Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Delays QuickTime 6 Over Proposed MPEG-4 Licenses

timothy posted more than 12 years ago | from the loose-the-chickens-for-free-range-eggs dept.

Apple 245

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."

cancel ×

245 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Who cares? (-1)

Klerck (213193) | more than 12 years ago | (#2998933)

Real Player is the superior product.

Re:Who cares? (-1)

Ralph Malph Alpha (551824) | more than 12 years ago | (#2998960)

You may be right, I will surely allow this.

That REMINDS ME (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2998935)

of http://www.goatse.cx

Tell me what YOU think.

Re:That REMINDS ME (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2998940)

ARRRRRRRGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!! use

http://www.hick.org/goat

instead. GOATSE.CX IS DOWN!

Re:That REMINDS ME (0, Offtopic)

webslacker (15723) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999001)

Or if you need work-safe goat:

http://homepage.mac.com/genesismac/gapingbowl.jp g

Greedy bastards! (2)

Danga (307709) | more than 12 years ago | (#2998937)

Will the greed ever end? The 25 cents per encoder/decoder is bad enough, but then charging by the hour as well??? Give me a break

Re:Greedy bastards! (5, Funny)

nurightshu (517038) | more than 12 years ago | (#2998976)

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! (1, Redundant)

Shiny Metal S. (544229) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999073)

You know, I don't really have a problem with them charging $.25 per codec.
Remember that even 1/100 of cent per codec makes it impossible to implement as free software. If you write a free software encoder and ten milions of people will start using it, will you just pay $2.5M to MPEG-4 guys, begging people to stop using it in more copies?

I think I'll just wait for Ogg Tarkin [xiph.org] .

Re:Greedy bastards! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2999085)

No one is ever going to use Ogg anything except for uber-geek OSS zealots. I know I sure as hell am not converting 1000 MP3s into .oggs anytime soon. Nor am I going to use their slow-ass encoder to encode new music.

Re:Greedy bastards! (5, Informative)

Shiny Metal S. (544229) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999168)

No one is ever going to use Ogg anything except for uber-geek OSS zealots. I know I sure as hell am not converting 1000 MP3s into .oggs anytime soon. Nor am I going to use their slow-ass encoder to encode new music.
Let me quote my old post [slashdot.org] :
The standard response is "I won't use Ogg Vorbis, because it's not popular enough" or "I won't use Ogg Vorbis, because I have already so many MP3s". People seem to forget that they can have MP3 files
and Ogg Vorbis files.

I remember when the best file format for photos available was GIF. That time when I digitalized a photo I stored it as a GIF file. But when I first heard about JPEG [jpeg.org] , I didn't say "it's nice but not popular". I didn't also say that "I have lots of GIFs and I don't want to convert them". I just started saving the new pictures in JPEG format, leaving the old GIFs alone. Now I have converted those old files to PNG [libpng.org] , because of problems with Unisys [libpng.org] , but I didn't have to do it, I had been using old GIFs and new JPEGs for many years.

But it's totally off-topic.

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] :

Remember that even 1/100 of cent per codec makes it impossible to implement as free software. If you write a free software encoder and ten milions of people will start using it, will you just pay $2.5M to MPEG-4 guys, begging people to stop using it in more copies?
All I was talking about is free software [gnu.org] . I thought I was clear enough.

Re:Greedy bastards! (1)

Alan Partridge (516639) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999189)

err... the best format for photos was NEVER GIF. IFF, TGA and TIFF all predate it. I'll agree with everyone that trying to charge on a per-hour basis is ludicrous, and hands the initiative to the idiotic DivX pirates. Apple must be getting well pissed off with MPEGLA.

Re:Greedy bastards! (1)

ipous (235451) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999113)

> Remember that even 1/100 of cent per codec makes it impossible to implement as free software

If free like free beer, you're right.
If free like free speech, you're not.

Re:Greedy bastards! (3, Interesting)

Shiny Metal S. (544229) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999157)

Remember that even 1/100 of cent per codec makes it impossible to implement as free software. If you write a free software encoder and ten milions of people will start using it, will you just pay $2.5M to MPEG-4 guys, begging people to stop using it in more copies?
If free like free beer, you're right.
If free like free speech, you're not.
When I say free software [gnu.org] I usually mean free software [gnu.org] .

