(bad?) news about the SMPTE VC-1 standardisation process

[bond]

seems there are some problems with the standardisation of VC-1 (derived from M$'s wmv9):

read more here (http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=50500181)

[Wilbert]

Now, there is speculation that delays or licensing problems for VC-1 could prompt either — or both — of the DVD industry groups to simply delete the Microsoft technology from their specifications.
What's bad about this?

[Nic]

For those who don't want to read it all, choice quotes are:


But now that the WMV9-based VC-1 has been put to the test in the arduous SMPTE standardization process, VC-1 is "perceived as behind in quality and behind in licensing terms, compared to H.264/MPEG-4 AVC," one source said.


Microsoft has given the impression that its WMV9 and SMPTE's VC-1 are one and the same, but there are differences. Windows Media includes many things that are not part of VC-1, including digital rights management, metadata, a playlist and a user interface. VC-1 is purely a video compression algorithm.


The test bit streams currently provided by Microsoft are not enough, one critic said. "There are elements in a VC-1 bit stream, provided by Microsoft, that are simply not there."

And simply: "Microsoft knows better than that" ;) yeah...right.

-Nic

[fccHandler]

To me this news is bad. I'm not a Microsoft hater. I really like WMV9, and I thought it had a bright future. Now I'm not so sure...

[communist]

Now, there is speculation that delays or licensing problems for VC-1 could prompt either — or both — of the DVD industry groups to simply delete the Microsoft technology from their specifications.
Oh please pretty please let that come true.
Not to be a M$ hater but if we still havent learned a lesson after all (the 'software sabotage', 'licensing issues', 'embrace extend extinguish', FUD crap) etc. then we deserve to die in a M$ only situation.

[Sirber]

I hope too M$ won't become the standart on that. :)

[stephanV]

Isnt this:

"VC-1 may be interesting at some point in the future, but [our] members have shown that [H.264/MPEG-4] AVC is technically superior," said Richard Mavrogeanes, founder and chief technology officer of VBrick Systems Inc., and a board member of the MPEG Industry Forum and the Internet Streaming Media Alliance.


and this:

In addition to transport and conformance documents for VC-1, the SMPTE group still needs a reference software decoder and reference bit streams to ensure interoperability among different VC-1 implementations. This work is not yet completed. Nor are there any signs of a reference encoder for VC-1.

a contradiction? They say it is inferior, but there isnt even a reference decoder for it yet... so how can they possibly know? Of course its MPEG people that say that...

I would certainly regret if VC-1 wouldnt come through... it's only an extra option to choose from.

[Tommy Carrot]

Originally posted by stephanV
I would certainly regret if VC-1 wouldnt come through... it's only an extra option to choose from.
Or it would just increase the cost and the confusion. H.264 has undoubtedly superior quality to WMV9, so i cannot see any point to include VC-1 in the specs.

[stephanV]

vc1 is not WMV9, WMV9 would be an implementation of VC1

it would increase costs? like H.264 is that cheap... dont be silly :)

confusion? i think that even within H.264 theres room enough for confusion... there certainly was with MPEG4 anyway. o wait, theres where the confusion already starts :p

[dragongodz]

a contradiction? They say it is inferior, but there isnt even a reference decoder for it yet... so how can they possibly know?
no contradiction at all its just you misunderstand the statement. they say H.264 is TECHNICALLY better. that means better algorithms etc.
if you need proof then look at wmv9(which is what vc-1 is based on, so i assume pretty much the same algoriths) compared to the immature H.264 encoders being worked on.

I'm not a Microsoft hater. I really like WMV9, and I thought it had a bright future. Now I'm not so sure...
just because someone thinks MS has no place in or trying to make hteir proprietry codec a part of future consumer video standards doesnt make them a MS hater.

[stephanV]

Originally posted by dragongodz
no contradiction at all its just you misunderstand the statement. they say H.264 is TECHNICALLY better. that means better algorithms etc.
How can you say an algorythm is technically better if you dont put it to the test? you can make some estimations at best... he said clearly they had *shown* H.264 was superior. read it again.

