Slashdot Mirror


MPEG Founder Says the MPEG Business Model Is Broken (chiariglione.org)

theweatherelectric writes: Leonardo Chiariglione, the founder and chairman of MPEG, argues on his blog that the current MPEG business model is broken. He writes, "Thanks to [MPEG's] 'business model' that can be simply described as: produce standards having the best performance as a goal, irrespective of the IPR involved. Because MPEG standards are the best in the market and have an international standard status, manufacturers/service providers get a global market of digital media products, services and applications, and end users can seamless communicate with billions of people and access millions of services. Patent holders who allow use of their patents get hefty royalties with which they can develop new technologies for the next generation of MPEG standards. A virtuous cycle everybody benefits from." But, he argues, the MPEG model is now in crisis because the forthcoming AV1 video format from the Alliance for Open Media means that "everybody realizes that the old MPEG business model is broke, all the investments (collectively hundreds of millions USD) made by the industry for the new video codec [HEVC] will go up in smoke and AOM's royalty free model will spread to other business segments as well." Chiariglione goes on to explain what can be done: "The first action is to introduce what I call 'fractional options.' ISO envisages two forms of licensing: Option 1, i.e. royalty free and Option 2, i.e. FRAND, which is taken to mean 'with undetermined license.' We could introduce fractional options in the sense that a proposer could indicate that the technology be assigned to a specifically identified profile with an 'industry license' (defined outside MPEG) that does not contain monetary values. For instance, one such license could be 'no charge' (i.e. Option 1), another could be targeted to the OTT market etc."

"The second action, not meant to be alternative to the first, is to streamline the MPEG standard development process. Within this a first goal is to develop coding tools with 'clear ownership,' unlike today's tools which are often the result of contributions with possibly very different weights. A second goal is not to define profiles in MPEG. A third goal could be to embed in the standard the capability to switch coding tools on and off."

17 of 159 comments (clear)

  1. Better Idea... by galvanash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...let it die.

    --
    - sigs are stupid
    1. Re:Better Idea... by jonsmirl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here lies there conceptual problem: "My concerns are at a different level and have to do with the way industry at large will be able to access innovation. AOM will certainly give much needed stability to the video codec market but this will come at the cost of reduced if not entirely halted technical progress. There will simply be no incentive for a company to develop new video compression technologies knowing that it assets will be thankfully – and nothing more – accepted by AOM for use in its video codec."

      He simply doesn't get network effects. It is not 'thanks' that you get by putting the technology into a free pool, when everyone does this it creates a broad and compatible market for everyone to sell into. The only group that does not benefit from this are the NPEs since they don't sell anything.

      Look at all of the technology going into Linux and tell me the only thing people are getting out of Linux is 'thanks'. Royalties are not the only way to make money (unless you are a NPE).

    2. Re:Better Idea... by bzipitidoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The revolt against GIF that culminated in PNG over 20 years ago showed that royalty free and patent unencumbered works. I recently learned of Free Lossless Image Format (FLIF), currently in development and intended to replace PNG, and it looks great. Handily beats WEBP, and also addresses animations, the reason GIF didn't completely die. FLIF alone shows that PNG was not a one time freak. But there's also Xiph, which has been working on audio and video codecs for decades, giving us Ogg Vorbis and fairly recently, Opus. And soon we will have AV1.

      Opus supposedly bridges the gap in audio between music and voice, better at both than even the best codecs tuned specifically for one or the other. Opus is good at voice, but from my own experiences, no, it's not the very best. Shouldn't VoIP software use Opus, if it was the best? I'd love to abandon Skype. This is the first I've heard of Codec2, thanks for mentioning it.

      The area most in need of an update is lossy stills, where JPEG is still supreme. (Why didn't JPEG 2000 catch on?) I saw a comparison on stills between AV1 and JPEG, and in my opinion, JPEG is clearly superior. I hope AV1 improves there, but I wonder if we could have a "double" JPEG, bump the 8x8 blocks up to 16x16, just as a stopgap?

      Yet despite all this evidence, IP rights holders still refuse to concede that unencumbered works. What is accomplished by moaning the clearly wrong idea that codecs will not be developed? They really think they can persuade some deep pocketed organizations to swallow that propaganda and join with them? I don't follow that notion of "fractional options", and I don't see why anyone else should either, especially with AV1 in the wings. Meantime, for video I'm sticking with VP9 and Opus (and webVTT) inside WEBM.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
  2. VERY hard to beat the alliance by raymorris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The summary mentions they are competing with the Alliance for Open Media. AOM was founded by Amazon, Apple, ARM, Cisco, Facebook, Google, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Mozilla, Netflix and NVIDIA. Other AOM members include AMD, Hulu, and more.

    AOM members serve up over 80â... of the world's internet traffic, and decide which codec it will use. Almost all the internet traffic is handled by network based on equipment made by AOM members. AOM members design nearly 100â... of the world's CPUs. 98â... of consumer devices (computers and phones) run operating systems made by AOM members. You can't beat AOM unless AOM somehow destroys itself.

