Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Discontinues On2 Flix Engine Video Encoder

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the save-us-obi-wan-kenobi dept.

Google 56

trawg writes "Google have recently discontinued sales of the Flix Engine, the last remnants of the purchase of On2 that they were selling directly to users. On2, developers of the VP8 video codec that formed the basis of their new WebM video format, was bought by Google early in 2010. The Flix Engine was a comprehensive API for Windows and Linux that allowed integration of On2 encoders directly into any software product. While you can still buy some On2 products from another company, it's not clear what effect this will have on Google's ultimate video strategy."

cancel ×

56 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Watch this, large tech companies (3, Insightful)

a Flatbed Darkly (1964478) | more than 3 years ago | (#34666362)

However large/successful/influential a company is, one must always take into account whether or not the product in question is actually necessary. Codecs are a flooded market.

Re:Watch this, large tech companies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34666410)

and well, another small company and its products destroyed by a faceless multinational corporation.

Re:Watch this, large tech companies (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34666426)

Yes, but WHY are codecs a flooded market? Because every maker of some kind of crappy hardware thinks it's a spiffy idea to create its own proprietary format(s) that only their own products may used and can be compatible with, in an attempt to lock-in potential customers.

It's especially damaging to market transparency when it's done by makers of hardware. You can already see it happen where certain (cheap) video equipment can only export what you record with it in a "special" format so only the "special" software from the maker can work with it and only the "special" DVD player from them could play a DVD made with it.

It's not that we need fewer formats. What we'd really need is fewer of those lock-in formats that serve no purpose but to force people to buy overpriced, unnecessary hardware because they have no choice.

Re:Watch this, large tech companies (4, Informative)

sirsnork (530512) | more than 3 years ago | (#34666492)

FInal Cut Pro comes with an Apple encoder and thats the default format it saves in. Unfortunatly you can't get he codec (even for decoding) seperately from FCP, so the only way to read a Final Cut Movie without it being reencoded is by buying FCP.. and thats Mac only.... Apple don't even release the decode codec for the Apple platform. I discovered this a little while ago and was reminded just how much lock in Apple goes for.

And all the FCP types use it all the time (1, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34666612)

Borrowed a video camera from people in another department, but it's firewire output was borked. They then went to dump the tape for me. I got asked at least 4 times if ProRes was ok and said "no we aren't Mac, I edit in Vegas it reads native files, HDV format please." What did I get in the end? ProRes. Of course Vegas can't read that because, as you noted, Apple doesn't release it.

Re:And all the FCP types use it all the time (3, Informative)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 3 years ago | (#34666662)

They were dumb then. You have to specifically select prores - if you asked for something else they could easily provide it. FCP supports far more codecs than just that one.

PEBKAC error on their part I think.

Re:And all the FCP types use it all the time (2)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 3 years ago | (#34666892)

http://support.apple.com/downloads/Apple_ProRes_QuickTime_Decoder_1_0_for_Windows [apple.com]

If Vegas can use QuickTime, you can use it. Either way, you can format-convert it into something else on windows at the very least, although that is obviously suboptimal.

I just borrowed a different HDV camera (0)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34666942)

It was just annoying. Plus I like to work on the native files since Vegas can because there's minimal generation loss. While ProRes isn't very compressed, ti is still compressed and every lossy decompression/compression cycle hits quality a little bit. Better to go straight from the camera formats to your final render. Does take more CPU time but then CPU isn't that expensive these days.

Re:Watch this, large tech companies (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34666630)

http://support.apple.com/downloads/Apple_ProRes_QuickTime_Decoder_1_0_for_Windows
http://support.apple.com/downloads/Apple_ProRes_QuickTime_Decoder_1_0_for_Mac

You're welcome.

Re:Watch this, large tech companies (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34666680)

I didn't click on either of those links, but are those the codecs themselves or standalone decoder?

Re:Watch this, large tech companies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34666700)

Well what do you think, Einstein?

Re:Watch this, large tech companies (4, Informative)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 3 years ago | (#34666658)

Apple's codec is not necessarily the default - you get to choose what format you want your timeline to use, and what format you want an export to use (either self contained or reference).

