●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load 500 More Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byichthus ( 72442 ) writes:
What's with Apple? They had no problem paying Sorenson Media in the past. What, specifically, is wrong with Theora?
twitter
facebook
byDuradin ( 1261418 ) writes:
Royalty-free doesn't mean the patents won't cause problems down the line.
You can get GPL stuff royalty free but it can royally hose you over in its interactions with other licenses or agreements.
● threshold.
byNerdfest ( 867930 ) writes:
Theora is good enough. I'd rather have "good enough" than be stuck paying fees for 'IP' for what should be an open standard.
bygbarules2999 ( 1440265 ) writes:
'S better than Flash.
byBenanov ( 583592 ) writes:
They don't know who to pay.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bygbarules2999 ( 1440265 ) writes:
Nanny Ogg, of course!
byBillly Gates ( 198444 ) writes:
Because Apple wants to create a monopoly with file formats. Supporting Theora would lower barriers to entry for competitors running on Windows to compete with them.
byTheTurtlesMoves ( 1442727 ) writes:
Apple have patents on H.264. If I buy a license to include H.264 in my browser apple gets some of the money.
Getting a license for H.264 off MPEG-LA does *not* protect you from liability of other patents that may cover the standard that they don't have (MPEG-LA).
Apple don't have any fear of patent litigation with theroa. They want everyone using a standard they make money on.
Wait till later --when the fees go up and even content needs a charge....
bynine-times ( 778537 ) writes:
Supporting Theora would lower barriers to entry for competitors running on Windows to compete with them.
Not sure what you mean by that one. Apple's implementation of AAC and MP4 aren't always exactly the same as everyone else's, but they aren't exactly proprietary formats. I'm not sure what competitors you're talking about, but I don't see how Apple's preference for MP4 particularly hurts companies like Dell or Adobe. It hurts Microsoft, but particularly because their formats are more open than the proprietary alternative Microsoft is pushing.
bybenwaggoner ( 513209 ) writes:
It hurts Microsoft, but particularly because their formats are more open than the proprietary alternative Microsoft is pushing.
Microsoft really isn't "pushing" Windows Media that much anymore. Zune and Xbox already support MPEG-4 and H.264, as will Silverlight 3 and Windows 7.
Really, the money is in having a good flexible media platform much more than in owning one. Windows Media exists to solve problems that weren't otherwise being solved. But the chair of the committee that designed H.264 has been a Microsoft employee for the last decade.
The only company that really made a lot of money on media platform licensing has been On2
bynine-times ( 778537 ) writes:
Microsoft really isn't "pushing" Windows Media that much anymore. Zune and Xbox already support MPEG-4 and H.264, as will Silverlight 3 and Windows 7.
Well they're not pushing it too hard anymore, but that's really because they already lost on the audio side. Their hopes for locking up online music sales died when the major labels agreed to sell without DRM. Video may not be all that far behind.
Anyway, the point was never to have high licensing costs, but to build relationships with media companies while strengthening their vendor lock-in.
bybenwaggoner ( 513209 ) writes:
Well they're not pushing it too hard anymore, but that's really because they already lost on the audio side. Their hopes for locking up online music sales died when the major labels agreed to sell without DRM. Video may not be all that far behind.
Once the labels don't require DRM to release content, than the PC and devices are a healthy market for commercial music. Mission accomplished.
Having a good DRM still makes other business models possible, like ZunePass, and it's not like there's some other braodly implemented standards-based DRM as an alternative.
Generally the stuff Windows Media gets used for exclusively is stuff where there's not a viable alternative.
bynine-times ( 778537 ) writes:
Yeah, I don't know if it's worth explaining the whole thought process behind this, but basically my theory that I'm putting forward is that Microsoft had plans to dominate digital content and media distribution by pushing their formats on people.
The key to this plan was DRM and a tight little circle of vendor lock-in. Owning the OS positioned them better to guarantee support and security for the DRM. It gave them leverage to get device manufacturers to implement their standards, and it opened the possibi
bybenwaggoner ( 513209 ) writes:
...but insofar as there's no alternative, it's because Microsoft has a lock on the market. You can't really have a workable open source DRM scheme, and Apple has their own. So anyone trying to compete with Microsoft to be the DRM provider has to compete against Microsoft on their own platform.
Well, it's not like Microsoft was the only company working on DRM or with the potential to do so. Apple's had a lot of traction, but have decided not to allow any other company to publish to Fairplay. There's OMA as an open platform, and Sony's attempt with OpenMG. Adobe's DRM systems in Flash and (different one) AIR. And all of those worked and continue to work fine on Windows, of course. I'd say it's really been Apple and Adobe, and to a lesser degree Sony, really trying to build a walled garden. A
bynine-times ( 778537 ) writes:
Well, it's not like Microsoft was the only company working on DRM or with the potential to do so.
