INTERACT FORUM

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Standards  (Read 5157 times)

glynor

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 19608
Standards
« on: September 15, 2014, 03:36:40 pm »

For Apple its kinda obvious, they don't care about anything they didn't invent themself, and thats ALAC, which is in direct competition to FLAC.
Technically Microsoft also has its own lossless format, WMA Lossless, however with Microsoft i just think they don't care, period, at least not on the desktop.

For hardware devices, its hard to say. Most likely there is just no great market in consumer-space for lossless.

I posted this once before, but it seems to have vanished in the shuffle.

In any case, I heard a while back on a podcast, an Apple engineer who worked on CoreAudio say that they intended to support FLAC natively alongside the other formats, and that they even had all of the code working behind the scenes, but that they were forced to can the project by lawyers.

The issue?  Patents, naturally (the font of all stupid in the technology world, it seems).  While FLAC claims to be not encumbered, there is no liability protection (of course) and I guess the patent attorneys looked at it and said... Yeah, no.  Stop.

Little "nobodies" implement FLAC and it isn't worth it to the big consortiums who own the (sketchy, vague, and probably really invalid but it would take a multimillion dollar lawsuit to prove it) IP to go after them.  Microsoft or Apple does it, though?  That's a whole different ballgame.  I think he even said that he's heard much the same from other colleagues at Microsoft amongst other places.

I wish I could find the podcast where this happened, but it was months and months ago, and I'm not even sure which podcast it was...  I think it was probably Debug, Iterate, Vector, Release Notes, or one of those.  But I'm not sure.  In any case, I distinctly remember this conversation (for the obvious reasons), and it was from someone who would Absolutely Be In A Position to Know.

That seems surprising because people "think" that Apple is a huge fan of closed, proprietary standards (and I remember that the "host" or whomever else was on the podcast expressed surprise at this as well).  That is true, hardware wise.  However, they're really quite open when it comes to software-supported formats.  Keep in mind... When everyone else (Adobe and Microsoft) were using proprietary video formats, what did Apple push?  H.264 MP4.  The iPod supported MP3 from day one (unlike contemporaries from Sony, for example).  iBooks is epub.  Heck, they open sourced Mach.  Microsoft certainly hasn't open sourced the NT Kernel.  And, if I remember correctly, the guy said he wasn't sure (because he left Apple soon after this happened), but would be willing to bet that Facetime never got opened up as promised because of patent stupid.

A huge amount of Apple's underlying software technology stack is open.  They lock down hardware, but they embrace open software standards all over the place.
Logged
"Some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese."

Visit me on the Interweb Thingie: http://glynor.com/

Hendrik

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 10781
Standards
« Reply #1 on: September 15, 2014, 03:53:20 pm »

Apple practically designed MP4, its their own darn format. :p (they took the old MOV format, polished it a bit, and submitted it to MPEG)
And H.264 or MP3 are hardly "open" formats, there is a whole load of patents on them, which do cost an OS that wants to ship support quite a bundle.

Of course the difference to FLAC is that they actually have a central place where you can buy patents, and which then "claims" you are protected (which in reality isn't even the full truth).
For FLAC, they just don't know for sure.

PS:
Didn't they ban a GPL application from the Apple Store for being GPL? :)
Logged
~ nevcairiel
~ Author of LAV Filters

glynor

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 19608
Standards
« Reply #2 on: September 15, 2014, 03:56:52 pm »

PS:
Didn't they ban a GPL application from the Apple Store for being GPL? :)

That was FUD.  It was VLC, and Apple never banned it.  VLC submitted it, it was approved (I have a copy on my phone still), and then pulled it themselves.  It was a publicity stunt, to make a point about the App Store.
Logged
"Some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese."

Visit me on the Interweb Thingie: http://glynor.com/

6233638

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 5353
Standards
« Reply #3 on: September 15, 2014, 03:58:49 pm »

Keep in mind... When everyone else (Adobe and Microsoft) were using proprietary video formats, what did Apple push?  H.264 MP4.
Oh you mean that format requiring a license from MPEG LA?
Rather than using open standards, Apple has forced Mozilla to add H.264 support to Firefox.