Back when I was doing it professionally, we were using sony's xdcam HD format right in fcp, since we were shooting on HD xdcam gear. We also had a small group of Sony z1's that shot in HDV for little projects.

We never used apple's pro res codec, and were never forced to. If you want fcp to work in a heterogeneous editing environment then it is easy to do from a format perspective - it supports many common professional formats, as well as its own prores codec, that you do not have to use if you don't want. Even if you somehow don't pay attention and get stuck with something in that format you can use compressor to convert it into something else. Just take the generation loss as a penalty for not paying attention to what formats you were using.

Re:Watch this, large tech companies (1)

slaingod (1076625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34670210)

The issue is that agencies and their creative teams aren't on the same page. Not too long ago, I was asked why my video processing code wouldn't work with iCompany's video. I asked for the video they were trying to upload, and it was a 750MB Pro Res two minute clip for a pep-club musical tv show. Trying to explain to iCompany that their own Pro Res format was only supported in their program and that they needed to get us a more standards compliant version was a two day ordeal.

Re:Watch this, large tech companies (0)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672172)

What creative professional is making that mistake? I would wager that whatever tool you put them in front of, if they are that dense then it wouldn't matter. You're skirting dangerously close to inferring that people who use FCP are clueless.

FCP's export toolchain features a whole raft of presets designed for all manner of output scenarios. You can even add WMV as an option with third party codec packs (it's not included by default). If they've just never opened Compressor before then why are they even working on the project in the first place?!

If it was meant to go into a further EDL or into someone else's timeline, then FCP has included codecs (and can be expanded with others) to make it play ball with the likes of Avid and Vegas.

Re:Watch this, large tech companies (2)

slaingod (1076625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672336)

Lol, I'm not 'skirting close to anything'. If anything I am saying that agencies or people that perform the agency function at companies are clueless. I mean seriously, who tries to upload a 750MB Pro Res clip to Facebook and then throws a fit when it doesn't work, and takes 2 days to manage getting a more appropriate format despite the fact that FCP is made by their own company? Oh right...they do.

I am sure the editor who made the clip was very capable, despite the Gleeful subject matter, but that doesn't mean the people upstream are, or even understand what a codec is.

Before that it was people trying to upload Apple Intermediate Codec vids for use on the web. 'But it is a MOV...it should just work!'

Re:Watch this, large tech companies (1)

slaingod (1076625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34672402)

I am exaggerating to some extent on the 'throwing a fit' aspect too. It just was an issue that got thrown in my lap with a 'make it work' directive, and there wasn't anything I could really do about it.

Re:Watch this, large tech companies (3, Interesting)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 3 years ago | (#34666872)

The codec is available for both Mac and windows on apple's site. Yes, a true example of "lock in".

Re:Watch this, large tech companies (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 3 years ago | (#34666740)

Yes, but WHY are codecs a flooded market? Because every maker of some kind of crappy hardware thinks it's a spiffy idea to create its own proprietary format(s) that only their own products may used and can be compatible with, in an attempt to lock-in potential customers.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the reason for this has more to do with patents than NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome. If a company thinks that they can create their own codec less expensively than licensing, they'll do it.

Re:Watch this, large tech companies (0)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34666964)

There is a codec that cannot be replaced with another of similar properties where no GPL/BSD variant exists? Which one would that be?

Re:Watch this, large tech companies (3, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34667740)

MP4. I had the "pleasure" of helping several customers on the run up to Xmas learn how to convert videos with this proprietary app or that, because apparently little PMPs were being pushed on sale at several retailers and everyone bought them for stocking stuffers. Nearly all were just using some funky format as a wrapper to help cover the fact they were using MP4. Since IIRC the chip that decodes MP3/MP4 is actually dirt cheap but the licenses to MP4 are not these company use funky formats to try to cover up their lack of a license.

