Live data from Hacker News

A Future Without MPEG

blog.chiariglione.org

21–30 of 63 posts

Re: A Future Without MPEG

#21

This post is so "inside baseball" that it's difficult to discern what his point or goal is?

Chariglione was the charismatic leader behind the MPEG standards, including those behind DVD (MPEG-2). The biggest challenge wasn’t technical but political: getting a bunch of companies to agree to pool their patents so licensing them could be streamlined.

For next-generation video beyond H.264 (AVC) and H.265 (HEVC), that consensus has broken-down and his prediction seems to be that open-source standards like Alliance for Open Media behind the AV1 video codec will prevail. It’s worth noting that H.264 and H.265 are telecom videoconferencing standards defined by the ITU-T, not consumer electronics standards defined by ISO, so I’d say the loss of relevance of MPEG happened 20 years ago, even if MPEG (part of ISO) was involved in both standards.

Re: A Future Without MPEG

#22

Put another way: The video patent cartels have fragmented due to greed, and so the cartel enablers at ISO have lost their purpose. In addition, organizations are tired of paying bridge tolls. So we can finally have open standards for video that anyone can just use and implement. AV1 in particular seems to be on its way to replacing them: https://research.mozilla.org/av1-media-codecs/

I guess it wont mean that parents on video encoding won't exist, rather that now they wont be standardized. Not everyone can be sponsored by advertising monopoly, some might need their technology to bring revenue by itself. However yes, the pool broke by too greedy companies (IP based companies, not technology ones) and hevc is laughable. See it explained by mpeg chairman itself https://blog.chiariglione.org/a-crisis-the-causes-and-a-solu...

Re: A Future Without MPEG

#23
post #2

Can somebody explain what it means to hold the IP or rights of any of these standards?

In particular IP here ends up meaning patents. Patents are a particularly egregious right because though they were created with a specific trade in mind they were almost immediately perverted so as to keep only one side of the trade.

So the idea of patents is, if Alice invents something really fucking amazing she explains the invention, pays the government some money and they publicise her explanation but she is entitled to control who uses the invention for a period of time.

This is a trade because now Alice's invention is available to everybody, no chance Alice loses interest and it's lost for a thousand years before somebody else re-discovers it, but on the other hand Alice doesn't need to secure investors and risk the invention being a failure, she can demand terms like 10% of the profits from anyone taking those risks.

But, it soon turned out you don't need a complete working invention. Alice describes half an invention, and then nobody else can use it without the other half, but even if they figure out the other half on their own they owe Alice! Alice doesn't even need to invent the whole thing, she can just describe the easy half, the government signs off and then when somebody smarter finishes it Alice gets rich!

Today in most of the world people have found ways to argue that computer software, which is a work of literature and thus protected by Copyright (which has different problems we won't discuss here) can also count as an invention and be patented.

So the best outcome for an outfit like MPEG is that Bob invents a really clever technique that turns moving images into much less data than before, totally just as a single flash of inspiration somehow, and rather than keeping it secret, or using just in one MSDOS program in 1989 and then never again he publishes it as a patentable invention, then MPEG incorporates it in a video standard called, say, MPEG Bob. And maybe everybody in the world cheerfully pays Bob $100 each for this amazing invention. Hooray.

But very quickly the problem with MPEG is that Charlie gets a government patent for the invention of, say, dividing five into three equal integers and then hires a very good lawyer. Charlie's lawyer says it doesn't matter that this is nonsense and can't work, because $10M worth of lawyers say you owe Charlie for using this invention in MPEG Bob.

In between these extremes there are lots of problems less intrusive than Charlie. The Springfield Higher Institute of Technology gets a patent on an idea you, an expert in the field, have been telling people about for years, but you never wrote it down so you can't prove it. Did they really invent it, or just hear it second hand? Either way, they demand $1 each, but they are a university so maybe that's good? Although it is billions of dollars, and it was really your idea if it was anybody's...

Leonardo, the author of this piece and MPEG leader, is quite sure that patents are necessary, mostly because of the Bobs in this world though I suspect he'd be sympathetic to the Springfield Institute too - to him the existence of Charlie is an annoyance that we should all try to find some way past rather than a fatal flaw in the entire endeavour.

Re: A Future Without MPEG

#24
post #4

Am I reading it right ? The text says: > But there is a big news: MPEG passed away on 2020/06/02T16:30 CEST. Does that really mean MPEG is no more ? Or is it hyperbole about something that happened 2nd of june ? This would be huge (and really sad).

Dead in the sense that presumably the last patent expired. So it's now dead like MP3 is dead... free to use by anyone.

Re: A Future Without MPEG

#25
post #12

I am not sure where to begin. But let's start with EVC. EVC Baseline is expected to be 20% better than AVC High Profile , and EVC Main Profile is expected to be 30% better than HEVC. The Codec is backed by Huawei, Samsung and Qualcomm. If you are unfamiliar with the Smartphone market, The three would represent roughly 80% of marketshare excluding Apple. Now on to VVC. I am surprised by the sentence MC-IF has 31 membe…

> “Covered most or all of the industry”

I think that is a very partial reading of the forces at play.

Apple may be 20% of unit sales, but an overwhelming majority of industry profits and has a lock on the best demographics (the rich and the young). AFAIK they haven’t decided, even if historically they tended to prefer ITU/MPEG standards (but boycotted Blu-Ray).

AV1 has Netflix and Google/YouTube behind it. Not sure about Amazon, but they own Twitch which is on the AV1 side. In an era where the content providers also control the app through which it is delivered, they have the control over which codec gets chosen, not the hardware manufacturer. They may tactically choose to use hardware-accelerated standards like HEVC when trading off the royalties they have to pay vs. using less battery life on their customers’ devices, but in the long term it seems to me AV1 will prevail

Re: A Future Without MPEG

#26
post #22

Put another way: The video patent cartels have fragmented due to greed, and so the cartel enablers at ISO have lost their purpose. In addition, organizations are tired of paying bridge tolls. So we can finally have open standards for video that anyone can just use and implement. AV1 in particular seems to be on its way to replacing them: https://research.mozilla.org/av1-media-codecs/

I guess it wont mean that parents on video encoding won't exist, rather that now they wont be standardized. Not everyone can be sponsored by advertising monopoly, some might need their technology to bring revenue by itself. However yes, the pool broke by too greedy companies (IP based companies, not technology ones) and hevc is laughable. See it explained by mpeg chairman itself https://blog.chiariglione.org/a-crisis…

They will probably be standardized, but not by ISO. Currently it looks like AOMedia will take over, in part because unlike ISO they are willing to commit to having an open standard unencumbered by patents.

Re: A Future Without MPEG

#27
post #9
post #2

Can somebody explain what it means to hold the IP or rights of any of these standards?

It means that you can basically levy tax on compatibility. Anyone, who wants to make device or application compatible with standard has to pay a fee to you.

It's more than that even. They lobbied governments to mandate use of this technology such that whenever you buy any device (e.g TV, Phone etc) you have to pay a tax for something even if you don't use it

Re: A Future Without MPEG

#28
post #19

Put another way: The video patent cartels have fragmented due to greed, and so the cartel enablers at ISO have lost their purpose. In addition, organizations are tired of paying bridge tolls. So we can finally have open standards for video that anyone can just use and implement. AV1 in particular seems to be on its way to replacing them: https://research.mozilla.org/av1-media-codecs/

I guess a problem is that most hardware, SoCs etc, still use MPEG.

Do you mean H.264, H.265, or the older MPEG codecs?

I think H.264 hardware is pretty widespread. H.265 less-so. Anything older than H.264 has been dead in the water for years.

Re: A Future Without MPEG

#29
post #28
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess a problem is that most hardware, SoCs etc, still use MPEG.

Do you mean H.264, H.265, or the older MPEG codecs? I think H.264 hardware is pretty widespread. H.265 less-so. Anything older than H.264 has been dead in the water for years.

Comcast VOD content sent to QAM set top boxes is still MPEG-2.

Re: A Future Without MPEG

#30
post #2

Can somebody explain what it means to hold the IP or rights of any of these standards?

In particular IP here ends up meaning patents. Patents are a particularly egregious right because though they were created with a specific trade in mind they were almost immediately perverted so as to keep only one side of the trade. So the idea of patents is, if Alice invents something really fucking amazing she explains the invention, pays the government some money and they publicise her explanation but she is enti…

Summarizing your last point: everything is a remix. To people with a deep understanding of technology, it's clear that everything builds upon prior art and some of the best "innovation" is pulling together insights from many fields (many of the Mathematics).

Which is why it's so infuriating to read Leonardo's grandstanding "Those who have created a new intellectual object have to right to exploit it". What exactly did this "creation" build on? It was not produced in isolation.

Post reply on HN