The iPod supported MP3 from day one
Licensed from the Fraunhofer Institute, rather than using the open-source alternative Ogg Vorbis.
 
iBooks is epub.
Is it standard epub, or epub with a proprietary DRM layer on top?
I haven't tried moving a book from iBooks onto another device.
 
And, if I remember correctly, the guy said he wasn't sure (because he left Apple soon after this happened), but would be willing to bet that Facetime never got opened up as promised because of patent stupid.
And yet they're pushing further device lock-in with things like the iMessage platform, and devices like the new Watch only working on Apple hardware. (it's a Bluetooth fitness tracker - it should be able to work with anything)

A huge amount of Apple's underlying software technology stack is open.  They lock down hardware, but they embrace open software standards all over the place.
They generally seem to push for "openness" when it helps them oust a competitor. And it's usually less open than you might think.
Logged

glynor

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 19608
Standards
« Reply #4 on: September 15, 2014, 04:01:07 pm »

Apple practically designed MP4, its their own darn format. :p (they took the old MOV format, polished it a bit, and submitted it to MPEG)
And H.264 or MP3 are hardly "open" formats, there is a whole load of patents on them, which do cost an OS that wants to ship support quite a bundle.

As far as H.264 and all of the other MPEG-LA formats, I agree.  They're patent encumbered.  But so are OGG and all the others, despite what the true believers would have you believe.  That was the point about FLAC.

This is because the patent system is FUBAR, agreed.  Not because they "should be".

MP4 I think is a valid example.  They didn't have to do that.  Microsoft sure as heck didn't with all of their wacky formats they tried to push.  And Adobe with FLV...  The choice was: use crappy existing formats, keep going with their own closed format (what everyone else was doing), or make something nice and submit it to the open standards bodies.  I think the choice they made was a very honorable one, and has benefited everyone.
Logged
"Some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese."

Visit me on the Interweb Thingie: http://glynor.com/

glynor

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 19608
Standards
« Reply #5 on: September 15, 2014, 04:02:20 pm »

Oh you mean that format requiring a license from MPEG LA?
Rather than using open standards, Apple has forced Mozilla to add H.264 support to Firefox.
Licensed from the Fraunhofer Institute, rather than using the open-source alternative Ogg Vorbis.

OGG is patent encumbered too.  So is WebM.

They say it isn't, but closing your eyes and repeating a chant doesn't make it true.  If you were Apple (or Microsoft or Google) and you made something they could sue you over with those, and had a big enough pile of cash for it to be worth it, they'd sue.  Google gets away with it because they don't have any direct profits from it to go after.  Its all red the whole way down there.
Logged
"Some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese."

Visit me on the Interweb Thingie: http://glynor.com/

Hendrik

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 10781
Standards
« Reply #6 on: September 15, 2014, 04:03:34 pm »

But WebM is google, and they made it. Doesn't your theory kinda fall apart. :D

Also, Microsoft also created a "open" format, they took WMV Advanced and got it standardized as VC-1, which, ignoring any technical merits, has a similar standing as H.264.
Logged
~ nevcairiel
~ Author of LAV Filters

glynor

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 19608
Standards
« Reply #7 on: September 15, 2014, 04:04:46 pm »

Is it standard epub, or epub with a proprietary DRM layer on top?
I haven't tried moving a book from iBooks onto another device.

Many of them are completely bog-standard epub, or epub with some device-specific extensions.

The DRM is optional, and is applied at the discretion of the publisher.
Logged
"Some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese."

Visit me on the Interweb Thingie: http://glynor.com/

glynor

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 19608
Standards
« Reply #8 on: September 15, 2014, 04:05:49 pm »

But WebM is google, and they made it. Doesn't your theory kinda fall apart. :D

No, because Google doesn't make anything they can sue over.  But they sure as hell can sue you if you publish WebM video on your public web site.

Our patent attorneys here looked at it with us when WebM first came out and advised us to stay way the heck away from it.
Logged
"Some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese."