[dragongodz]

vc1 is not WMV9, WMV9 would be an implementation of VC1
no wmv9 came first. MS then took the algorithms and called it vc-1.

it would increase costs? like H.264 is that cheap... dont be silly
look at the way MS liscences to big business some time. they may not look like much to start with but they can become very expensive once you are stuck with paying.

[Tommy Carrot]

Originally posted by stephanV
vc1 is not WMV9, WMV9 would be an implementation of VC1
But why would MS made a crappy implementation from it? Ok, i know, wmv was earlier, then was the specs created from it, but still, ATEME after ~1 year development made a codec which is significantly better than WMV9, which is a result of years of development. This tells me h.264 has much more potential than VC-1, and this is what i heard from developers as well.

edit: ehh, dragongodz was faster. :D

it would increase costs? like H.264 is that cheap... dont be silly :)
I'm not talking about license cost, but that supporting 2 different codecs would increase the cost of the hardware players (and yes, we would have pay for the additional license too).

[dragongodz]

How can you say an algorythm is technically better if you dont put it to the test? you can make some estimations at best... he said clearly they had *shown* H.264 was superior. read it again.
of course they tested it, where does it say they didnt ? infact go back and read yourself, MS provided test bit streams.

supporting 2 different codecs would increase the cost of the hardware players
yes they would have to pay licensing to support playback of each type aswell as actual hardware costs of chips supporting each aswell.

[stephanV]

Originally posted by dragongodz
no wmv9 came first. MS then took the algorithms and called it vc-1.


And? While XviD is MPEG4 that doesnt mean MPEG4 is XviD. VC1 is the standard, WMV9 is an inplementation. It would not impossible to build a new encoder from VC1 that is superior to WMV9. And if WMV9 = VC1, they wouldnt have to look for a reference decoder and encoder right? Things are not as simple as you put it.

[edit]Dragongodz, please read the article first yourself.

The test bit streams currently provided by Microsoft are not enough, one critic said. "There are elements in a VC-1 bit stream, provided by Microsoft, that are simply not there."


furthermore, how can test bit streams be produced or decoded without a reference decoder/encoder

ill stop now

[dragongodz]

And? While XviD is MPEG4 that doesnt mean MPEG4 is XviD. VC1 is the standard, WMV9 is an inplementation.
no vc-1 is the MS's attempt at making a standard from wmv9 encoding. absolutly nothing like xvid and mpeg4.

And if WMV9 = VC1, they wouldnt have to look for a reference decoder and encoder right?
that shows you still misunderstand. vc-1 is not intended to go in an avi container. so yes they need a reference encoder and decoder for the intended format.

Things are not as simple as you put it.
and its not as hard to understand as you make out.

[dragongodz]

how can test bit streams be produced or decoded without a reference decoder/encoder
MS OF COURSE has an encoder. they have not provided a reference version though. as for decoding it could simply be a raw bitstream which is in no way what is needed for the final format.

ok enough from me. either people understand these things or they dont. i am not interested in explaining the meaning of life to them. :D

[stephanV]

aaaaarrggghhh

WTH do codec APIs have to do with this?

the bitstreams provided by Microsoft are *not* compliant, either because they contain things that shouldnt be there, or because they miss out on things. I cant really tell from the article. Its kinda weird that you fail to see this. This got exactly nothing to do with codec APIs or containers.

this really is my last comment

[Wilbert]

Hmm, this is a bit confusing discussion.

I'm sure you will correct me if I say dumb things.

WMV9 can't be an implemention of VC1, because WMV9 supports features that VC1 doesn't (like drm, metadata, a playlist and a user interface). However you could say WMV9 minus that stuff is an implementation of VC1 (of course you should look at the VC1 specsheet to draw this conclusion).

the bitstreams provided by Microsoft are *not* compliant,
From the article:

The test bit streams currently provided by Microsoft are not enough, one critic said. "There are elements in a VC-1 bit stream, provided by Microsoft, that are simply not there."

I think that the bitstreams provided by Microsoft are VC1-compliant, but it doesn't use all features (or the most important ones) which are available in VC-1.

So, which features are they talking about?

It would not impossible to build a new encoder from VC1 that is superior to WMV9. And if WMV9 = VC1, they wouldnt have to look for a reference decoder and encoder right?
Yup, I agree.

Did they make VC1 in such a way that WMV10 (minus drm etc. stuff) is also an implementation of it?

[dragongodz]

Wilbert - ok i wasnt going to reply anymore but since you posted that i will make a last comment. so to what you said. yes,exactly. :)

This got exactly nothing to do with codec APIs or containers.
who said it did ? i already said it but you obviously missed reading it or didnt understand. vc-1 is the algorithms and coding mechanisms developed and used in wmv9. it is those that we are talking about.

Its kinda weird that you fail to see this.
really ? i found it kind of weird you dont understand the need of a reference encoder and decoder. let alone fail to understand how a test can be done when its stated test bit streams were provided. these are MS provided streams so even though they may lack some possible potential features of full vc-1 they are still usable to base an initial comparison with. :D

[stephanV]

Originally posted by dragongodz
who said it did ?
You suggested it here (a few posts up):


that shows you still misunderstand. vc-1 is not intended to go in an avi container. so yes they need a reference encoder and decoder for the intended format.

which is ridiculous, they dont need a reference decoder for the specified format... they still need a reference decoder, period. If it were only for the specified format, they just had to wrap the decoder in the right api... that shouldnt be too difficult.

vc-1 is the algorithms and coding mechanisms developed and used in wmv9. it is those that we are talking about.
Apparantly it is not, otherwise it wouldnt be so difficult creating good bitstreams.


i found it kind of weird you dont understand the need of a reference encoder and decoder.

Have you read nothing i said??? I'm saying the test is invalid because there still isnt a reference decoder. How can you suggest then that i do *NOT* understand the need of it?

let alone fail to understand how a test can be done when its stated test bit streams were provided. these are MS provided streams so even though they may lack some possible potential features of full vc-1 they are still usable to base an initial comparison with. :D
Indeed i cannot understand how a valid test can be done if there is no reference decoder, which is clearly stated in the article. Certainly i cannot understand how any valid conclusions can be drawn from such a test if even the bit streams themselves are not good, which again is clearly stated in the article.

I just asked a simple question, which was: "Can you describe the whole of a picture if you only have seen part of it?"

My answer would be no, but it seems you have more imagination than me.

[Wilbert]

Indeed i cannot understand how a valid test can be done if there is no reference decoder, which is clearly stated in the article.
Why do you need a reference decoder? Either the provided bitstreams are sufficient (to show the possibilities/quality of VC-1) or they are not. In both cases you just need a decoder which is able to decode the provided samples.

Perhaps you meant reference *encoder*?

[stephanV]

so for *serious* testing you wouldnt necessarily have to use reference decoder? right...

ive seen 3ivx decode XviD a few times... it wasnt pretty...

what im trying to say is, testing should be done properly... but lets assume the decoder did it ok... that still wouldnt negate the fact that the bitstreams arent proper (in the sense that they are complete)

of course... the decoder also defines the standard in a way so...

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Wilbert
Hmm, this is a bit confusing discussion.

I'm sure you will correct me if I say dumb things.

WMV9 can't be an implemention of VC1, because WMV9 supports features that VC1 doesn't (like drm, metadata, a playlist and a user interface).

