's not a big enough demand to have package manufacturer include such a core in their current crop of OMAPs, Tegras, etc.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , all the hardware / processing requirement are moot given it 's freaking Google we 're talking about .
Given the resources they have at their disposal , adding yet another codec to the bunch of other formats in which the video are available is n't going to be such a demanding task ( in worst case if they definitely need to free resources , they could kick out one of the older not-used-anymore formats , like Sorenson or whatever ) .The main problem is the going to be the hardware support .
Specially since VP8 is touted as having potential to be better quality as h264 : consequently it could also be more computationally complex ( unlike Theora ) .
But mobile hardware is also making progress in term of advanced programmability : the latest most popular ARM platform include a GPU ( PowerVR ) whose makers ( Imagination Technology ) are members of the OpenCL board .
And it 's not like if Google did n't have the resources to tackle that problem too.In addtion to that ( and unlike Xiph ) , Google has enough popularity and market significance to leverage in order to persuade manufacturer to consider including a VP8-decoding core to their packages.I would half-expect that the 2010 edition of Google Summer of Code includes a couple of projects to port the latest Google 's VP8 variation onto OpenCL and onto VHDL/Verilog on Opencores.With late 2010 / early 2011 android phones featuring GPGPU + DSP accelerated VP8 on their OMAPs after updating to the latest version.And late 2011 with the dedicated hardware VP8 implementation finding its way into CPU packages with ARM Cortex 9 or 10 in the next crop of Google ChromOS Netbooks.That is all pure speculation , but is n't that much un-realistic and could pretty much happen ( though GPGPU-accelerated Theora and dedicated hardware Theora have in fact already happened .
But it 's just not a popular enough format and there 's not a big enough demand to have package manufacturer include such a core in their current crop of OMAPs , Tegras , etc .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, all the hardware / processing requirement are moot given it's freaking Google we're talking about.
Given the resources they have at their disposal, adding yet another codec to the bunch of other formats in which the video are available isn't going to be such a demanding task (in worst case if they definitely need to free resources, they could kick out one of the older not-used-anymore formats, like Sorenson or whatever).The main problem is the going to be the hardware support.
Specially since VP8 is touted as having potential to be better quality as h264 : consequently it could also be more computationally complex (unlike Theora).
But mobile hardware is also making progress in term of advanced programmability : the latest most popular ARM platform include a GPU (PowerVR) whose makers (Imagination Technology) are members of the OpenCL board.
And it's not like if Google didn't have the resources to tackle that problem too.In addtion to that (and unlike Xiph), Google has enough popularity and market significance to leverage in order to persuade manufacturer to consider including a VP8-decoding core to their packages.I would half-expect that the 2010 edition of Google Summer of Code includes a couple of projects to port the latest Google's VP8 variation onto OpenCL and onto VHDL/Verilog on Opencores.With late 2010 / early 2011 android phones featuring GPGPU+DSP accelerated VP8 on their OMAPs after updating to the latest version.And late 2011 with the dedicated hardware VP8 implementation finding its way into CPU packages with ARM Cortex 9 or 10 in the next crop of Google ChromOS Netbooks.That is all pure speculation, but isn't that much un-realistic and could pretty much happen (though GPGPU-accelerated Theora and dedicated hardware Theora have in fact already happened.
But it's just not a popular enough format and there's not a big enough demand to have package manufacturer include such a core in their current crop of OMAPs, Tegras, etc.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227938</id>
	<title>Re:Not a good letter.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266843840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I agree. This letter is strange. Google is obviously smart enough to have thought about all that, and the letter seems to make the assumption that Google just bought the thing without a clue as what to do with it.</p><p>My understanding of the situation is that :<br>1. Making a video codec patent free is really difficult, since submarine patents are always a threat. Google may be hard working at making sure VP8 can be totally free.<br>2. Nobody knows really how good the codec is (since it's not available). Google may be hard working on improving and polishing it before releasing it.<br>3. Right now, there is zero hardware support for VP8. Playing a HD VP8 video on an iPad would likely be very difficult, for example. Google may be hard working on hardware chips for Android smartphone.<br>4. Other things I don't grasp/didn't thought about.</p><p>In the current market place, freeing a good video codec is one thing. Make people using it is another. We've seen that with Theora. Since Google hold so many cards (YouTube, Android, Chrome) in the game right now, it makes sense that they want to play all of them. I have good hope that Google will be releasing VP8 at some point as a free (as in beer, or more). It just makes sense for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I agree .
This letter is strange .
Google is obviously smart enough to have thought about all that , and the letter seems to make the assumption that Google just bought the thing without a clue as what to do with it.My understanding of the situation is that : 1 .
Making a video codec patent free is really difficult , since submarine patents are always a threat .
Google may be hard working at making sure VP8 can be totally free.2 .
Nobody knows really how good the codec is ( since it 's not available ) .
Google may be hard working on improving and polishing it before releasing it.3 .
Right now , there is zero hardware support for VP8 .
Playing a HD VP8 video on an iPad would likely be very difficult , for example .
Google may be hard working on hardware chips for Android smartphone.4 .
Other things I do n't grasp/did n't thought about.In the current market place , freeing a good video codec is one thing .
Make people using it is another .
We 've seen that with Theora .
Since Google hold so many cards ( YouTube , Android , Chrome ) in the game right now , it makes sense that they want to play all of them .
I have good hope that Google will be releasing VP8 at some point as a free ( as in beer , or more ) .
It just makes sense for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I agree.
This letter is strange.
Google is obviously smart enough to have thought about all that, and the letter seems to make the assumption that Google just bought the thing without a clue as what to do with it.My understanding of the situation is that :1.
Making a video codec patent free is really difficult, since submarine patents are always a threat.
Google may be hard working at making sure VP8 can be totally free.2.
Nobody knows really how good the codec is (since it's not available).
Google may be hard working on improving and polishing it before releasing it.3.
Right now, there is zero hardware support for VP8.
Playing a HD VP8 video on an iPad would likely be very difficult, for example.
Google may be hard working on hardware chips for Android smartphone.4.
Other things I don't grasp/didn't thought about.In the current market place, freeing a good video codec is one thing.
Make people using it is another.
We've seen that with Theora.
Since Google hold so many cards (YouTube, Android, Chrome) in the game right now, it makes sense that they want to play all of them.
I have good hope that Google will be releasing VP8 at some point as a free (as in beer, or more).
It just makes sense for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31237494</id>
	<title>Re:Problem still remains</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266838920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The two issues that prevented YouTube from using the Ogg Theora codec still apply.</p><p>Many hardware devices already have H.264 decoding built into the chip, ranging from set-top boxes to the iPhone. Moving away would mean losing ability to run on these target devices (or run at an unacceptable frame rate).</p></div><p>The argument that there's no hardware support for Ogg Theora or any other open video format doesn't hold much water. In fact, many devices use general purpose DSPs to accelerate H.264 playback. You can make use of the same DSP to accelerate Theora playback. That's what's been done here:</p><p><a href="http://www.schleef.org/blog/2009/11/11/theora-on-ti-c64x-dsp-and-omap3/" title="schleef.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.schleef.org/blog/2009/11/11/theora-on-ti-c64x-dsp-and-omap3/</a> [schleef.org]</p><p>Millions of devices are capable of accelerated Theora playback today. All they need is the software.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The two issues that prevented YouTube from using the Ogg Theora codec still apply.Many hardware devices already have H.264 decoding built into the chip , ranging from set-top boxes to the iPhone .
Moving away would mean losing ability to run on these target devices ( or run at an unacceptable frame rate ) .The argument that there 's no hardware support for Ogg Theora or any other open video format does n't hold much water .
In fact , many devices use general purpose DSPs to accelerate H.264 playback .
