4 ms·

I am always blown away when reading about codecs. Video compression seems to be the perfect intersection of math, programming, and psychology.

by lanius 9y ago

21 9y ago
And money. This is what happens when a lot of money is thrown at a problem.
- mrits 9y ago
  This is what CAN happen when a lot of money is thrown at a problem.
  - matthew349hall 9y ago
    Important Distinction
- danbmil99 9y ago
  For the record. Yes, a lot of money was spent developing this codec. However, a lot of creativity and risk-taking was involved as well. It was far from clear 15 years ago when xiph released Theora (aka vp3, ancestor of av1) that going up against mighty MPEG, with their enormous war chest from a decade of royalties, and dozens of patents (and the money to defend them) that success in the end was even possible much less assured. It's really a wonderful story of the triumph of open source philosophy over the IP licensing model.
  - CharlesW 9y ago
    > It's really a wonderful story of the triumph of open source philosophy over the IP licensing model. 3-5 years will tell whether it's a triumph or a tragedy. It's certainly not possible to know today. Fans were quite sure Beta meant the end of VHS, but there are so many other (more important, in many cases) factors than the technology.
    - thomastjeffery 9y ago
      Betamax wasn't an open standard for digital formats, so that comparison is disingenuous. The fact that AV1 is explicitly not patent-encumbered is a very important feature.
  - niftich 9y ago
    While none of this is false, it's a bit of a misdirection to imply that the 'mighty MPEG' was a monolithic actor preventing this course of action from taking place. In fact, the individual collaborators that MPEG (or ITU) brought to the table were the same sorts of hardware companies, software companies, universities, research institutes, and media companies that are surprisingly familiar among AV1's contributors, and MPEG's licensing scheme -- the patent pool being its primary innovation -- was a way to seek mutually assured use of each other's work. The story here isn't that the Big Evil companies behind the MPEG codecs were beaten by the Good companies behind the Alliance for Open Media -- the story is that the pool of companies is kinda-sorta the same or comparable, with plenty of them playing both sides, a fact not lost on the founder of MPEG [1][2]. [1] http://blog.chiariglione.org/2018/01/28/ http://blog.chiariglione.org/2018/01/28/ [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16261313 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16261313
    - adrianratnapala 9y ago
      > it's a bit of a misdirection to imply that the 'mighty MPEG' was a monolithic actor preventing this course of action from taking place. In fact, the individual collaborators True but if we are comparing models for getting stuff invented collaboratively (open source vs. licensed IP) then this hardly misdirection. Indeed the fact that the same sort of actors found it possible/useful/necessary to go down the open route makes TD-Linux's point all the more interesting. This is important because when policymakers talk among themselves they often just assume that IP and such are necessary for fostering innovation.
      - rayiner 9y ago
        > This is important because when policymakers talk among themselves they often just assume that IP and such are necessary for fostering innovation Would AV1 have been possible in 1993 when MPEG-1 came out? How would you have bankrolled the standard at the time?
        xiphmont 9y ago
        > Would AV1 have been possible in 1993 when MPEG-1 came out? No. There weren't enough transistors in the world. I'm not being silly. Something like Av1 happens now because Moore/Dennard allow it to.
  - derf_ 9y ago
    Thanks for helping make that release happen.
    - danbmil99 9y ago
      Thanks to you, Monty, & all the other countless people who put in the hours, often without compensation. It really is an interesting story, maybe someone will write about it some day.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    > It's really a wonderful story of the triumph of open source philosophy over the IP licensing model It’s not an “open source philosophy over the IP licensing model.” It’s bankrolling a codec with content, device, and middleman revenues rather than content player revenues. The $_ dollars that Sony or Panasonic got for every DVD player through patent licensing has simply been replaced by the $_ that Google gets for every ad impression on YouTube or sale in the Google Play Store. It’s not a philosophical shift, merely a business model shift enabled by Internet video distribution.
    - danbmil99 9y ago
      But, there's an important distinction. In this case, Google did in fact support an open technology platform, so anyone can get their hands on it and distribute content, free of royalty and legal obligations. They could have chosen to be much more focused on narrow self-interest, kept the technology proprietary, and played games with their competitors. I honestly believe they chose the high road because that's part of their culture.
      - rayiner 9y ago
        You've got it backwards. AV1 is pushed by companies that profit from people who "distribute content." Apple and Google take a cut of sales on iTunes and Google Play, Google gets revenue from ads on Youtube, Netflix gets monthly fees, etc. The MPEG folks never tried to get money from people distributing content--the patents address, and the licenses are for, people who distribute encoders and decoders. And I don’t agree with your point about the “high road.” Google releases lots of open R&D “for free” that’s bankrolled by its enormous advertising profits. I think you have to view their R&D efforts through that lens, because none of it would be possible without the monetization models enabled by the advertising business. Is Android, for example, a “high road” compared to Symbian, just because Android is free and open? Not in my view. (Incidentally, it’s a lot like Xerox. Xerox PARC invented a ton of stuff that it didn’t patent and people freely used. But it was all bankrolled by their patents on copiers. When Xerox was forced to license those patents to Japanese companies, the money printing press disappeared and so did PARC.)

I am always blown away when reading about codecs. Video compression seems to be the perfect intersection of math, programming, and psychology.

by lanius 9y ago

I am always blown away when reading about codecs. Video compression seems to be the perfect intersection of math, programming, and psychology.

21 9y ago

And money. This is what happens when a lot of money is thrown at a problem.

mrits 9y ago
This is what CAN happen when a lot of money is thrown at a problem.
- matthew349hall 9y ago
  Important Distinction
danbmil99 9y ago
For the record. Yes, a lot of money was spent developing this codec. However, a lot of creativity and risk-taking was involved as well. It was far from clear 15 years ago when xiph released Theora (aka vp3, ancestor of av1) that going up against mighty MPEG, with their enormous war chest from a decade of royalties, and dozens of patents (and the money to defend them) that success in the end was even possible much less assured. It's really a wonderful story of the triumph of open source philosophy over the IP licensing model.
- CharlesW 9y ago
  > It's really a wonderful story of the triumph of open source philosophy over the IP licensing model. 3-5 years will tell whether it's a triumph or a tragedy. It's certainly not possible to know today. Fans were quite sure Beta meant the end of VHS, but there are so many other (more important, in many cases) factors than the technology.
  - thomastjeffery 9y ago
    Betamax wasn't an open standard for digital formats, so that comparison is disingenuous. The fact that AV1 is explicitly not patent-encumbered is a very important feature.
- niftich 9y ago
  While none of this is false, it's a bit of a misdirection to imply that the 'mighty MPEG' was a monolithic actor preventing this course of action from taking place. In fact, the individual collaborators that MPEG (or ITU) brought to the table were the same sorts of hardware companies, software companies, universities, research institutes, and media companies that are surprisingly familiar among AV1's contributors, and MPEG's licensing scheme -- the patent pool being its primary innovation -- was a way to seek mutually assured use of each other's work. The story here isn't that the Big Evil companies behind the MPEG codecs were beaten by the Good companies behind the Alliance for Open Media -- the story is that the pool of companies is kinda-sorta the same or comparable, with plenty of them playing both sides, a fact not lost on the founder of MPEG [1][2]. [1] http://blog.chiariglione.org/2018/01/28/ http://blog.chiariglione.org/2018/01/28/ [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16261313 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16261313
  - adrianratnapala 9y ago
    > it's a bit of a misdirection to imply that the 'mighty MPEG' was a monolithic actor preventing this course of action from taking place. In fact, the individual collaborators True but if we are comparing models for getting stuff invented collaboratively (open source vs. licensed IP) then this hardly misdirection. Indeed the fact that the same sort of actors found it possible/useful/necessary to go down the open route makes TD-Linux's point all the more interesting. This is important because when policymakers talk among themselves they often just assume that IP and such are necessary for fostering innovation.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      > This is important because when policymakers talk among themselves they often just assume that IP and such are necessary for fostering innovation Would AV1 have been possible in 1993 when MPEG-1 came out? How would you have bankrolled the standard at the time?
      - xiphmont 9y ago
        > Would AV1 have been possible in 1993 when MPEG-1 came out? No. There weren't enough transistors in the world. I'm not being silly. Something like Av1 happens now because Moore/Dennard allow it to.
- derf_ 9y ago
  Thanks for helping make that release happen.
  - danbmil99 9y ago
    Thanks to you, Monty, & all the other countless people who put in the hours, often without compensation. It really is an interesting story, maybe someone will write about it some day.
- rayiner 9y ago
  > It's really a wonderful story of the triumph of open source philosophy over the IP licensing model It’s not an “open source philosophy over the IP licensing model.” It’s bankrolling a codec with content, device, and middleman revenues rather than content player revenues. The $_ dollars that Sony or Panasonic got for every DVD player through patent licensing has simply been replaced by the $_ that Google gets for every ad impression on YouTube or sale in the Google Play Store. It’s not a philosophical shift, merely a business model shift enabled by Internet video distribution.
  - danbmil99 9y ago
    But, there's an important distinction. In this case, Google did in fact support an open technology platform, so anyone can get their hands on it and distribute content, free of royalty and legal obligations. They could have chosen to be much more focused on narrow self-interest, kept the technology proprietary, and played games with their competitors. I honestly believe they chose the high road because that's part of their culture.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      You've got it backwards. AV1 is pushed by companies that profit from people who "distribute content." Apple and Google take a cut of sales on iTunes and Google Play, Google gets revenue from ads on Youtube, Netflix gets monthly fees, etc. The MPEG folks never tried to get money from people distributing content--the patents address, and the licenses are for, people who distribute encoders and decoders. And I don’t agree with your point about the “high road.” Google releases lots of open R&D “for free” that’s bankrolled by its enormous advertising profits. I think you have to view their R&D efforts through that lens, because none of it would be possible without the monetization models enabled by the advertising business. Is Android, for example, a “high road” compared to Symbian, just because Android is free and open? Not in my view. (Incidentally, it’s a lot like Xerox. Xerox PARC invented a ton of stuff that it didn’t patent and people freely used. But it was all bankrolled by their patents on copiers. When Xerox was forced to license those patents to Japanese companies, the money printing press disappeared and so did PARC.)