Slashdot Log In
Apple Delays QuickTime 6 Over Proposed MPEG-4 Licenses
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Feb 13, 2002 02:31 AM
from the loose-the-chickens-for-free-range-eggs dept.
from the loose-the-chickens-for-free-range-eggs dept.
znu writes: "Apple announced at the QuickTime Live! conference today that there's a public preview of QuickTime 6 with full MPEG-4 support ready to ship, but the terms of the proposed MPEG-4 license are holding it back. For those who haven't been following this, MPEG wants $0.25 per encoder/decoder for MPEG-4, up to $2 million per company per year. Apple is fine with that. But MPEG also wants content distributers to pony up $0.02/hour for any content that's distributed for profit. Apple feels that determining just what is "for profit" will be problematic, and that this pricing will seriously inhibit MPEG-4 adoption.
You are encouraged to complain to MPEG LA about this situation."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Apple Delays QuickTime 6 Over Proposed MPEG-4 Licenses
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 245 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Greedy bastards! (Score:2)
Re:Greedy bastards! (Score:5, Funny)
The 25 cents per encoder/decoder is bad enough, but then charging by the hour as well?
You know, I don't really have a problem with them charging $.25 per codec. The developers of the MPEG-4 standard deserve to be compensated for their time, and money is a pretty good universally understood medium (popped popcorn is often too bulky to mail in mass quantities, and oral pleasure from each purchaser could be difficult -- and in today's epidemiological climate, hazardous). So more power to 'em, I say.
The $.02/hour scheme does seem a little tough to enforce, though. I mean, if I'm selling for-profit movies (and really, there's only one type of movie that's truly profitable on the World Wide Pr0n Repository), don't you think it would be in my best interests to lowball the estimate just a teensy bit? "Well, I'm going to sell movies encoded in MPEG-4, but only, um, three hours' worth. Yeah, that's the ticket! Three hours -- here's your six cents. Bye!"
Seems to me like this is yet another case of greed being foiled by stupidity.
Re:Greedy bastards! (Score:5, Interesting)
We already have proprietary Quicktime
If you mean proprietary as in fully documented [apple.com] (you probably want to start in the API section) and open you'd be correct. In fact, there are several projects started that will play Quicktime movies fine under Linux.*
Perhaps you meant the proprietary and closed Sorenson codec?
*Of course, they won't be able to play the ones that use the Sorenson codec, which is the most popular codec to use with Quicktime
Re:Greedy bastards! (Score:5, Informative)
We're not talking here about which audio format do you want to store your ripped CDs in. We're not even talking about which video codec do the corporations and artists want to use to publish their movies and streaming video (which by the way, is a matter of saving milions of dollars). I'm not talking about Ogg Vorbis [xiph.org] vs. MPEG-1/2 audio layer 3 -- I'm talking about Ogg Tarkin [xiph.org] vs. MPEG-4, in the terms of license and in the context of free software. Maybe read what I said [slashdot.org]:
All I was talking about is free software [gnu.org]. I thought I was clear enough.Another source (Score:5, Informative)
Talk about throwing money around... (Score:1)
money for information (Score:1)
hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:hmm (Score:4, Informative)
Tarkin (Score:5, Informative)
That said, the definitions for the project aren't certain at all right now. No one knows if it's going to be for streaming video or just plain compressed video. There's even been talk of using it as a professional editing standard, but that's not likely to be a focus. Right now, Tarkin is so new it's scary. It's going to be an exciting project to follow, but don't expect anything too soon.
Re:but aren't we already using mpeg4? (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, divx.com says "DivX is the most widely distributed MPEG-4 compatible", which I take to mean it is similar to MPEG-4 but is a completely different codec.
I could be wrong, but that's what I've gathered from what I've read on the web. If anyone knows more about this, feel free to correct me.
Re:but aren't we already using mpeg4? (Score:5, Informative)
1) MPEG-4 is a compression standard just like MPEG-1 and MPEG-2, not a specific CODEC (implementation), so the DivX implementation is just as much MPEG-4 as are Microsoft's, Phillip's or Apple's. It's meaningless to say "it's similar to MPEG-4 but is a completely new CODEC".
2) The MPEG-4 patents cover the algorithms not the implementation (in fact the source of a reference implementation is available for free, and was the basis for the rewritten DivX implementation). There's no way around the MPEG-4 licencing - MPEG LA could one day choose to shut down the open source MPEG-4 implementations (or DivX for that matter, if they don't abide by the licencing requirements).