You can make use of the same DSP to accelerate Theora playback .
That 's what 's been done here : http : //www.schleef.org/blog/2009/11/11/theora-on-ti-c64x-dsp-and-omap3/ [ schleef.org ] Millions of devices are capable of accelerated Theora playback today .
All they need is the software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The two issues that prevented YouTube from using the Ogg Theora codec still apply.Many hardware devices already have H.264 decoding built into the chip, ranging from set-top boxes to the iPhone.
Moving away would mean losing ability to run on these target devices (or run at an unacceptable frame rate).The argument that there's no hardware support for Ogg Theora or any other open video format doesn't hold much water.
In fact, many devices use general purpose DSPs to accelerate H.264 playback.
You can make use of the same DSP to accelerate Theora playback.
That's what's been done here:http://www.schleef.org/blog/2009/11/11/theora-on-ti-c64x-dsp-and-omap3/ [schleef.org]Millions of devices are capable of accelerated Theora playback today.
All they need is the software.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31234798</id>
	<title>Re:yay just what the world needs</title>
	<author>bhtooefr</author>
	<datestamp>1266830280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it's possible to Streisand H.264 itself?</p><p>Alternately, figure out a way to make free use of the H.264 patents critical to the functioning of the internet, or even our economy. Go for the automaker approach - make it too big to fail, so the government invalidates the H.264 patent pool on practical terms, rather than what's "right."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's possible to Streisand H.264 itself ? Alternately , figure out a way to make free use of the H.264 patents critical to the functioning of the internet , or even our economy .
Go for the automaker approach - make it too big to fail , so the government invalidates the H.264 patent pool on practical terms , rather than what 's " right .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's possible to Streisand H.264 itself?Alternately, figure out a way to make free use of the H.264 patents critical to the functioning of the internet, or even our economy.
Go for the automaker approach - make it too big to fail, so the government invalidates the H.264 patent pool on practical terms, rather than what's "right.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228764</id>
	<title>Re:Do no evil.....</title>
	<author>ProfMobius</author>
	<datestamp>1266850740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
Slashdot sucks a little more each day, I think it is time to say good bye and never come back.
</p></div><p> Since Slashdot is not changing, the sucking augmentation must be on your side. Ho, and Obvious Troll is Obvious.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot sucks a little more each day , I think it is time to say good bye and never come back .
Since Slashdot is not changing , the sucking augmentation must be on your side .
Ho , and Obvious Troll is Obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Slashdot sucks a little more each day, I think it is time to say good bye and never come back.
Since Slashdot is not changing, the sucking augmentation must be on your side.
Ho, and Obvious Troll is Obvious.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228268</id>
	<title>Re:Theora vs h264</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266847260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Here is more realistic comparison: http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~nick/theora-soccer/  [stanford.edu] which shows that Theora requires 60\% more bandwidth than h264 for similar quality.</p><p>Your comparison is from June, 2009, which is an old version of Theora, it is version 1.0 or earlier.</p><p>Current version is from the Thusnelda project, which Mozilla funded at the start of 2009.</p><p>http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/01/mozilla-contributes-100000-to-fund-ogg-development.ars</p><p>The Thusnelda project came up with Theora version 1.1 in about October, 2009 timeframe. That version is far better than the 1.0 version, and almost as good as h264. Most people cannot tell the difference in quality for the same filesize and bitrate.</p><p>See for yourself:<br>http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/comparison.html</p><p>That is the current version comparison. Imperceptible difference, virtually the same quality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Here is more realistic comparison : http : //www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/ ~ nick/theora-soccer/ [ stanford.edu ] which shows that Theora requires 60 \ % more bandwidth than h264 for similar quality.Your comparison is from June , 2009 , which is an old version of Theora , it is version 1.0 or earlier.Current version is from the Thusnelda project , which Mozilla funded at the start of 2009.http : //arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/01/mozilla-contributes-100000-to-fund-ogg-development.arsThe Thusnelda project came up with Theora version 1.1 in about October , 2009 timeframe .
That version is far better than the 1.0 version , and almost as good as h264 .
Most people can not tell the difference in quality for the same filesize and bitrate.See for yourself : http : //people.xiph.org/ ~ greg/video/ytcompare/comparison.htmlThat is the current version comparison .
Imperceptible difference , virtually the same quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Here is more realistic comparison: http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~nick/theora-soccer/  [stanford.edu] which shows that Theora requires 60\% more bandwidth than h264 for similar quality.Your comparison is from June, 2009, which is an old version of Theora, it is version 1.0 or earlier.Current version is from the Thusnelda project, which Mozilla funded at the start of 2009.http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/01/mozilla-contributes-100000-to-fund-ogg-development.arsThe Thusnelda project came up with Theora version 1.1 in about October, 2009 timeframe.
That version is far better than the 1.0 version, and almost as good as h264.
Most people cannot tell the difference in quality for the same filesize and bitrate.See for yourself:http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/comparison.htmlThat is the current version comparison.
Imperceptible difference, virtually the same quality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228208</id>
	<title>Of codecs and commerce</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266846660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First on the ogg vorbis vs h.264.   You cannot compare ogg vorbis to h.264 using youtube as a guide using the methods in the article, it was a very bad test from the start.  The youtube encoding engine is not designed for quality of output, it is based on high volume, acceptable quality, non-professional technology as the goal of youtube has never been the ultimate in video quality. Using the youtube encoding engine as the benchmark for encoding to current web standards and then trying to extrapolate that to justification to use ogg vorbis is not only a bad idea (IMHO), it is bad test methodology.  Not only is aiming at current web quality for a future requirements a bad idea, there is the bigger question of commercialization at stake here.</p><p>On h.264.  We are still in the infancy of h.264, there are still lots of improvements that can and will be made in the coming years.  The difference between an ogg vorbis, or even vp8, and the work that has been put into and will continue to be put into h.264 should not be underestimated.  This is not about the compression syntax, this is about the fundamental algorithms that drive the psycho visual experience and trust me, that takes years of study by rooms of scientists all competing to come up with the best solution. In the past 6 months alone we have seen 10-150\% improvement in the best h.264 codecs across all bitrates.  This is technology that will commercialized in the next few months.  Besides the amount of research being put into improving h.264 (by many commercial interests, universities, and individuals) there is the work being done at the system level with advanced streaming and distribution being a major part of our future viewing experience.  These are optimizations that typically happen at a combination of codec,wrapper, and distrubtion engines (servers) that allow large scale or targeted device distribution to happen very efficiently.  Smooth streaming (MS) and adaptive bitrate (adobe) are just the tip of the iceberg.  h.264 has a lot of legs left and there is a huge amount of ongoing work happening to support it.  To get to this level with VPx (or any other codec) is a HUGE undertaking across the board as all of this work would have to be re-invented and the standard itself would have to be re-adapted to fit.</p><p>On VPx.  It is a decent codec but there are a lot of questions about it's status as non-infringing.  Having looked extensively at hundreds of hours of content produced by various versions of vpx, having had a number of discussions with developers, it is not clear to me that there is no risk there of infringement.  You simply cannot say that it is not infringing, you can only take the word of on2 at face value and google is probably going through the exercise of digging deeper than that now.  If it is infringing then there is the question of commercialization of that patent portfolio and all that entails (getting the patent holders who have a huge stake in h.264 to go along with it).</p><p>Having said that, I am all for having a free codec standard but it is not as simple as simply making vpx a free and open alternative.  Making it free and open could happen overnight, google could do that, but bringing it to the same level of both engineering and commercial momentum that we have with h.264 today will not happen overnight and it will slow down the momentum and uptake of video over the internet in general.  It will force people, companies, and professional interests to take sides and that is not a good thing.  It would be far better to reach out to the companies that own the patents on h.264 to try to convince them to continue the 'free for free' use of h.264 in perpetuity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First on the ogg vorbis vs h.264 .