Visit me on the Interweb Thingie: http://glynor.com/

Hendrik

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 10781
Standards
« Reply #9 on: September 15, 2014, 04:09:17 pm »

Google also created a patent pool for WebM, its not like its like the "open-source" formats, just because they don't want money from you, its not trust worthy?
The whole system is crazy, if you pay them, its OK (but it isn't necessarily, who is to say there are no patents on H.264 outside of this pool?), but if they give it to you for free, there must simply be something wrong?
Logged
~ nevcairiel
~ Author of LAV Filters

glynor

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 19608
Standards
« Reply #10 on: September 15, 2014, 04:09:58 pm »

Yeah, and Google also payed up:
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130307006192/en/Google-MPEG-LA-Announce-Agreement-Covering-VP8#.VBdVhxbcAYs

So, I'm not sure how that's any different than H.264?  The H.264 licensing is free for publishers too.
Logged
"Some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese."

Visit me on the Interweb Thingie: http://glynor.com/

6233638

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 5353
Standards
« Reply #11 on: September 15, 2014, 04:45:35 pm »

As far as H.264 and all of the other MPEG-LA formats, I agree.  They're patent encumbered.  But so are OGG and all the others, despite what the true believers would have you believe.  That was the point about FLAC.
Yes, but Apple pushing formats like H.264 or MP3 are no more open than the formats that Microsoft or others were using.
Just because those formats happened to "win" doesn't necessarily make them better.
 
Apple often pushes for these formats at the expense of the user experience. Want to use Apple hardware? Well now you have to convert all of your media to closed-off formats.
It's only because their marketshare is so big now that they have the power to do this.
 
MP4 I think is a valid example.  They didn't have to do that.  Microsoft sure as heck didn't with all of their wacky formats they tried to push.  And Adobe with FLV...
Except most of the time FLV was just being used as a container for H.264 video anyway - and for a long time that was actually more efficient than the native HTML5 implementation that Apple were using in Safari on their Macs.
FLV was a horrible experience on Macs because they were preventing software from accessing the hardware acceleration in the GPUs, and even now the access you do get is limited.
 
I won't be sad to see Flash disappear, but I'm not happy with it being replaced by H.264, and we're now seeing a push for DRM implementations in HTML5 video.
 
Many of them are completely bog-standard epub, or epub with some device-specific extensions.
The DRM is optional, and is applied at the discretion of the publisher.
It isn't open if it contains proprietary extensions, or is locked to a device.
 
OGG is patent encumbered too.  So is WebM.
Here's the thing. The US patent system is so broken that it doesn't matter whether Ogg is, or at least was originally non-infringing.
 
Just submit a patent application for "means of playing audio on a computer" and you'll get a patent granted regardless of there being prior art. You'll probably win the court case too - especially if you're a large company with lots of money.
 
That being said, while it's not common in media players, the Ogg Vorbis format is very common in video games. I'd think that there would have been a case against some company using it by now if it was infringing on any patents.
Logged

glynor

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 19608
Standards
« Reply #12 on: September 15, 2014, 05:09:35 pm »

Well, ask your patent lawyers why they didn't want you to use it!

I know exactly why (I was deeply involved in the meetings).

Keep in mind, Google's patent protection pool is new.  When they first announced WebM, there was no such thing, and they were still claiming that it and VP8 were completely unencumbered.

But immediately, all sorts of technical analysis came out that said "not so fast".  MPEG-LA announced fairly quickly that they felt it wasn't in the clear, and the lawyers all said it wasn't worth the risk.  H.264 was way safer, and by-the-way, much more likely to succeed in the market.

And since?  Well, Google admitted that it wasn't so patent unencumbered after all, paid up to MPEG-LA, and now they have a pool.  Of course, in the interim, it became "who cares" territory, because it'll never have widespread adoption.  So... I think we made the right call.
Logged
"Some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese."

Visit me on the Interweb Thingie: http://glynor.com/

glynor

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 19608
Standards
« Reply #13 on: September 15, 2014, 05:11:30 pm »

Yes, but Apple pushing formats like H.264 or MP3 are no more open than the formats that Microsoft or others were using.
Just because those formats happened to "win" doesn't necessarily make them better.

Totally disagree.  There is an open, published spec for H.264 MP4.  You can make a decoder and an encoder.  If you infringe patents, you might have to pay into a pool, but you aren't simultaneously reverse-engineering FLV or WMV.

Not the same thing at all.