3) The original poster referred to "Quicktime, MPEG, AVI and DivX" as if they are comparable, but these are all different things:
- Quicktime is a file/stream container format that can use any CODEC. The most common CODEC used with Quicktime is Sorenson, but it can also use others such as MPEG-4 being discussed here, or the open source VP3.
- MPEG is a collection of standards which define two different container formats (MPEG-1/2 and MPEG-4 = Quicktime), plus the associated video and audio compresion standards (MPEG-1/2/4 video, MPEG-1/2 layer 3 audio - aka MP3, MPEG-2 AAC audio, etc).
- AVI is a non-streamable container format that like Quicktime can use any CODEC. Common CODECs used with AVI include the original ones like Cinepak, Intel Indeo, Motion JPEG, and the newer ones like Microsoft's MPEG-4 v3 (aka DivX 3) and DivX's MPEG-4 (aka DivX 4).
- DivX is nothing more than an MPEG-4 CODEC for the AVI container format, despite the marketing wizards at DivX Networks success in getting people to think of it as something else.
Accounting Nightmare (Score:2, Informative)
This is like IPIX. Send them a message. (Score:2, Informative)
But you can send them a message here [mpegla.com] explaining that a per-use licence is morally wrong and will stifle early adoption of MPEG-4
Its a good thing (Score:1)
or will they try to charge for the playa too?
Quicktime 6 Links (Score:2, Redundant)
MPEG-4 licensing plan [com.com]
Plan for fees [mpegla.com]
Hotbot Search? (Score:1)
I know this isn't Google but do these numbers sound low to anyone else? Think of all the pron sites that encode using these, yet they only total a little over 400 000.
On second thought theres that + sign. I spose it's all in the details.
Just ignore mpeg-4 ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Tarkin won't really get you much... (Score:4, Informative)
Tarkin's goal of an open source licence free CODEC is fine, but something like VP3 (source available, competetive compression, no licencing requirements - just a restriction that derived works still be able to decode VP3) is really good enough. If you look at the audio/video components of high quality A/V files then you'll notice that quality audio takes up at least as much - if not more - space as the video. Using conventional transform (DCT/wavelet) techniques to make video smaller is really a waste of time - the only break through will come from another approach (most likely overcomplete specification methods), and the overall savings in A/V file size are limited by the audio anyway.
The foolishness of licenced standards (Score:3, Insightful)
Companies that have "crate patented standards and get rich off the licencing" as part of their buisiness plan should be shunned by those who are seeking to make money by providing entertainment or information.
I personally a mystified that things like this MPEG insanity can and have survived. Open standards have reigned supreme on the internet, and nearly everywhere else, but somehow these proprietary video compression algorithms live on.
I don't pretend to be an expert on video codec's and the like, but I would like to believe that some sane individuals could develop an open video compression system and stop all of this idiocy
Re:The foolishness of licenced standards (Score:4, Insightful)
Sadly, I can think of more contradictions to that statement than examples of it.
We are still using GIF, after all.
http://images.slashdot.org/title.gif {- See?
Oh, and there are a whole lot more more people using MP3 than Ogg.
Oh, and uh - Isn't Flash a pretty darn closed standard?
What about that Windows thing? I think it has a pretty wide installed user base. Doesn't it? Not to mention Internet Explorer.
Sorry, dude. I think your post was a bit off the mark. It's not that I don't agree that it would be nice if stuff was all free and opened and life was good and all, but uh -- well. It's not. Sucks plenty.
Re:The foolishness of licenced standards (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The foolishness of licenced standards (Score:4, Insightful)
At the time at which GIF became standard, the licensing issues were not known, so it appeared to be an open standard.
MP3 might be a closed standard, but at least no license fees are to be paid for distributing players (as far as I know, they're only required for encoders) or content.
Also note that, similar to GIF, when MP3 took off, encoders were developed without paying license fees as well. The license fees were not requested before MP3 already was popular, and even then, there was a lot of discussion about whether this would stop MP3. But there was no free alternative ready at that time.
No, it's not. It's documented similar to PDF. Besides, I wouldn't exactly call Flash an internet standard, it's more a marketing and salespeople standard ;-)
The original poster didn't claim that all implementations of the standards were free, but that the standards themselves were. IP, HTTP, HTML etc. are all open standards. The fact that they're implemented by proprietary products like Windows or Internet Explorer doesn't make the standards less open.