You can not compare ogg vorbis to h.264 using youtube as a guide using the methods in the article , it was a very bad test from the start .
The youtube encoding engine is not designed for quality of output , it is based on high volume , acceptable quality , non-professional technology as the goal of youtube has never been the ultimate in video quality .
Using the youtube encoding engine as the benchmark for encoding to current web standards and then trying to extrapolate that to justification to use ogg vorbis is not only a bad idea ( IMHO ) , it is bad test methodology .
Not only is aiming at current web quality for a future requirements a bad idea , there is the bigger question of commercialization at stake here.On h.264 .
We are still in the infancy of h.264 , there are still lots of improvements that can and will be made in the coming years .
The difference between an ogg vorbis , or even vp8 , and the work that has been put into and will continue to be put into h.264 should not be underestimated .
This is not about the compression syntax , this is about the fundamental algorithms that drive the psycho visual experience and trust me , that takes years of study by rooms of scientists all competing to come up with the best solution .
In the past 6 months alone we have seen 10-150 \ % improvement in the best h.264 codecs across all bitrates .
This is technology that will commercialized in the next few months .
Besides the amount of research being put into improving h.264 ( by many commercial interests , universities , and individuals ) there is the work being done at the system level with advanced streaming and distribution being a major part of our future viewing experience .
These are optimizations that typically happen at a combination of codec,wrapper , and distrubtion engines ( servers ) that allow large scale or targeted device distribution to happen very efficiently .
Smooth streaming ( MS ) and adaptive bitrate ( adobe ) are just the tip of the iceberg .
h.264 has a lot of legs left and there is a huge amount of ongoing work happening to support it .
To get to this level with VPx ( or any other codec ) is a HUGE undertaking across the board as all of this work would have to be re-invented and the standard itself would have to be re-adapted to fit.On VPx .
It is a decent codec but there are a lot of questions about it 's status as non-infringing .
Having looked extensively at hundreds of hours of content produced by various versions of vpx , having had a number of discussions with developers , it is not clear to me that there is no risk there of infringement .
You simply can not say that it is not infringing , you can only take the word of on2 at face value and google is probably going through the exercise of digging deeper than that now .
If it is infringing then there is the question of commercialization of that patent portfolio and all that entails ( getting the patent holders who have a huge stake in h.264 to go along with it ) .Having said that , I am all for having a free codec standard but it is not as simple as simply making vpx a free and open alternative .
Making it free and open could happen overnight , google could do that , but bringing it to the same level of both engineering and commercial momentum that we have with h.264 today will not happen overnight and it will slow down the momentum and uptake of video over the internet in general .
It will force people , companies , and professional interests to take sides and that is not a good thing .
It would be far better to reach out to the companies that own the patents on h.264 to try to convince them to continue the 'free for free ' use of h.264 in perpetuity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First on the ogg vorbis vs h.264.
You cannot compare ogg vorbis to h.264 using youtube as a guide using the methods in the article, it was a very bad test from the start.
The youtube encoding engine is not designed for quality of output, it is based on high volume, acceptable quality, non-professional technology as the goal of youtube has never been the ultimate in video quality.
Using the youtube encoding engine as the benchmark for encoding to current web standards and then trying to extrapolate that to justification to use ogg vorbis is not only a bad idea (IMHO), it is bad test methodology.
Not only is aiming at current web quality for a future requirements a bad idea, there is the bigger question of commercialization at stake here.On h.264.
We are still in the infancy of h.264, there are still lots of improvements that can and will be made in the coming years.
The difference between an ogg vorbis, or even vp8, and the work that has been put into and will continue to be put into h.264 should not be underestimated.
This is not about the compression syntax, this is about the fundamental algorithms that drive the psycho visual experience and trust me, that takes years of study by rooms of scientists all competing to come up with the best solution.
In the past 6 months alone we have seen 10-150\% improvement in the best h.264 codecs across all bitrates.
This is technology that will commercialized in the next few months.
Besides the amount of research being put into improving h.264 (by many commercial interests, universities, and individuals) there is the work being done at the system level with advanced streaming and distribution being a major part of our future viewing experience.
These are optimizations that typically happen at a combination of codec,wrapper, and distrubtion engines (servers) that allow large scale or targeted device distribution to happen very efficiently.
Smooth streaming (MS) and adaptive bitrate (adobe) are just the tip of the iceberg.
h.264 has a lot of legs left and there is a huge amount of ongoing work happening to support it.
To get to this level with VPx (or any other codec) is a HUGE undertaking across the board as all of this work would have to be re-invented and the standard itself would have to be re-adapted to fit.On VPx.
It is a decent codec but there are a lot of questions about it's status as non-infringing.
Having looked extensively at hundreds of hours of content produced by various versions of vpx, having had a number of discussions with developers, it is not clear to me that there is no risk there of infringement.
You simply cannot say that it is not infringing, you can only take the word of on2 at face value and google is probably going through the exercise of digging deeper than that now.
If it is infringing then there is the question of commercialization of that patent portfolio and all that entails (getting the patent holders who have a huge stake in h.264 to go along with it).Having said that, I am all for having a free codec standard but it is not as simple as simply making vpx a free and open alternative.
Making it free and open could happen overnight, google could do that, but bringing it to the same level of both engineering and commercial momentum that we have with h.264 today will not happen overnight and it will slow down the momentum and uptake of video over the internet in general.
It will force people, companies, and professional interests to take sides and that is not a good thing.
It would be far better to reach out to the companies that own the patents on h.264 to try to convince them to continue the 'free for free' use of h.264 in perpetuity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228068</id>
	<title>Probably were going to anyways</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266844920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I admit that I don't know a lot about the topic, but it seems like this is something that Google probably already has plans to do anyways. I mean, the acquisition was just completed last week for fucks sake. It takes time for people to go through this stuff to make sure they're fully in the clear before they can do it. Don't be surprised if you see this happening within a month or two. And also the FSF should make sure they don't go patting themselves on the back for something they likely had nothing to do with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I admit that I do n't know a lot about the topic , but it seems like this is something that Google probably already has plans to do anyways .
I mean , the acquisition was just completed last week for fucks sake .
It takes time for people to go through this stuff to make sure they 're fully in the clear before they can do it .
Do n't be surprised if you see this happening within a month or two .
And also the FSF should make sure they do n't go patting themselves on the back for something they likely had nothing to do with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I admit that I don't know a lot about the topic, but it seems like this is something that Google probably already has plans to do anyways.
I mean, the acquisition was just completed last week for fucks sake.
It takes time for people to go through this stuff to make sure they're fully in the clear before they can do it.
Don't be surprised if you see this happening within a month or two.