If the program is gratis (like free beer) but it's not a free software, it can be possible to control how many people are using it, so you can control how much money you have to pay to MPEG people. But if it's a free software, you can't control how many people are using it.

So I suppose, you wanted to say:

If free like free speech, you're right.
If free like free beer, you're not.
which is exaclty right. We already have proprietary Quicktime [apple.com] or Windows Media [microsoft.com] players to download for free. Apple and Microsoft can pay $2M/year for MPEG-4 but if they don't want to, they can always offer a fixed number of copies to download, forcing you ro gegister [arachnoid.com] . But people making a free software movie player [mplayerhq.hu] , can't force such restrictions.

Re:Greedy bastards! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2999081)

Sure! They should just give their stuff away.
Do YOU work for free freaking moron?

Another source (5, Informative)

clambert (519009) | more than 12 years ago | (#2998941)

CNET's had a nice, objective article online [com.com] since early this afternoon.

Hopefully this will kill Quicktime (-1)

ringbarer (545020) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999034)

If those retarded idiots at Apple had any sense, they would scrap all the poorly designed "Quicktime Experience" user interface abortions, and provide a codec plugin to use in my media player of choice. (Windows Media Player, of course.)

At least that way I'd be able to view a .mov file in Full Screen without resorting to obtaining a hack from www.cracks.am [cracks.am] . Because nobody PAYS for Quicktime unless they're stupid.

Quicktime is the nigger of the internet. And Real is the paki. Both reprehensible, vile subhuman creatures, and soon to be wiped out forever.

Talk about throwing money around... (1)

TommyBear (317561) | more than 12 years ago | (#2998943)

2 Million per company per year! My god, shows how much big companies like apple can throw around. That's more than the my companies total profit for the year. LOL.

Re:Talk about throwing money around... (-1)

Ralph Malph Alpha (551824) | more than 12 years ago | (#2998967)

LOL, OMG!!!!

Re:Talk about throwing money around... (1)

drooly (558555) | more than 12 years ago | (#2998978)

more than my departments budget for a year!

Re:Talk about throwing money around... (-1)

Ralph Malph Alpha (551824) | more than 12 years ago | (#2998997)

OMG!!!! LOLOLOLOL!! hey guys, stop it! i am busting my gutz from so much HUMOROUS JOKES!!

PLease consider joining the HAPPY DAYZ KREW, a society dedicated to the POSTING ARTZ. shake yo titz!

Re:Talk about throwing money around... (2)

2b|!2b (140353) | more than 12 years ago | (#2998996)

No, 25c per copy. $2M is the cap. If you sell one copy for $1 you give them $0.25 and pocket the rest. Woo-hoo! 75c! Yummy!

Advice to MPEG codec licencees / Apple employees (-1)

ringbarer (545020) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999004)

If you live near a Synagogue, check in their bins every Saturday to obtain a big bagful of discarded baby foreskins. You'll find they provide a cheap, nutritious and tasty alternative to getting a real fucking job and earning enough money to feed yourself properly.

Re:Advice to MPEG codec licencees / Apple employee (-1)

Sarcasm_Orgasm (535390) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999177)

Please sir, do not give away this information to anyone else. Many of us have families to feed.

Re:Talk about throwing money around... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2999006)

I'm sure MPEG4 will only be available for the $29.00 Quicktime Pro edition.

Re:Talk about throwing money around... (1)

Alan Partridge (516639) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999194)

MPEG4 ENCODING most likely - do you expect Apple's stockholders to pay for YOUR ability to make movies? If it's a valuable feature to you, pay for it. If not, don't.

Better yet! QUICKTIME FOR LINUX DAMIT (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2998944)

nuff said..

and no
the codeweaver plug in runs to slow and is to buggy.

That would be a good idea, actually... (-1, Troll)

ringbarer (545020) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999038)

A pointless codec for a pointless operating system.

Hopefully if enough OSS neofascists complain loudly enough, Apple will be forced to squander more of their money on developing software that no-one is going to pay for.

