Slashdot Mirror
More on MPEG4
ratajik writes: "Salon is running a story
about how MPEG-LA (the alliance of companies in charge of licensing MPEG4) are
planning on charging .25 cents for each copy they sell, and a .02 cent an hour
"use fee" for anyone viewing MPEG4. They have a interesting
slant on how this will make open-source alternatives much more attractive, and
will likely kill off use of the MPEG4 standard in the long run."
free porn in high resolution. :(
I don't know about you, but everything that I find to be popular is popular because it is either free, or easy to pirate (free). I'd rather buy a DVD than pay for some software copy of it.
Or maybe use MPEG-4 for defragging!
Obviously the writer knows nothing about Doom3.
I have been working with a company that provides turn-key encoding solutions and the licensing issues with MPEG 4 are what has been delaying the next release of Quickimte (for those of us who like to watch trailers on Apple's Trailer site)
My little Universe is cool for the people who can fit inside it (being 250 6'4" there aren't that many who can)
How the hell are they going to measure "viewing time"? What if I sneeze and briefly aren't looking at the video, do they charge me for that?
Buncha bullcrap. I'm tired of this crap that tries to wring money out of you for time spent doing something. Subscription software, pay-per-minute viewing/listening, and the like.
What next, the state is going to charge me for every minute I'm on the freeway?
I've got an idea. Let's make a computer that charges me $.02/minute for as long as I'm sitting in front of it.
I just wish more people would get sick of this crap, and write their congressman as I have done. There are too many idiots out there who just miss everything as it goes on by.
I bet they care when they get thier first bill for per-minute charges of movie viewing. By then, it'll be too late.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Aren't these people cute? This is the log from yesterday's irc chat when they were discussing the article, irc.openprojects.net #vorbis
/ index.html :) .ogg last night :-) :) :) :) /. for you
[14:05:00] {Paradox} jesus
[14:06:23] {Paradox} Hey, kids
[14:07:33] {slothy} hey para
[14:07:45] {Paradox} You want to see something that rocks?
[14:07:50] {slothy} absolutely
[14:07:52] {Paradox} http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/03/06/mpeg
[14:09:10] {slothy} oh wow, this is great
[14:09:27] {Paradox} Jesus Christ, I nailed that one.
[14:10:17] {Paradox} I even got the last word in on the article.
[14:11:13] {Paradox} This is exactly the article I wanted to see written.
[14:17:58] {nemo} Paradox: the article seems to imply/assume that the other codecs, even if they gain popular usage, will still be technically inferior to mpeg4 though.
[14:18:16] {nemo} not the point of hte article, I know... but still vaguelly taints an otherwise great article
[14:19:58] {Paradox} I like the article a lot
[14:21:25] {nemo} I agree. it's very good
[14:22:16] {Paradox} It gets the right message out
[14:22:31] {Paradox} He didn't quote what I wanted him to quote, but I gave him plenty of stuff
[14:23:24] {nemo} *nods* it's a good article. need more like it
[14:26:37] {Paradox} At least it gets Xiph's name out there in the news
[14:27:14] {xiphmont} yes
[14:27:19] {xiphmont} agreed, a good article.
[14:28:20] {aaronl} wow, they used ogg in Serious Sam?
[14:32:28] {vsync} i ripped a CD to
[14:32:40] {vsync} first time in quite a while
[14:32:52] {pladask} aaronl: what? where did you hear that?
[14:33:14] {vsync} Paradox: you've inspired confidence in me
[14:33:53] {Paradox} Good!
[14:34:03] {Paradox} Confidence in me, or confidence in you?
[14:34:15] {vsync} but this all means nothing until i _can_ actually play my files
[14:34:26] {vsync} Paradox: in you guys
[14:35:14] {Paradox} That's good to hear
[14:36:03] {Paradox} Wow, Cube coming tomorrow, my office is clean, and a good Salon article. I'll sleep well tonight.
[14:37:22] {jack} heh
[14:39:53] {Paradox} I have a hair appointment tomorrow
[14:40:07] {Paradox} at 1:45 EST
[14:40:20] {Paradox} I don't want to go, it'll keep me apart from my new toy
[14:40:34] {vsync} i wish i was a CEO of something and could have "hair appointments" and get interviewed
[14:40:37] {vsync} and have an "office"
[14:40:44] {Paradox} hah
[14:40:53] {vsync} Paradox: you guys should hire me
[14:40:56] {Paradox} My office is the extra bedroom in my apartment
[14:41:06] {vsync} to write propaganda
[14:41:09] {volsung} vsync: You just want the G4 cube...
