Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It’s Opus, it rocks and now it’s an audio codec standard

hacks.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 68 posts

Re: It’s Opus, it rocks and now it’s an audio codec standard

#41

Post by nvmc »

randallu wrote: post #6
nvmc wrote: post #2

MP3 is getting very long in the tooth, not to mention the fact that it's encumbered by patents. A new codec would be nice, but hardware adoption of the codec will take a while. Long enough, dare I say, to kill it dead in the water.

Why would you say that? Most "hardware" decoders are DSPs that run software loaded onto them at runtime. This goes for anything with an OMAP, Tegra or Samsung (Samsung's own decode block) SoC in (that I know for sure) and probably almost everything else. Tegra3 and OMAP4 can decode WebM in hardware, for example.

I should have worded my comment better. I mean that adoption by hardware manufacturers will be slow. What's the incentive? Even for a firmware patch? MP3 is `good enough', and everyone already uses it.

Re: It’s Opus, it rocks and now it’s an audio codec standard

#42

Post by nnethercote »

mcantor wrote: post #7

I'm not an audio guy. Can anyone explain like I'm five why this new codec was needed? How does it affect me as a consumer of audio? Who out there was saying "Gosh, I want to do X, but it's really tough because existing codecs force me to choose between high quality and low delay"? What is an example of "X" in that sentence?

Look at the graph in the article. Opus is as good as or slightly better than all the existing codecs at their strong points, and much better than them at their weak points.

Re: It’s Opus, it rocks and now it’s an audio codec standard

#43

Post by wissler »

shmerl wrote: post #40
wissler wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Show me an entity, any entity, that could be sued for lots and lots of cash, that is using these "unencumbered" algorithms.

You can easily find VP8 used on Youtube. Not big enough? Those predators wouldn't hesitate to sue, if they'd have something to bite with. But they have no teeth.

It's way too early to be suing with merely YouTube, no network effects. Google can easily switch away.

Re: It’s Opus, it rocks and now it’s an audio codec standard

#44

Post by shmerl »

wissler wrote: post #43
shmerl wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can easily find VP8 used on Youtube. Not big enough? Those predators wouldn't hesitate to sue, if they'd have something to bite with. But they have no teeth.

It's way too early to be suing with merely YouTube, no network effects. Google can easily switch away.

You can come up with any kind of arguments or guesses about why they don't sue, but the bottom line - they didn't provide any proofs, so their FUD doesn't worth anyone's time, and these codecs can be considered unencumbered and free to use (and that's what's happening to their displeasure).

Re: It’s Opus, it rocks and now it’s an audio codec standard

#45

Post by yuhong »

shmerl wrote: post #29
wissler wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mere threat is enough to keep people from investing much in these "alternatives." E.g., Steve Jobs wrote: "All video codecs are covered by patents," Jobs wrote from his iPad. "A patent pool is being assembled to go after Theora and other 'open source' codecs now. Unfortunately, just because something is open source, it doesn’t mean or guarantee that it doesn’t infringe on others patents. An open standard is diffe…

That's the whole point. They have no proof to show, because really those codecs are not violating any patents. But they want to create fear to ban competition.

In fact: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2012/09/its-opus-it-rocks-and-now-...

Re: It’s Opus, it rocks and now it’s an audio codec standard

#46

Post by shmerl »

yuhong wrote: post #45
shmerl wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the whole point. They have no proof to show, because really those codecs are not violating any patents. But they want to create fear to ban competition.

In fact: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2012/09/its-opus-it-rocks-and-now-...

The citation above was about video codecs, FUD about which is spread by MPEG-LA, who never showed any patents as a proof.

Opus is another story, since Qualcomm and Huawei listed supposedly violated patents, so Opus creators were able to review them and to confirm that those claims are bogus.

Re: It’s Opus, it rocks and now it’s an audio codec standard

#47

Post by wissler »

shmerl wrote: post #44
wissler wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's way too early to be suing with merely YouTube, no network effects. Google can easily switch away.

You can come up with any kind of arguments or guesses about why they don't sue, but the bottom line - they didn't provide any proofs, so their FUD doesn't worth anyone's time, and these codecs can be considered unencumbered and free to use (and that's what's happening to their displeasure).

I think you're engaged in wishful thinking. I wish you were right too.

Re: It’s Opus, it rocks and now it’s an audio codec standard

#48

Post by nitrogen »

wissler wrote: post #33
shmerl wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is unencumbered, unless someone proves that it is encumbered.

It is unencumbered, unless there's a ton of money to be made by suing them. Same goes for Theora. When some deep-pocketed hardware manufacturer dares put one of these "unencumbered" algorithms into its hardware, then we will see. But I doubt they'll dare.

According to another comment further down the page, Tegra 3 and OMAP4 have "hardware" VP8 decoding support. I've also heard that a patent holder can't sue for damages that occur long after they were made aware of infringement (it would be nice if one of HN's regular lawyers would jump in and define estoppel).

There are far more interesting and HN-worthy things to discuss than the non-Opus-specific fact that the patent system is broken, like its potential applications in WebRTC, the hybrid design that merges Celt and Silk, the fact that having a conversation with someone 50 feet away using Opus can have lower latency than just shouting at them (as demonstrated by Mumble's use of Celt beating the speed of sound down a hallway), etc.

Re: It’s Opus, it rocks and now it’s an audio codec standard

#49

Post by nullc »

wissler wrote: post #11
azakai wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if it was tested by the courts, you can appeal. And even after the appeal, you can appeal to a higher court, all the way to the Supreme. And even if was tested there, congress can pass a law that allows it. And even if that happens the Supreme court can strike down the law. And even if that happens, the public can mount a revolution and tear down the legal system. But, practically speaking, Opus has extremely go…

No matter how many times I'm downvoted, it's still not unencumbered. It's simply not in the nature of our patent system that something this complex can be unencumbered, unless it's with respect to an expired patent. I know my position causes a lot of cognitive dissonance with people, because it implies that the system is fundamentally unfair. Well, you can either take the red or the blue pill.

Come on, it's only 45kloc. Do you go around insisting every non-trivial piece of software on hacker news is encumbered?

And in most those cases people were not making a special effort to avoid being effectively encumbered, while Opus was.

Re: It’s Opus, it rocks and now it’s an audio codec standard

#50

Post by nullc »

shmerl wrote: post #46
yuhong wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2012/09/its-opus-it-rocks-and-now-...

The citation above was about video codecs, FUD about which is spread by MPEG-LA, who never showed any patents as a proof. Opus is another story, since Qualcomm and Huawei listed supposedly violated patents, so Opus creators were able to review them and to confirm that those claims are bogus.

Right. This is the advantage of the IETF's patent policy, and it's one of the reasons we wanted to do this work in the context of the IETF.
Post reply on HN