Methinks you have confused WMV9 and WMP9. ;) WMV9 is a video codec. It encodes and decodes things you can see. You can't "see" DRM. You can only get pissed off at it. If DRM is an inexorable part of WMV9 how is it that the WMV9 VFW codec comes with no DRM? Further the video bitstream is a silly place to put metadata. That is generally left to the container. And indeed Windows Media files can contain metadata as well as DRM even if there is no video present. I have very little doubt that it would be possible to create a WM file devoid of all video and audio containing only DRM and metadata. :P

I suppose we should chalk it up to Microsoft's inability to give their products decent names. It is hard for some to derive the difference of the meaning between WMP9, WMV9, WM9, WMA9, WMA9-PRO, etc.

It will be the subject of chicken and egg debates for some for years to come. But it has been and always will be this way. VC1 is a standard derived from WMV9. So by and large WMV9 does equate to VC1. But that does not preclude VC1 equating to something else in the future that has little to do with WMV9. ;)

My personal view of the issue is that it is all good news indeed. It will result in less expensive consumer hardware for all of us. Coming from the need for less complex hardware and less total licenses to aquire. It should also guarontee us better quality videos. MPEG4 part 10 is superior to VC1 and WMV9. Even immature consumer space h264 tools can equate the quality of professional WMV9/VC1. How much better will professional h264 be? And I must admit this all tickles my anti-ms fancy quite a bit. ;) They have tripped over their own hubris once again.

[dragongodz]

which is ridiculous, they dont need a reference decoder for the specified format... they still need a reference decoder, period. If it were only for the specified format, they just had to wrap the decoder in the right api... that shouldnt be too difficult.
god, you really dont understand do you ?
a reference encoder and decoder is needed for combatibilty for the use in the future. so the encoder for content producers so they can produce in spec streams. decoder for people like hardware makers to be able to play such streams properlly, also to show if other implamentations(if they ever happen) also produce proper streams. i already said i am not interested in explaing everything to people so either you understand that or dont, i wont waste my time trying to explain everything to you.

Apparantly it is not, otherwise it wouldnt be so difficult creating good bitstreams.
says who ? because MS didnt use all possible features ? that proves nothing. you would have to ask MS why they didnt.

so for *serious* testing you wouldnt necessarily have to use reference decoder? right...
no they are enough for an initial idea of what the quality is like. of course not fullproof which is why they complained MS has NOT given them a reference decoder.

how any valid conclusions can be drawn from such a test if even the bit streams themselves are not good, which again is clearly stated in the article.
who says they are not good ? they do not have all features etc that vc-1 is meant to apparently. it would be like not providing some test streams using cabac with H.264, it doesnt make it bad just incomplete display of all features.

what it comes down to is MS have shot themselves in the foot. they want to be a part of the next generation but want to take their time and do things how they want. they did not provide all the things needed to be seriously considered so the only people to blame for any problems etc is MS itself. so i dont understand why you are trying to defend them and their screw ups so hard.

[keel]

Originally posted by bond
seems there are some problems with the standardisation of VC-1 (derived from M$'s wmv9):

read more here (http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=50500181)
What the article did not mention is that, in addition to

"...Microsoft's attempts to "railroad" participants in the SMPTE process...."
Microsoft also donated $100,000 to the SMPTE Foundation at about the same time they submitted VC-1 to SMPTE for standardization
http://www.smpte.org/foundation/foundation.cfm

It must just have been a coincidence

[stephanV]

Originally posted by dragongodz
god, you really dont understand do you ?
a reference encoder and decoder is needed for combatibilty for the use in the future. so the encoder for content producers so they can produce in spec streams. decoder for people like hardware makers to be able to play such streams properlly, also to show if other implamentations(if they ever happen) also produce proper streams. i already said i am not interested in explaing everything to people so either you understand that or dont, i wont waste my time trying to explain everything to you.
And what have i said that contradicts this? I think its you who don't understand it... and if you don't want to "waste" your time in "explaining" "everything" then don't do it. I understand perfectly well why a reference encoder and decoder are needed... it is you who thinks not having these is stull good enough for testing, as you said here:

no they are enough for an initial idea of what the quality is like.