I don't know of any BSD/GPL codec that will decode on those dirt cheap MP3/MP4 chips you get on those little PMPs, and it isn't like they have enough native CPU to decode anything that it doesn't have a chip for. Meh at least they don't make you convert the music into funky formats anymore. Either the license for MP3 must be dirt cheap or nobody gives a fuck about the license anymore, because they all had built in WMV, WAV and MP3 support, followed by whatever funky format they used for MP4.

Of course the big "gotcha" with the BSD/GPL codecs is that MPEG-LA has over 2000 patents that pretty much cover everything one has to do to get video to go from a file on a medium to a picture on a screen, so unless the guys in charge of Vorbis and Theora are willing to sign a contract saying they indemnify users of their codecs (which I doubt they would) then you are no more safe than if you just used MP4 or H.264 without a license. I'd say the only reason the guys making those codecs haven't been sued already is that no major OEMs have been pushing those formats in a popular PMP. If someone like Best Buy or Walmart were to release their own branded PMP that used those formats and took off I have NO doubt the excrement would hit the bladed cooling device. As it is now MPEG-LA simply can't be bothered to raise a stink and stir up bad will over such a tiny niche.

hairyfeet eats his own words (3 times) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34667824)

Re:hairyfeet eats his own words (3 times) (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668284)

More like three little cries as I bitch slapped you around. Linking to your very own posts does NOT equal evidence or proof, otherwise I would simply link to the many instances I posted of me banging your mom and they would thus be "proof" that she owes me $500 for services rendered.

You know what you have to do trollie. Post your IP address as a first post on /. or show us the math proving your HOPES file can scale. Otherwise all you are doing is crying in the dark, hanging onto your your little woobie, hoping someone will listen to your pathetic theories based around tech nobody uses anymore. I find your pathetic little cries...rather amusing actually. Submit your proof trollie, we're waiting.

Have you considered decaf? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34669668)

Have you considered decaf? He did show proof in his statements he doesn't get malware, and in the quotes of others he put up from this website too in this quote

Ever since I've installed a host file (http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm) to redirect advertisers to my loopback, I haven't had any malware, spyware, or adware issues. I first started using the host file 5 years ago. - by TestedDoughnut (1324447) on Monday December 13, @12:18AM (#34532122)

FROM http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907528&cid=34532122 [slashdot.org]

Re:Have you considered decaf? (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34679418)

Hi trollie! You know it is usually considered good form to at least make a sock puppet, posting AC to plug your own AC posts? Kinda sad. And for the 400th time Correlation != Causation. I can build an XP Sp2 machine with NO patches, NO AV, and change the desktop to a LOLCat. Now if I only use this machine to check my email and go to my bank I will NEVER get a bug, but I don't think it was my magical LOLCat protecting it, do you?

The simple fact is this: no matter how many times trollie says "1+1 = 3" the math simply proves him wrong. You have 190,000 to 340,000 infected websites at this very moment and that list will change by the thousands per minute as sites are cleaned, new sites are infected, new vulnerabilities found, etc. Now for his HOPES file to actually be a REAL protection and not just a woobie? It will have to dynamically scale and keep up with that ever changing list of infections. Now even if he had twenty fingers and subscribed to every security list on the planet his HOPES file will ALWAYS BE OUT OF DATE and behind the curve. Always.

Now if you have a mathematical proof that shows how a static .txt file dropped into system 32 can magically scale dynamically? Lets see it. Otherwise it is NOTHING much a magical LOLCat pic backed up by anecdotes. That is the nice thing about math, it doesn't lie or believe in anecdotes.

APK blew you away on your guesstimated figures (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34719600)

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1924664&cid=34669668

quote:

First: Hairyfeet, exactly HOW MANY BAD SITES ARE OUT THERE, REALLY?

Answer the question above, ok?

I hate to tell you this, but, you can "quote figures" that are inapproximate estimates, all you like!

Nobody REALLY KNOWS how truly many "bad sites" are really out there now, yes, that includes your sources too - nobody has an "Exact Number" because it's a MOVING TARGET!

One I *TRY* to "keep up on" as best I can in fact... Especially on HOSTS files!

YOU? You also have to "consider your sources" too... see below. Later on that though...

See - each day, I add between 20-20,000 new ones (yes the range is THAT wide), but... I also have to PULL them too, & sometimes? That gets "up there" too!

(Problem is, again - NO ONE KNOWS HOW MANY BAD SITES THERE ARE OUT THERE, not really, period)

It's like keeping up with Comp. Sci. - it's always changing/growing, you can never, "know it all"... so, your #'s, or anyone elses??

PURE "GUESTIMOLOGY" (lol, there's a word!)

So - You can post late as you have here, to try to "bury it" so I won't see your reply... lol, no dice to that!

Now: Hairyfeet's 1.3 million malwares sites out there per his citation from SOFTPEDIA:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Number-of-Infected-Websites-Almost-Doubled-During-the-Second-Quarter-156591.shtml

(Which is, perhaps, NOT the "greatest/most accurate-in-the-know" site on security mind you? LOL: Where my wares are oddly, still put up for download no less, bonus, as I just checked)?

They are correct on 1 thing: I have noted it here also before - it's GROWING FASTER than it did years ago! The rest though? Guesstimates/Approximations!

I know that much from my hosts file population (running now, as we speak in fact).

However - using hairyfeet's sources & numbers? Well - My numbers are RIGHT, considering I block out 920,000 KNOWN ONES, as we speak, in my HOSTS file!

I constantly update it (probably 2-3 times a day or more)... doing it now, as I write this in fact!

Why? To stay accurate, & CURRENT vs. threats online, via a HOSTS file:

E.G. - Sites like hpHOSTS ( hosts-file.net/?s=Download ) update, HOURLY no less, & have removal lists too!

(As some sites DO clean up is why, or just drop)...

So, that said?

Again - I am JUST RIGHT, probably DAMN CLOSE TOO, with the number I block currently, & even PER HAIRYFEET'S POINTS in quoted estimated (note, estimated, no one is really sure how many bad sites there are) numbers of malware sites out there.

You can stop your trolling hairyfeet, because this puts you away, with ease, everytime (not even my OWN words, & I can produce more like it, easily enough, just ask):

---

"Ever since I've installed a host file (http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm) to redirect advertisers to my loopback, I haven't had any malware, spyware, or adware issues. I first started using the host file 5 years ago." - by TestedDoughnut (1324447) on Monday December 13, @12:18AM (#34532122)

FROM http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907528&cid=34532122

---

Nuff said, as the saying goes - & I didn't even SAY it!

APK

P.S.=> hairyfeet, above all else - I know you're a tech, & MOST OF YOUR DAY, is probably removing malwares etc., but... if that got "taken away" by someone who found a VERY POWERFUL defense, per what's quoted above?

Well, then how will you continue making monies off of others' misfortunes, as you do?? apk

Re:hairyfeet eats his own words (3 times) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34683540)

Alexander Peter Kowalski is a fraud and a malware author.

Re:Watch this, large tech companies (1)

ferongr (1929434) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669362)

MP4 is a container, not a codec.An MP4 file may have MPEG 1, MPEG 2, H264 or AVC muxed into it. Or no video stream at all and just have AAC audio or a boatload of other audio formats, audio, images etc.

Re:Watch this, large tech companies (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669484)

Oh Lord, not this again. Answer me this: Exactly, give me a number here, exactly how many MPG1 MP4 files have you encountered in the wild? MPG2? Hell even the first link on Wiki when you type in MP4 ends up taking you to an article about MPEG 4 Part 2 [wikipedia.org] so how much more of this completely worthless circle jerk BS do we really need?

It is as completely worthless as those that pop up with "it is GNU-Linux" or "Linux is just a kernel" bullshit. Yeah thanks a lot of that info professor, it just completely changed the entire conversation! What in the world would we do without you?

Just so we have this clear, once more from the top: When someone says "avi" they are NOT talking about a fucking RMV with a Vorbis audio file, kay? They are talking about a DivX or Xvid file. Because there is exactly one asshole in Omaha Nebraska that uses anything else, and that is just so he can enjoy his "it's a container!" BS like you. Likewise if someone says "MP4" they are NOT talking about, in any particular order, MP1, MP2,AAC, or even fricking Indeo video, kay? They are talking about what is defined by MPEG-LA, which I even mentioned in the post, as MPEG-4, Part 2. Why? Because that is ALL you will ever run into in the wild!

