Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mozilla, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and Others Form 'Alliance For Open Media'

Posted by Soulskill on from the one-codec-to-rule-them-all dept.

BrianFagioli tips news that Mozilla, Microsoft, Google, Cisco, Intel, Amazon, and Netflix are teaming up to create the Alliance for Open Media, "an open-source project that will develop next-generation media formats, codecs and technologies in the public interest." Several of these companies have been working on this problem alone: Mozilla started Daala, Google has VP9 and VP10, and Cisco just recently announced Thor. Amazon and Netflix, of course, are major suppliers of online video streaming, so they have a vested interested in royalty-free codecs. They're inviting others to join them — the more technology and patents they get on their side, the less likely they'll run into the issues that Microsoft's VC-1 and Google's VP8 struggled with. "The Alliance will operate under W3C patent rules and release code under an Apache 2.0 license. This means all Alliance participants are waiving royalties both for the codec implementation and for any patents on the codec itself."

26 of 99 comments (clear)

  1. For the Alliance! by LetterRip · · Score: 4, Funny

    That is all...

  2. No Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As much as the industry needs open codecs, if Apple refuses to support whatever they create (like the last three or four similar projects), this project is likely to be stillborn.

    1. Re:No Apple by subanark · · Score: 4, Informative

      You got what 98% or more of the desktop browser makers by usage in this club? Plus you have YouTube and Netflix on board for providing content. Even if no one else adopts this, it is enough to be both used and supported. The biggest hurdle is ensuring that it is at least as good as what is out there.

    2. Re:No Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You got what 98% or more of the desktop browser makers by usage in this club? Plus you have YouTube and Netflix on board for providing content. Even if no one else adopts this, it is enough to be both used and supported. The biggest hurdle is ensuring that it is at least as good as what is out there.

      The barrier is hardware support. Google thought that web dominance was enough, but without hardware support VP9 is a non-starter for providers (I work for a fairly major global video service, we would love to adopt open formats. But we need most mobile devices to have hardware decode. And Google has been very inept at this. Hope this alliance is better at it.

    3. Re: No Apple by Redbehrend · · Score: 2

      Get over Apple already, they are part of the problem. They are not the world and they will probably not adopt them because that's Apple. They are creating android apps right now because they want to keep people locked into Apple.

    4. Re:No Apple by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      did you expect apple to join in? they always go proprietary as much as possible

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re:No Apple by GNious · · Score: 2

      If these parties all decided to use whatever codec came out of this, and Apple choose to stay out, it'll be Apple's loss when Netflix, YouTube and the rest start showing messages about "your Apple computer/phone is not able to use this site, please upgrade"...

      (The actual winners of that move would, naturally, be lawyers)

    6. Re:No Apple by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      Name one smart phone system-on-chip manufacturer, apart from Apple, that doesn't consider Android devices their main market? All Google needs to do is make hardware support for this new codec a requirement to pre-load YouTube

      Intel are also in on the smart phone SoC market too

    7. Re:No Apple by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      If these parties all decided to use whatever codec came out of this, and Apple choose to stay out, it'll be Apple's loss when Netflix, YouTube and the rest start showing messages about "your Apple computer/phone is not able to use this site, please upgrade"...

      To their peril. Despite Android outselling iOS 4:1 or more, Android traffic is basically even with iOS, and unfortunately, iOS is also the platform of choice for those with money.

      If Netflix doesn't work with iOS, users are more apt to blame Netflix than iOS. Ditto YouTube and others, especially since they work now. Breaking that will cause people to say "Netflix worked yesterday, today it doesn't. Netflix must have done something". And indeed they did.

      Anyhow, h.264 is unlikely to die anytime soon - the real reason for this alliance is the mess that's become of HEVC licensing with two different and non-comprehensive patent pools. Whereas with h.264, patent licensors paid per unit until they hit a cap - it's unlimited after that (Apple, Google, Microsoft, Cisco, Netflix, Amazon and others just pay the cap), and streaming is free as long as customers can view the stream without paying (so ads are OK).

      The problem is, a lot of the HEVC patent holders were presented with similar terms for HEVC by MPEG-LA, and they wanted out. Specifically, they hated the cap, they hated free streaming, and they wanted to move on.

      Doesn't take a genius to figure out that those properties enabled the mass uptake of h.264.

    8. Re:No Apple by roca · · Score: 4, Informative

      These companies aren't going to drop support for Apple's devices. They're going to serve both H.264 and the new free codec --- to support old not-upgraded devices, as well as Apple devices. So if Apple doesn't join the party, the main impact will be that iPhones need twice as much bandwidth as Android phones to play video.

      This announcement is terrific news for free codecs. We've been fighting for this at Mozilla for a long time and now it looks like we have a good chance of winning.