There are all kinds of open standards that are patent encumbered, including TCP/IP.  Just because it is patent encumbered (and so therefore not free-as-in-libre) doesn't mean it isn't an open standard.

Ps.  And flv wasn't a container for H264 until very recently. They had their own codecs. I know, I converted a ton of them.
Logged
"Some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese."

Visit me on the Interweb Thingie: http://glynor.com/

6233638

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 5353
Standards
« Reply #14 on: September 15, 2014, 05:21:04 pm »

Ps.  And flv wasn't a container for H264 until very recently. They had their own codecs. I know, I converted a ton of them.
2007. Three years before the iPad.
Without hardware acceleration available on OSX, H.264 was very demanding for the dual-core CPUs Apple were using at the time.
 
It could still be a CPU hog with animation, and the Mac client was always slower than Windows, but for video playback, the reason Flash was slow was because Apple were blocking access to the GPU's hardware decoders.
 
Flash Player 9 Update 3, released on 3 December 2007, also includes support for the new Flash Video file format F4V and H.264 video standard (also known as MPEG-4 part 10, or AVC) which is even more computationally demanding, but offers significantly better quality/bitrate ratio.
[]
In an interview with BBC News, the main programmer of Flash Jonathan Gay said that the company had wanted to use H.264 when video support was originally added to Flash, but had been deterred by the patent licensing fees of around $ 5 million ( 3.5 million) per year.
Logged

glynor

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 19608
Standards
« Reply #15 on: September 15, 2014, 05:56:35 pm »

Adobe could not make a Flash player that performed well on Windows, much less mobile OSes.  I used a bunch of the Android devices that all "supported Flash" and it was junk.  We tested a bunch of them.  With our own content, we knew was well-encoded.  They were just junk.

And it is widely known that Apple negotiated with Adobe for years before Steve made his anti-Flash stand to show them something that would work.  They couldn't.  Or didn't.  It doesn't matter.

Even after the big anti-Flash post, Nitin Ganatra has said publicly that there were ongoing negotiations with Adobe, where engineers would come in and demo things for them, and they never worked, had horrible battery life implications, and required Apple to make special security exceptions for Flash that would have weakened customer protection.

You know, because Adobe has a spotless security record.  No malware is ever distributed via massive security flaws in Flash or Acrobat.  Nope.
Logged
"Some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese."

Visit me on the Interweb Thingie: http://glynor.com/

6233638

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 5353
Standards
« Reply #16 on: September 15, 2014, 06:13:10 pm »

Adobe could not make a Flash player that performed well on Windows, much less mobile OSes.
As soon as hardware acceleration was implemented, video playback was just fine in Flash.
 
When it was first introduced on OSX after Apple finally added API support for hardware acceleration (which I believe is still restricted to H.264 only) it outperformed Safari's native HTML5 playback of the same video, using about 20-30% less CPU on my MacBook Pro at the time (this has since changed) which was significant when the battery life of the system was only 3-4 hours.
 
I used a bunch of the Android devices that all "supported Flash" and it was junk.  We tested a bunch of them.  With our own content, we knew was well-encoded.  They were just junk.
I won't argue against that, I'm sure it was terrible, and the move away from Flash in general is a good thing.
I'm not saying that I like Flash - I use Firefox on my PC and don't even have Flash installed for it.
 
But the reason video playback was so terrible on Macs for all those years was due to them locking Adobe out from using the hardware decoders.
 
That doesn't change the fact that I'd much rather see another format than H.264 in use on the web today.
Logged

glynor

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 19608
Re: Standards
« Reply #17 on: September 15, 2014, 06:51:08 pm »

I think your time horizon is way different from mine.  I remember Flash v9 well, because I could finally stop creating the special FLV files I was making for our streaming server then.  They didn't just abandon their proprietary codecs, they also abandoned FLV (because the streaming server released at the same time, supported MP4 containers natively too).

The vast majority of its lifespan, Flash video was crappily encoded Sorenson and later VP6.  I had all sorts of specially encoded SWF files from before there even was a FLV file format (and lots of developers continued making them for years because the FLV container was terrible early on).  The vast majority of FLV video still available is Sorenson or VP6.  Adobe started their inevitable surrender in late 2007.  Microsoft took quite a few more years to see the light.