[14:41:11] {vsync} spread FUD on
[14:41:11] {vsync} etc
[14:41:15] {Paradox} Tell you what.. I'll give you half of my paycheck from Xiph.org this week
[14:41:16] * Coderjoe pukes
This won't fly. No one will buy into it. Hell, Apple has already said that they won't release Quicktime 6 until the per use fees go away. I seriously doubt Apple will be the only one to puke on the fees.
SIGFEH
How about immediatly? I can't immagine anyone paying... and just how do they expect to monitor and people and figure out how many hours people are watching on their own machines?
Anyone know how this will affect DivX, wmf, and other codecs out there that are based on mp4?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
From what I recall, there was some discussion about the on2's vp# formats in terms of how free they are. As I remember, there were some limitations and restrictions on using the format (one had to do with keeping all encoders file-compatible with the standard.) and I think they charge for commercial uses of vp4 and vp5 or something....
Does anyone with more experience analysing legalese know how VP3.2 license stands up as "free/open" software?
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
MPEG-4 is a complete mess. It tries to be the next generation MPEG-2, flash, speech synthesis, content management, and a lot more things all rolled into one. And MPEG-4 tries to serve too many masters: software encoders and decoders, consumer electronics devices, industrial applications, multimedia databases, and others. If MPEG-LA prices MPEG-4 out of the market, we can all sigh a collective sigh of relief because the MPEG-4 standard just sucks. MPEG-4 would be a bad idea even if there were no licensing fees.
What we need is a simple, scalable video codec. It does not have to have any bells and whistles. All it needs to do is represent a video stream and a collection of audio streams together. It should get rid of the interlacing mess from MPEG-2, it should allow for video of different sizes, and maybe it should allow for the inclusion of user-defined synchronized byte streams, and that's about it.
Open source video codec developers do not have to worry about low-level hardware implementability (that only matters for cut-throat pricing on devices you don't really want to use anyway; anything else can get a general-purpose processor), they don't have to worry about making DVD manufacturers happy, and they don't need to squeeze the last 50% of compression out of their format (machines and disks are cheap). There are now plenty of well-documented research techniques for audio and video compression, some even with open source implementation, that open source developers can use.
So, no, nobody would be able to compete with MPEG-4. But what open source video codecs can deliver is a simple, reasonably efficient, scalable, easily implementable video codec. And that's a lot better than MPEG-4.
I'd be surprised if all this works out. Its an obvious attempt to capitalize on a good technology. I'm not saying its wrong, but it will be difficult. Since most people have broadband it seems, sites will likely stick with alternative types. I know I'm recapping what a lot of people are saying, but its another drop in the 'against' pool.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
As often happens, MPEG-4 will undoubtedly be widely adopted for standardisation reasons alone. Unfortunately this fact can't be changed, so we all have to look at the pros and cons of this format and compensate accordingly.
The MPEG-4 video compression algorithm employs two base techniques: block-based motion compensation for reduction of temporal redundancy, and transform-domain, or DCT, coding for reduction of spatial-redundancy. The motion compensation technique is applied both in the forward (causal) and backward (non-causal) direction. The remaining signal (prediction error) is coded using the transform based technique. The motion predictors, or motion vectors, are transmitted together with the spatial information.There are several problems with the motion vector implementation in MPEG-4, which could lead to less than optimal compression/quality ratios, but overall the new features included in the MPEG-4 format itself compensate for this loss somewhat, or at least, that's what the MPEG proponents hope. A lot of people will have no choice but to use the format, but if enough companies break away from it, it could lead to a situation where the acceptance threshold is reached for competing format.
Should be interesting times ahead.cheers,
Steven WostoenLead Programmer,
J-j-j-julius Games
~shiny
WILL HACK FOR $$$
You don't actually send the video over the net in a multiplayer fps, you're sending like locations and vectors and shit. Did you think that a host computer processed all the video, compressed and then sent it to the others like a movie? That's just sad...
Or would you prefer EVERYTHING be rendered on the fly?