So can we PLEASE just stop the pedantic bullshit? If I would have said FLV THEN, and ONLY then, would you have had a point, because in the wild you will find anything and everything, from VP6 to H.26x, all stuffed into an FLV wrapper. But nobody fricking does that with MP4! Click on Nero Recode, pick MP4. What do you get? MP4-PT2. I could name another 100 converters and rippers and ALL will output down to a single app MP4-PT2 when you click on MP4. THEY get it, Wiki gets it, so why in the hell do we have to get at least one smartass "it is a container" worthless post when anyone talks MP4 or avi? Does it bring anything useful to the conversation? NO!

Re:Watch this, large tech companies (1)

ferongr (1929434) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669564)

Man cheap compact cameras record video using an MP4 container and encoding the video stream in MPEG 2. The reason for this is probably becase MP4 is a widespread enough container but the camera itself lacks the silicon to encode H264. MP4 is also a quite widespread way to contain AAC audio, since the metadata system is better. And, just taking a random sample of .avi files in my computer, there is a multitude of video codecs muxed inside. From uncompressed YUV to DivX, Xvid, different versions of the MPEG standards... Not to mention different audio codecs, from mp3 to AAC-LC, AAC-HC, WAV and even WMA. So, no, I'm not being pedantic.

hairyfeet blown away, as per usual (4 times)? LMAO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34669926)

Re:Watch this, large tech companies (1)

keckbug (1525803) | more than 3 years ago | (#34674414)

Hey, I'm an asshole in Omaha, Nebraska, you insensitive clod!

Re:Watch this, large tech companies (1)

badkarmadayaccount (1346167) | more than 3 years ago | (#34697768)

Does your post?

Re:Watch this, large tech companies (1)

arose (644256) | more than 3 years ago | (#34670234)

Of course the big "gotcha" with the BSD/GPL codecs is that MPEG-LA has over 2000 patents that pretty much cover everything one has to do to get video to go from a file on a medium to a picture on a screen

Or so they would want everyone to believe. [xiph.org] They might have over 2000 patents stuffed into the standards but that is altogether different.

Re:Watch this, large tech companies (2)

trawg (308495) | more than 3 years ago | (#34667686)

(Disclaimer: I'm the submitter. I've used the Flix Engine and other On2 products as part of our video encoding pipeline; I have been encoding videos as a part of my job ~6 years so have some experience with the range of software available.)

Flix Engine was for me a necessity, basically because it let me build command-line encoding tools that I could use reliably in automation, with the following benefits:

- On2/Google are MPEG-LA licensees, so I could use it without having to worry (too much, anyway) about patent issues.
- It is one of the few products I've used that can handle a wide range of input formats (with appropriate codecs) and deal with them internally in a useful manner (largely because it uses a lot of open source components).
- I found it very flexible in terms of the API so it was very easy to customise our encoder - I was just using PHP so it was trivial to make small changes to the encoding process. The documentation is great too.

There are a lot of open source encoding alternatives - mencoder/ffmpeg - but our encoding pipeline is going to a client and patent/licensing issues are a concern for me. I inquired about licensing the MPEG-LA portfolio and they sent me a beautifully printed and bound 60 page contract that is still sitting on my desk, unopened - it is just a stupid thing for a small software developer to have to deal with to add video encoding into their system.

Google getting behind On2 and getting the Engine out and cheaper (they changed the price from $4000/year or something to $200 flat rate) and their development of WebM gave me a lot of hope that they were going to be the ones that were going to fight the battle to free video. While it might seem like codecs are a flooded market, the reality seems to be that everyone in the market (commercially - not open source) is too scared to do anything at the moment in case they get sued.

I hope Google do something with the Flix Engine and this is just a part of their overall strategy to release an even more awesome, comprehensive video encoding system for the world.