I dispute completely, especially having been primarily a Windows user, that the reason Flash performed poorly on Macs was that Apple didn't want to give them kernel-level access through OpenGL (which, I think history has proved out, would have been an absolutely terrible idea) until they could do so with a modicum of safety.  Flash has been crappy on Windows for years.  It has long-been the leading cause of browser crashes.  It used to leak memory like that was it's job.

Adobe does many things well.  Flash was not one of them.

And it locked the entire web to a buggy, insecure, and proprietary platform.  I strongly believe that it held advancements in HTML for years (along with Microsoft's, and the industry's, ill-conceived XHTML misadventure).
Logged
"Some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese."

Visit me on the Interweb Thingie: http://glynor.com/

6233638

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 5353
Re: Standards
« Reply #18 on: September 15, 2014, 07:53:20 pm »

It's funny, because I was primarily a Mac user back then, with only very sparse Windows use via Boot Camp.
As soon as Flash started using H.264 video, playback performance tanked on the Mac because the CPUs of the day just couldn't handle it. Or Adobe's software decoder was particularly bad? Whatever the cause, when things switched to H.264 performance was just awful on Macs, and I don't seem to remember it being a problem at all when I restarted into Windows.
 
On OSX, very shortly after starting playback the MacBook would get very hot and the fans would go up to max speed.
  
Adobe updated Flash with hardware acceleration a week after Apple released an API for it.
Video playback was suddenly no longer a problem on OSX - well, as long as you had a system with one of the whitelisted GPUs.
Check the comments there to see lots of people complaining about their Macs being unsupported by this API, even though the GPU supported H.264 decoding.
 
I'm not sure why you see Adobe adopting H.264 in 2007 as a "surrender" - it was not until Apple released the iPad in 2010 that the lack of Flash support became a big deal.
 
It's this sort of thing - refusing to add features to older hardware, even when capable of it, which started to drive me away from Apple computers to begin with.
And it's the limited features, format support, increasing hardware and software lock-in which is pushing me away from iOS now too.
 
 
I'm not saying that Flash was ever great - but it can't have been so bad if it managed to be the main way that people were watching video on the web back then.
And on OSX - while maybe not entirely at fault - Apple was at least partly to blame for the abysmal performance, due to them preventing software from accessing the hardware decoders on the GPU.
 
I won't be sad to see Flash go, but it's not like Apple was in the clear either.
And while I commend them for sticking to their guns and abandoning Flash entirely for iOS, for the first year or two, that was at the customer's expense.
While it may be more "open" than Flash was, H.264 is not a truly open alternative, and I think it sucks that even Mozilla were forced to back down and add support to their browser.
Don't forget that MPEG LA's original plan was to have H.264's royalty-free licensing expire in 2016.
 
The problem now is that we are basically at the whim of Apple for what happens to video now.
If you try to use anything else like VP9, it's your site at fault if it doesn't work on Apple hardware, not the device.
So now iOS is the new "Flash" holding back video progress on the web.
 
Who knows, maybe with Android, Chrome, and Firefox all supporting WebM/VP9 that might be enough to push things in the other direction again?
There are a few sites which have started using WebM/VP9 video now, which doesn't work at all on iOS hardware or in Safari.
Logged

glynor

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 19608
Re: Standards
« Reply #19 on: September 15, 2014, 11:18:08 pm »

Hmmm. I don't know exactly where this is going or how productive it is...  :-\

Patents suck.  Established industry players have long dominated this space, with closed, completely proprietary standards.  MPEG-2 software encoders were thousands of dollars, and hardware encoders were tens-of-thousands.  MPEG-4 ASP first (thank god for XviD), and then later MPEG-4 AVC changed all that.  It is too bad, I suppose, that the entire MPEG stack isn't as open as it could be in some kind of utopian dream scenario.  But... Utopian open standards with no patent encumbrance that are well supported by hardware and software vendors and high quality are like unicorns.  Pretty to imagine, but not so easy to find or make in the real world.

But where I don't get it is the direct this therefore that relationship to Apple (and Flash and Google all mixed up in there).  The success or failure of the H.264 standard is, at best, contributed to by Apple, not because of them.  It was well underway when Apple adopted the standard (well before the iPhone).  There were hardware decoders, in silicon.  They worked, and used little power (and getting less, and less expensive, every year).

More importantly, there was a whole ecosystem of hardware encoders.  It was being adopted widely across the video production industry: BluRay, AVCHD, a swath of high-bitrate pro codecs.

I won't sit here and argue that Apple has done everything right.  They were definitely playing hardball with Adobe a bit with their sluggish response to Adobe's needs with the Multimedia APIs.  I agree.  On their side, they were behind Microsoft in part because of OpenGL, which isn't as nice as Microsoft's (hmmm, closed) DirectX API stack.  But, it comes down to this: letting web content render OpenGL shader programs is crazy-pants without a whole swath of very challenging developments unless you just don't care about security at all.  So, they had an excuse.  Did they also intentionally drag their heels because screw you Adobe?  Yes.  Certainly.  There's a history there.  Adobe was also pissed that they ditched Display PostScript, and Apple was skeptical because Adobe was singing the same "just hardware accelerate it" song as they sang with DisplayPostscript, so the antagonism (and failed promises) went back on both sides for a long time.

I was highly critical of Apple before they removed DRM from their iTunes music store, and I do not buy any content from them from their video store because of the DRM.  I'm not a big fan of the completely locked-down iPhone model, and where it takes the industry, long term, in a theoretical sense.  Though, I also see the alternative as deficient in substantial ways.  In any case, Apple and I certainly do not always see eye to eye.

But really... That's neither here nor there.... How is widespread H.264 adoption and the general failure of FOSS alternatives Apple's fault exactly?  They didn't invent the H.264 standard.  The MP4 container is certainly based off of the Quicktime MOV container, but the H.264 working group had little to do with the container format.  It was headed by a guy from a videoconferencing vendor, later Microsoft.  There was already widely available H.264 encoding and decoding silicon when the first iPod that could play video came out.  That's why the first iPod that could play video came out.  It had been embraced by Sony, Panasonic, JVC, chip vendors, GPU makers.  Apple certainly helped popularize the format, but it was well on its way to popularization well before that. The standard was being finalized when Apple was selling audio-only iPods that only worked with Macs.  Well before they were anyone's iOS-sized behemoth.  H.264 had already won the war.

And all of this was years and years before suddenly Google switches sides and has this new format they seemed to have cobbled together from some decent FOSS stuff and a company they bought with a codec not as good as H.264 was years earlier.  And they have dubious patent claims about its magical "open-ness" (which later they paid licensing fees for), and they say they're going to remove H.264 from Chrome (which they never did).

Adobe giving up on their own proprietary codecs and container was a big deal.  The consumer-facing Flash player was not how they made money, you know.  Their streaming server had become industry standard, and was not cheap to license at all.  Giving up that battle was a big blow to that business, because now we have Wowza, and Red5.  One less mark in Premiere's favor (they must be thanking the stars that Apple screwed up Final Cut Pro).  There were a variety of repercussions to that move.  And sure, Apple had something to do with it probably (they go way back, those two) but they gave up because of the facts on the ground (largely in the hardware codec game).  Adobe and Microsoft, were never the standard's cheerleaders, though, that's for sure.  Surrendering on FLV was the first real chink in Flash's armor, but they had to, because they were widely regarded as having terrible video quality online.  Flash was easy to use (way better than Quicktime Streaming or Windows Media) for the end-user, and users preferred that experience in their browser.  But the quality was dismal for ages, compared to a wide swath of alternatives.

So, it was a big surrender, and led to more-open alternatives succeeding.  And now those more-open alternatives aren't open enough.  Sure, I guess.  But facts on the ground.

So... I'm confused about the entire direction this conversation has taken, and how it became about Flash and H.264 and why... Blah blah blah.  I just thought that anecdote was relevant and interesting, I guess.  But, of course, I don't have the source, and I'm remembering something I heard a few months ago on a podcast.  Or maybe misrembering it.  But I thought it was interesting.

Projects like FLAC, and FOSS alternatives to other standards, just have significant hurdles to widespread adoption for a wide variety of reasons.  I remember how next year was going to be the year of Linux on the desktop, and we were going to get rid of Windows 98 once and for all, darn it.  I'm glad that, in many ways, the present is substantially more open than the past.

Utopian dreams are often just that.
Logged
"Some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese."

Visit me on the Interweb Thingie: http://glynor.com/

glynor

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 19608
Re: Standards
« Reply #20 on: September 15, 2014, 11:30:00 pm »

Also, obligatory;D
Logged
"Some cultures are defined by their relationship to cheese."

Visit me on the Interweb Thingie: http://glynor.com/

6233638

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 5353
Re: Standards
« Reply #21 on: September 16, 2014, 10:47:32 am »

Hmmm. I don't know exactly where this is going or how productive it is...  :-\
You're right. I actually don't care about this enough to continue really.
I thought the same thing when I had finished typing up my reply last night, and was thinking I might just not post anything.
Logged

Daydream

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 770
Re: Standards
« Reply #22 on: September 16, 2014, 10:10:46 pm »

Actually I would like to read some more on this. For example I find interesting the dilemma that all 'popular' formats - be them containers, video or audio - are decried for being patent locked, while true free formats are not exactly, well... popular. Popular not in the sense that you, me and Johny Danger, all hackers at the Tech-that's-cool club know about it, but in the sense of mass adoption. If somebody can't make money off of something they're not gonna push for it. And at the same time we all hate it, but we don't change it.

Take mkv. How many people are developping for it, except for its makers (who are they, I lost track, need to read the wiki again) and I don't know... Mosu? Even on this realm over here it took about 1.5 years till ordered chapters and the likes were supported. This is something that can embed everything under the sun but we don't quite like it. Cause it's hard to work with it I guess? Like authoring DVDs or Bly-Rays it's easy. But there's not many tools for it... cause nobody uses it (again at industry level, not at bittorrent level). Because everybody uses locked down formats.

While from a certain angle this looks like the c.h.i.c.k.e.n (the automatic word replacement is really fubar on this forum) or the egg problem, I'm still very confused. We just want 'the world' - as some kind of a faceless shape - to go for patent free and then we - also the world - will change too. And that's at the very best. At the worst there are some players that don't want the game to change at all.


Second thing. This may sound like a naive question in the currently entrenched patent wars - but why is it so hard to go patent free? I'm asking this for the benefit of people less familiar with the politics of all things AV. And how broken the patent system is. In the end it's all math right? They haven't patent math yet, have they? Just as they haven't patent the piano's keys. A Fourier transform deals with signal transformation between time and/or spatial domain and frequency domain but I doubt Joseph Fourier and his descendents got any royalties (since 1800!) because we're using it.

So really. Was everything patented that nothing can be put together and offered freely, I don't know... for the advancement of human spirit?? (queue epic music)

Thoughts?
Logged

RoderickGI

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 8186
Re: Standards
« Reply #23 on: September 16, 2014, 10:36:52 pm »

If someone builds something that is good and is therefore adopted, but does not patent it (i.e. goes "patent free"), then someone else will steal the idea, patent it, and sue the creator for royalties on their own work. This has actually happened, and the law suits get very messy proving prior art, timing of invention, etc. It gets even messier when the creators were a group of disparate and geographically scattered individuals creating something in their spare time.

The patent and copyright systems were far simpler, and even made sense, back in the 1800's. Now, every little idea is patented or copyrighted and the rights last forever, instead of just until the creator has made a reasonable return on the ideas.
Logged
What specific version of MC you are running:MC27.0.27 @ Oct 27, 2020 and updating regularly Jim!                        MC Release Notes: https://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Release_Notes
What OS(s) and Version you are running:     Windows 10 Pro 64bit Version 2004 (OS Build 19041.572).
The JRMark score of the PC with an issue:    JRMark (version 26.0.52 64 bit): 3419
Important relevant info about your environment:     
  Using the HTPC as a MC Server & a Workstation as a MC Client plus some DLNA clients.
  Running JRiver for Android, JRemote2, Gizmo, & MO 4Media on a Sony Xperia XZ Premium Android 9.
  Playing video out to a Sony 65" TV connected via HDMI, playing digital audio out via motherboard sound card, PCIe TV tuner
Pages: [1]   Go Up