The reason Linux doesn't have the full suite of useful applications is that the companies producing those apps KNOW that Linux users are pirates, demanding "free" software instead of paying for it.

Re:Better yet! QUICKTIME FOR LINUX DAMIT (1)

ankit (70020) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999040)

I wholeheartedly second that!
Quicktime movies not working under linux is the lnly reason I still have a version of windows lying around.

Re:Better yet! QUICKTIME FOR LINUX DAMIT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2999092)

You Linux zealots who say it's "ready for the desktop" and whatnot sure find a lot of reasons to leave Windows "lying (sic) around" on your HDs

Re:Better yet! QUICKTIME FOR LINUX DAMIT (2)

pelorus (463100) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999159)

Probably the exact reason why they don't produce it for Linux. You've got Windows lying around.

Isn't Apple for Homos? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2998945)

I guess all those faggots will have to beat off to their VHS copies of Bruce Buggers Randy.

Mac, the GayOS ®

Re:Isn't Apple for Homos? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2998999)

Isn't Apple for Homos?

YES!

-posted from my custom pick colored iMac

money for information (1)

athagon (410963) | more than 12 years ago | (#2998946)

Yet another corporation trying to rake in money for informational exchange -- truly a bizarre idea if you think about it, right? Money for information...

Re:money for information (2)

seanadams.com (463190) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999058)

truly a bizarre idea if you think about it, right? Money for information...

Dude, get over it. Information is valuable. Otherwise, you wouldn't give a shit about this issue, right? Things which are valuable are, by definition, worth money. Got it?

BTW I'm curious who provides the food you eat and the roof over your head.

MPEG can charge whatever they want, and Apple can tell them to shove it. That's what the free market is all about. I'll be happy to buy your fucking one-way ticket to China if you don't like it.

apple should move forward with something else (0)

mAIsE (548) | more than 12 years ago | (#2998947)

apple should develop another completely open codec and dont pay the greedy bastards at mpeg la a dime!!

Damn right (1)

Migx (551367) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999151)

If they are going too much greedy then use all that amount of money to develop their own system, or in a joint venture with other companies.

Re:Damn right (1)

pelorus (463100) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999166)

Urm..MPEG4 will be an ISO standard. Licensing fees per encoder and decoder are okay. Licensing fees per stream, per user are not.


Apple has some of their own home-grown codecs. But they want to support the standard.

hmm (5, Insightful)

MathJMendl (144298) | more than 12 years ago | (#2998948)

What we really need is a nice, free, high quality and open source standard. Then, anyone can use it without paying the license fees, and it will be able to run on any platform. Whereas music files have converged to mainly MP3 and OGG Vorbis files, videos are heavily divided between MPEG, QuickTime, DiVX & AVI, RM, and ASF. It is really annoying to use so many different players to play simple videos, I use at least four different ones regularly. Plus, I haven't found anything that can play RM except for RealPlayer, which is unfortunate since some of them have not been displaying correctly on my computer.

Re:hmm (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2998959)

Yeah, it's annoying to have so many file formats for your porn collection, eh?

Re:hmm (0)

rapevictim (557748) | more than 12 years ago | (#2998975)

so write us one, you stupid commie.

Re:hmm (4, Informative)

Scooby Snacks (516469) | more than 12 years ago | (#2998992)

Well, if you're sick and tired of this, like I am, there's always Ogg Tarkin [xiph.org] that could use an extra hand or two.

Re:hmm (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2999011)

The real problem there is lack of loopback [hick.org] support.

I agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2999029)

I agree. One must not exclude loopback support which can be very handy at certain times.

Tarkin (5, Informative)

krmt (91422) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999031)

Tarkin is very very much in the planning phase right now, so if you've got any knowledge of video compression or wavelets in general, now's the time to hop on! If you've got the time to learn wavelet encoding and read a bunch of papers, this will be a great project. I don't have time personally to do much more than follow the mailing list (which has seen a lot of traffic in the last few days) but there's a lot of people on this project who really know their stuff. It's a good chance to learn from them.

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:Tarkin (1)

Spuggy (69103) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999063)

Hey krmt,

Do you have a link to an official site for Tarkin? I haven't checked google yet, 'cause I don't want to end up at an unofficial site for it.

I'd be very interesting in at least getting acquainted with the project. I do not have any experience in the ideas you have suggested, but I would be interested in learning.

And as far as streaming/compressed video goes, I think for a solution to really become open and feasible, that the project should go the same route as Vorbis and be for both. (Obviously this is probably the wrong place to express this opinion).

Thanks

Re:Tarkin (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2999130)

I don't think Tarkin has a web site yet, but you can browse or join the mailing list from the Ogg [xiph.org] site.

but aren't we already using mpeg4? (2)

OmegaDan (101255) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999018)

Can someone explain what the DiVX codec is if its not mpeg4? I was told it was a modified mpeg4 codec?

or is this just a myth ?

Re:but aren't we already using mpeg4? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2999054)

DivX ;-) version 3 (aka MS MPEG v4) is a modified version of MPEG4 (DivX 3 is a hacked version of a Microsoft codec, modified so it could be used in AVI files instead of just ASF). It's incompatible with MPEG4, but it's close enough that an open-source codec [sf.net] exists for it.

DivX 4 is based on the MoMuSys MPEG4 implementation. The license for this specifies that derived versions must remain compatible with the MPEG4 specs, so DivX 4 is basically the same as MPEG4 (but DivX uses AVI as a container format instead of QuickTime). FFmpeg has a codec for MPEG4, and it can play most DivX 4 videos.

Re:but aren't we already using mpeg4? (5, Interesting)

MiTEG (234467) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999061)

The previous release of DiVX was based on a hacked version of the MS MPEG-4 (actually an interesting story, I believe it originated in a beta version of a MS media encoder program that had MPEG-4 encoding support, but was later removed in the final version). The major issue with this was the fact that it was done without any licensing, meaning the entire DiVX format was illegal. That being said, paying the royalties per encoder or hour of commercial video distributed was the least of the developer's concerns. This with was fixed with the new Open DiVX/DiVX 4.0+ which supposedly were completely re-written and NOT based on the original MPEG-4, therefore bypassing the licensing technicalities. Although the original DiVX 3.11 is still much better than the newer versions, OpenDiVX is open source. [projectmayo.com]

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2999124)

Project Mayo is dead, may have been only a front for DivXNetworks anyway. Open Sauce work continues at http://www.xvid.org/

Re:but aren't we already using mpeg4? (0)

paule9984673 (547932) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999074)

The divx codec just uses a subset of MPEG-4. You could call it based on MPEG-4, I guess. I do't know if divx encodes to conform 100% with MPEG-4, but it certainly can't play back all streams that make up the MPEG-4 standard.

More might be found at the MPEG website [mpeg.org] .

Re:hmm (2, Insightful)

drik00 (526104) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999069)

What's really interesting to look at is how the commercial companies and individual's handle these things.

Most music lovers are going to migrate to MP3, some to OGG for their personal use, and if you're talking video, everyone has started using divx for ease of use, and b/c everyone else is using it ;) hell, we're individuals and its easier to use something that everyone else uses, too

Commercial companies are the problem here. If you go to a commercial site, they could be using any one of the formats for video, depending on what all-knowing management decided would be the best idea.

If you ask me, there's the rub.

Accounting Nightmare (2, Informative)

MADCOWbeserk (515545) | more than 12 years ago | (#2998949)

Sounds like the same accounting nightmare than governs licensing between the record companies and radio stations.

This is like IPIX. Send them a message. (2, Informative)

mmerlin (20312) | more than 12 years ago | (#2998950)

The site seems to be all about MPEG-2...

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

Re:This is like IPIX. Send them a message. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2999003)

Excuse me, did you suggest we tell them its morally wrong?

BAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!

Oh yeah!! That'll stop 'em!

Why dont we tell RIAA that what they're doing is immoral too .. and what about the evil doers?

Its a good thing (1)

Merik (172436) | more than 12 years ago | (#2998953)

divx is free:)

or will they try to charge for the playa too?

Re:Its a good thing (3, Interesting)

90XDoubleSide (522791) | more than 12 years ago | (#2998998)

The "official" version of DivX ;-) (the one that the company that makes the playa owns) is no longer open source, so there's no reason they can't start charging for the encoding tools sometime in the future (almost no one can get away with charging for a decoder). DivX ;-) and the forthcoming Ogg Tarkin may be excellent codecs (more so the latter), but try to face the fact that the big-name content is going to be in big-name codecs, so if we can get a patented standard, it is better than having patented, undocumented formats.

for fuck's sake, this was on /. last week (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2999057)

DivX ;-) [MS MPEGv3] != DivX (divx.com) Understand?

Re:Its a good thing (3, Informative)

Ogerman (136333) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999114)

"the forthcoming Ogg Tarkin may be excellent codecs, but try to face the fact that the big-name content is going to be in big-name codecs"

Bullcrap. If all the media playing software supports both patented MPEG-4 codecs AND Tarkin, which one do you think content producers are going to use? The one they have to pay hourly royalties on?! And when Apple and Microsoft release media players that support this finalized MPEG-4 standard, are they going to charge people $0.25 to download them or just absorb the cost for a free download? Or would *most* people actually hastle with going through an online payment system for such a small amount just so they can see the latest gee-wiz streamed content? I highly doubt it. And you don't really have a standard unless everyone's using it.

There is a very real opportunity here to take over the codec scene. But first we need a completed Tarkin codec and enough content that people will begin clamouring for it to be supported by default in Quicktime and Windows Media Player.

The "playa" is a waste of time (-1)

ringbarer (545020) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999015)

Windows Media Player can play Divx files (The thieving pirate's format of choice) wihtout needing to resort to such a nasty little hack. It's especially offensive having something installed on my computer that is clearly aimed towards filthy coons and their bastardization of the English language.

They're not really human, that's why their skin's the colour of shit.

The above comment is funny (1)

lowell (66406) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999164)

mod up

Quicktime 6 Links (2, Redundant)

Metrollica (552191) | more than 12 years ago | (#2998957)

Apple Press release [apple.com]

MPEG-4 licensing plan [com.com]

Plan for fees [mpegla.com]

Re:Quicktime 6 Links (1)

FrostyWheaton (263146) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999012)

Who moderated this as redundant?

- The apple press release is information not in the article.

- The zdnet article covers the licencing scheme in more detail (the link in the story is to another slashdot article)

- The mpegla page is a more useful link to pertinent information on that site, instead of the link to the homepage provided in the article.

Is it karma whoring? maybe.
Is it informative? depends on who you ask.
Is it thin on true insight? yeah.
Should it be modded to +5 informative? nah.
Should it be modded down as Redundant? No.

None of this information is provided in the article, and no other comment so far posted (about 30) supplies this information.

Hotbot Search? (1)

Mattygfunk (517948) | more than 12 years ago | (#2998968)

Hotbot search showed 57,000+ sites with Windows Media Files, 109,100 for Real, 251,800 for QuickTime.

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.

Re:Hotbot Search? (2)

Graymalkin (13732) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999099)

Sites with content only available to links from authorized referers is going to stop search engine spiders from getting at a good percentage of porn videos on various websites. The same goes for any content protected in this fashion. Those spiders don't need to be looking at that sort of stuff anyways!

Official 9-11 Story A Lie (-1)

Commienst (102745) | more than 12 years ago | (#2998971)

Russian Air Force Chief Says
Official 9-11 Story Impossible

[Posted 13 September 2001]

As one considers the terrible events of Sept. 11 and observes U.S. media reaction, so pervasive and consistently military that it appears choreographed, doubts increase. The following is from pravda.ru, a Russian language Website (politically centrist, nationalist). In some places the English translation is confusing, so we added alternate phrasing in brackets.
- Jared Israel

[Start report from Russia] "Generally it is impossible to carry out an act of terror on the scenario which was used in the USA yesterday." This was said by the commander-in-chief of the Russian Air Force, Anatoli Kornukov. "We had such facts [i.e., events or incidents] too", - said the general straightforwardly. Kornukov did not specify what happened in Russia and when and to what extent it resembled the events in the US. He did not advise what was the end of air terrorists' attempts either.

But the fact the general said that means a lot. As it turns out the way the terrorists acted in America is not unique. The notification and control system for the air transport in Russia does not allow uncontrolled flights and leads to immediate reaction of the anti-missile defense, Kornukov said. "As soon as something like that happens here, I am reported about that right away and in a minute we are all up," - said the general. [End report from Russia.]

Pasted from: The Emperor's New Clothes [tenc.net]

Just ignore mpeg-4 ... (3, Insightful)

bani (467531) | more than 12 years ago | (#2998973)

... and contribute to work on vorbis/tarkin instead ...

Re:Just ignore mpeg-4 ... (1)

bmw (115903) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999007)

... and contribute to work on vorbis/tarkin instead ...

The "Vorbis" part of "Ogg Vorbis" actually refers specifically to audio. I can't comment on tarkin as I'm not familiar with it. You do bring up an excellent point though... Support the Ogg project [xiph.org] ! :-)

Re:Just ignore mpeg-4 ... (1)

bmw (115903) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999027)

I guess I'm deserving of a public flogging of some kind for not knowing this, or looking it up before my post, but tarkin is actually the video related Ogg project.

*bangs head on desk*

Still, supporting the entire Ogg project is definitely a Good Thing (tm).

Cheers.

Re:Just ignore mpeg-4 ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2999126)

And the "Ogg" part is a streaming media container format (similar to ASF).

i can't believe it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2998977)

i think this is the first time i have ever seen a thread that didn't have someone post about being the one to post before any others had the chance to.

sorry for the OT, just in shock.

Re:i can't believe it. (0)

rapevictim (557748) | more than 12 years ago | (#2998989)

hi :)
where'd you learn english?

and btw, wtf is up with elliott smith playing 'cupid's trick' live now? what a fucking cop-out.

HELIOCENTRIC IS GAY! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2998980)

Just thought I would spread the word that HELIOCENTRIC IS GAY and WOULD LOVE TO BE PART OF YOUR GAY ORGY. He enjoys being the BITCH and being DOMINATED. He doesn't mind TAKING IT UP THE ASS even if your member is ABOVE AVERAGE and causes him EXTREME DISCOMFORT.

The foolishness of licenced standards (3, Insightful)

FrostyWheaton (263146) | more than 12 years ago | (#2998983)

If the internet has taught anyone anything over the last 20+ years it is that closed standards, or standards that require licencing do not work . Standards are developed (or at least should be) as means to an end. Packet switching is a means to send data. Data Comression is a means to transfer data more effectively. HTML is a means to simplify and "standardize" web content.

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 (0)

omidk (3670) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999019)

I think this post should be put up for the worst written post ever. That sentence i jus write was ignant so dont mine me.

Re:The foolishness of licenced standards (2)

Nailer (69468) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999026)

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.

You mean like Ogg Tarkin? [xiph.org]

Re:The foolishness of licenced standards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2999042)


>I personally a mystified that ... MPEG ... have survived ... somehow these proprietary ...

MPEG is an _open_ standard, genius. Go look up what proprietary means one day.

>I don't pretend to be an expert on video codec's

Sure you do, you spout enough uninformed BS. But take heart, there's plenty of slashdot niggers just like you.

Re:The foolishness of licenced standards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2999122)

Ah, yes the Mystical Open Standard with a Licensing Fee! Perhaps he meant open sourced, ie. free?

Nah, you just wanted to spout some racial epithets.

Thank you for lowering the standard of society yet again.

Re:The foolishness of licenced standards (4, Insightful)

Jace of Fuse! (72042) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999111)

Open standards have reigned supreme on the internet, and nearly everywhere else, but somehow these proprietary video compression algorithms live on.

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.

But How Long Can They Do It? (1)

TALlama (462873) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999000)

Apple has to have dumped tons of cash into this project, even if MPEG-4 is based on QuickTime. So, in this economy, how long can Apple keep a leash on a potential money-maker?

Re:But How Long Can They Do It? (3, Insightful)

TheMCP (121589) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999044)

how long can Apple keep a leash on a potential money-maker?
I think what you're not getting is that Apple does not view this as a potential money-maker: they're recognizing that the licensing model is sufficiently flawed that to use it would do harm to their business goals.

So, if you want to know how long Apple can afford not to release the product, the answer is "forever": they can go with some other codec and rework the product. Then they can advertise that *their* system is free for use, unlike everyone else's.

Why wouldn't the TV model work on the net? (3, Interesting)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999008)

It seems to me that nickle and diming the customers on a per-stream basis for what they download is a very quick way to kill VoD on the internet. Seems like the Television Network approach would be much better suited. "This content comes from our sponsors."

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.

Re:Why wouldn't the TV model work on the net? (1)

Bitsy Boffin (110334) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999119)

I see primarily two reasons why you won't see (current) tv quality programming available via the net. A) Video is bandwidth hungry - broadband is a necessity and the numbers of people with broadband at home is not all that high. Not to mention the fact that the internet just couldn't *cope* with vast quanitities of people viewing broadband at once. B) Piracy. If a show is available in a digital form the networks might as well be handing it to pirates. Of course, people can just cap from TV now anyway, but it's not -readily- available. Now, it's *possible* that this could be fixed, perhaps some sort of asymettric encryption with each user getting thier own private key based on CPU ID or something - tricky though. I would like to click to pay a couple bucks to see the episode of Farscape I want to see when I want to see it as much as the next guy - but it ain't happening any time soon.

Re:Why wouldn't the TV model work on the net? (3, Interesting)

Oink.NET (551861) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999180)

It seems to me that nickle and diming the customers on a per-stream basis for what they download is a very quick way to kill VoD on the internet. Seems like the Television Network approach would be much better suited. "This content comes from our sponsors."

You're paying for your content, one way or the other. One is with your time (watching commercials), the other is with your money.

People are used to paying for content by putting up with commercials, and after you get used to it, it hardly seems like it costs you much at all. But once you make it easy enough for people to ditch the commercials entirely, you can bet many will do that. Putting content on the internet makes it that much easier for people to ditch the commercials, thereby devaluing the amount the networks get paid for each ad.

There are at least two different ways to respond to this problem: 1) pay-per-view, or 2) make sure it's not easier to ditch the commercials. Which method do you think will cost the networks more to implement and enforce?

Until they can come up with a streaming protocol that makes you sit through the ads (either through ingenious new technology, or more likely though a half-baked, legally enforced "can't break this or else" protocol), you will probably see more of these pay-per-view strategies, since they are otherwise at a loss for how to keep making the same kind of profit off their content in this new medium.

3 MILLIONTH POST IS COMING! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2999009)

The 3 millionth post is quickly approaching. So who's going to get it? Well I suggest everyone to stand back and let ME take it. Thanks!

The Irony (5, Interesting)

Saint Fnordius (456567) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999017)

Isn't it interesting that Apple was touting how MPEG-4 was going to be based off of QuickTime technologies, and now they've hit a snag based on licensing from the MPEG Group?

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...

My utopia (5, Insightful)

The Rev (18253) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999028)

I just wrote this letter to Baryn Futa [mailto] the Chief Executive Office of MPAG LA [mpegla.com] .

Dear Sirs,

I hear today that Apple is withholding it's beta release of Quicktime version 6 because of an issue that they see with your licensing of MPEG-4 technology.

I am personally extremely keen to see MPEG-4 make it into the mainstream.

I own a digital camcorder and with enough public support for MPEG-4 I look forward to the day when MPEG-4 codecs make it into domestic DVD players. Then I can send my friends & family MPEG-4 copies of my home videos on CD's (not DVDs though; well, not yet at any rate) that they can view in their own DVD players from the comfort of their couches. :-)

I also happen to be a software engineer who has worked with Philips on and using MPEG-1 technology (quite a while ago I admit) and I am continually impressed with the progress and quality of video compression technologies people such as yourselves are developing.

Apple appears (to me at least) to be the most public proponent of MPEG-4 and Microsoft have managed to get their codecs into some domestic DVD players. A situation that can only improve. Bringing MPEG-4 to the domestic DVD player market would open up an entirely new revenue stream for your licenses and I think that assisting Apple in sorting out their licensing issues will further your journey toward a utopia where MPEG-4 playback is installed on all domestic video playback hardware.

Now I suggest that we all write nice letters to Mr. Futa and press our individual opinions.