An initial idea... right...

uhm...

if you have an *initial idea* you wont call your own algorythm "superior"... you wouldnt use such strong terms (perhpas something like: "appears to be better")... which was my whole point... but you don't seem to grasp that... you're the one bringing all kinds of stuff into this i never even mentioned. (AVI? who was talking about AVI? and what the hell does it have to do with this?)

But don't waste anymore time on me... I've seen that your intellectual and reasoning skills far exceed those of mine. I bow to you.

[Wilbert]

it is you who thinks not having these is stull good enough for testing, as you said here:
I think it is you who don't grasp it. Not having a reference decoder is good enough for the streams that MS provided. Assuming the streams are just WMV9, the standard WMV9 decoder will do fine.

Perhaps MS didn't provide any 'better' streams, because they didn't update their codec yet.

Your example
ive seen 3ivx decode XviD a few times... it wasnt pretty ...
is not comparable to this, because XviD is not a standard. The idea of a reference decoder is that it can decode any stream which is VC-1 compliant. Of course if other people/companies produce their own VC-1 encoders, it's nice to have a reference decoder.

[virus]

If you add CABAC to XviD, you'll end up with a better codec, because you've added a feature that is proven to work better than previous ones. Still, this codec will be "technically inferior" to a good H.264 Main profile codec, because H.264 allows other encoding tools (like a better MB partitioning, or multiple reference frames) which are proven to increase further the codec efficiency.

Much in the same way, the SMPTE added some features to WMV9, but still they perceive VC-1 as "technically inferior", probably because they know that their codec lacks some tools that make H.264 a better standard. You don't really need a reference encoder/decoder to prove that. The SMPTE engineers probably already tested the new features and I assume they know their stuff much better than us ;)

Anyway, unfortunately I don't think VC-1 will suffer too many setbacks, even facing these problems. From a commercial standpoint, it's going to be a winner. M$ has such a long tradition in selling poor software... man, they successfully sold "technically inferior" operating systems for 20 years... :)

cheers
a M$ hater :)

[unmei]

@keel: i doubt it has too much relevance in the process.
Microsoft has tons of money and i think beside them donating or shelling out a lot in the weirdest places, they actually also do support that sort of organisations. Sure the chance that they support a org which they think is important is much higher, and submitting a request for standardisation to an org is acknowledging the importance of that org IMO.
I hope the SMPTE knows better than to bend over for $100K, i don't know how big the structures at SMPTE are, most likely not ISO style, but still.. that amount is probably not really going to make a big part of the budget.
Actually i think it is rather surprising they accepted to turn a commercial product into a standardised one. I don't think you or me can go to IEEE or ISO and give them something and they would make it into a standard. Maybe SMPTE accepted only under some condition like M$ had to pay one engineer of the board working on the standardisation process ;)

[dragongodz]

An initial idea... right...
yes an initial idea. i dont like analogies in general but you seem to need one.
an apple growers gives you 6 apples saying they are representative of his crop which he wants you to buy. now 6 apples of course isnt going to tell you what every apple is like but you can draw some early conclusions. if the apples are all great then you can easily say his crop may be good. if they are all half rotten you can also easily say it doesnt look good for the rest of his crop. why ? because it is in his interest to give you good examples since he wants to sell them to you. now if he doesnt do that then that is his fault. until you see the crop there is no way of knowing if the sample is entirly accurate of course so you can not draw a 100% conclusion from it. you can only draw an initial idea of the potential.

you still fail to see this as a MS problem even though it is they that provided the test streams(feature complete or not) and have not provided a reference decoder to decode them either. so your arguements of any invalidity of any conclusions can all be drawn back to MS. yet here you are defending them to death.

But don't waste anymore time on me... I've seen that your intellectual and reasoning skills far exceed those of mine.
finally something we agree on. :D

time wasting finished.