No, they were only in the unique position to push support for their DRM scheme to >90% of desktop systems without overt consumer action. Further they had greater access to their own OS security layers, meaning they could easily push DRM features into the kernel itself to make it harder to break. Why would anyone put serious effort into competing with them on Windows?
And WMDRM has always had RAND licensing; Apple could have licensed it and implemented it themselves if they were so inclined.
And why should they? "Reasonable" is in they eye of the beholder, and I can't see why a smart company would want their business model to
bybenwaggoner ( 513209 ) writes:
Why would anyone put serious effort into competing with them on Windows?
Apple did. AACS (Blu-ray) did. Whether it makes sense in theory, folks have done it in practice :). Anyway, Windows output protection etcetera APIs are documented anyway.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can even claim that in good faith. The bits can be liberated just fine without DRM. There's no way to argue that DRM isn't about trying to control distribution and use.
I don't think we're disagreeing here. Hollywood wasn't inclined to allow content to play in PCs at all unless they were comfortable with available security. They could have refused any CSS licenses for anything other than a hardened CE player with analog outputs. I don't know if that would have stopped piracy much, but it certainly wou
bynine-times ( 778537 ) writes:
Both Apple and AACS are reliant on support from platforms that Microsoft can't get their hands on. You wouldn't have FairPlay without Macs/iPods, and you wouldn't have AACS without stand-alone bluray players.
Or really, more to the point, WMA DRM isn't suitable for stand-alone players (being able to move media between non-internet-connected devices), and Apple could make their own DRM because they kicked Microsoft's ass. Microsoft was trying to establish control of online media distribution (not so much p
bybenwaggoner ( 513209 ) writes:
Both Apple and AACS are reliant on support from platforms that Microsoft can't get their hands on. You wouldn't have FairPlay without Macs/iPods, and you wouldn't have AACS without stand-alone bluray players.
Actually plenty of Blu-ray and other devices support WMDRM via DLNA or Media Extender protocols. This stuff gets deployed pretty broadly on devices you may not have ever thought of as having DRM, like phones. Most high-end Nokia phones have both WMDRM and OMA.
I'm kind of inclined to say "so what?" I mean, I understand what you're saying, and you're not wrong there, but that doesn't mean DRM was generally a positive development. As far as I'm concerned, its main effect has been to delay the development of rational business models by preserving the illusory view that media companies have that they're in a position to set their own terms.
Well, the studios could also have said "analog only!" and designed technologies that don't interoperate well with the PC ecosystem. Have you ever read the Digital Cinema Initative specs? 4096x2048 12-bit JPEG2000 using the XYZ colorspace? It's chock
bynine-times ( 778537 ) writes:
Actually plenty of Blu-ray and other devices support WMDRM via DLNA or Media Extender protocols.
Yeah, they might, but that doesn't mean the WMDRM scheme would be workable for Bluray discs themselves.
Well, the studios could also have said "analog only!" and designed technologies that don't interoperate well with the PC ecosystem.
Again, so what? People would have ripped the analog signal, encoded it, and we'd be in the same boat. They can try to make things more painful for consumers, which is what DRM already does, but that will only continue to hurt their business. People will go on finding ways to do what they want anyway, they'll avoid legitimate products more the more painful they are, and their business model will fall apa
bybenwaggoner ( 513209 ) writes:
Yeah, they might, but that doesn't mean the WMDRM scheme would be workable for Bluray discs themselves.
Nope, that's AACS. Microsoft is a participant in the group that made it, however. I beleive WMDRM is an approved DRM for transcoding from AACS, which should matter when AACS Managed Copy finally becomes avaialble.
Again, so what? People would have ripped the analog signal, encoded it, and we'd be in the same boat. They can try to make things more painful for consumers, which is what DRM already does, but that will only continue to hurt their business. People will go on finding ways to do what they want anyway, they'll avoid legitimate products more the more painful they are, and their business model will fall apart.
Yep. It's a corundrum. I'm glad not to be in that industry myself. My general advice to them has been to focus on having a higher total value than pirated content, including higher quality, better features, extras, etcetera. In order to reduce piracy, the pain of DRM should be less than the value-a
bynine-times ( 778537 ) writes:
My general advice to them has been to focus on having a higher total value than pirated content, including higher quality, better features, extras, etcetera.
I disagree. If you want it, you can find pirated content that's great quality, and any "extras" of significant value will probably end up being pirated anyway. I know sometimes they try to bundle things like "You can get early access to buy tickets!" but that only addresses the portion of your market who's feeling really eager to buy tickets and plan ahead. I don't think that portion is close to the whole market.
I think the winning strategy, in the end, is one that these companies aren't eager to consid
byIlgaz ( 86384 ) writes:
Well, we can say even Microsoft admitted H264 and MPEG4 base is there to stay no matter what they do so they declared "fallback". It is not just Microsoft, Real Networks decided on h264/AAC long time ago. The high bandwidth is aac+ and h264 based codec.
Now, something like VP3 comes which was essentially abandoned and given free, doesn`t support dozens of things h264 does, isn`t included in billions of devices in use and says "use us, we are patent free". Well, guess what? TV and Movie companies already paid
bybenwaggoner ( 513209 ) writes:
Alter Relationship on Friday July 03, @02:23AM (#28569633) Homepage
Well, we can say even Microsoft admitted H264 and MPEG4 base is there to stay no matter what they do so they declared "fallback". It is not just Microsoft, Real Networks decided on h264/AAC long time ago. The high bandwidth is aac+ and h264 based codec.
It's not that MPEG-4 is just a fallback. The fragmented MPEG-4 file format is used for Smooth Streaming, which is the premimum media experience for Silverlight.
ASF was a good design for a "bit pump" to deliver server scalability a decade ago, but fMP4 is much better to enable byte-range addressable self-contained fragments.
TV and Movie companies already paid huge sums of money to professional licensing of mpeg. In fact, you have paid too with each device you own which plays mpeg4.
H.264 licensing really isn't that expensive either. It's a small portion of the cost of the technology required for digital distribution, and the competitive effects of being an interoper
●our current threshold.
byducomputergeek ( 595742 ) writes:
To that fact, the max cap on licensing H.264 is in the neighborhood of $5M. (at least it was the last time I looked at the licensing a couple years ago) Why can't the Mozilla Foundation license it the same way that the FreeBSD Foundation licenses Java from Sun.
byTheRaven64 ( 641858 ) writes:
Why can't the Mozilla Foundation license it the same way that the FreeBSD Foundation licenses Java from Sun.
The FreeBSD foundation does not license Java from Sun. They ported the open source Java to FreeBSD and then paid for it to be certified as a compliant implementation. The Mozilla Foundation can't license H.264 because the MPEG-LA does not provide open source friendly licenses. The patent licenses do not allow sublicensing, meaning that if you get a copy of FireFox from mozilla.com and then give a friend a copy, your copy would be legal but theirs would not. This also means that no copies from distributi
byTheTurtlesMoves ( 1442727 ) writes:
Because that comes with strings attached. And thats 5M per year.
The biggest string will be no secondary distribution allowed. I would not be able to include FF in my linux distro for example.
The next biggest string is that they can change the terms anytime they want...
byVexorian ( 959249 ) writes:
My guesses:
●The whole idea of a more open web is not great for apple. The current status quo works very well for them and thus they are probably just making up excuses to avoid it to happen. Simply a method different than Microsoft's.
●They also suffer a very strong case of NIH.
●They are a little allergic to this whole "open standards" stuff, as noticeable by their OOXML support...
byRog7 ( 182880 ) writes:
Apple is already betting on H.264 and it seems they'd like to keep their cards in the same deck.
While I think we should be highly critical of that reasoning, it's not without logic. The patent risk using H.264 is spread out across multiple vendors & users who've invested deeply into it already. Theora could very well have lower risk of a submarine patent (who's to say, that'd take a crystal ball into the future), but to Apple it's a new risk on top of the risks they already have.
What Apple is essentiall
bybroken_chaos ( 1188549 ) writes:
Firefox doesn't have those pockets, they're non-profit and despite conspiracy theorists they're not really backed by Google (as in, Google doesn't have their back on this).
Mozilla Corporation's (afor-profit corporation - not to be confused with the Mozilla Foundation) major source (80%+ last I heard) of income (millions upon millions of profit) is Google. Google doesn't pay them for developing Firefox, but they have several agreements that gives MozCorp a ton of money every time a Firefox user searches on Google - such as through the search bar or through the default homepage.
Google won't support Mozilla if something goes badly - but Mozilla is pretty indebted to Google if t
byRog7 ( 182880 ) writes:
You're so busy trying to make your point, you've wandered off topic and forgot to read the essence of what I was saying:
Firefox supporting Theora doesn't equate to Google having their pockets into defending it if submarine patents surface. Your opinion on Mozilla's arrangements with Google won't change that, but go ahead and bash away on a topic that's essentially unrelated. This is why I call your ilk conspiracy theorists, because you're connecting dots that aren't there and you're so determined to draw th
bybenwaggoner ( 513209 ) writes:
I doubt they paid that much. Like On2 with VP6, Sorenson's model was to license the decoder and a consumer grade encoder on the cheap, and then make the real money by selling professional grade encoders once there was a good installed base of players.
●your current threshold.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...