Active Topics
-
The N900 is now 15 years old! (7)
to Nokia N900 by Danct12 - 1 day, 7 hrs ago -
Sailfish OS for the Motorola Moto G7 Power (XT1955-5) - (ocean) (4)
to SailfishOS by Maemish - 2 days, 3 hrs ago -
F(x)tec Pro1x (QWERTY) for sale (0)
to Buy & Sell by aln00000 - 4 days, 11 hrs ago - more...
 |
|
2007-12-10
, 18:40
|
|
Posts: 149 |
Thanked: 9 times |
Joined on Jan 2007
|
#22
|
Originally Posted by LordFu
Mod insightful. MP3 also has no DRM, tends to have lower quality at the same bitrate, and worse, even after paying up a license fee, Microsoft and other companies have recently discovered that they are still exposed to submarine patents.
Ogg is, IMO, the replacement for mp3. It's superior in numerous ways, and it's not tied up by the patent police.
So Ogg Vorbis really has no disadvantage vis-a-vis MP3, apart from not being as established in the market. Considering MPEG-4 audio (AAC) is available in both protected and unprotected variants (there are several DRM schemes, in fact -- Apple and Real use different ones), there is nothing to prevent Nokia from creating their own DRM-ed Ogg Vorbis format, if they want.
|
|
2007-12-10
, 19:08
|
|
Posts: 1,038 |
Thanked: 737 times |
Joined on Nov 2005
@ Helsinki
|
#23
|
Hey,
take a look at the mp3 patents:
http://www.tunequest.org/a-big-list-...ents/20070226/
If you were an IPR lawyer, you will have to be cautious about the issues, right. So, take a look at those patents and say that you would be certain that OGG doesn't infringe any of them and that it won't infringe any patents for aac or wma. Heck, there must be tons of other codecs with similar patent portfolios.
Now, consider that you choose mp3 now. You pay the price and you are safe. Most of the internet revolves around mp3s anyway. Also, what you will be certain of, is that it will be completely patent free within 10 years and that for the most part it will be patent free within a few years. Some of the later acquired patents don't really affect the normal mp3 playback but some special uses of it (like the theatre 5.1 audio in mp3 patent).
You can read the instruction on patent expiration from here:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=2434
take a look at the mp3 patents:
http://www.tunequest.org/a-big-list-...ents/20070226/
If you were an IPR lawyer, you will have to be cautious about the issues, right. So, take a look at those patents and say that you would be certain that OGG doesn't infringe any of them and that it won't infringe any patents for aac or wma. Heck, there must be tons of other codecs with similar patent portfolios.
Now, consider that you choose mp3 now. You pay the price and you are safe. Most of the internet revolves around mp3s anyway. Also, what you will be certain of, is that it will be completely patent free within 10 years and that for the most part it will be patent free within a few years. Some of the later acquired patents don't really affect the normal mp3 playback but some special uses of it (like the theatre 5.1 audio in mp3 patent).
You can read the instruction on patent expiration from here:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=2434
| The Following User Says Thank You to konttori For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2007-12-10
, 20:16
|
|
Posts: 50 |
Thanked: 6 times |
Joined on Nov 2007
|
#24
|
Originally Posted by lardman
I've heard this argument, and for the life of me, I can't understand what this argument means? How can you 'abuse' a provider's network?
Yes, the mobile phone side of their operations is probably quite different. I don't use a Symbian phone so I don't know anything about that, but I can understand at least one reason why they'd want to limit what can be run, and that's abuse of a given provider's network.
Is it using too much bandwidth? Well, all ISP's can limit this in any economic or technical sense they want. Let them offer limited and/or unlimited packages at their discretion? What's the big deal? Land ISP's have been doing this since the beginning of the internet.
Is it the fear of screwing up the cell voice calls? I can possibly see this, but I would imagine if one wanted to do that, the technologies and radio's are already out there. And assuming it is true, leave the voice processing locked/hidden, but there is zero reason not to leave the Internet Protocol traffic completely open.
The writing is on the wall,and the Google Open Mobile initiative combined with phone manufacturers (eg: Asian) that are not tied to post-sale revenue may very well spell the doom for closed systems.
|
|
2007-12-10
, 21:06
|
|
Posts: 631 |
Thanked: 1,123 times |
Joined on Sep 2005
@ Helsinki
|
#25
|
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...-standard.html Here's a bit better post on the "Ogg" subject.
|
|
2007-12-10
, 21:59
|
|
Posts: 2,102 |
Thanked: 1,309 times |
Joined on Sep 2006
|
#26
|
I've heard this argument, and for the life of me, I can't understand what this argument means? How can you 'abuse' a provider's network?Yes, the mobile phone side of their operations is probably quite different. I don't use a Symbian phone so I don't know anything about that, but I can understand at least one reason why they'd want to limit what can be run, and that's abuse of a given provider's network.
Is it using too much bandwidth? Well, all ISP's can limit this in any economic or technical sense they want. Let them offer limited and/or unlimited packages at their discretion? What's the big deal? Land ISP's have been doing this since the beginning of the internet.
