6 ms·

AAC Licensors

116 points by zoobab 9y ago

taneq 9y ago
Is this one of those "Fraunhofer lines" I keep hearing about?
snakeanus 9y ago
Related https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14347648 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14347648
pjc50 9y ago
This is literally just a link to the AAC licensing page. Of course, Fraunhofer originally invented MP3 and got licensing fees from its patents instead. <strikethrough>The real WTF is how readily news organisations will just print a press release put out by Fraunhofer saying "MP3 is dead".</strikethrough>
- arrrg 9y ago
  Fraunhofer never said that. Not in the press release, no anywhere.
kuschku 9y ago
As I already wrote the last time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14348158 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14348158 But don't villify Fraunhofer over this — as a public nonprofit research institute, they're expected to finance their research with patent licenses. If you want to be angry at someone, look at all the for-profit entities on that list, who absolutely have no need to collect AAC license fees, as they've got more than enough profit, but still do. In fact, I'm also a bit disappointed that Google entered this fight with VP8 and VP9 — with their free products it means that only companies with already large budgets will be able to create such standards in the future, and research institutes will be unable to do so, giving even more power to companies. I'd prefer a world where such standards are designed by impartial nonprofit research institutes. A similar issue exists with the WHATWG standards, which are dominated by Google, Apple and Microsoft, which is part of why we now have EME.
- zoobab 9y ago
  "they're expected to finance their research with patent licenses" Why they cannot be funded 100% with public money? At least the "public" would get some free technology back.
  - kuschku 9y ago
    We did that in the past, and it ends with those research institutes then wasting money for everything, as another commenter mentioned. This model is to ensure Fraunhofer only develops technology that has practical applications (for more theoretical research, there's other research societies). Also, if it was free, it'd be the German taxpayer subsidizing foreign companies — that wouldn't work in the long term, as German taxes would pay for tech that Google f.e. would use, but Google wouldn't give anything back. One could make the license fees tax deductible in Germany, though, that would be a good solution.
    - zoobab 9y ago
      What could go wrong with turning universities in money making machines?
      - kuschku 9y ago
        The research institutes are entirely separate from the teaching part of the universities, funded entirely separate (which is why nothing of this is counted in university rankinds). And this decision was done intentionally. There's also research societies that work without any income (Max Planck, Leibniz, Helmholtz), but the whole point of the Fraunhofer society is to take science and turn it into something that companies can apply, use, and would pay for.
- jlg23 9y ago
  > as a public nonprofit research institute, they're expected to finance their research with patent licenses. Though they are not really a shining example of frugality either. Another institute they merged with was locally known as the "institute for lunch and business trips" (GMD[1], Gesellschaft fuer Mittagessen und Dienstreisen). [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMD-Forschungszentrum_Informationstechnik https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMD-Forschungszentrum_Informat...
kristianc 9y ago
Not a surprise. 90% of news is PR of some sort, you just need to ask with any story who has paid to put it there.
- kalleboo 9y ago
  The real problem here is discount journalism that doesn't have the time nor inclination to figure out the real story. Of course Fraunhofer would frame it this way, but when tech blog writers don't even understand what patents are, it's pretty sad.
snvzz 9y ago
It just so happens there's no real reasons to use AAC over OPUS.
- tpush 9y ago
  Apple's devices have no support for OPUS(or Vorbis, or VP8/9).
  - snvzz 9y ago
    Apple's part of the group pushing AAC. They do of course deliberate sabotage open codec efforts.
- errantspark 9y ago
  There's few real reasons to use anything other than MP3 for audio files. I don't care about having DRM, or conserving bandwidth/space by encoding things at low bitrates. I just care that my music/sound recording will work everywhere. The arguments people make for more "advanced" codecs are mostly completely spurious especially now that MP3 is patent-free. I'm probably just crazy though, after all I still use wired internet whenever possible. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
- phoboslab 9y ago
  Almost true. Even Microsoft's Edge supports Opus now, but Safari still does not.
  - agumonkey 9y ago
    chicken and egg, without people using opus, safari users will never notice Safari not supporting it.
- carlos22 9y ago
  Better then mp3 and embedded devices (e.g. cars) almost never have support for opus (or even ogg)...
- raverbashing 9y ago
threeseed 9y ago
Sorry but this is just nonsense. MP3 became irrelevant the second Apple made AAC the premier codec for iPods and the iTunes Store back in 2003. And given that it was the dominant player/store combination for the following decade it's not hard to see why AAC became popular. The fact AAC sounded so much better was just the cherry. MP3 officially became dead when everyone moved to streaming.
- kbart 9y ago
  You mistaken "everyone" with "my bubble". Pretty much everyone in my circle still collects and listens to mp3 as the primary format. Furthermore, if you have more obscure music taste, it's a rare find something interesting on the streaming services.
  - sniglom 9y ago
    What you're missing is that collecting mp3's is your bubble. The vast majority of people is streaming, not collecting mp3.
    - kbart 9y ago
      That's my whole point: you can't say "everyone" as it's not accurate description. OP and my examples use different "everyones" to prove this point and both are valid. Saying that mp3 is dead just based on your own anecdote is wrong.
whyleyc 9y ago
Except Fraunhofer did not promote MP3 as “dead". They put out a press release announcing the "termination" of various MP3-related patents[1]. As Marco noted[2] news orgs took that original announcement and twisted it into a "creators announce MP3 is dead" story, presumably because there are more clicks to be had there than a story about patent expirations. [1] https://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/en/ff/amm/prod/audiocodec/audiocodecs/mp3.html https://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/en/ff/amm/prod/audiocodec/audi... [2] https://marco.org/2017/05/15/mp3-isnt-dead https://marco.org/2017/05/15/mp3-isnt-dead
- arrrg 9y ago
  Exactly, Fraunhofer is blameless in this. They did in no way even suggest that MP3 was dead. Maybe the press release was a bit lacking in detail so that complete doofuses with no knowledge of the matter could misinterpret it, but that’s more on them.
- msravi 9y ago
  The press release from Fraunhofer is extremely misleading: > mp3 licensing program for certain mp3 related patents and software of Technicolor and Fraunhofer IIS has been terminated This gives the impression that the patents are valid but will no longer be available for licensing, and you can't buy licensing rights to build your mp3 player - in reality, the patents expired, making them free. > ...there are more efficient audio codecs with advanced features available today Assert that mp3 is dead today > However, most state-of-the-art media services such as streaming or TV and radio broadcasting use modern ISO-MPEG codecs such as the AAC family or in the future MPEG-H. Those can deliver more features and a higher audio quality at much lower bitrates compared to mp3 Reiterate that mp3 is dead today I'm not surprised that the media took this as "mp3 is dead" and ran with it. The blame lies as much with Fraunhofer for their misleading statements as with the rest of the media.
- delibes 9y ago
  Pity they couldn't have the imagination to write a more positive headline then. How about - "MP3 music tech finally freed from license limitations"
science404 9y ago
Their response (may 18): http://www.audioblog.iis.fraunhofer.com/mp3-software-patents-licenses/ http://www.audioblog.iis.fraunhofer.com/mp3-software-patents...
VMG 9y ago
Expecting the headline to be changed soon, original headline was: Fraunhofer promoted MP3 as “dead”, because they get money from AAC patents
- zoobab 9y ago
  "AAC Licensors" as a new title does not tell much. A better title would have been: "MP3 promoted as "dead", Fraunhofer will get money from AAC patents now"
kbart 9y ago
I didn't follow this whole mp3 story deeper than headlines, so can somebody explain to me, how expiring patents and becoming royalty free, public format equates to dead? In my book, that's pretty much the opposite as everyone can use it now.
leifg 9y ago
This is same click baiting as the tech news "MP3 is dead" stories. There is no proof that Fraunhofer did what they did because they are also a licensor of AAC.
- twelvedogs 9y ago
  from what i've read they bought several other patents that kind of covered mp3 but expired later to stretch out their hold on them, i wish i'd saved them since google is just returning hundreds of articles about whether mp3 is dead or not
falifali 9y ago
AAC does has some advantages comparing with MP3. You can find them in this article http://bit.ly/2rypx5B http://bit.ly/2rypx5B
falifali 9y ago
AAC does has some advantages comparing with MP3.It is smaller with better qulaity. You can find them in this article http://bit.ly/2rypx5B http://bit.ly/2rypx5B
A1phab3t 9y ago
I would have been more interested to read a story that told me which software should be cheaper now that it doesn't have to bake the MP3 license into its selling price.
dang 9y ago
We changed the submitted title from "Fraunhofer promoted MP3 as "dead", because they get money from AAC patents" which is an egregious case of editorializing, violating the HN guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and the sort of thing that will get your story submission privileges removed here. One can see plainly from this thread how bad an effect polemical titles have on discussions.

AAC Licensors

116 points by zoobab 9y ago

taneq 9y ago

Is this one of those "Fraunhofer lines" I keep hearing about?

snakeanus 9y ago

Related https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14347648 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14347648

pjc50 9y ago

This is literally just a link to the AAC licensing page. Of course, Fraunhofer originally invented MP3 and got licensing fees from its patents instead. <strikethrough>The real WTF is how readily news organisations will just print a press release put out by Fraunhofer saying "MP3 is dead".</strikethrough>

arrrg 9y ago
Fraunhofer never said that. Not in the press release, no anywhere.

kuschku 9y ago

As I already wrote the last time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14348158 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14348158 But don't villify Fraunhofer over this — as a public nonprofit research institute, they're expected to finance their research with patent licenses. If you want to be angry at someone, look at all the for-profit entities on that list, who absolutely have no need to collect AAC license fees, as they've got more than enough profit, but still do. In fact, I'm also a bit disappointed that Google entered this fight with VP8 and VP9 — with their free products it means that only companies with already large budgets will be able to create such standards in the future, and research institutes will be unable to do so, giving even more power to companies. I'd prefer a world where such standards are designed by impartial nonprofit research institutes. A similar issue exists with the WHATWG standards, which are dominated by Google, Apple and Microsoft, which is part of why we now have EME.

zoobab 9y ago
"they're expected to finance their research with patent licenses" Why they cannot be funded 100% with public money? At least the "public" would get some free technology back.
- kuschku 9y ago
  We did that in the past, and it ends with those research institutes then wasting money for everything, as another commenter mentioned. This model is to ensure Fraunhofer only develops technology that has practical applications (for more theoretical research, there's other research societies). Also, if it was free, it'd be the German taxpayer subsidizing foreign companies — that wouldn't work in the long term, as German taxes would pay for tech that Google f.e. would use, but Google wouldn't give anything back. One could make the license fees tax deductible in Germany, though, that would be a good solution.
  - zoobab 9y ago
    What could go wrong with turning universities in money making machines?
    - kuschku 9y ago
      The research institutes are entirely separate from the teaching part of the universities, funded entirely separate (which is why nothing of this is counted in university rankinds). And this decision was done intentionally. There's also research societies that work without any income (Max Planck, Leibniz, Helmholtz), but the whole point of the Fraunhofer society is to take science and turn it into something that companies can apply, use, and would pay for.
jlg23 9y ago
> as a public nonprofit research institute, they're expected to finance their research with patent licenses. Though they are not really a shining example of frugality either. Another institute they merged with was locally known as the "institute for lunch and business trips" (GMD[1], Gesellschaft fuer Mittagessen und Dienstreisen). [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMD-Forschungszentrum_Informationstechnik https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMD-Forschungszentrum_Informat...

kristianc 9y ago

Not a surprise. 90% of news is PR of some sort, you just need to ask with any story who has paid to put it there.

kalleboo 9y ago
The real problem here is discount journalism that doesn't have the time nor inclination to figure out the real story. Of course Fraunhofer would frame it this way, but when tech blog writers don't even understand what patents are, it's pretty sad.

snvzz 9y ago

It just so happens there's no real reasons to use AAC over OPUS.

tpush 9y ago
Apple's devices have no support for OPUS(or Vorbis, or VP8/9).
- snvzz 9y ago
  Apple's part of the group pushing AAC. They do of course deliberate sabotage open codec efforts.
errantspark 9y ago
There's few real reasons to use anything other than MP3 for audio files. I don't care about having DRM, or conserving bandwidth/space by encoding things at low bitrates. I just care that my music/sound recording will work everywhere. The arguments people make for more "advanced" codecs are mostly completely spurious especially now that MP3 is patent-free. I'm probably just crazy though, after all I still use wired internet whenever possible. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
phoboslab 9y ago
Almost true. Even Microsoft's Edge supports Opus now, but Safari still does not.
- agumonkey 9y ago
  chicken and egg, without people using opus, safari users will never notice Safari not supporting it.
carlos22 9y ago
Better then mp3 and embedded devices (e.g. cars) almost never have support for opus (or even ogg)...
raverbashing 9y ago

threeseed 9y ago

Sorry but this is just nonsense. MP3 became irrelevant the second Apple made AAC the premier codec for iPods and the iTunes Store back in 2003. And given that it was the dominant player/store combination for the following decade it's not hard to see why AAC became popular. The fact AAC sounded so much better was just the cherry. MP3 officially became dead when everyone moved to streaming.