Done. (1)

The Grip Reamer (255166) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999082)

Mr. Futa,

I am writing to you regarding the licensing of your MPEG-4 technology.

While it is entirely your right to set the terms under which you will license this technology, I hope you will reconsider your plans (as I've heard them described) to charge profitable content providers an hourly rate for delivering content. This is a disincentive to deliver content.

Instead, I urge you to consider eliminating the $2 million annual cap on per company unit charges.

There should be no disincentive to broadcast if it is desired that MPEG-4 acquire proper market share. And profits on the number of units deployed should not be self-limited, unless you truly believe that it will incent more rapid and wide-spread adoption, and thereby maximize long-term profits.

I am in perpetual awe of the technology being developed for internet video. And I salute you and your group for your great accomplishments. I look forward with glee at being able to use and appreciate QuickTime 6 and its first-class MPEG-4 support.

-B...

A Logical Conundrum (-1)

YourMissionForToday (556292) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999045)

Holy Fuck! Does this mean I will have to actually start paying for my pr0n downloads??!! Oh the humanity!!!

Who should pay (5, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999067)

How about charging only members of the MPAA? If you are part of the MPAA you pay the per unit fee. It would serve them right - they all ultimately want pay-per-play of their IP, seems fair that they should have to pay the same way when they use other people's IP.

Why Apple is Pissed (5, Insightful)

2b|!2b (140353) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999070)

Apple doesn't have a problem with paying $0.25 per decoder that they ship. It's not much to pay considering the enormous amount of cash that's been sunk into developing the technologies in MPEG4.

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] .

The 25 cents per encoder/decoder (0)

Tomji (142759) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999084)

now I know why a MPEG-2 Decoder was never included in any Windows version

AAAH (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2999087)

They're gonna take all our money away! Quick, hide it under the sofa! the info police are going to take all our rights away!!

A step... (1, Interesting)

dasspunk (173846) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999101)

Although I too would prefer an open and free standard video compression, MPEG4 could still be very interesting even with the cost "per spin". The interesting thing is that we will have a format available across multiple players. This to me is headed in the right direction towards VoD (read ease of content creation/availible to more users) and may at least allow the user to choose the player they like the best. I personally will not watch anything requiring REAL player mostly because I don't like the adds in the player nor the way it confiscates (putting it mildly) mime types. If MPEG4 allows me to watch a few more movies via QuickTime, that would be lovely.

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...

CNET - $1million max (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2999129)

"Under the plan, licensees such as Apple would pay 25 cents for each MPEG-4 product, such as decoders and encoders, they ship, with fees capped at $1 million a year for each licensee. "

Is that $1million for decoders and $1million for encoders?

It's about streaming, not QT (3, Interesting)

sakusha (441986) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999132)

The licensing per minute on streamed media is the real problem here. Apple has Quicktime Streaming Server all ready to be the killer app for streaming (even live video streaming) they pride themselves on the "no server tax, no stream tax" and it's even open source. But if you have to put an odometer on the stream, and set up a backchannel for royalties to the developer, it's another barrier to entry. If they can get past this barrier, QTSS is ready to kick ass. Nobody's going to gripe about adding 25 cents (or even a buck) to the cost of a serious MacOS X Server platform with QTSS. But the stream tax is a dealbreaker.

QuickTime Live Keynote (4, Informative)

profi (29705) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999155)

I just finished watching the conference keynote [apple.com] where Apple announced QT 6. QuickTime seems to have matured tremendously over the past decade, and it looks like they're set to bring do-it-yourself video streaming to the masses.

If you've got an hour to spare you might want to watch this too.

investing in open-source software pays itself (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2999156)

if you look at apple, they could now start supporting opendivx-development. MIT people even got a live server in development...

quicktime sucks anyway with this sorenson shit - a codec you can smoke in a pipe...

Re:investing in open-source software pays itself (5, Informative)

Pathwalker (103) | more than 12 years ago | (#2999169)

quicktime sucks anyway with this sorenson shit - a codec you can smoke in a pipe...

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.

Y not DIVx? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2999173)

I mean, I know its illegal and all, but who cares? :D
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?