[Mug Funky]

hmm... bickering aside, i think this is good news.

if microsoft want their codec to be lauded above all others, they have to work to make it good, just like everyone else.

this will help keep them honest (or at least mitigate the effects of their dishonesty, which isn't exactly the same thing but is as good as anyone can hope for from a company such as MS).

anyone who feels VC-1 or WMV9 has been unfairly treated, i invite you to prove conclusively that it is better than h-264.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Mug Funky
hmm... bickering aside, i think this is good news.

if microsoft want their codec to be lauded above all others, they have to work to make it good, just like everyone else.

this will help keep them honest (or at least mitigate the effects of their dishonesty, which isn't exactly the same thing but is as good as anyone can hope for from a company such as MS).

anyone who feels VC-1 or WMV9 has been unfairly treated, i invite you to prove conclusively that it is better than h-264.

Mug I think you are going to be hard pressed to get anything more than a "Microsoft says it is so it must be" out of most supporters. And a few might try to confuse you with miniscule PSNR differences.

[Mug Funky]

...which is probably why the SMPTE is having difficulties with VC-1

nothing worse for marketing guys than a healthy dose of scientific method (albeit from engineers :)).

like the whole "SACD is teh shizzle - it's s000 much better than PCM" argument - it all dissolves into a bunch of stupid, obtuse graphs and Sony/Philips (mostly Sony) marketing crap.

of course, i hold PSNR as the ultimate model of the human visual system. hehehe. and somehow i doubt that VC-1 will even deliver higher PSNR than h-264.

[stephanV]

I'm not defending MS to death... it's you who are participating in "MS - ooh bad" discussions. I couldnt care less about that... I have no more sympathy for MS than i have i have for MPEG.

I just find it funny that when a member of MPEG says something it is immediately agreed upon.

Of course, some people prefer bending over to a horse instead of a bull.

[RadicalEd]

Originally posted by stephanV
when a member of MPEG says something

More like "when a member of MPEG finally calls MS on something we've all known for a long time".

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by stephanV
I'm not defending MS to death... it's you who are participating in "MS - ooh bad" discussions. I couldnt care less about that... I have no more sympathy for MS than i have i have for MPEG.

I just find it funny that when a member of MPEG says something it is immediately agreed upon.

The answer is simple.

1. The MPEG consortium has a track record of reliability.
2. They rarely if ever overstate their products capabilities.
3. They are generally platform neutral allowing everyone to participate equally.
4. They are formed from some of the biggest R&D companies on the face of the planet.
5. And most importantly they have not pissed everyone off.

OTOH

1. Microsoft has a track record awful with respects to reliability.
2. It is step 1 for Microsoft to over state each and every product.
3. They are highly platform specific. (IE theirs)
4. They are formed from some of the biggest IP abusers who have developed next to no real IP of their own.
5. And most importantly of all they have pissed off almost everybody.

Individual MPEG consortium members have indeed generated bad blood of their own on their own. But the consortium on their own has been very fair and equitable even if we quibble over licensing fees.

[Mug Funky]

far as i see, i'd rather pay licensing fees to an R&D based consortium than a marketing based corporation

R&D these days usually means "find an everyday object and add the internet to it"

BEHOLD! the internet-fridge. what a stroke of goddamn genius! every home in the world needs one of these!

the only thing i think MPEG slipped up on was the sfb21 problem in mp3, and the assumption that nobody can hear over 16k... but that's a pretty small gripe to have, really.


stephanV: correct me if i'm wrong, but you appear to be arguing for the sake of arguing. this doesn't strike me as all that constructive.

[keel]

Originally posted by unmei
@keel: i doubt it has too much relevance in the process.
....I hope the SMPTE knows better than to bend over for $100K, i don't know how big the structures at SMPTE are, most likely not ISO style, but still.. that amount is probably not really going to make a big part of the budget.
Actually i think it is rather surprising they accepted to turn a commercial product into a standardised one.

Well, you are probably right. Even I won't bend over for $100k! And if it was significantly more, it would really look like a payoff.

However, $100k can buy some good will among fence-sitters. It shows how mulit-pronged MS's maketing tactics are. It's hard to believe the donation was not totally coincidental. (It was for a good cause, anyways)

Naturally, we'll probably never know what really happened/is happening behind the scenes.

[stephanV]

Originally posted by Mug Funky
stephanV: correct me if i'm wrong, but you appear to be arguing for the sake of arguing. this doesn't strike me as all that constructive.

constructive huh?

I just wondered about something, then other people came (or rather one person) who found it necessary to drag in all sorts of unrelated stuff (I'm still puzzled about that AVI comment)... perhaps I shouldnt have responded to that, but that would defy the purpose of having a forum I think.

[Wilbert]

First, dragongodz doesn't come with all sorts of unrelated stuff (although I don't understand his avi comment either). Second, I suggest we go back to On Topic mode.

[neo75903]

I dont mind if M$ codec is taken into the standard as long:
- it is not a property of one company, prefer mpeg4 because more companies have a role to play.
- no hidden costs or license issues.
- open API's, for example no backdoors for m$ to make their encoder better, just fair competition.
- Clear definition of wmv9, as pointed out in previous posts, wmv is just a container as well, what you put in it is another business. I hope m$ is not using this trick to make things m$ compatible, as their attempt with java.
- Implementations possible for all platforms like unix/linux/Mac/... .

[shevegen]

Well still video stuff is quite confusing to me but this is one of the best analogies i have read so far:

an apple growers gives you 6 apples saying they are representative of his crop [...did cut out to not spam ...] until you see the crop there is no way of knowing if the sample is entirly accurate of course so you can not draw a 100% conclusion from it. you can only draw an initial idea of the potential.

thx for that :>

[shevegen]

@neo75903
dont think that MS wants to make any of your points come true. There i believe, was just too much invested into the video section for MS, and they really "like" this expansion.

But I would find it a tiny bit funny (malicious joy!) if MS would fail to become standard with their solution though... ;)

[neo75903]

@shevegen:
I dont agree with you. Maybe M$ is weak at Electronics, but the market for as media provider is still wide open. The next step to an internet connected player is just one step away when the market is flooded with wmv compatible appliances. Who do you think those media providers will turn to when they want to stream wmv?
It is only the question whether M$ has given all the technical data for a third company to write a similar server?
DRM has already thrown in by Apple to prevent Real offering a similar service.
So the question is rather, how much credits can we give m$?

[bond]

i would be interested in what companies actually hold patents on vc-1 (mpeg-la is working on a patent pool atm)? anyone having infos on this? vc-1 isnt that different to the mpeg technologies, so i am pretty sure there are more patent holders than only m$

[unmei]

From the article:
There are 12 of them at the moment, according to the MPEG LA licensing agency.
..but don't ask me who..

[bond]

Originally posted by unmei
From the article:
..but don't ask me who..ups, should have been reading the article more closer myself
thanks :)

i wonder how/if m$ payed all these patentholders for using their technologies for wmv9? anything known on that?

[neo75903]

Was wmv not an inhouse development from m$ it self?
Dont think they have to pay other licenses. Correct if i am wrong.
That is why i am very careful about wmv, with mpeg4 their is a pool of stakeholders where no one can put their will.

[bond]

well, m$ used technologies which where not developed by them in wmv9, thats why there seem to be 12 different companies holding patents on the technologies used in wmv9
the same goes for realvideo... all these codecs are very similar to mpeg-4 (eg they use b-frames, inloop filtering aso...)

if you want to use technolgies owned by someone else you have to pay the other one for being allowed to use it (thats what the mpeg-4 licenses are), in the case of an openstandard everyone knows what technologies are used and therefore everyone can check whether he owns patents and can ask for money for everyone who uses the openstandard
with a closed format, like wmv9 was a long time and like realvideo still is, its not easy to find out what tech gets used. still m$ would have to pay all the patentholders now known to mpeg-la even if wmv9 is closed (or they dont pay them, as noone knows whether m$ uses their patents, but i doubt that would be legal)