kbart 9y ago
You mistaken "everyone" with "my bubble". Pretty much everyone in my circle still collects and listens to mp3 as the primary format. Furthermore, if you have more obscure music taste, it's a rare find something interesting on the streaming services.
- sniglom 9y ago
  What you're missing is that collecting mp3's is your bubble. The vast majority of people is streaming, not collecting mp3.
  - kbart 9y ago
    That's my whole point: you can't say "everyone" as it's not accurate description. OP and my examples use different "everyones" to prove this point and both are valid. Saying that mp3 is dead just based on your own anecdote is wrong.

whyleyc 9y ago

Except Fraunhofer did not promote MP3 as “dead". They put out a press release announcing the "termination" of various MP3-related patents[1]. As Marco noted[2] news orgs took that original announcement and twisted it into a "creators announce MP3 is dead" story, presumably because there are more clicks to be had there than a story about patent expirations. [1] https://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/en/ff/amm/prod/audiocodec/audiocodecs/mp3.html https://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/en/ff/amm/prod/audiocodec/audi... [2] https://marco.org/2017/05/15/mp3-isnt-dead https://marco.org/2017/05/15/mp3-isnt-dead

arrrg 9y ago
Exactly, Fraunhofer is blameless in this. They did in no way even suggest that MP3 was dead. Maybe the press release was a bit lacking in detail so that complete doofuses with no knowledge of the matter could misinterpret it, but that’s more on them.
msravi 9y ago
The press release from Fraunhofer is extremely misleading: > mp3 licensing program for certain mp3 related patents and software of Technicolor and Fraunhofer IIS has been terminated This gives the impression that the patents are valid but will no longer be available for licensing, and you can't buy licensing rights to build your mp3 player - in reality, the patents expired, making them free. > ...there are more efficient audio codecs with advanced features available today Assert that mp3 is dead today > However, most state-of-the-art media services such as streaming or TV and radio broadcasting use modern ISO-MPEG codecs such as the AAC family or in the future MPEG-H. Those can deliver more features and a higher audio quality at much lower bitrates compared to mp3 Reiterate that mp3 is dead today I'm not surprised that the media took this as "mp3 is dead" and ran with it. The blame lies as much with Fraunhofer for their misleading statements as with the rest of the media.
delibes 9y ago
Pity they couldn't have the imagination to write a more positive headline then. How about - "MP3 music tech finally freed from license limitations"

science404 9y ago

Their response (may 18): http://www.audioblog.iis.fraunhofer.com/mp3-software-patents-licenses/ http://www.audioblog.iis.fraunhofer.com/mp3-software-patents...

VMG 9y ago

Expecting the headline to be changed soon, original headline was: Fraunhofer promoted MP3 as “dead”, because they get money from AAC patents

zoobab 9y ago
"AAC Licensors" as a new title does not tell much. A better title would have been: "MP3 promoted as "dead", Fraunhofer will get money from AAC patents now"

kbart 9y ago

I didn't follow this whole mp3 story deeper than headlines, so can somebody explain to me, how expiring patents and becoming royalty free, public format equates to dead? In my book, that's pretty much the opposite as everyone can use it now.

leifg 9y ago

This is same click baiting as the tech news "MP3 is dead" stories. There is no proof that Fraunhofer did what they did because they are also a licensor of AAC.

twelvedogs 9y ago
from what i've read they bought several other patents that kind of covered mp3 but expired later to stretch out their hold on them, i wish i'd saved them since google is just returning hundreds of articles about whether mp3 is dead or not

falifali 9y ago

AAC does has some advantages comparing with MP3. You can find them in this article http://bit.ly/2rypx5B http://bit.ly/2rypx5B

falifali 9y ago

AAC does has some advantages comparing with MP3.It is smaller with better qulaity. You can find them in this article http://bit.ly/2rypx5B http://bit.ly/2rypx5B

A1phab3t 9y ago

I would have been more interested to read a story that told me which software should be cheaper now that it doesn't have to bake the MP3 license into its selling price.

dang 9y ago

We changed the submitted title from "Fraunhofer promoted MP3 as "dead", because they get money from AAC patents" which is an egregious case of editorializing, violating the HN guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and the sort of thing that will get your story submission privileges removed here. One can see plainly from this thread how bad an effect polemical titles have on discussions.