    Even is just Netflix and YouTube chose to offer a codec which was playable on Android, iPhone and Windows, that would be hard to beat. And all those companies are AOM members - plus many more, including Intel, AMD, and ARM.

    MPEG is going to need a RADICALLY different business model, unless they get extremely lucky and invent something far better than what all the AOM members can come up, or AOM destroys itself.

    1. Re:VERY hard to beat the alliance by jrumney · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What weird proprietary encoding are you using where % is encoded as â?

  3. The world doesn't need you! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What MPEG is learning is that in reality the world does not need them because open standards are far more cost effective,

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:The world doesn't need you! by Ramze · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yep.

      MPEG is from the pre-internet era of media. Back when content was purchased on disk, it made sense to have a licensed standard for MPEG, MPEG2, and even MP3. MPEG4 for Blu-Ray was really the last gasp.

      Now, everything is streamed online. While Hollywood was fine paying a few cents on the dollar for encryption and compression on disks, streaming media sites are looking to cut costs.

      Netflix, Hulu, Google/Youtube, and others are big enough to make their own standards and cut out the MPEG group entirely. They even have different goals as there are different methods to adjust quality over live streams vs a pre-compressed file.

      I can't say I'll be sad to see MPEG go -- they were vicious in protecting their licensing and downright bullying in their negotiations, and the lack of alternatives held back progress for years. Now that real alternatives are here, they want to change... ha. good luck w/ that.

  4. Open Source rules, die MPEG! by SysEngineer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For years MPEG licenses screwed people. Now that they have competition they say "we are sorry, we will work with you now". If AV1 did not come out, MPEG licenses would still cost too much.

  5. you charge "collectively hundreds of millions USD" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    for current patent licenses to 'fund' the next-gen codec...

    (how much of that actually went to *development* and how much went into executives' bank accounts? cuz it sure as hell doesn't cost "hundreds of millions" of dollars to develop a fucking codec)

    and you wonder why your business model is "broken"? holy fuck, you're so totally clueless, you could run for office.

    free and open source will find a way when you gouge people and the manufacturers of the devices they purchase and use.

    shrivel up and DIE, Moving Picture Experts Group. you. are. obsolete.

  6. Let me get this right by DingerX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    TFA claims that he's going to simplify everything by clarifying partial ownership, making how payment works more ambiguous, and allowing parts of the standard to be disabled. Right. If the "solution" is actually less complicated than what they're currently offering, I can see why AOM has already won. To me, this here MPEG nonsense is kryptonite to anyone needing a sustainable solution.

  7. This just in by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can leech from companies for a while until they find out that it's cheaper to cut you and develop it themselves. This is basically what happened here. That "Alliance for Open Media", you know who that is? According to their Wikipedia article it is "Amazon, Apple, ARM, Cisco, Facebook, Google, IBM, Intel Corporation, Microsoft, Mozilla, Netflix, and Nvidia". Notice something in that lineup? Makers of networking hardware/software, makers of CPUs/GPUs along with content providers and the makers of the tools to show that content. In other words, everyone that MPEG sold to.

    They simply noticed "Hey! Instead of throwing that money at these goons, throw it in a pool and let's develop a standard that suits OUR needs!"

    Plus, no rent to pay after we have it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. Re:Too funk to druck by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1) They killed the goose.
    2) Then they cooked it and ate it.
    3) They made geese extinct. Many, many ducks were collateral damage.
    4) ...
    5) Now they wonder why there's no more golden eggs.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  9. Re:What about GPU makers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If Google says you need it for Android certification anyone who wants their chips to be usable outside of China will implement hardware acceleration for it.
    So for your particular ones, Samsung and Qualcomm aren't even going to have a choice.

  10. Re:Or just spread FUD? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The good news is that the FUD will be largely ineffective, because MPEG's biggest customers are the founders / members of the AOM that are looking to extinguish MPEG for good.

    You can only spread FUD to people that don't already know better.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  11. Re:TL;DR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's bitztream the autism-hating, custom EpiPen-hating, Musk-hating, Qualcomm-hating, Firefox tabs-hating, Slashdot editors-hating Slashdot troll!

  12. The 1st law of extortion by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

    MPEG forgot the 1st law of extortion: Never demand more than it would cost to have you killed.

  13. Re:Why? by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He believes that research into better ways of video encoding will stop if nobody can make money from merely doing the research and publishing it. Hence, he's trying to make MPEG, which uses the patent system to enable that kind of paid research, viable in an environment in which the need to pay royalties to use a technology is highly unpopular and undermined by free alternatives.

    He's wrong, as Google, Hulu/Vudu/Roku/Consonant-U-Consonant-U/Amazon etc have plenty of incentives to fund such research and contribute it to the public domain. But traditionally this is how video and audio encoding standards have always been done (see also the H.26x series), so it's hard for him to break out of that thinking.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.