And also the FSF should make sure they don't go patting themselves on the back for something they likely had nothing to do with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230162</id>
	<title>its patent wars and standards</title>
	<author>nimbius</author>
	<datestamp>1266859020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>debacles that get me thinking most codec companies just wont be happy until we gouge our eyes out and retreat to the stone age banging rocks together, or fork over our credit cards for the christgod privilege of the moving image.<br> <br>
my frustrations mount from years of watching codecs go from boom to bust, good to ugly, and seeing things like windows media player needlessly clutter every inch of my hard drive with a compendium of the last decades worth of "heres how to view this our way" dll files.  personally i hope the all fail at this point.  if vp8 is floss and good, then take it.  if its floss and bad, lets take it and make it better.  but for god sake, lets stop with the media devices designed to play six million different proprietary formats as a business model.</htmltext>
<tokenext>debacles that get me thinking most codec companies just wont be happy until we gouge our eyes out and retreat to the stone age banging rocks together , or fork over our credit cards for the christgod privilege of the moving image .
my frustrations mount from years of watching codecs go from boom to bust , good to ugly , and seeing things like windows media player needlessly clutter every inch of my hard drive with a compendium of the last decades worth of " heres how to view this our way " dll files .
personally i hope the all fail at this point .
if vp8 is floss and good , then take it .
if its floss and bad , lets take it and make it better .
but for god sake , lets stop with the media devices designed to play six million different proprietary formats as a business model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>debacles that get me thinking most codec companies just wont be happy until we gouge our eyes out and retreat to the stone age banging rocks together, or fork over our credit cards for the christgod privilege of the moving image.
my frustrations mount from years of watching codecs go from boom to bust, good to ugly, and seeing things like windows media player needlessly clutter every inch of my hard drive with a compendium of the last decades worth of "heres how to view this our way" dll files.
personally i hope the all fail at this point.
if vp8 is floss and good, then take it.
if its floss and bad, lets take it and make it better.
but for god sake, lets stop with the media devices designed to play six million different proprietary formats as a business model.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228090</id>
	<title>Re:yay just what the world needs</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1266845280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the reasons they oppose h.264 are stupid for a start, it has about the most generous licensing i've ever seen.</p></div><p>Those are some nice licensing terms you've got there, it would be a shame if something happened to them... in 2016, when you might be forced to re-code all that video if you want to serve it to people without paying what could turn out to be exorbitant licensing fees.</p><p>Fearmongering? Maybe. But I didn't create this situation. And really, in what world is it reasonable to charge anyone but the makers of hardware and perhaps encoders?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the reasons they oppose h.264 are stupid for a start , it has about the most generous licensing i 've ever seen.Those are some nice licensing terms you 've got there , it would be a shame if something happened to them... in 2016 , when you might be forced to re-code all that video if you want to serve it to people without paying what could turn out to be exorbitant licensing fees.Fearmongering ?
Maybe. But I did n't create this situation .
And really , in what world is it reasonable to charge anyone but the makers of hardware and perhaps encoders ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the reasons they oppose h.264 are stupid for a start, it has about the most generous licensing i've ever seen.Those are some nice licensing terms you've got there, it would be a shame if something happened to them... in 2016, when you might be forced to re-code all that video if you want to serve it to people without paying what could turn out to be exorbitant licensing fees.Fearmongering?
Maybe. But I didn't create this situation.
And really, in what world is it reasonable to charge anyone but the makers of hardware and perhaps encoders?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227790</id>
	<title>Free Urges</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266842100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">Google</a> [goatse.fr]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google [ goatse.fr ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google [goatse.fr]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227900</id>
	<title>Re:Not a good letter.</title>
	<author>lyml</author>
	<datestamp>1266843480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree, quotes such as: <p><div class="quote"><p>If you care about free software and the free web (a movement and medium to which you owe your success) you must take bold action to replace Flash with free standards and free formats.</p></div><p>don't exactly make you very willing to help a person who is currently begging you for free stuff.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , quotes such as : If you care about free software and the free web ( a movement and medium to which you owe your success ) you must take bold action to replace Flash with free standards and free formats.do n't exactly make you very willing to help a person who is currently begging you for free stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, quotes such as: If you care about free software and the free web (a movement and medium to which you owe your success) you must take bold action to replace Flash with free standards and free formats.don't exactly make you very willing to help a person who is currently begging you for free stuff.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31234144</id>
	<title>Re:yay just what the world needs</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1266871560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, no. Their real reason for opposing H.264, and even (last I heard) using OS CODECs when available, was their goal of having a totally free browser that actually did the job. In short, they wanted to mandate Theora, because if they didn't, H.264 would become the de-facto standard. Thus, their Theora and only Theora stance... someone here suggested it's changed, but didn't post a reference.</p><p>In short, it's a religious argument, and about as crazy as other things religious people do. Mozilla isn't remotely large enough to prevent H.264 from becoming the standard. Particularly because they lack the time machine necessary to go back ten years and prevent it from happening... H.264 is already the standard. The only way to dislodge that is the way every standard eventually falls --- offer something much better. Ogg Theora is worse. You know how everyone switched from MP3 to Ogg Theora back in the mid 2000's? Remember that? Oh, sorry... that didn't happen. Ogg Theora was ever-so-slightly better than MP3, in terms of coding efficiency. It was, IMHO, better than WMA in terms of not adding annoying crap I can actually hear, like pre-echos. On the other hand, AAC was much better than MP3. And advanced by Apple, Panasonic, and a few others. Now it's supported pretty much everywhere, and while it hasn't replaced MP3, it's quite popular. Vorbis... not so much.</p><p>The only real question is whether Mozilla's going to let this argument kill off much of Firefox's recent gains. Or will they compromise, and not have that happen.</p><p>I claim they will compromise, only because, they already have. They're supporting H.264 in Fennec, using a smart phone's own H.264 CODEC... the only way to actually get video playing well on most smart phones. They need the hardware acceleration, that is correctly an OS/driver issue (on the PC too, just less so), and they seem to be approaching this correctly on the handset versions of Firefox. We'll see.. I'll be trying it out on my DROID ASAP.</p><p>Remember how IBM was so unified behind OS/2 that it caught on worldwide, and replaced Windows, and how everyone's using OS/2 nowadays. Oh wait, that didn't happen either. One piece of Mozilla not even supporting the position of Theora as the only solution and allowing (if not necessarily embracing) H.264 is much the same thing. But the mobile phone scenario actually illustrates an even stronger point: the video CODEC doesn't belong in the web browser. Anywhere in the web browser. It is today, even on a frackin' phone, part of the OS. It needs to be part of the OS, so that all of that cool video acceleration I have and you don't have works on my PC. So that improvements in video technology actually just get to improve, on or off the web, without web browser guys acting as gatekeepers. If video wants to be free, it'll win its own freedom. We don't need the Mozilla occupying force hanging around for a decade supervising this process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , no .
Their real reason for opposing H.264 , and even ( last I heard ) using OS CODECs when available , was their goal of having a totally free browser that actually did the job .
In short , they wanted to mandate Theora , because if they did n't , H.264 would become the de-facto standard .
Thus , their Theora and only Theora stance... someone here suggested it 's changed , but did n't post a reference.In short , it 's a religious argument , and about as crazy as other things religious people do .
Mozilla is n't remotely large enough to prevent H.264 from becoming the standard .
Particularly because they lack the time machine necessary to go back ten years and prevent it from happening... H.264 is already the standard .
The only way to dislodge that is the way every standard eventually falls --- offer something much better .
Ogg Theora is worse .
You know how everyone switched from MP3 to Ogg Theora back in the mid 2000 's ?
Remember that ?
Oh , sorry... that did n't happen .
Ogg Theora was ever-so-slightly better than MP3 , in terms of coding efficiency .
It was , IMHO , better than WMA in terms of not adding annoying crap I can actually hear , like pre-echos .
On the other hand , AAC was much better than MP3 .
And advanced by Apple , Panasonic , and a few others .
Now it 's supported pretty much everywhere , and while it has n't replaced MP3 , it 's quite popular .
Vorbis... not so much.The only real question is whether Mozilla 's going to let this argument kill off much of Firefox 's recent gains .
Or will they compromise , and not have that happen.I claim they will compromise , only because , they already have .
They 're supporting H.264 in Fennec , using a smart phone 's own H.264 CODEC... the only way to actually get video playing well on most smart phones .
They need the hardware acceleration , that is correctly an OS/driver issue ( on the PC too , just less so ) , and they seem to be approaching this correctly on the handset versions of Firefox .
We 'll see.. I 'll be trying it out on my DROID ASAP.Remember how IBM was so unified behind OS/2 that it caught on worldwide , and replaced Windows , and how everyone 's using OS/2 nowadays .
Oh wait , that did n't happen either .
One piece of Mozilla not even supporting the position of Theora as the only solution and allowing ( if not necessarily embracing ) H.264 is much the same thing .
But the mobile phone scenario actually illustrates an even stronger point : the video CODEC does n't belong in the web browser .
Anywhere in the web browser .
It is today , even on a frackin ' phone , part of the OS .
It needs to be part of the OS , so that all of that cool video acceleration I have and you do n't have works on my PC .
So that improvements in video technology actually just get to improve , on or off the web , without web browser guys acting as gatekeepers .
If video wants to be free , it 'll win its own freedom .
We do n't need the Mozilla occupying force hanging around for a decade supervising this process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, no.
Their real reason for opposing H.264, and even (last I heard) using OS CODECs when available, was their goal of having a totally free browser that actually did the job.
In short, they wanted to mandate Theora, because if they didn't, H.264 would become the de-facto standard.
Thus, their Theora and only Theora stance... someone here suggested it's changed, but didn't post a reference.In short, it's a religious argument, and about as crazy as other things religious people do.
Mozilla isn't remotely large enough to prevent H.264 from becoming the standard.
Particularly because they lack the time machine necessary to go back ten years and prevent it from happening... H.264 is already the standard.
The only way to dislodge that is the way every standard eventually falls --- offer something much better.
Ogg Theora is worse.
You know how everyone switched from MP3 to Ogg Theora back in the mid 2000's?
Remember that?
Oh, sorry... that didn't happen.
Ogg Theora was ever-so-slightly better than MP3, in terms of coding efficiency.
It was, IMHO, better than WMA in terms of not adding annoying crap I can actually hear, like pre-echos.
On the other hand, AAC was much better than MP3.
And advanced by Apple, Panasonic, and a few others.
Now it's supported pretty much everywhere, and while it hasn't replaced MP3, it's quite popular.
Vorbis... not so much.The only real question is whether Mozilla's going to let this argument kill off much of Firefox's recent gains.
Or will they compromise, and not have that happen.I claim they will compromise, only because, they already have.
They're supporting H.264 in Fennec, using a smart phone's own H.264 CODEC... the only way to actually get video playing well on most smart phones.
They need the hardware acceleration, that is correctly an OS/driver issue (on the PC too, just less so), and they seem to be approaching this correctly on the handset versions of Firefox.
We'll see.. I'll be trying it out on my DROID ASAP.Remember how IBM was so unified behind OS/2 that it caught on worldwide, and replaced Windows, and how everyone's using OS/2 nowadays.
Oh wait, that didn't happen either.
One piece of Mozilla not even supporting the position of Theora as the only solution and allowing (if not necessarily embracing) H.264 is much the same thing.
But the mobile phone scenario actually illustrates an even stronger point: the video CODEC doesn't belong in the web browser.
Anywhere in the web browser.
It is today, even on a frackin' phone, part of the OS.
It needs to be part of the OS, so that all of that cool video acceleration I have and you don't have works on my PC.
So that improvements in video technology actually just get to improve, on or off the web, without web browser guys acting as gatekeepers.
If video wants to be free, it'll win its own freedom.
We don't need the Mozilla occupying force hanging around for a decade supervising this process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228192</id>
	<title>Re:Problem still remains</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1266846300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well Google has an advantage in that they are large and respected. If they open up VP8 and say "Here's the docs to implement hardware decoding, we'll be supporting this standard well in to the future," companies might be interested in it. This is particularly true since VP6 is what most Flash video is.</p><p>Theora has a number of problems that VP8 doesn't:</p><p>1) A stupid name. Sorry, but names matter and Ogg Theora is a bad one. When I've mentioned Ogg before (since I like Vorbis audio files) I get some very "Huh?" reactions form non-techies. VP8 is a good name, sounds like a nice tech acronym like MP3.</p><p>2) Obscurity. Xiph is something of a nobody. Tech people are aware of them, and if you've done game development you may have seen their stuff in an engine, but most people know nothing of them. Google is a major household name, hell 'google' has become a verb. As such if Google pushes something, there's a lot of force that comes with that. Does YOUR company want to be the only one that doesn't support "The Google format?"</p><p>3) Installed base. As I said, Flash uses VP6 heavily. Supposing VP8 is related (I'd bet it is) and supposing they open up a decoder spec that can handle both, this makes it of a whole lot of interest. I'm sure nVidia and ATi would jump on making a video card that "Accelerated HD Flash video," as they already do that with other video. The benefit to a consumer could be realized now, whereas the Theora benefit is theoretical in the future. You implement hardware support hoping it picks up, whereas with the VP codecs, you've got stuff in that format NOW.</p><p>So I think Google would likely have success if they opened the codec up and pushed it out as the Next Big Thing(tm) for the web.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well Google has an advantage in that they are large and respected .
If they open up VP8 and say " Here 's the docs to implement hardware decoding , we 'll be supporting this standard well in to the future , " companies might be interested in it .
This is particularly true since VP6 is what most Flash video is.Theora has a number of problems that VP8 does n't : 1 ) A stupid name .
Sorry , but names matter and Ogg Theora is a bad one .
When I 've mentioned Ogg before ( since I like Vorbis audio files ) I get some very " Huh ?
" reactions form non-techies .
VP8 is a good name , sounds like a nice tech acronym like MP3.2 ) Obscurity .
Xiph is something of a nobody .
Tech people are aware of them , and if you 've done game development you may have seen their stuff in an engine , but most people know nothing of them .
Google is a major household name , hell 'google ' has become a verb .
As such if Google pushes something , there 's a lot of force that comes with that .
Does YOUR company want to be the only one that does n't support " The Google format ?
" 3 ) Installed base .
As I said , Flash uses VP6 heavily .
Supposing VP8 is related ( I 'd bet it is ) and supposing they open up a decoder spec that can handle both , this makes it of a whole lot of interest .
I 'm sure nVidia and ATi would jump on making a video card that " Accelerated HD Flash video , " as they already do that with other video .
The benefit to a consumer could be realized now , whereas the Theora benefit is theoretical in the future .
You implement hardware support hoping it picks up , whereas with the VP codecs , you 've got stuff in that format NOW.So I think Google would likely have success if they opened the codec up and pushed it out as the Next Big Thing ( tm ) for the web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well Google has an advantage in that they are large and respected.
If they open up VP8 and say "Here's the docs to implement hardware decoding, we'll be supporting this standard well in to the future," companies might be interested in it.
This is particularly true since VP6 is what most Flash video is.Theora has a number of problems that VP8 doesn't:1) A stupid name.
Sorry, but names matter and Ogg Theora is a bad one.
When I've mentioned Ogg before (since I like Vorbis audio files) I get some very "Huh?
" reactions form non-techies.
VP8 is a good name, sounds like a nice tech acronym like MP3.2) Obscurity.
Xiph is something of a nobody.
Tech people are aware of them, and if you've done game development you may have seen their stuff in an engine, but most people know nothing of them.
Google is a major household name, hell 'google' has become a verb.
As such if Google pushes something, there's a lot of force that comes with that.
Does YOUR company want to be the only one that doesn't support "The Google format?
"3) Installed base.
As I said, Flash uses VP6 heavily.
Supposing VP8 is related (I'd bet it is) and supposing they open up a decoder spec that can handle both, this makes it of a whole lot of interest.
I'm sure nVidia and ATi would jump on making a video card that "Accelerated HD Flash video," as they already do that with other video.
The benefit to a consumer could be realized now, whereas the Theora benefit is theoretical in the future.
