Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Stefan Schreiber <st...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:
This is a typical FUD approach presentend by the competition.
If I have anything to say about, I'd say that any Ambisonis based approach
would be "patent-light", iof not patent-free.
You confirm precisely the concern I raised: The result would likely be
a royalty bearing format. How can you accuse me of FUD while
concurrently affirming the concern I raised?
Sorry, I didn't want to be "personal". I trust persons, but I don't
trust companies. Is this statement "ok" for you?
If people believe there is a market for ambisonic distribution which
has less than lossless quality but only if the bitrate is low enough
then the parties who would profit from that should cooperate to
produce a royalty free format so that their success will not be
saddled with additional friction which will keep ambisonics in a
niche. AAC + mpeg surround licensing costs over $1 decoder unit— to be
added on top of the additional hardware costs (more DSP cpu cycles)
required. Because the market for this technology barely exists the
licensing costs could quite possibly keep it in a non-existing state.
I think surround advocates would very much like it if support ended up
in everything because the cost of doing so is only a modest hardware
bump and some one time integration and testing costs. Per-unit
royalties or even just the cost of negotiating a flat rate license
strongly discourage deployment.
Don't want to sound rude (again...), but I think this is a
pseudo-problem. Surround headphones and "many speakers" for 3D audio
will cost a bit more than normal headphones and 5.1 speakers (in cinemas
you have a lot of speakers anyway...), so there will be some price
increase. Undisclosured licensing fees if they exist don't seem to be
the main cost factor, IMHO.
Interest the people in doing something "cool", don't think about the
pennies or few dollars for some patent, which < might > be involved. (3D
audio and "real surround" has to fit to movies/games etc.)
People have just been very interested in 4K and/or OLED panels (CES),
which currently are outrageously expensive. But prices will come down,
like always. Talking about cinema surround and new headphones, I would
say the involved costs don't look prohibitive as long as you see/hear
results and don't end with 10+ different standards. (Iosono - as a
company - seems to do quite well, and WFS doesn't seem to be cheap.)
Dolby Atmos and Auro-3D are also not IP or patent-free, just to remember.
In some markets like support in web browsers or in Free software which
are distributed at no direct cost any royalty at all is a major or
absolute barrier.
This is why only MP3/AAC and AVC are universally supported? May this be
Firefox/IE/Chrome/Safari, or the still widely used Flash-plugin...
Also not "personal", but I am increasingly getting tired of all these
"we need some free codec" discussions. Theora is outfashioned.WebM never
made it because AVC is simply better, and seems to be free completelty
for personal use. (And after all the FUD from certain circles...)
If it < doesn't > cost to include AVC and AAC into web browsers/plugins
etc., maybe it is/was about Open Source principles? (Any discussion
leads to nothing, because I tend to see this in a pragmatic way. For
others it is about "open lifestyle". The same people still buy an iPhone
or an Android phone, both OS environments definitively not "open". Linux
admittedly is.)
I think it would be irrational for anyone who wants there to be a
market for this to contribute to the development of a royalty bearing
effort. You may disagree, but I still do not think it should be a
concern which goes without mention. If pointing to an elephant in the
room makes me guilty of FUD then so be it.
I agree to use as few patents as possible. But I don't agree to avoid
some patent which might improve things a lot if you save just the
mentioned "pennies". Do we want some open standard or the best standard?
Inventions are supposed to improve things. After this I have to care for
licensed, open and hidden costs etc.
But if I am at this point: The MPEG is introducing standards which are
supposed to be "best in class". (see HEVC)
Consequently, I don't think they care a lot if patents are included. On
the other hand, Mpeg codecs seem to have some track record to be
reasonably priced, otherwise they wouldn't be used everywhere.
P.S.: 1st order Ambisonics should be patent-free, nowadays.
Higher orders can't be "overpatented", because the theory behind is quite
old. Certainly more than 20 years back...
Yes, they are _now_.
If so, there is competition, and IP owners certainly can't charge
whatever they want. (As a patent holder, you want your patent actually
to be applied. )
I think it would be a shame to revert ambisonics
back to the bad— harder to deploy— state where including support for
the distribution format required unfortunate per-unit or
per-organization royalties and burdensome license negotiation.
It is hard to patent a file format. If hardware decoders are concerned,
MP3, AAC, Dolby Digital and DTS "made" it.
P.S. 2: And I for my part didn't patent "Ambisonics of order >=2 + front
channels"... Promised! :-D
Thank you for not being personally evil. :P
In any case, we probably agree. The difference is that I don't believe
that in this case patents will matter a lot.
IF there will be some 3D audio patent fee, it will be for handset
makers/headpone makers etc. But don't worry about Apple or Samsung, they
won't die.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One simple suggestion: Why don't you or Orange or whoever just file some
proposal (there is still time), and don't worry about the patents
question? (This is actually MPEG's task.)
The IETF or Xiph.org would probably demand something completely
patent-free. Think that the "next generation surround" is something like
MP3 or DD+. The first codec is an MPEG standard, the second is owned by
Dolby. By any interpretation or say "standard" :-) , MP3 is more open
than DD+. (Known technological base.)
Best regards,
Stefan
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