But How Long Can They Do It? (Score:1)
Why wouldn't the TV model work on the net? (Score:3, Interesting)
Then they can go as far as to order merchandise for that show. "Click here to purchase a Transformers: Robots in Disguise Optimus Prime Toy for your kids." The can reward me for watching commercials. "Click now and we'll give you $1.00 off your next burger." They can even do things like broadcast a show live, just like TV does today for free. But if you want to see earlier episodes, you have to pay for a subscription to access them.
The idea of saying 'your time on the net is metered' scares me. Using the Internet for entertainment is a luxury, not a need. If the market thinks the price is unfair, then programs like Morpheus will suddenly reign supreme.
The Irony (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I find Apple's position extremely sensible. Charging per-use is the sort of accounting nightmare that a lot of webcasters want to avoid. Add to that the fact that, as Apple says, it is hard to draw the line in the grey area between for-profit and non-profit/for fun usage. This is especially irritating for Apple, as they want their technologies to be adapted by hobbyists.
If the MPEG Group wins, it would only be a matter of time before some smart-ass lawyer then starts collecting data on amateur webcasters, and claims that they are costing the MPEG Group revenue...
Re:The Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
A grey area, for certian, but one you can see why they'd want to avoid. I'm sure given how greedy many people seem to be getting these days that the MPEG group would try to slap them with a bill for all that content and they'd have to waste money fighting and perhaps paying it.
My utopia (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I suggest that we all write nice letters to Mr. Futa and press our individual opinions.
Who should pay (Score:5, Insightful)
Why Apple is Pissed (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has invested a large amount of money in the MPEG4 format [apple.com]. They're not named in the license [apple.com] that we're all talking about, so I assume that they're not receiving any royalties. This would piss me off, but it's not what's annoying them.
The problem that they have is that the $0.02 (I know... an ironic amount...) per hour that the user of an encoder has to pay is a barrier to the acceptance of their product.
Apple want to be the (consumer) media platform of choice. They have no illusions of making money from producers [apple.com].
A step... (Score:1, Interesting)
As for pay-per-play, this is just another thing that a content provider will have to add into a sponser's bill. If I have to sit through their adds anyway, let 'em pay more...
It's about streaming, not QT (Score:3, Interesting)
QuickTime Live Keynote (Score:4, Informative)
If you've got an hour to spare you might want to watch this too.
new meaning - corporation tax (Score:2)
"The marketplace recognizes the role that intellectual property rights play in the development of these technologies, and the good news is that the market understands the need for it to be respected and paid for."
"The citizens recognizes the role that taxation play in the development of these public services, and the good news is that the populous understands the need for it to be respected and paid for."
Or
"The serfs recognizes the role that levies play in the development of my kingdom, and the good news is that they understand the need for me to be respected and paid for."
The sole purpose of damaging profit (Score:1)
Ripping DVD's to DivX is actually incouraged since it is literally opposite to the interests of profit.
Who are these MPEG guys... (Score:2)
Brain dead licensing (Score:1, Insightful)
It seems with any format(audio,video,file compression) you want it out there and popular. Then only license the encoder, and the decoder is no charge. People will use the format a lot more, imho.
A Microsoft Ploy ? (Score:3, Insightful)
MPEG-4 is being rolled out for set-top boxes for Cable Companies. The MPEG-LA license fee would add a charge of almost $ 15.00 per box per month to your cable bill. This would just about double my cable bill. This will kill MPEG-4 if it is not changed.
The speculation is that this is Microsoft (a member of the license pool) trying to squelch competition, without leaving any fingerprints.
Apple/MPEG Consort: You are both right - FIGHT!!! (Score:2)
Complain? Why? The longer these greedy thieves continue there scratching and in-fighting the better. Let MPEG4 die a slow expensive death for all involved.
This will give time for competitors (Ogg Video [xiph.org]) to prove themselves, without the "Intellectual Property" bull$hit.
Will they never learn? (Score:1, Insightful)
Anyone use Free Darwin Streaming S on Lin or BSD? (Score:1)
Fill in the gaps (Score:1)
The problem here is that MPEG is hurting the guy who is willing to pay. Its kinda like customers in a shop paying more for goods becasue the shop needs to cover the cost of shoplifters...
Its quite sad really.
