View Single Post
Old 15th July 2016, 21:34   #230  |  Link
BadFrame
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by mandarinka View Post
I
Otherwise, I don't see a problem with codec not being completely beer-free if it means better technology/compression (and indirectly, incentive for further development).
I disagree with the notion that software patents and the subsequent royalty fees are somehow the main driving force for better technology, if this was the case we would never have seen great audio codecs like Opus and FLAC, and had it not been for having to navigate around the broad video encoding patent minefield, efforts like Daala would have had an entirely different outlook.

Instead I'd argue that in reality software patents obstructs and slows down technology, and I think the MPEG LA pool is a perfect example of that, they dictate when and how much progress in video codecs will be made available by holding a vast array of encoding techniques locked under what is again aggressively broad software patents.

IMHO we'd be further along in video encoding if we did not have software patents, as we can see with AOM's effort with AV1 and what Google has done all along with the VP series, there is huge commercial incentive beyond cashing in on royalties to improve technology, and yet again even this effort is hampered by software patents, and will likely be attacked by software patents as MPEG LA fights to keep their business model of piecemealing video encoding progress.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mandarinka View Post
I
H.264 showed it works well, although some people think it is some catastrophe or something.
I don't think it's a catastrophe, but I also don't think the system works 'well'.

Now, I (and I assume you) want to see the best video compression technology possible, in my/your hands as soon as possible, MPEG LA's business model of controlling video compression progress through software patents means we will get what they deem is enough of a step forward to create enough demand for them to kickstart a new codec and royalties cycle, rinse and repeat, continously artificially limiting progress in order for them to milk as much royalties as possible.

Take AOM as a comparison, since their model is not based upon royalties at all, there's no reason whatsoever for them to artificially limit the capacity of their codec, in fact the better the codec is, the more money they save on bandwidth, and the more attractive their services are to customers, but here again the sad concept of software patents rear it's ugly head, as it will limit what AV1 can provide, just as it limits video compression progress as a whole.
BadFrame is offline   Reply With Quote