Re:Watch this, large tech companies (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34669584)

Since you're clearly not married to a mainstream codec, what's stopping you from using Theora?

Re:Watch this, large tech companies (1)

trawg (308495) | more than 3 years ago | (#34694618)

We are married to a mainstream codec really - we're stuck using h264 as we need to encode for the web and mobile devices.

One of the big reasons for going with Flix Encoder was that it also supported WebM, with the (now reduced) hope that Google would get behind WebM in a major way and it would get everyone off h264.

Hmm... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34666418)

Sales must have been really unexciting for them to do that.

It would be totally unsurprising(and seems to be standard industry practice in general) to put any products that you've acquired but have no strategic in more or less on ice, cutting engineering down to bare minimum critical bug fixes and selling on a more or less "only if you ask" basis, rather than actually marketing.

Actually killing a product, though, when all you need to do to keep selling it is maintain some minimal licensing and payment processing system, is pretty dramatic.

Re:Hmm... (2)

devxo (1963088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34666428)

Google didn't buy On2 for their business and software, they bought them for their technology and patents.

Re:Hmm... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34666488)

I realize that and fully expected them to take any actual products and either OSS them(if that served a strategic goal in terms of driving WebM adoption) or put them on life support, with essentially no further development and only bare-minimum sales and support.

I'm just a bit surprised that there were products that didn't fall into either of those camps. Google has considerable expertise in low-cost file distribution and sells a few other pieces of software, so I would have expected the marginal cost of adding one more "We don't know why you would want to; but sure, we'll sell you a copy" product to the list would be vanishingly small. Given that, actually going and killing the software was an unexpected move.

Re:Hmm... (2)

EXMSFT (935404) | more than 3 years ago | (#34666482)

First, as the other comment said - On2 wasn't bought for products. It was bought for technology and people. Google's motives should be clear with the WebM open source version of On2's VP8 codec. Second, you're trivializing the cost and complexity required to keep a product alive and supported. It's not just leaving a product in the channel to blossom. It has to be supported, patched, and updated - and the products sold by On2 were not logical for Google to continue selling as they were - but the technology and people from On2 are hardly going to waste at Google.

Re:Hmm... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34666716)

Indeed, you can keep selling a product without support or patches for future OS releases, but in practice few people are willing to pay for that.

Probably the best case scenario would be how Blender was handled. It's not generally that useful to sell old software that's not being updated or bug fixed.

Re:Hmm... (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#34667794)

Indeed, you can keep selling a product without support or patches for future OS releases, but in practice few people are willing to pay for that.
Sure you might not sell very many but those stuck with the software and in need of more licenses will be very glad they could get them. Is having a list of licenses that you will sell to anyone who asks but won't market in any way really that expensive?

Why do we tolerate a software industry that locks customers into products and then leaves them high and dry when a companies priorities change or the get bought out? (the answer of course is because one side has much higher bargaining power in negotiations).

Google doesn't sell many products (3, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#34666696)

Google sells very little, other than advertising. If they sold something for money, customers would insist on support. Almost the only thing Google sells directly to customers is the Google Search Appliance, which is available as a 1U or 4U rackmount server. The low-end version, the Google Mini, is sold with no support and a two-year replacement warranty. After two years, you're supposed to replace the entire unit. Google tried selling phones directly, and that lasted only for five months of 2010.

So it's not surprising that Google would drop a commercial software product. They don't sell any.

Re:Google doesn't sell many products (2)

dubidub (23742) | more than 3 years ago | (#34666794)

They sell Google Earth Pro and Google SketchUp Pro.

Re:Google doesn't sell many products (1)

trawg (308495) | more than 3 years ago | (#34667702)

Their support for Flix Engine was limited to FAQs, documentation, and a couple of their developers working on the project (possibly former On2 employees?) on the mailing list. I am on the mailing list and the developers are very quick to respond; it is usually pretty low volume so I don't think the support burden was a really big deal for them considering what it gave them.

I hate when Oracle buys something just to kill it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34666460)

Oh, wait, this isn't Oracle.

Queue the Google fanboi excuses for behavoir they'd excoriate other companies for.

Re:I hate when Oracle buys something just to kill (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34666642)

Uh, they bought On2 and open sourced its best codec. They didn't bought On2 just to kill it. They killed a small part of the On2 product line.

Oh, and I think you mean "cue", not "queue".

Re:I hate when Oracle buys something just to kill (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34666820)

Uh, they bought On2 and open sourced its best codec. They didn't bought On2 just to kill it. They killed a small part of the On2 product line.

Oh, and I think you mean "cue", not "queue".

Well, to his credit he spelled "excoriate" correctly, even if he was otherwise off-base.

Good riddance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34666500)

VP6 was a terrible, terrible proprietary video format. Their encoder software was a pile of shit and absurdly overpriced: $1500 per year per core.

Re:Good riddance (3, Interesting)

DontLickJesus (1141027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34667104)

You, my friend, are a moron. At the time digital video equipment was in a deciding moment. I personally suggested this format to a company, and it completely changed the game for them. Their storage space increased by over 10x, while resolution stayed the same. This was a vendor of security surveillance systems, and I was fired months later. The company blossomed due to my suggestion, even dropping an in-house developed MPEG codec.

VP6 was ahead of its time. It's deserved the money. Codecs involve more than web, and their development involves very specific knowledge in both high level math and computers. It's hard work that take loads of time. They deserved the money.

PS: My wife asked me to add an appendage about sucking a certain appendage.

Oh, Boris ... what strategy? (3, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34666830)

it's not clear what effect this will have on Google's ultimate video strategy.

For that matter, Google's ultimate video strategy is unclear, quite possibly because they don't actually have one. Google is investing big money in lots of technologies, presumably hoping that one or more of them will become the "next big thing" when advertising is no longer the cash cow for them that it is now.

Why this one, of course. (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 3 years ago | (#34668514)

For that matter, Google's ultimate video strategy is unclear, quite possibly because they don't actually have one.

The reasons behind buying On2 were obvious, it was to get out from under the thumb of MPEG-LA and it's constituents, many of whom are actively working against Google.

The payoff just from eliminating MPEG licensing would be huge for YouTube. Greater profit by lowering costs, raising revenue is not the only or necessarily best method of increasing profitability.

Apart from that their video strategy is clear, provide advertisement (which is revenue on planet Google) whilst not providing content.

Re:Why this one, of course. (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34670004)

Apart from that their video strategy is clear, provide advertisement (which is revenue on planet Google) whilst not providing content.

That's their immediate strategy. I'm talking longer-term here ... it's pretty obvious from the way Google has been creating and releasing products that they're looking for a. more ways to gain eyeballs for advertising and b. other ways to make money. Same goes for Microsoft, for that matter: both are basically one-trick ponies that would like to have a few more up their respective sleeves.

Re:Why this one, of course. (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 3 years ago | (#34674634)

googles long term policy to most companies has been to buy them to recruit the people working in them and then kill their inhouse projects and axe the whole thing. it doesn't sound smart or logical, but that's the way they're doing it.

Re:Why this one, of course. (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34723168)

googles long term policy to most companies has been to buy them to recruit the people working in them and then kill their inhouse projects and axe the whole thing. it doesn't sound smart or logical, but that's the way they're doing it.

In other words, it's the same corporate policy followed by most large tech companies. Microsoft has always operated in much the same way (they're perfectly happy to steal the work and put the company out of business.

Strategy was earlier this year. (1)

zigfreed (1441541) | more than 3 years ago | (#34670438)

With the discontinuation of the Flix engine, this marks the end of support for a Flash 8 codec. I imagine a few Wii owners that use Flash 8 to serve their media library will be largely apathetic.

I also doubt Nintendo will contract Opera to support WebM (VP8/vorbis), but one can hope.

Google does a pretty good job at figuring out where the interest is. FFMPEG is where Joe User is getting his free encoder, so good support in what's preferred can get your standards into the other browsers. FCP is sufficiently advanced and the iP[a-z] has enough market penetration that Apple doesn't have to care.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>