Oh my! (Score:1, Offtopic)
Quicktime Streaming Server 4 has MPEG4 (Score:3, Informative)
"MPEG-4 Support: now you can serve ISO-compliant hinted MPEG-4 files to any ISO-compliant MPEG-4 client, including any MPEG-4 enabled device that supports playback of MPEG-4 streams over IP. You can serve on-demand or live MPEG-4 streams, and reflect playlists of MPEG-4 files."
I'll bet they tried to mention MPEG-4 as many times as possible.
You can now also stream MP3's with it, set up your own radio station! The streaming uses the standard Icecast streaming format so any MP3-player that supports streaming should work.
Apple: Go open... (Score:3, Interesting)
Questions For Free/Open Source Developers (Score:1)
I know a lot of people just see QuickTime and MPEG4 as movie players and nothing else. This is not for them.
As a developer, I see QuickTime as a nice, clean way of handling any time-dependent data and metadata: movies are just one application. This aspect of QuickTime has been available for implementation free of charge forever.
Normally, it would make technical sense to move to MPEG4 as it becomes a standard. However, this licensing gives me pause.
didn't Apple see it coming? (Score:1)
Executive Summary (Score:3, Insightful)
Simply put:
MPEG-LA is a company that represents the patent holders of technolgy used by all the parts of a multimedia standard known as MPEG-4.
MPEG-LA says that if you want to sell a codec that infringes on any of their _extensive_ patents, you need to pay $0.25 per copy sold, up to $1M per year.
MPEG-LA says that if you want to USE a codec covered by their patents, you have to pay $0.02/hr per stream.
Apple refuses to make QuickTime 6 available until the usage fee is removed.
IMHO:
This is awesome, Apple is standing up for the rights of the individual to create multimedia content and publish it royalty free. Sure, they're saving themselves some $ since they stream video too. But consumers will be the ones paying that $0.02/hr if it sticks, via their Digital Cable subscription, their DirectTV subscription, watching streaming movies on the net, etc...
The $0.25 per codec sold is fair. Many of you might not think the underlying patents are fair, but that's a different issue. If the patents are fair, then it seems fair to charge $0.25 a copy for any other products sold that infringe on the patents.
-pmb
Observations about the MPEG4 codec (Score:1)
I noticed this because I'm currently working with OpenGL, where instead of merely drawing objects on the screen, you have a 2d or 3d virtual world in which you can create and transform 3d objects, and then you calculate how those images would appear projected onto a 2d surface, in much the same manner that 3-dimensional objects in the real world get projected upon the 2-d film of a camera. (The name for this modeling system is, in fact, the synthetic camera model).
I'm not sure how well applying this type of approach to video will work, since in effect, the client would have to render the footage instead of merely displaying it, but it's an interesting concept nonetheless.
Complaints to MPEG LA (Score:1)
MPEG LA can be reached at:
303-331-1880
dwatford@mpegla.com
Not Only Apple Gets It (Score:1)
In this case, Apple is in the right in standing against what amounts to an internet tax on end-users.
Good evening viewers!!! (Score:1)
Re:Better yet! QUICKTIME FOR LINUX DAMIT (Score:1)
Quicktime movies not working under linux is the lnly reason I still have a version of windows lying around.
Damn right (Score:1)
Re:investing in open-source software pays itself (Score:5, Informative)
Do you realize that sorenson is not the only codec that quicktime can use?
Personally, I've been using the open source vp3 [vp3.com] codec for a lot of the videos I've encoded lately.
In my opinion, it beats the free version of sorenson at moderate bit rates, and as the source code is available, someone should be able to plug it into one of the Quicktime frameworks [sourceforge.net] that run under [Free,Open,Net]BSD or Linux.
Re:apple should move forward with something else (Score:1)
Feed the Troll (Score:2)
Meanwhile, Microsoft is raking in all those licensing fees for Windows Media Player.
Yep. All those "warez" guys are actually Linux users. Not a single one of those "appz" are Windows or MacOS.
That's not to bright (Score:1)
This means web developers like me will no longer have to write scripts that alow people to select their media player of choice (and most people on the web don't even know what a media player is). As long as they have SOME sort of recent media player MPEG 4 should play.... at least that is the idea behind it.
this thing really needs a good licence that is not going to force users to pay. It will never get adopted is users have to pay 2 cents and hour. We NEED a standard like this for the web. Could you imagine where we would be if HTTP, FTP, etc never got adopted as standards and websites worked like Windows Media, Real Video, or QuickTime Movies.... it would be hell. the web would not be as big as it is...for sure.
Re:CNET - $1million max (Score:1)