In the case of games, in a word, yes. Given the capablilities of the GeForce3 and GeForce4 Ti series and the Radeon 8500 with regards to DirectX 8.1 it shouldn't be that hard to do. Hell even a GeForce2 is overkill for the vast majority of todays games anyway. If you're looking for a good video codec then look no further than XviD or in the future, Tarkin. (Or DivX 3.11 if your into super awsome but illegal codecs.)
MPEG4 is essientally a super snazy version of flash for high quality video. Think about it. It is trying to make many different types of interactive media available on a wide range of platforms simultaneously. It's an attampt to make a single proprietary format that does everything. This is exactly what flash does/is trying to do. True, MPEG4 actually has uses beyond annoying banner ads but it is essentialy the same sort of idea. Just as flash can be surpassed by XML/CSS/DHTML so MPEG4 can be surpassed by XviD/Tarkin and OGG. The reason is because these alternatives fufill the primary purpose of flash and MPEG4, interactive web content and video/audio compression respectively while being free, open, stable, and universal. Yes the flash/MPEG4 paradigm provides cleaner intigration and a nicer package from a development standpoint but when lisenceing costs are factored in the open alternatives win hands down.
We're going to make information free Mr. Anderson, whether you like it, or not.
Will users be charged for viewing MPEG4 content if streaming is not involved? I hope not. Getting users accustomed to paying for MPEG4 content regardless of how it's delivered is a small step away from getting users accustomed to paying usage fees for all content.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
If software manufacturers resort to metering use of MPEG4 codecs as a way to calculate license fees, monitoring viewing habits as an "unaviodable" side-effect is just a small step away.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Lessons like:
There is not one example where micropayments created a profit
People aren't gonna start paying for something that they can have for free and that they always used to have for free
You can't possibly expect that your product will be The Final® and that nobody will ever come up with an even better solution way before you've recouped your investments.
Until companies learn this, there will always be some initiative to try and make money of things that will never be profitable. We've seen this with JPG, where as a result a lot of websites are switching to PGN, and now we will see this again with MPEG4.
Face the facts: things need to be scarce in order to make money of them. E.g. you can't sell air when you're outdoors. You can sell air to a colony on mars or to scubadivers. Likewise: you can't sell digital content because it cannot be made scarce once it's accessible on a PC. Infinite copies can and will be made. And again for al the corporations out there that try to make money of patenting hyperlinks: Whatever you're patent is, it will be copied (or remade or rebuilt or re-engineered or ...) and you will loose the money you invested.
<Sig>The good thing about having a good memory is ... euh
Its significant to note that Apple seems to be fairly confident that theyll be able to turn MPEG-LAs head and ditch the per-use royalties. Apple is happy with the per-copy charges, though, so I'm not sure what the implications are for open source MPEG-4 implementations.
Apples QuickTime 6 press release
The press release does a pretty good job at describing the situation. Apple is also encouraging everyone to send their (constructive) views on the issue to licensing@mpegla.com.
Marko Karppinen
Another fair idea killed by greedy, stupid suits.
No biggie. The available bandwidth maked the need for it moot anyway.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Furthermore, businesses like the gas company and the phone company that use micropayments offline share one characteristic: They are all monopolies or cartels. In situations where there is real competition, providers are usually forced to drop "pay as you go" schemes in response to user preference, because if they don't, anyone who can offer flat-rate pricing becomes the market leader. (See sidebar: "Simplicity in pricing.")
When gas, electric and water companies began, they were in most cases launched as publicly-owned monopolies. But the continued acceptance of their use of micropayment today is not only because they're monopolies, but also because a lot of politicians (and even some consumers) realise that people will make unlimited use of a finte resource, if it's charged at flat-rate. OTOH, most people will conserve electricity / water / gas if it saves them money to do so.
When phone companies' backbone capacity shot up a few years ago following changes in technology, they began to move (or were pressured/forced by regulators to move) to flat-rate charging for some services, since there was no longer a pressing economic need to moderate usage.
But the finite-resource argument does not apply with micropayment for services like the ones you mentioned above (FirstVirtual, Millicent etc.), and certainly does NOT apply to movies and music from a local CD. It's important to moderate the use of finite physical resources, but not of infinite resources like idea playback or entertainment playback. That's just naked, stupid greed.