Is it the fear of screwing up the cell voice calls? I can possibly see this, but I would imagine if one wanted to do that, the technologies and radio's are already out there. And assuming it is true, leave the voice processing locked/hidden, but there is zero reason not to leave the Internet Protocol traffic completely open.
It really depends on how much of a black-box the radio is; with OpenMoko it's completely closed and the interface is by sending AT commands over a serial connection. This is pretty much the same as plugging a mobile phone into your PC. If you could manipulate the radio at a low level you could start sending out spurious ID data, using more than your allocated time slice, etc. Lots of things that might "annoy" the provider.
 |
|
2007-12-11
, 05:34
|
|
Posts: 739 |
Thanked: 242 times |
Joined on Sep 2007
@ Montreal
|
#27
|
|
|
2007-12-11
, 06:26
|
|
Posts: 50 |
Thanked: 7 times |
Joined on Jun 2007
|
#28
|
To put it another way, Nokia would rather pay $0.20/player for the ISO standard H.264, and know that they're legally bulletproof, rather than try Ogg Theora for free, and risk get slapped with a few million dollar lawsuit.
The long version: Nokia's paper was on video codecs. Ogg Vorbis is not a video codec, so I don't see the direct relevance. Their concern over Ogg Theora (a video codec) is understandable. It has no market penetration, so it remains legally untested. (In fact, it's origins as a commercial codec make the legal issues unclear, especially when w3c sponsorship would suddenly make it an attractive property) We've seen Microsoft handed a huge lawsuit over mp3 not so long ago, and you'd expect that they would have looked into this. Meanwhile, AAC and H.264, which Nokia suggests, are considerably more straight forward in their licensing.
The long version: Nokia's paper was on video codecs. Ogg Vorbis is not a video codec, so I don't see the direct relevance. Their concern over Ogg Theora (a video codec) is understandable. It has no market penetration, so it remains legally untested. (In fact, it's origins as a commercial codec make the legal issues unclear, especially when w3c sponsorship would suddenly make it an attractive property) We've seen Microsoft handed a huge lawsuit over mp3 not so long ago, and you'd expect that they would have looked into this. Meanwhile, AAC and H.264, which Nokia suggests, are considerably more straight forward in their licensing.
 |
|
2007-12-11
, 08:25
|
|
Posts: 182 |
Thanked: 46 times |
Joined on Jan 2007
@ Silly-Con Valley
|
#29
|
Originally Posted by Rocketman
The W3C is a lot more than a <blink> tag committe, If you had botherd to ever read any of the html standards versions, you would know that, that tag, was a creation of netscrape/IE and never a part of html, and rejected when submitted.
Well, so far we have a paper submitted by an individual to a working group whose main purpose seems to be to decide whether to bring back the <blink> tag. Whether his views represent Nokia at large or the NIT group in particular is pure speculation. Does anyone have any past citations that might further clarify/muddy the debate as to Nokia's position on OGG for NITs?
As for the position paper, all papers must be submitted by individuals. When that individual represents a company, it must be stated (as it is) that the paper represents that company or other organizations position. This is done in order to establish a point of contact, and to prevent anonymous papers that might be harmful to a company being filed by a rival concern. (Sun can't file a paper claiming to be coming from IBM)
Put the mud away we have some real concerns here. Obvously Nokia's Lawyers still don't grok OSS and as yet aren't ready to either use the FSLSC (I hope I have the achronym right.), the legal team for the FSF (Free Software Foundation) or to trust the recent court descisions related to OSS. The education must be done, but not with mud and inuendo.
[This post brought to you by furious pecking and an n800]
Last edited by linuxrebel; 2007-12-11 at 08:32.
 |
|
2007-12-11
, 15:14
|
|
Posts: 4,930 |
Thanked: 2,272 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#30
|
Originally Posted by linuxrebel
I don't think that bit of Rocketman's comment was intended quite seriously; at least I truly hope not.
The W3C is a lot more than a <blink> tag committe, If you had botherd to ever read any of the html standards versions, you would know that, that tag, was a creation of netscrape/IE and never a part of html, and rejected when submitted.
As for the position paper, all papers must be submitted by individuals. When that individual represents a company, it must be stated (as it is) that the paper represents that company or other organizations position. This is done in order to establish a point of contact, and to prevent anonymous papers that might be harmful to a company being filed by a rival concern. (Sun can't file a paper claiming to be coming from IBM)
Whether his views represent Nokia at large or the NIT group in particular
Put the mud away we have some real concerns here. Obvously Nokia's Lawyers still don't grok OSS and as yet aren't ready to either use the FSLSC (I hope I have the achronym right.), the legal team for the FSF (Free Software Foundation) or to trust the recent court descisions related to OSS. The education must be done, but not with mud and inuendo.
With that said, there's still no reason to not provide ogg support "out of the box" (in the form of the relatively free [in terms of cost to develop and maintain] gstreamer plugin rather than an expensive-to-develop DSP task) unless it's some legal thing.