You implement hardware support hoping it picks up, whereas with the VP codecs, you've got stuff in that format NOW.So I think Google would likely have success if they opened the codec up and pushed it out as the Next Big Thing(tm) for the web.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228124</id>
	<title>VP3 is the basis for Ogg Theora...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266845640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"On2 Technologies' VP3 codec is the basis for Ogg Theora. In 2001, On2 open-sourced VP3 under an irrevocable free license. But in the years since, the company has continued to improve its codecs, releasing five subsequent generations."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" On2 Technologies ' VP3 codec is the basis for Ogg Theora .
In 2001 , On2 open-sourced VP3 under an irrevocable free license .
But in the years since , the company has continued to improve its codecs , releasing five subsequent generations .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"On2 Technologies' VP3 codec is the basis for Ogg Theora.
In 2001, On2 open-sourced VP3 under an irrevocable free license.
But in the years since, the company has continued to improve its codecs, releasing five subsequent generations.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228804</id>
	<title>solution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266851100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cant google just buy all the rights to h264 en set it free?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cant google just buy all the rights to h264 en set it free ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cant google just buy all the rights to h264 en set it free?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230744</id>
	<title>Re:Problem still remains</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1266861240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are objections preventing YouTube from using Ogg Theora, but you're a bit off base here.</p><p>Yeah... devices. For You-Tube class low bitrate 720p, any old regular PC should have no trouble playing H.264 or Theora or probably even VP8. The problem is precisely the small devices, from Netbooks though handhelds. On a desktop these days, you have a combination of hardware and software in the GPU (via accelerations interfaces like DXVA in Windows) to speed up video. But on a handheld, what you'll probably find are a bunch of hardware units called up by a conventional CPU or perhaps a DSP, but the hardware units tend to be specific to H.264 and very similar video schemes. And also, perhaps not well described in public docs, so even your ability to run other CODECs is poor, at least without broad industry support making it a priority.</p><p>Transcoding on YouTube would not be a huge issue. For one, it doesn't have to happen overnight, and for two, there could be a prize at the end. But not for Theora. Theora is a lower efficiency CODEC than H.264, and that's obvious even when you look over the samples that Xiph.org keeps touting... and that's about the best example you'll find anywhere, simply because it's the best rigged demo they could produce without telling outright lies.</p><p>The big expense of YouTube isn't video storage or transcoding cycles, it's bandwidth... all the data being schlepped in and out of the site every day. Going to a less efficient CODEC like Theora will result in a lower quality video or much more expense. And given YouTube's continued lack of profitability, don't think Google's going to budget on this for a femtosecond. But reportedly, VP8 offers higher efficiency than H.264, particularly at lower bitrates. Moving to VP8 might save Google serious green, over the years. Enough to say, buy On2? Well, hey, they did... they must have some plan for it.</p><p>With the H.264 royalties not set to kick in until 2015 now, there's plenty of time for a transition. If Google open sourced VP8 tomorrow and did the free license thing on any patents On2 might have on the technology, this would be a very good thing, even if it's not yet a perfect solution. They don't have to back-transcode everything right away, but they could start encoding new submissions in H.264 for "device" use and VP8 for the desktop (where the acceleration is not AS needed, and easier to re-program given that much of it's running on stream processors rather than dedicated hardware). If VP8 became THE long term standard for the internet, devices would start supporting it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are objections preventing YouTube from using Ogg Theora , but you 're a bit off base here.Yeah... devices. For You-Tube class low bitrate 720p , any old regular PC should have no trouble playing H.264 or Theora or probably even VP8 .
The problem is precisely the small devices , from Netbooks though handhelds .
On a desktop these days , you have a combination of hardware and software in the GPU ( via accelerations interfaces like DXVA in Windows ) to speed up video .
But on a handheld , what you 'll probably find are a bunch of hardware units called up by a conventional CPU or perhaps a DSP , but the hardware units tend to be specific to H.264 and very similar video schemes .
And also , perhaps not well described in public docs , so even your ability to run other CODECs is poor , at least without broad industry support making it a priority.Transcoding on YouTube would not be a huge issue .
For one , it does n't have to happen overnight , and for two , there could be a prize at the end .
But not for Theora .
Theora is a lower efficiency CODEC than H.264 , and that 's obvious even when you look over the samples that Xiph.org keeps touting... and that 's about the best example you 'll find anywhere , simply because it 's the best rigged demo they could produce without telling outright lies.The big expense of YouTube is n't video storage or transcoding cycles , it 's bandwidth... all the data being schlepped in and out of the site every day .
Going to a less efficient CODEC like Theora will result in a lower quality video or much more expense .
And given YouTube 's continued lack of profitability , do n't think Google 's going to budget on this for a femtosecond .
But reportedly , VP8 offers higher efficiency than H.264 , particularly at lower bitrates .
Moving to VP8 might save Google serious green , over the years .
Enough to say , buy On2 ?
Well , hey , they did... they must have some plan for it.With the H.264 royalties not set to kick in until 2015 now , there 's plenty of time for a transition .
If Google open sourced VP8 tomorrow and did the free license thing on any patents On2 might have on the technology , this would be a very good thing , even if it 's not yet a perfect solution .
They do n't have to back-transcode everything right away , but they could start encoding new submissions in H.264 for " device " use and VP8 for the desktop ( where the acceleration is not AS needed , and easier to re-program given that much of it 's running on stream processors rather than dedicated hardware ) .
If VP8 became THE long term standard for the internet , devices would start supporting it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are objections preventing YouTube from using Ogg Theora, but you're a bit off base here.Yeah... devices. For You-Tube class low bitrate 720p, any old regular PC should have no trouble playing H.264 or Theora or probably even VP8.
The problem is precisely the small devices, from Netbooks though handhelds.
On a desktop these days, you have a combination of hardware and software in the GPU (via accelerations interfaces like DXVA in Windows) to speed up video.
But on a handheld, what you'll probably find are a bunch of hardware units called up by a conventional CPU or perhaps a DSP, but the hardware units tend to be specific to H.264 and very similar video schemes.
And also, perhaps not well described in public docs, so even your ability to run other CODECs is poor, at least without broad industry support making it a priority.Transcoding on YouTube would not be a huge issue.
For one, it doesn't have to happen overnight, and for two, there could be a prize at the end.
But not for Theora.
Theora is a lower efficiency CODEC than H.264, and that's obvious even when you look over the samples that Xiph.org keeps touting... and that's about the best example you'll find anywhere, simply because it's the best rigged demo they could produce without telling outright lies.The big expense of YouTube isn't video storage or transcoding cycles, it's bandwidth... all the data being schlepped in and out of the site every day.
Going to a less efficient CODEC like Theora will result in a lower quality video or much more expense.
And given YouTube's continued lack of profitability, don't think Google's going to budget on this for a femtosecond.
But reportedly, VP8 offers higher efficiency than H.264, particularly at lower bitrates.
Moving to VP8 might save Google serious green, over the years.
Enough to say, buy On2?
Well, hey, they did... they must have some plan for it.With the H.264 royalties not set to kick in until 2015 now, there's plenty of time for a transition.
If Google open sourced VP8 tomorrow and did the free license thing on any patents On2 might have on the technology, this would be a very good thing, even if it's not yet a perfect solution.
They don't have to back-transcode everything right away, but they could start encoding new submissions in H.264 for "device" use and VP8 for the desktop (where the acceleration is not AS needed, and easier to re-program given that much of it's running on stream processors rather than dedicated hardware).
If VP8 became THE long term standard for the internet, devices would start supporting it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228872</id>
	<title>Not likely to be Free regardless</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1266851580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Google opens up VP8, the same thing that happened to Microsoft when they opened up Windows Media as VC-1 will happen.</p><p>When MS opened up Windows Media as VC-1 a bunch of companies claimed patents on it (including some that claim they have patents on MPEG4/H.264) and everyone had to join the patent pool and/or buy a license.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Google opens up VP8 , the same thing that happened to Microsoft when they opened up Windows Media as VC-1 will happen.When MS opened up Windows Media as VC-1 a bunch of companies claimed patents on it ( including some that claim they have patents on MPEG4/H.264 ) and everyone had to join the patent pool and/or buy a license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Google opens up VP8, the same thing that happened to Microsoft when they opened up Windows Media as VC-1 will happen.When MS opened up Windows Media as VC-1 a bunch of companies claimed patents on it (including some that claim they have patents on MPEG4/H.264) and everyone had to join the patent pool and/or buy a license.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230758</id>
	<title>i wish they hadnt written this</title>
	<author>dirtyhippie</author>
	<datestamp>1266861300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sigh... I wish the fsf hadn't written this for two reasons:<br>1) it's half-cocked. hardware acceleration for vp8 does not exist yet, and google would still need a massive transcode of its youtube database to any other format.<br>2) i fear this does more harm than good - google is LESS likely to free vp8 under an mit style license now because they don't want to seem like they did it because of the fsf.</p><p>basically i just wish the fsf would go away in favor of some people with less black and white views about encouraging software freedom, and a little more tact and saavy (who the fuck came up with the name "bad vista"??? sounds like the work of a 6 year old)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sigh... I wish the fsf had n't written this for two reasons : 1 ) it 's half-cocked .
hardware acceleration for vp8 does not exist yet , and google would still need a massive transcode of its youtube database to any other format.2 ) i fear this does more harm than good - google is LESS likely to free vp8 under an mit style license now because they do n't want to seem like they did it because of the fsf.basically i just wish the fsf would go away in favor of some people with less black and white views about encouraging software freedom , and a little more tact and saavy ( who the fuck came up with the name " bad vista " ? ? ?
sounds like the work of a 6 year old )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sigh... I wish the fsf hadn't written this for two reasons:1) it's half-cocked.
hardware acceleration for vp8 does not exist yet, and google would still need a massive transcode of its youtube database to any other format.2) i fear this does more harm than good - google is LESS likely to free vp8 under an mit style license now because they don't want to seem like they did it because of the fsf.basically i just wish the fsf would go away in favor of some people with less black and white views about encouraging software freedom, and a little more tact and saavy (who the fuck came up with the name "bad vista"???
sounds like the work of a 6 year old)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227936</id>
	<title>Oh God, please no!</title>
	<author>bemymonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1266843840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Video sites are having enough trouble moving away from Flash to H264 streams already... please, please, please (!!!) don't introduce another new video format without ubiquitious hardware decoding support into the fray!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Video sites are having enough trouble moving away from Flash to H264 streams already... please , please , please ( ! ! !
) do n't introduce another new video format without ubiquitious hardware decoding support into the fray !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Video sites are having enough trouble moving away from Flash to H264 streams already... please, please, please (!!!
) don't introduce another new video format without ubiquitious hardware decoding support into the fray!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230870</id>
	<title>Re:Problem still remains</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266861600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OT8... the Official Video Format of Scientology!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OT8... the Official Video Format of Scientology !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OT8... the Official Video Format of Scientology!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31232286</id>
	<title>H.264 Quality BETTER than OGV, sorry!</title>
	<author>ryanw</author>
	<datestamp>1266865200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I checked out the website and watched the comparisons of their test video vs H.264.  I'm sorry but H.264 looks much richer, has more depth, has better contrast and recovers quicker when skipping through the video.  OGV looks blown out out, slightly blurry, missing some richness and seems easily susceptible to blocky video.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I checked out the website and watched the comparisons of their test video vs H.264 .
I 'm sorry but H.264 looks much richer , has more depth , has better contrast and recovers quicker when skipping through the video .
OGV looks blown out out , slightly blurry , missing some richness and seems easily susceptible to blocky video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I checked out the website and watched the comparisons of their test video vs H.264.
I'm sorry but H.264 looks much richer, has more depth, has better contrast and recovers quicker when skipping through the video.
OGV looks blown out out, slightly blurry, missing some richness and seems easily susceptible to blocky video.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228108</id>
	<title>Well thats the FSF for you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266845460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why write an erudite carefully thought out and well argued letter when they can just bang out one of their usual hysterical Good vs Evil style polemics? I doubt anyone except a few dyed in the wool fanbois or anyone who's worked in the real world for more than 6 months take much notice of what the FSF says anymore, they're just a bunch of single issue reactionaries with little new to say. While I respect the software they've written over the years , their politics is a joke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why write an erudite carefully thought out and well argued letter when they can just bang out one of their usual hysterical Good vs Evil style polemics ?
I doubt anyone except a few dyed in the wool fanbois or anyone who 's worked in the real world for more than 6 months take much notice of what the FSF says anymore , they 're just a bunch of single issue reactionaries with little new to say .
While I respect the software they 've written over the years , their politics is a joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why write an erudite carefully thought out and well argued letter when they can just bang out one of their usual hysterical Good vs Evil style polemics?
I doubt anyone except a few dyed in the wool fanbois or anyone who's worked in the real world for more than 6 months take much notice of what the FSF says anymore, they're just a bunch of single issue reactionaries with little new to say.
While I respect the software they've written over the years , their politics is a joke.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228962</id>
	<title>Re:Problem still remains</title>
	<author>randallman</author>
	<datestamp>1266852120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'll have to have multiple versions anyway.  Say a 1080p version for a large screen and a 360p version for a small screen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'll have to have multiple versions anyway .
Say a 1080p version for a large screen and a 360p version for a small screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'll have to have multiple versions anyway.
Say a 1080p version for a large screen and a 360p version for a small screen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31240456</id>
	<title>The deep end of the patent pool</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1266857280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why not just buy h.264 outright? What's the market cap for the company that owns it? It's got to be a drop in the bucket compared to licencing fees down the road, plus what they paid (1 billion dollars) for YouTube</i> </p><p>The following is an abridged list of licensors of patents included in the AVC patent pool:</p><p>Apple<br>Bosch<br>Columbia University<br>DAEWOO<br>Dolby Laboratories<br>France T&#233;l&#233;com<br>Fraunhofer<br>Fujitsu<br>Hitachi<br>Philips<br>LG<br>Microsoft<br>Mitsubishi Electric<br>Nippon Telegraph and Telephone [NTT]<br>Panasonic<br>Samsung<br>Siemans<br>Toshiba</p><p> <a href="http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensors.aspx" title="mpegla.com">AVC/H.264 Licensors</a> [mpegla.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just buy h.264 outright ?
What 's the market cap for the company that owns it ?
It 's got to be a drop in the bucket compared to licencing fees down the road , plus what they paid ( 1 billion dollars ) for YouTube The following is an abridged list of licensors of patents included in the AVC patent pool : AppleBoschColumbia UniversityDAEWOODolby LaboratoriesFrance T   l   comFraunhoferFujitsuHitachiPhilipsLGMicrosoftMitsubishi ElectricNippon Telegraph and Telephone [ NTT ] PanasonicSamsungSiemansToshiba AVC/H.264 Licensors [ mpegla.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just buy h.264 outright?
What's the market cap for the company that owns it?
It's got to be a drop in the bucket compared to licencing fees down the road, plus what they paid (1 billion dollars) for YouTube The following is an abridged list of licensors of patents included in the AVC patent pool:AppleBoschColumbia UniversityDAEWOODolby LaboratoriesFrance TélécomFraunhoferFujitsuHitachiPhilipsLGMicrosoftMitsubishi ElectricNippon Telegraph and Telephone [NTT]PanasonicSamsungSiemansToshiba AVC/H.264 Licensors [mpegla.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228828</id>
	<title>Re:Problem still remains</title>
	<author>gr8\_phk</author>
	<datestamp>1266851280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're actually trying to argue that using a new codec on YouTube makes no sense for Google? Then why did they spend a hundred million dollars for it? Please tell us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're actually trying to argue that using a new codec on YouTube makes no sense for Google ?