    9. Re:No Apple by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      I have a MotoX, Moto360, Nexus 7, Nexus 10, and a Chromecast. In fact I have never owned a iPhone or iPad.
      I am not an Apple fanboy but when you look at tablets Apple has a big lead. When you look at the US and Europe Apple is a bigger market share than the worldwide market share would indicate.
      IOS is too big and too lucrative of a market to ignore. Without Apple this standard will never take off it is just that simple.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    10. Re:No Apple by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      You're talking about hardware makers. I'm talking about software vendors. If I make an iOS app and an Android app, what proportion of Android users will buy it, what proportion of iOS users will? If 4% of iOS users and 1% of Android users are willing to hand over money for it, then that's about the same amount from each platform. Numbers that I've seen are a bit out of date now, but they showed that iOS users were spending a lot more (per capita) than Android users, as most Android users only install free (including ad supported) apps, and ad revenue is far less than a direct sale can make.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  3. Which one is heart? by Himmy32 · · Score: 4, Funny

    With our powers combined, we are Captain Codec!

    1. Re:Which one is heart? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Given that there are 7 in the summary list, we need to consider the 6-cornerplane model of elementality.

      Mozilla claims fire because FireFox.
      Cisco gets earth, because their routers form the net-lines of the internet.
      Netflix gets water, because they have many bad boat-related movies.
      Amazon gets air, because they ship so much that way.
      Intel gets positive energy because accomplishing anything requires either their hardware or an imitator's (no, AMD doesn't count as a rival).
      That leaves Google and Microsoft competing for negative energy and the 7th spot. The most likely 7th spot is the region of intersection, most recognizably the realm of shadow in the positive/negative axis.

  4. Is It Just Me? by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Somehow I expect something named "Alliance For Open Media" to turn into some hideous new DRM scheme that clutch your gonads in fists of iron. With age comes incredible cynicism.

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  5. Re:And at the same time by GeLeTo · · Score: 5, Informative

    I doubt it.
    These companies have tons of video-related patents - they had a big stake in the h264 patent pool, but are conspicuously missing from the list of h265 patent holders. And while the patents will be freely licensed to anyone, the license will allow the alliance to go nuclear on anyone that tries to sue for patent infringement. h265 is an upgrade to h264, so it is very likely it infringes on many of the alliance patents.

  6. How long until ... by janoc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    MPEG LA sues?

    Media codecs are literally a patent minefield and even the likes of Microsoft or Google will have tough time breaking through the established monopolies.

  7. Re:h.264? by BitterOak · · Score: 3, Informative

    H.264 is covered by patents held by MPEG LA.

    --
    If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
  8. Queue the countdown... by domoc · · Score: 2

    And how long before Microsoft uses a "slight modification" from the open standard, which will make everything incompatible.

  9. To fight fire with fire. by ic3m4n1 · · Score: 2

    Possibly they see new alliance as defense from those mines.
    You sue us with phony patents, Alliance will answer with hookey dokey patents of their own.

    In brave new world of codecs everyone will stay inside their walled gardens(because mines) and there will be peace finally(or at least until someone turns greedy)

  10. Obligatory XKCD... by ttyler · · Score: 2

    https://xkcd.com/927/

  11. Re:Mozilla by Guspaz · · Score: 2

    They were included for their work on the Daala codec, on which they also have patents, which has also received development time from Google and Cisco.

  12. Re:Mozilla by roca · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We have Daala, which (unlike VP8/9 and Thor) is radically different technology to H.264/H.265. That's very valuable because it steers away from the patent minefield. Also, our codec developers are among the best.

  13. Re:And Google/Amazon/Netflix will get whatever by roca · · Score: 2

    We (Mozilla) have Daala, which is the only video codec around that is competitive and based on technology radically different from H.264/H.265. That's an important contribution.

  14. Re:And at the same time by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Informative

    The real issue is that the patent pool for h265 is getting greedy, and planning to charge a *lot* more than h264 use, and in more circumstances. All these companies have an incentive to create a next-generation codec that can be licensed for no cost, because they're either providing platforms for this content or streaming content themselves.

    So, what you're seeing here is a natural market reaction to the overreach of the h265 pool, and it makes sense to combine their efforts and technologies to deliver a single superior codec that everyone can use. If they follow through with their promise of an open codec, it's definitely going to be a big win for these companies AND consumers. Moreover, as a purely pragmatic matter, it will allow more streaming for less bandwidth overall, something that's also important for many users with data caps.

    Lawsuits are almost inevitable, simply because they're threatening to destroy a potentially lucrative patent pool's effectiveness. Fortunately, this is a talented group with some legal and financial muscle behind it, so I think they have a good shot at succeeding.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  15. Re:missing tidbits.... by jmv · · Score: 3, Informative

    I suggest you read the Mozilla post. Basically, the output *will* be free, with open-source software under the Apache 2.0 license, and the patents being licensed according to W3C rules. So it doesn't get any more free than that. As for DRM, it's not a property of the codec. There certainly won't be any in the codec itself, but people can put DRM on top of anything they want (including ASCII art).

    --
    Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec