Adams Platform Performance Claims Debunked

An anonymous reader writes "For years sceptics have ridiculed Australian Adam Clark's controversial claim that 'Adams Platform technology enables the real-time delivery of high quality video and audio content at bandwidth observed as low as 14.4Kbps. ' - (from the Media World website) Media World Communications, owner of the Adams Platform Technology, has issued a statement to the Australian Stock Exchange saying 'The board today determined that it does not believe that it can sign off on the performance capabilities of the Adams Platform Technology.' Cold fusion anyone?"

Comments

Performance claims?

[rincebrain]

You can observe realtime audio and video over a 14K connection... Just find someone to stream you a 2x2 video stream and a VBR MP3. =)

madness

[doofusclam]

I find it outstanding thatt again, some cock-eyed attempt to guarantee some pie-in-the-sky compression ratio is backed by stock investors to the tune of millions.

I might join in. Hey, i've just 'discovered' a way to compress data by dowsing it in water. Anyone care to lend me a few million to test out this theory?

Re:madness

[Zemrec]

I know nothing about this codec, but the website says the Tolly Group did independent tests on it. I read the pdf, it looks legit. This is the same group that conducted bandwidth tests for my company, GWI. http://www.gwi.net/images/tollyreport.pdf

because it would have DRASTIC..

[gl4ss]

physics/information transferring effects it can't be possible.

for example, a high quality video stream would be able to carry more than 14.4kbps, and if you could encode a high quality video stream into 14.4kbps you would then be able to pack infinite amount of data into one 14.4kbps stream.

(of course, if you just redefine meaning of hiqh quality.. like if you're nearly blind high quality can be 1kbps as it's enough to transfer enough what the person can perceive..)

you should note as well that this isn't the only scam smelling company out there trying to lure investors into putting money into their vapor method of doing something revolutionary on the internet(and not even the only one claiming to be able to 'magically' enhance video transfers as it is is the cool and hip thing now with vidoephonin capable mobile phones already arriving).

Re:because it would have DRASTIC..

[Kris_J]

Lossy video compression dodges the physics problem because it allows collisions. What you get out isn't what you put in.

A 'high quality' Xvid of a 42 minute TV show is usually around 350MB. 8.3MB/min. 139k/s. It's not modem speeds, but it's a lot better than MPEG2. The trick is compressing it real time.

Re:because it would have DRASTIC..

[gl4ss]

no it doesn't dodge the fact that you can only make it lose so much and still call it good looking.

i wouldn't have called the vivo files of pre-divx era as "high quality" but you could cram a shitty looking full porn movie into under 100mb(modem friendly).

mp3 or divx packing isn't as improbable or unbelievable as what these guys are saying they can do.

but if you were running such a scam divx and mp3 files would be exactly the right thing to compare as proof that it will be next big thing.

Comparing this to Cold Fusion?

[n9hmg]

I don't know whether you're ignorant enough to lump this with Cold Fusion to associate it with the fraud that it is, or you're implying that you think there's really something to the Adams Platform.

Sounds plausible

[bill_mcgonigle]

the real-time delivery of high quality video and audio content at bandwidth observed as low as 14.4Kbps

Sure, why not? Take a reasonable codec and implement an extension that sends no keyframes during extended periods of unchanging video or audio silence, just a noop.

Then play a movie over the codec, and put a network monitor on it - during a few seconds of the movie you're likely to see the data rate drop very low, 14.4Kbps sounds high even. Technically, you are delivering the high-quality video and audio at a very low bitrate (high quality even helps since there's less noise).

If that's all they're claiming, it's terribly misleading but that's what marketing people do.

step:
1. make extraordinary claim
2. sell company to conglomorate willing to take a chance for $MM
3. don't get sued

Except that...

[Grab]

...cold fusion *does* work. At least according to the latest edition of NewScientist. The physics behind it was stranger than they thought, though, hence it was very difficult to replicate results.

Compare and contrast with someone whose work is plainly bunk.

Grab.

Re:Except that...

[Anonymous Coward]

...cold fusion *does* work. At least according to the latest edition of NewScientist.

I don't think you and I read the same article. The one I read merely said there's a possibility, which is a long way from *does*.

on slashdot in 1998

[boldra]

Slashdot covered the original claims in 1998.

I think it's pretty clear that if the technology existed in 1998, and they've already had over $7 million in funding, there's been a clever case of fraud. What I'd like to know is how this guy tricked so many people! He must've had some tech nouse to get away with it for six years!