Then why did they spend a hundred million dollars for it ?
Please tell us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're actually trying to argue that using a new codec on YouTube makes no sense for Google?
Then why did they spend a hundred million dollars for it?
Please tell us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228474</id>
	<title>Not a full solution, but a great help</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266848760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
  This sort of campaign can never fully solve the swpat problem, but patents on media formats are probably the biggest pain, so this is very worthwhile.  The H.264 Mpeg format that Google currently uses is covered by over 900 patents in 29 countries!
</p><p>
  Here's info I've gathered about these topics:
</p><ul>
<li> <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Campaigns\_to\_avoid\_patented\_ideas" title="swpat.org">Campaigns to avoid patented ideas</a> [swpat.org] </li><li> <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/MPEG\_video\_formats" title="swpat.org">H.264 and MPEG video formats</a> [swpat.org] </li><li> <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Google" title="swpat.org">Google</a> [swpat.org] </li><li> <a href="http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Free\_Software\_Foundation" title="swpat.org">FSF</a> [swpat.org] </li></ul><p>
  swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sort of campaign can never fully solve the swpat problem , but patents on media formats are probably the biggest pain , so this is very worthwhile .
The H.264 Mpeg format that Google currently uses is covered by over 900 patents in 29 countries !
Here 's info I 've gathered about these topics : Campaigns to avoid patented ideas [ swpat.org ] H.264 and MPEG video formats [ swpat.org ] Google [ swpat.org ] FSF [ swpat.org ] swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki , help welcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  This sort of campaign can never fully solve the swpat problem, but patents on media formats are probably the biggest pain, so this is very worthwhile.
The H.264 Mpeg format that Google currently uses is covered by over 900 patents in 29 countries!
Here's info I've gathered about these topics:

 Campaigns to avoid patented ideas [swpat.org]  H.264 and MPEG video formats [swpat.org]  Google [swpat.org]  FSF [swpat.org] 
  swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31234352</id>
	<title>Re:Theora vs h264</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1266872160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um... VP3 was tossed out to FOSS when On2 delivered VP4. They're now at VP8. It's more like comparing H.265 to MPEG-1... you're talking ten years of additional CODEC work between VP3 and VP8.</p><p>Not that the Xiph guys haven't necessarily improved VP3 on the way to Ogg Theora. But any improvements of any kind also beg the patent question... did they step on anyone else's patents. I won't say "work" here, because these patents generally should not exist... anything as easy to re-invent on your own as 99\% of all software patents does not meet the requirements of "patentable invention", IMHO anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um... VP3 was tossed out to FOSS when On2 delivered VP4 .
They 're now at VP8 .
It 's more like comparing H.265 to MPEG-1... you 're talking ten years of additional CODEC work between VP3 and VP8.Not that the Xiph guys have n't necessarily improved VP3 on the way to Ogg Theora .
But any improvements of any kind also beg the patent question... did they step on anyone else 's patents .
I wo n't say " work " here , because these patents generally should not exist... anything as easy to re-invent on your own as 99 \ % of all software patents does not meet the requirements of " patentable invention " , IMHO anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um... VP3 was tossed out to FOSS when On2 delivered VP4.
They're now at VP8.
It's more like comparing H.265 to MPEG-1... you're talking ten years of additional CODEC work between VP3 and VP8.Not that the Xiph guys haven't necessarily improved VP3 on the way to Ogg Theora.
But any improvements of any kind also beg the patent question... did they step on anyone else's patents.
I won't say "work" here, because these patents generally should not exist... anything as easy to re-invent on your own as 99\% of all software patents does not meet the requirements of "patentable invention", IMHO anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228878</id>
	<title>Preaching to the converted?</title>
	<author>kiwioddBall</author>
	<datestamp>1266851640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wouldn't this be what Google have in mind anyway? They're better at openness than most (relatively)...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't this be what Google have in mind anyway ?
They 're better at openness than most ( relatively ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't this be what Google have in mind anyway?
They're better at openness than most (relatively)...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229282</id>
	<title>Re:It's the "about" that kills</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1266854040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Free Software Foundation's definition of free software, the Debian Free Software Guidelines, or Open Source Initiative's Open Source Definition</p></div><p>the GPL isn't free software either.</p></div><p>The GNU General Public License meets all three set of criteria I listed for a free software license. What definition of a free software license were you talking about, and how does software distributed subject to MPEG-LA's terms qualify?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Free Software Foundation 's definition of free software , the Debian Free Software Guidelines , or Open Source Initiative 's Open Source Definitionthe GPL is n't free software either.The GNU General Public License meets all three set of criteria I listed for a free software license .
What definition of a free software license were you talking about , and how does software distributed subject to MPEG-LA 's terms qualify ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free Software Foundation's definition of free software, the Debian Free Software Guidelines, or Open Source Initiative's Open Source Definitionthe GPL isn't free software either.The GNU General Public License meets all three set of criteria I listed for a free software license.
What definition of a free software license were you talking about, and how does software distributed subject to MPEG-LA's terms qualify?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230000</id>
	<title>Re:Not a good letter.</title>
	<author>Target Practice</author>
	<datestamp>1266858180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Initially it's ok, but then it all starts sounding a little bit desperate, and by the end it's demanding and almost threatening. Imo.</p></div><p>Agreed. It has the same tones that I find in religious/political propaganda. I support the FSF in their initiatives, but there are more polite ways to get the point across.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Initially it 's ok , but then it all starts sounding a little bit desperate , and by the end it 's demanding and almost threatening .
Imo.Agreed. It has the same tones that I find in religious/political propaganda .
I support the FSF in their initiatives , but there are more polite ways to get the point across .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Initially it's ok, but then it all starts sounding a little bit desperate, and by the end it's demanding and almost threatening.
Imo.Agreed. It has the same tones that I find in religious/political propaganda.
I support the FSF in their initiatives, but there are more polite ways to get the point across.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227828</id>
	<title>Google could do real good with this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266842580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope Google does this. A real, free video system for the internet would do incalculable good. Google could once again take the high road, and show it truly is different than the evil Microsoft!</p><p>I hope Google agrees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope Google does this .
A real , free video system for the internet would do incalculable good .
Google could once again take the high road , and show it truly is different than the evil Microsoft ! I hope Google agrees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope Google does this.
A real, free video system for the internet would do incalculable good.
Google could once again take the high road, and show it truly is different than the evil Microsoft!I hope Google agrees.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31237766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31234798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31233494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31231250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31245000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31237494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31240250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31234144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31233526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31231270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31240456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31232768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31234352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31242180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31238946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31233678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_22_0921255_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_0921255.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228872
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_0921255.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31234144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227978
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228398
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228090
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31234798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_0921255.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_0921255.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_0921255.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31245000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_0921255.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227952
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_0921255.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_0921255.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31232286
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_0921255.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227808
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_0921255.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_0921255.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31238946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_0921255.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31231250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_0921255.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_0921255.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31242180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31232768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228108
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228418
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229010
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228238
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227938
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229946
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229000
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228982
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31233526
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228074
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_0921255.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31240456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229886
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_0921255.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31234352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_0921255.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31237494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227884
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228242
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31240250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31237766
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229488
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31233494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_0921255.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31231270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_0921255.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230758
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_0921255.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31229086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_0921255.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31228124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_22_0921255.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31227860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31233678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_22_0921255.31230528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
