On Apr 2, 2007, at 5:03 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Reasons Apple would like MPEG4 + H.264 + AAC to be the preferred
codec stack
----------
- We already need to support these for video production and
consumer electronics (so no extra patent cost to us)
I don't understand this point. There's no extra patent cost in
supporting Theora. (See below for submarine patents.)
What I mean is that unlike the case for other browser vendors, it
won't cost us anything in patent license fees.
- Every extra codec we ship is incrementally more submarine patent
risk (which could cost us hundreds of millions or billions of
dollars)
But this is not just true of video codecs. Is Apple planning to
stop shipping new software and improvements in Mac OS X because
some of it may be patented?
If you are concerned about submarine patents, I suggest that "not
shipping stuff" is not a sustainable strategy to counter them.
Obviously there is a tradeoff. Video codecs are a much more patent-
prone area than many other areas of software.
- They are technically superior to Ogg (seekable container format,
significantly better bitrate for video)
> - They are competitive with likely next-generation proprietary video
> formats
I'll let others comment on this. But I would note that JPEG2000 is
technically superior to JPEG, but hasn't been widely implemented
due to patent issues.
And due to the fact that JPEG is already universally deployed and
good enough for most uses.
- They are an open ISO standard (patents notwithstanding)
- They are widely available in hardware implementations which we
can use in our Consumer Electronics devices
- They have been chosen as a standard for 3G mobile devices, HD-
DVD, Blu-Ray, HDTV broadcast, etc
All of which ship in countable units, and (where applicable) don't
run free software.
Reasons Mozilla would like Ogg + Theora + Vorbis to be the
preferred codec stack
----------
- All known patents are royalty-free, so no need to pay $5 million
to MPEG-LA
The problem is not that it's $5 million, it's that the amount is
unknown and unmeasurable. They have no "fixed fee above a certain
number of units" licensing policy. And even if they did, a Mozilla
license wouldn't cover other members of that community.
Actually, they do have a license cap, and I overestated it. See
<http://www.mpegla.com/m4v/m4v-agreement.cfm>. It's only $1 million
for "Decoders sold to end-users and/or as fully functioning for
PCs." (This document could be out of date.)
It's not immediately clear to me that a Mozilla license would not
cover redistribution, for instance the license fees paid by OS
vendors generally cover redistribution when the OS is bundled with a
PC. I think someone would have to look at the legal language of the
agreement to see if it covers redistribution.
- Implementation would clearly be freely redistributable by third
parties (the situation might be unclear if only Mozilla paid for a
patent license)
- No demand for use fees for commercial distribution in this format.
Let me add other reasons why Mozilla (for whom, again, I am not
speaking) might want to specify Theora/Dirac:
- They have a strong commitment to interoperability
I don't think Theora (or Dirac) are inherently more interoperable
than other codecs. There's only one implementation of each so far, so
there's actually less proof of this than for other codecs.
- They appreciate that there are a wide variety of distribution
models;
for browsers, and do not want to choose technologies which work only
for some of those;
Unfortunately, Ogg does not work for some browsers either.
- If they think a royalty-free patent policy for standards is a good
idea in one place (the W3C) then they think it's a good idea
everywhere.
The problem is that the main standards bodies for video (such as the
ISO) do not have the same norms about RF vs. RAND patent licensing as
the W3C.
We think your reasons are strong and worthy of respect. That is
why we are not trying to force our codec preference on you, but
rather propose to leave this issue open. We ask you to respect our
reasons as well, rather than trying to force us to go along with
your codec preference.
>
I think achieving broader interoperability will require us to find
ways around this impasse, rather than bludgeoning each other until
one side caves.
So, just to be clear: you believe interoperability is best promoted
by having no codec specified in the spec?
I think if the spec mandates a single codec, that part of the spec
will be ignored by at least some parties.
One possibility would be an open API for codec plugins that will
work in <video>/<audio>, then user availability of codecs is not
directly tied to browser choice and codecs can compete in the
marketplace more freely.
You and I both know that this would result in dominance for
whatever codecs got shipped by default on major operating systems.
Content producers will not choose codecs for 5 or 10% better
quality or bitrate, they will choose them for user convenience -
because if their site is harder to use than their competitors,
they'll fail.
Isn't this basically admitting that Ogg Theora would fail in the
market if not legislated in the spec? Still, I would not be so sure
of your conclusion. The bitrate differences among current codecs have
a range of 2x or 4x, not just 10%. Also, Mozilla supporting Ogg would
probably carry more weight than Safari supporting Mac OS X, since
default or not, it has greater overall use share.
As codecs are binary components, the site wanting to use foo-codec
would need to provide versions of it for every operating system
they planned to support. For Linux, that would be rather
complicated, to say the least. They might not even bother offering
it for Mac, or Mac PPC. This would discriminate against operating
systems with smaller market shares.
Another possibility would be to get MPEG-LA to change licensing
terms somehow.
I'm sure that any help Apple would be able to give in this area
would be much appreciated. How do you suggest we begin?
One good first step might be for someone to obtain a copy of the
existing license terms and determine how they would apply to a freely
redistributable product.
Yet another possibility is that one codec stack will become so
popular that all parties will feel compelled to implement it
despite their reasons against.
You again assume that only recalcitrance prevents some parties
implementing any particular codec stack. As I understand the
situation, Firefox would have to stop being free software in order
to ship an MPEG4 implementation.
I don't think that is true, but it would depend on the details of the
MPEG-LA license agreement. Also, at most the MPEG4 implementation
would not be free software, this would not have to affect the rest of
Firefox.
Regards,
Maciej