No-one's complaining about paying $500 for dedicated PVR's instead of mpeg-4 on their PC's. Compared to the money people want to pay for convenience the royalty on the codec is nothing. Then of course, no-one ever complained about the fees for video on demand either. Is the .02/hour use fee really going to force people to give up their $60/hour wireless connection to watch it on a PC?
They agreed earlier this week on specifications for HD-DVD playback and recordable formats, and it is very possible that MPEG4 will be eliminated from the equation entirely. Check out: http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/OEG20020301S0091 I'm sure they are waiting for the announcement this summer on the "true" cost of the licensing before they pull the trigger, but it looks like MPEG2 will be the standard for HD-DVD recorders, and MPEG2 could remain the standard for HD-DVD playback.
In short, "Open source has two advantages," he says. "First, it doesn't cost anything. Second, you don't need approval to toy with it -- you don't have to ask permission to go to the bathroom."
:)
I don't have to ask for permission to piss on proprietary standards, thank you
The two cents per hour charge is applied to the producer of the content, not the consumer.
The questions about how this additional charge would be audited is one of the major points that Apple and others have raised. None of them are happy with this, as it makes it difficult for their customers to make use of the technology.
* As is generally the case, my opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
After the previous /. article about MPEG4, I wrote to licensing@mpegla.com and said "if you want Windows Media to win the streaming war, then keep the per-use fee". Much to my amazement, they sent back a reply that was actually relevant to my concerns. It wasn't the answer I wanted, but at least they have good form letters.
Received: from massive.mpegla.com ([12.41.161.2]) by mx2del.umbc.eduX-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4417.0
Subject: Your Recent Email
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:41:04 -0700
From: "MPEG-4 Visual Licensing" <MPEG-4VisualLicensing@mpegla.com>
Thanks for sharing your views with us regarding the reported MPEG-4 Visual licensing terms and your interest in using the MPEG-4 Visual Standard. I know this email may sound like a canned response, but since you took the time to write to us and others who wrote us raised similar concerns, we wanted to get back to you (and the others) to explain the situation. We understand that you have strong feelings about the MPEG-4 Visual licensing terms based on what you've heard, and we welcome your feedback. The license agreement is still in the process of being worked out, your views are important to us, and they will be taken into consideration. Similarly, I hope you will allow us this opportunity to clarify a few things that may have been misunderstood and to explain where this goes from here.
First, we would like to clarify the role of MPEG LA. MPEG LA's business is to make it possible for new technologies (like MPEG-4 Video) to enter the marketplace by making the essential intellectual property rights owned by many patent owners accessible to everyone on fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory terms under a single license. If there were no MPEG LA, the essential patent rights that made the MPEG-4 Visual technology possible would still have to be dealt with, but instead of having the opportunity to deal with one company for a single license that includes those rights, users' only option would be to deal with each patent holder individually. With MPEG LA, the marketplace is assured of ready access to MPEG-4 Visual essential patents owned by 18 different companies (soon there will be more, but our goal is to include as many essential patents as possible in one license; therefore, royalty rates will not increase during the term of the agreement even as new patent owners and more patents are included). What you've seen is the first step in that process.
We understand that the success of a licensing program relies on the success of the underlying technology. Therefore, our goal, like yours, is to promote the widest possible use of the MPEG-4 Visual standard, and we are sensitive to the need to structure a reasonable license that is consistent with marketplace conditions. To that end, we continue to work with the patent owners to assure that the license is responsive. Everything is in a state of constant review. If something isn't right, every effort is made to fix it. Because of MPEG LA's role, you have the opportunity to discuss your concerns with us, and we in turn can communicate them to the patent owners. We note that there are many different views to be considered, however, and that ultimately the marketplace will decide. We note also that there may be many reasons (having nothing to do with licensing terms) why someone may delay a product introduction or choose among competing alternatives. And, it would be a mistake to assume that any alternative is or will be free of patent licensing obligations or without additional charges of its own.
Finally, we understand that you do not agree with the implementation of a use fee. Given the nature of MPEG-4 Visual technology and the importance of encouraging the wide availability of MPEG-4 Visual decoders and encoders in the market, the patent owners' intention was that reasonable royalties should be shared among industry participants across the entire product chain and applies equally to both wired and wireless services (especially as the ability to distinguish between them disappears). The philosophy underlying the use fee was intended to be consistent with the expected flow of MPEG-4 video transactions so that those who can pay will and those who can't aren't expected to: thus, the use royalties to be paid by service providers are tied to remuneration - if service providers or content providers are paid for offering or providing MPEG-4 video, then patent holders are paid for the use of their patents; if service providers or content providers are not paid for offering or providing MPEG-4 video, then patent owners are not paid for the use of their patents. The entire license including the use fee, its application to broadcast/cablecast/multichannel environments, etc., is under study and will be the subject of further discussion.
This is just the beginning. The licensing terms were just announced on January 31, and the details of the MPEG-4 Visual license agreement are still being worked out. Because of the challenge posed by the effort to produce a joint licensing program requiring a consensus among at least 18 different patent owners and the yet undetermined future implementations and applications of the emerging MPEG-4 Visual technology, this may take several months to complete. There will be much discussion before all of this is sorted out, and changes may be expected. Again, we appreciate your contribution to this process and will keep you informed.
Sincerely, Larry Horn Vice President, LicensingCouldn't Apple just change the codec for the new quicktime and pretty much set the standard? Since most of Real's codecs are moving toward open standards, and MS probably will go with something similar to the MPEG-LA standard, so "we" would be still in the same place. One standard for quicktime (which I would like to see on Linux), one for Real, and some stupid codec for M$. In the long run, something free, like the mp3 codec will win out, I am not going to pay fees. Squanto
Every time something "bad" happens, people want more laws and more regulation. If you haven't seen by now, laws and regulations hurt guys like us, not the big guys.
If a company wants to charge for every minute you watch TV, or go to the supermarket, or sleep in a bed, and you don't like it, STOP SUPPORTING THAT COMPANY.
In the end, the free market works very well here. You will end up finding other forms of entertainment (probably by ignoring the mass-market crap, and finding better independently produced features). Those who like paying for the product will do so if they feel it isn't more expensive than they are willing to pay.
I can't believe people holler about calling their representatives. The 9th and 10th amendment prohibit federal government from getting involved in these situations anyway.
The only thing I call my Congressional reps and Senators for is to REPEAL laws that "help the consumer" like a law this guy wants made.
Q3 uses a format called RoQ, which I guess was developed in-house at id. Some weekend project for Carmack, I suppose. "Hmm. Next item on my to-do list, 'develop video codec from scratch'."
I had to look through all the comments to see if anyone else had posted it, so i'll not post it too. Not a bad form letter though, and it pretty much did address my concerns.
I hate the fact that everyone is moving to these idiotic subscription models...it's really just a way for providers to fleece the market just that much more.
Oh well, I guess in the end, they have to make money, but shouldn't it be up to the makers that implement the cost concerns and not the patent holders?
Eric B
ebresie@gmail.com
Grave licensing issue with VP3. Basically, the conclusion is that the license is "proprietary with source" and in reality amounts to something similar to Microsoft's Shared Source scheme. Modifying or distributing the VP3 codec in any form is legally dubious. I agree, it's Strange that On2 Technologies tries to pass VP3 off as "Open Source" on their site as it clearly doesn't meet the definition, except for that one can passively 'read' the code.
I'd be careful with these people and wait for a real Open Source codec like Ogg Tarkin to mature, or contact On2 to get them to fix their license or, alternatively, to remove the "Open Source" references from their site.
Good to know ;)
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
The quality doesn't appear to justify it. My experience with various mpeg video formats is that they are not better (and probably worse) than On2's open-source and (reasonably priced) commercial solutions. It is certainly worth forming your own opinion by checking out On2's demos at their website.
As the quality is not sufficiently better to achieve an ROI based on reduced bandwidth, what is MPEG counting on to entice people to pay their fees? Several possibilities (some mentioned in the article):
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Of course, you don't have to pay $0.02 for every hour your Firewire port is active. As I understand the MPEG4 licensing, this would be the analog of what they are trying to push on the market.
In the digital world this is often looked at as a solution but lossy compression is not like regular digital formats like MS Word documents or even programs. If you ocnvert from one compression format to another, it looks REALLY bad because both compression artifacts are there, and the size is only as good as the second compression technique used. Recompression unfortunatly is not an option at all.
This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
...would you prefer EVERYTHING be rendered on the fly?
I'd prefer it be rendered on a monitor, video screen or tv.
