Microsoft's HD Photo to Become JPEG Standard?

Mortimer.CA writes "Ars Technica is reporting that Microsoft has submitted their HD Photo to the JPEG committee: 'Microsoft's ongoing attempt to establish its own photo format as a JPEG alternative (and potential successor) took another step forward today when the JPEG standards group agreed to consider HD Photo (originally named Windows Media Photo) as a standard. If successful, the new file standard will be known as JPEG XR.' Microsoft has made a 'commitment to make its patents that are required to implement the specification available without charge.' While JPEG 2000 exists, HD Photo has several advantages (not the least of which is a lot less CPU power is needed). Is this a big of an issue as ODF/OOXML?"

Comments

Re:can this be the only solution?

[jebuonag]

I think it might be time for a refresher: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_grammar

Oh God! Of course it's a big deal.

[twitter]

This is as big a deal as pictures. M$ is sure to make this one of those awefull non-standards like ACPI, MTP and a host of other. Want to bet their idea of a no charge "implementation" is a NDA protected SDK? They will then force it onto any camera makers who care to have their devices work with Windoze in the future. Then they will sabotage the alternatives so that their "captive" audience will have trouble sharing pictures with everyone else and themselves. In the worst of cases, there will be dozens of incompatible implementations, all guarded by a M$ patent, that leave people's photo albums locked down.

What, me cynical? Hell yes, and the evidence is in your face. If jpeg 2000 is not good enough, there's PNG. If M$ cared to improve imaging, they would simply surrender their patents and let others improve existing standards. But no, they don't like free formats and will do everything in their power to crush them.

Let's just hope this bad idea dies with Vista.

What we don't know is the problem

[erroneus]

I don't care that it's Microsoft. Here's what I care about:

Patented? Yes, so it's a problem
If patented, Royalties or License restrictions? We see no royalties, but what about license restrictions? Is it OSS friendly or will it not work within Firefox legally?
Is it effective or does it offer anything we don't already have? I don't know...

Here we go again . . .

[jhylkema]

Embrace, extend, extinguish. Microsoft is up to their old tricks again. This time, though, a toothless, neutered DOJ will let them get away with murder.

How much do you want to bet that

[wamerocity]

this standard is going to come with a way to put DRM in photos that can only be viewed with licenses, just like some WMV files? The porn industry would be all over that, and I'd bet they are financially backing them. It would be so easy to implement, especially with all the DRM-friendly coding that has gone into the Vista kernel.

Mark my words, M$ is looking for a way to put DRM in EVERY conceivable form of media. I've read articles about HARDWARE implementations that make moving of certain file types (mp3's, avi's) and other files that are not locked by DRM, to become locked. They have their own Audio and Video DRM, they are working on photo's, and soon the version of office will include DRM for all documents, spreadsheets and the like.

You'll see..

Microsoft, Extortion de luxe

[theolein]

this is one more example of Redmond trying to lock people in with some brainless, but crucial standard. You think it's harmless? You thought Miguel de Icaza, the poor misguided fool was right and Microsoft wouldn't threaten to use its patents against anyone and that implementing Mono was a really swell, cool, groovy idea? You believed Microsoft when they said that OOXML was going to be real open, any day now, while they bribe, extort and do basically anything they can get away with, illegal or not, to force people to use their farcical "standards". You think that if Microsoft didn't have such pile of shit in the mobile OS market that they wouldn't use the same tactics as they do elsewhere to raise prices and fuck people over?

That is what Microsoft does. Peripherally they make software. Their core expertise, however, is trying to ruin competitors and enforce a monumental money making machine. If Linux wasn't around, Microsoft would have been able to buy out even more corrupt politicians, and much sooner, than it has.

Microsoft wants to make and own your toothpaste, and they want you to pay them a "small" subscription fee of $600 a year for the privilige of brushing your teeth. After all, it's Microsoft and they would never lie to their customers or try to rip them off, would they? The insance prices for Vista were all a mistake. Honest.

And now you want to entrust them that they could actually make an open image standard?

Microsoft? They will use it to try and club competitors into submission by overcharging them for licenses or simply refusing to sell it to competitors. At the least they will threaten implementers with the patents. You think Apple will be able to use this freely? Or Adobe? You think the codec will interoperate?

Have you people not learned ANYTHING, yet?

Re:can this be the only solution?

[Divebus]

I can't for my life figure out how Microsoft or why Microsoft introduces evil into this format...

I'll guess JPEG XR will be the "free" standard and Microsoft will introduce a DRM laden, royalty cha-ching version called JPEG XR PRO which will be seeded to equipment and service vendors (cameras, Adobe, Shutterfly, Ritz etc) who get a cut of the royalties for pushing it. After it reaches critical mass in the market, Microsoft will turn around and demand that you purchase an annual license to view all your existing content.

I vote "No".

Oh crap!

[madbawa]

All photos will have a BSOD watermark!! Shucks even this article is showing up in blue.
In the famous words of Dilbert: GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!