What is Digg?73 Comments
- threethirty, on 12/11/2007, -4/+44ok lets look at their list:
1. W3C shouldn't make any standards relating to codecs. Leave that to other standards bodies like ITU-T and ISO/IEC.
*But the W3C is the standards body for the web not ITU-T and ISO/IEC, those 2 have no "jurisdiction" (I guess that word will do)
2. There are over a billion PCs in the world today, many connected to the web, but these numbers are tiny compared to traditional video playback devices like DVD players.
*DVD players have nothing to do with the web.
3. This industry is used to paying license fees and royalties for video codecs like MPEG-2.
* yeah and I'm sure they would be heartbroken to save money
4. This industry is used to making money, and it doesn't care about keeping things free.
*Free Software refers to freedom, not money. Think Free Speech, not Free Beer.
5. Web codec standards should be either free or low-cost to implement.
*see number 3
6. Web codec standards should support DRM to placate Hollywood, but DRM implementations should be optional.
*there hasn't been DRM on the Web so far (that I know of), and if they wanted to, the spec is in the Public Domian http://www.vorbis.com/faq/
7. H.264 for video and AAC for audio would be Nokia's recommendations for codecs.
*what in the hell do they have against Linux. If you standardize on those two the web will suck for Free Software fans for at least the next two years. x.264 is fairly stable and complete, but I don't about AAC - fkr3, on 12/11/2007, -9/+37Why does Nokia even care what the W3C says, they take irrelevancy to whole new levels. The W3C can pick any codec they want, unless they choose one that's already widely used (Flash, Quicktime, DivX, Xvid etc) nothing will change.
- justinjstark, on 12/11/2007, -1/+28These are the disturbing points.
4. This industry is used to making money, and it doesn't care about keeping things free.
6. Web codec standards should support DRM to placate Hollywood, but DRM implementations should be optional.
7. H.264 for video and AAC for audio would be Nokia's recommendations for codecs.
Screw you nokia. - squidy, on 12/11/2007, -1/+25HTML5 has media tags which allow the browser to directly play a audio/video file without a plugin (RealPlayer or flash...). But to make this feature appealing, it has to have a codec working on all browser. Ogg, which is open, seems a natural choice.
- streak, on 12/11/2007, -7/+27Why, because Nokia sucks.
- JasonCox, on 12/11/2007, -8/+27What the heck does Ogg have to do with HTML5?
- squidy, on 12/11/2007, -1/+14For your information, QuickTime and Flash aren't codecs lol The problem resides in choosing a codec that is free from patents, that is a whole different story.
- Fordi, on 12/11/2007, -1/+11It doesn't exist. The best option is to pick the one that is least hindered by licensing issues - which is Ogg the Vorbis/Theora streaming pair. Mostly, I'll bet Nokia's just pissed off they wouldn't be able to just write a HTML5 browser that would both standards compliant AND DRM capable. Sorry, but that's what it looks like this is mostly about, not patent issues.
- Midnitte, on 12/11/2007, -0/+8I agree, in fact lets only sell proprietary Dell computers and Windows. Obviously open source doesnt work (look at linux servers /joke) so proprietary must work (see Creative's drivers /joke).
- MWeather, on 12/11/2007, -0/+6Maybe I want to license the entire HTML 5 spec. Let's just make it all proprietary.
- brownspank, on 12/11/2007, -2/+8How about... not all of us are front page campers? We have more important ***** to do than monitor Digg's top stories all day long?
- MikeFromAmerica, on 12/11/2007, -0/+5That's freakin wonderful. You know the first people to take advantage of that feature will be the banner advertisers.
- timdorr, on 12/11/2007, -0/+5Except Theora is an old-ass standard that would set video streaming back from what's already offered with Flash (especially now that H.264 is being included). It's ON2's rejected VP3 standard (they're on VP8 now, btw) that they donated to Xiph.org because it's too ***** to be commercially viable. Nokia's got the right idea, just with some stupid points being put forward.
Ideally, we'd go with an H.264/AAC combo. But that's got the biggest licensing issues to deal with. - Fordi, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4Except the patents in quesion re theora are free-to-use licensed. IE: Patened, but free.
- willfe, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4There is absolutely zero requirement (or desire) for the spec body to "build in" opportunities for people to make money with proprietary codecs. If you want to make money with a proprietary codec, it should try to compete on performance, features, quality, etc., and not rely upon "HTML5 spec says you have to use me, muahahaha!"
- drakia, on 12/11/2007, -4/+8How the ***** did you get WoW from W3C? I mean, WC3 would be pushing it, but WoW? You must be on some ***** up ***** right now.
- DestroyFascism, on 12/11/2007, -1/+4HTML is for everyone! Go FU Nokia! (Not upgrading phone for 2 years now,,,,)
- infwonder, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3"Nokia wants W3C to remove Ogg from upcoming HTML5 standard"
For what? So that they can introduce its own DRMed format and restrict our freedom on mobile phones? How could Nokia ends up doing things like this? I think this company has lost its mind due to impacts from both iphone and android... - skyteria, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3No.
- Alex2, on 12/11/2007, -1/+4I agree with point 1. If ogg gets added to html5, thwn what about people adding proprietary codecs. Maybe I want to invent a super lossless compression codec for video for PROFIT.. i'd want in on the HMTL5 action as well. 2. With Blu Ray and HD-DVD, dvd players will be having additional web based content available from the 'extra features' menu. I'm sure that a producer of content would want to give extra features over the web for users who have bought an authentic HD-DVD.
- swazo, on 12/11/2007, -3/+6Hah, I was literally just going to go out tomorrow to buy a Nokia E70.
Not anymore :) - Fordi, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3Yeah. You go, you megacorp. Break down that low-exposure open-source group. Their time-donating ways shall not impinge on your associates' greed any further!
- fkr3, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3I guess nobody figured "boingboing" would actually be worth looking at for anything non-frivolous.
- lerker, on 12/11/2007, -1/+4Read the article. A third of it is devoted to explaining that they're not talking about Ogg Vorbis.
- poisonborz, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2"Some of these statements seem to contradict each other, and indeed the entire paper is full of questionable material: there are spelling errors (distriubuted?), emoticons ("dare we mentoned Flash :-)"
Fake, no corporate material, especially not of Nokia's would be styled like that. - chris9902, on 12/11/2007, -1/+3I agree. I have a real problem with some of the naming conventions in the open-source world.
Nobody is going to listen if you say we should use ogg or gimp. It's just stupid. - HappyScrappy, on 12/11/2007, -1/+3Don't sweat it. H.264 will remain tops on mobile device (like Nokia makes) because that's what's in the chips that the mobile devices use. They don't have 3GHz processors, so they can't just throw CPU software decode at the problem. If the video isn't in H.264 or another form of MPEG-4 (like DivX), they just can't play it.
- tikistyle, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2My wife works for On2, the company supplying the codec inside the Theora/Ogg video. The VP3 codec is, at best, mediocre. Their newest, VP8 (yeah, vp3 is OLD), is very impressive, but that's besides the point. Why wouldn't standards suggest a modern and new codec, like X.264?
- Fordi, on 12/11/2007, -1/+3I don't know. If W3C is strictly talking about supporting OGG (the container), or talking about supporting XIPH codec/container set as a minimum spec (a total of about 220k of code, uncompiled), I don't see the problem. You can pack anything within OGG, Theora is valid within MPEG-TS, etc, etc. That also means that you can pack, for example, a DRM-infected mpeg-4/aac stream within an OGG file, as license handling would occur within the system's codec.
Also, since mpeg 4, aac, mp3, h.264, ad inf, are globally supported in all modern OS's video systems (whether by download or built in), there's no problem here.
Hell, including a full VLC/MPlayer stack in a browser is only about 9M of code when compiled. Seems like alot, but worth it if you don't have to deal with relying on the system's codec set for most video.
Though, given that Helix/RealPlayer is almost completely open these days, I wonder why the W3C isn't considering them (you know, besides the fact that realmedia sucks ass) - geminitojanus, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2"And in this case there's pretty good evidence it is covered by patents."
Every video codec on the planet is absolutely drenched in patents due to the fact that every company that could possibly do so in the mid 90s, did so, just so they could surface submarines today and start making billions left and right.
However, even as Theora is known to have patents filed against it, those patents were given to Xiph under an __UNREVOKABLE__ patent license, and Xiph has given the world access to this patent license for free; there is no IP problem here, just some engineer-turned-lawyer issuing an official statement on Nokia's behalf while being an absolute moron about the encoding scheme itself.
The reason why Nokia (and Apple) want H.264 and not Theora is plainly because Theora sucks, which is the other side of this sword. H.264 is a much better video encoder, but it also costs an absolute fortune to license, and there are dozens of companies with patents (vs just the one, irrevokable license with Theora).
So the end-all point is, the W3C is right to choose Theora if they want something that can be implemented in any browser by anyone for free. They're wrong in choosing it if they want a codec that doesn't look like stunning crap. But, the web is about Freedom, and thusly Theora should be tolerated. - ilgaz, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1Ogg Theora Video codec is an abandoned, old VPC codec.
When will people understand this sad fact? I am not touching someones old, abandoned codec just because of some GNU fantasy. Mpeg4/ASP and H264 is there, documented, open source supported. - bradleyland, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1IMO, this is just begging for Eolas part II. The problem with audio and video codecs is that no one really knows if they're safe from patent infringement until investigating said infringement is fiscally viable. A patent holder has no obligation to review every codec in existence and notify them of their infringement. Some ***** could sit back, wait for vendors to roll OGG/Theora in to their browsers, then slap everyone with a law suit, a la Eolas vs. Microsoft.
- ilgaz, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1I heard 4 Nokia engineers committed suicide after reading your comment.
- inactive, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1Or you didn't see the same damn story 3 articles down?
- Atomic1fire, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1the w3 should have control directly related to its juristiction
if its going to have music playing tags
then it has that for its juristiction because it refers directly to html
nokia cant stop it - gsnedders, on 12/11/2007, -1/+2I'm sure parent meant patents outwith the ones which were given under a irrevocable RF license to Xiph, which are known to exist. These aren't covered by any RF license, and you'd need to pay to use them. Of course, nobody is going to sue anyone until a major international company implements it so they can make the most money.
- worthone, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Is "Web Architecture and Codec Considerations for Audio-Visual" supposed to be a public paper? It has certainly not been published at the author's original site (http://www.stewe.org/). Also, I have a hard time believing this paper is made by Stephan Wenger, considering his CV (http://www.stewe.org/cv-business-wenger.pdf). And what with the heated reactions above, I suspect the purpose of this forgery was merely to smear the Nokia brand.
- Atomic1fire, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1r i p is your best buddy
firefox users should employ the use of that and adblock - ilgaz, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1They don't want upcoming standard to be bastardized by some nerd fantasies and become another failure. They want a pure web standard having nothing to do with some nerd codec fights so everyone will take it serious.
- Atomic1fire, on 12/12/2007, -0/+1use of the format
the open community as a whole
as soon is it says no you cant the video games groups will leave
the open community will devise its own format and ogg will fade into uselessness - gpcprog, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1I used to like Nokia.
- poonaka, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1mp3 ftw!
- Danikar, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1In reply to number 7, the problem they have with OGG is that AAC is somewhat their format.
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/technologies/aac/
Basically, if anyone was wondering, if it is not obvious already, this is about Nokia losing money on their proprietary format and trying to smear Open Source formats. - nazsco, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1In other news: Microsoft completely disregards w3c and just opens a win media player activeX that only plays DRMed WMV files. Nokia goes out of the software business and now license windows mobile for their hardware.
- smek2, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Emoticons and typos. Way to go Nokia.
- Tippis, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1The question is (and I'm asking because I don't know): what is there to keep Xiph from changing the license?
- worthone, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Did you ever come to realize that you could use a bit of media criticism? I mean, just how do you know the publication is authentic?
- blanktarget, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1While I could care less what Nokia demands or thinks is best, who really cares about ogg? Are there any other free standards? I've only ever seen a handful at best of .ogg files in my lifetime.
- Tippis, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1The problem is that Theora might be the least hindered *now*, but if it takes off (and if it becomes a W3C sanctioned standard, chances are that it will), then there is no telling how those licenses will change.
- Fordi, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1Oh. Go with the cheap ones, then. I almost always own cheap nokias. Built like little tanks.
-
Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is