A fly is too small to render images on, IMO.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
The point everyone seems to be missing in and about this article is that it's totally erroneous and misleading. Salon spends all it's time discussing alternative codecs (the compression/decompression algorithms that work on tracks) when the debate is really over format (the way in which the various tracks and data of a file are stored and coordinated). The MPEG 4 architecture, like Quicktime and Video for Windows and to a lesser degree Real and Windows Media, can use many different codecs, including VP3, ogg, mp3, DivX, and so forth, in addition to the default codec (which is also called MPEG4). Designing and implementing a robust architecture that can handle many different classes and instances of data in many different ways is much more complex than writing a simple compression algorithm. VfW, WMP, and Real all have severe limitations, which is why MPEG4 was based on Quicktime. Indeed, if MPEG-LA doesn't get it's act together, they may find Apple pulling the rug out from under them with an updated version of Quicktime itself. Apple didn't spend all that time and effort developing Quicktime 6 around MPEG-4 for nothing, and the similarities between the two architectures would make switching relatively simple.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
We understand that the success of a licensing program relies on the success of the underlying technology.
They don't get it. In fact, they have it backwards. The success of a technology depends on the success of its licensing: if no one will buy it, it won't succeed. This is what killed Beta. It's also what relegated Macs to the niche they're in now. And now, it may do the same to MPEG-4.
The article quotes Tom Jacobs on the official ISMA position on the matter, and I can vouch for that position personally. I was at our last meeting in NYC on Feb 4 when he first stated it. I can clarify a few points:
- First, that we are unhappy with the MPEG-LA licensing terms, but we are actively pursuing discussion of those terms with them.
- ISMA's stated charter is interoperability of rich streaming media over IP networks. It is explicitly stated that we want player-neutral protocols. If MPEG-4 licensing makes it non-player-neutral, well... draw your own conclusions.
- We are considering many protocol options. ISMA is composed of two arms, technical and marketing. The tech guys (myself included) are all over using open-source. What remains to be seen is whether or not those solutions can provide the features that our marketing and retail appliance partners are demanding. (Hint to Ogg Tarkin guys: this is your cue to get motivated.)
Furthermore, let's get something straight about MPEG-LA. (N.B. This information comes straight from a presentation Larry Horn gave at the ISMA meeting.)MPEG-LA is composed of those companies or entities who have critical IP in MPEG-4 video and systems technologies. Two points:
- Critical IP. This means MPEG-4 can't be implemented without trampling on these guys' patents. Implementation-specific IP (i.e. a particular vendor's patented player) doesn't cut it.
- Video and systems. This doesn't cover audio. Yes, it's stupid, but that's the way it is. (Systems, btw, is all that feature-rich stuff beyond video and audio, like embedded scrolling text, etc etc)
If anyone anywhere wants to implement MPEG-4 video, they're gonna have to talk to MPEG-LA. Go ask the Quicktime guys. Notice how they released the streaming server but not the encoder/decoder retail products? Same goes for open-source implementations of MPEG-4, which, in my opinion, are gonna suffer because people don't wanna pay anything for what should be free encoders/decoders. Yes, the licensing is $0.50 ($0.25 for both encoder and decoder), which is not much, but I don't think people will accept that.ISMA is in charge of the de-facto standard for streaming media online. It'd be cool if we used open-source, but we have to go with what we can get that meets our requirements. The ball is in your court, Xiph. If you wanna make a name for yourselves, this is the break you've been waiting for.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
Why bother? PNG is a W3C standard, lossless compression with 16M colors, and most browsers support it now.
Zodiac Survey
All it needs to do is represent a video stream and a collection of audio streams together. It should get rid of the interlacing mess from MPEG-2, it should allow for video of different sizes, and maybe it should allow for the inclusion of user-defined synchronized byte streams, and that's about it.
Don't forget one thing I'd really like to see. Subtitles. Being able to turn off subtitles is a *great* feature, allows for multiple-language texting, for hearing impaired, whatever. Not to mention it takes up a lot less space instead of encoding it as part of the picture. Then it could be displayed below the movie if possible (2.35:1 movie on 16:9 display, 16:9 movie on 4:3 display) without having to encode it as a picture.
Video stream + (multiple) audio stream(s) + (multiple) subtitles stream(s) = simple. Forget multiangle and embedded content and all the other shiny little things, I'm with you there.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings