4 ms·

Hmmmm... That's a bit shady, especially charging for MPEG-2 support and other codecs. Not quite sure what they're getting at there.

by iuguy 14y ago

neverm0re 14y ago
It's pretty simple. The RPi is an advertising campaign for Broadcom's VideoCore IV processor, which is part of why the RPi is so cheap. Broadcom is uncomfortable with the reality that software is eating hardware, so they've decided to artificially bolster the value of their hardware by selling it back to you incrementally with their own buggy software. Until they lose interest in maintaining it, of course.
noob1 14y ago
So paying for a mpeg-2 licenses is shady? wtf?
jws 14y ago
Why shouldn't the people tha want to use the MPEG-2 patents pay the license fees? I don't play MPEG-2 on any of my RPis and am fine not paying them for those those that want to use that format.
- neverm0re 14y ago
  Except that totally overlooks the fact there are parts of the world where they could implement their own MPEG-2 decoder legally as they do not have software patents. Instead, because of this blob system without documentation they're forced to pay for it. How is this in any way not contrary to goals of education?
  - jws 14y ago
    "Perfect" will be great. Here in 2012 we don't have good performing GPUs with open documentation available for integration. This is what we can have now. It sucks a bit. I don't see it changing anytime soon. That's most of the reason I supported Parallela. That promises to be open, it probably won't be as much power as a nice GPU, but I want to compute with that hardware, and more problems will fit better. Plus I won't get trapped in some flawed API that has weird black boxes bugs and unpredictable performance issues.
  - beagle3 14y ago
    They still can, no one is stopping them! All they have to do is compile ffmpeg in software only mode. It would be dog slow, but it's what you are after. They are optimizing for the British education market, not for some ideal libertarian education market in Somalia that can ignore patents. And licensing agreements are a bitch. It might be against Broadcom's license with MPEG-LA to give enough info about implementing MPEG-2 regardless of jurisdiction.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - neverm0re 14y ago
      > All they have to do is compile ffmpeg in software only mode. Let them eat cake!
- iuguy 14y ago
  Given that I (and everyone I've spoken to) thought that one of the main goals for the Raspberry Pi was to provide an open platform for childrens education and development (right or wrong, this is how it was marketed to me and quite a few others that I know personally) it makes me feel a bit like I've been had. If it's not an open platform why are we supporting it? What's the difference between this and insert a n other board? Cheapness? I can get that with an MSP430. Linux? I can get that elsewhere in a more open capacity.
beagle3 14y ago
> Not quite sure what they're getting at there. It's not like they have a choice. Since MPEG-2 is covered by patents (which are underwritten by customs, police and eventually armies), they cannot really provide an MPEG-2 capable product without permission from the patent owners. And those patent owners demand $2/chip or so; So RPi, instead of passing it on to all users, whether they need it or not, pass it through only to those who are interested. It's >5% of the cost for the Model B, and >8% of the cost of the Model A. I'm sure if they included it as part of the base, there would be people outraged that they did as well. Despite the best intentions, limited resources and (despite what some people who have no experience with actually producing and selling hardware think) spectacular success - there will always be people who think they can do better. To those people I say: I'm here to cheer for you when you actually do. Until then, I will join Eben in ignoring you (or even Liz in mocking you silly)

Hmmmm... That's a bit shady, especially charging for MPEG-2 support and other codecs. Not quite sure what they're getting at there.

by iuguy 14y ago

Hmmmm... That's a bit shady, especially charging for MPEG-2 support and other codecs. Not quite sure what they're getting at there.

neverm0re 14y ago

It's pretty simple. The RPi is an advertising campaign for Broadcom's VideoCore IV processor, which is part of why the RPi is so cheap. Broadcom is uncomfortable with the reality that software is eating hardware, so they've decided to artificially bolster the value of their hardware by selling it back to you incrementally with their own buggy software. Until they lose interest in maintaining it, of course.

noob1 14y ago

So paying for a mpeg-2 licenses is shady? wtf?

jws 14y ago

Why shouldn't the people tha want to use the MPEG-2 patents pay the license fees? I don't play MPEG-2 on any of my RPis and am fine not paying them for those those that want to use that format.

neverm0re 14y ago
Except that totally overlooks the fact there are parts of the world where they could implement their own MPEG-2 decoder legally as they do not have software patents. Instead, because of this blob system without documentation they're forced to pay for it. How is this in any way not contrary to goals of education?
- jws 14y ago
  "Perfect" will be great. Here in 2012 we don't have good performing GPUs with open documentation available for integration. This is what we can have now. It sucks a bit. I don't see it changing anytime soon. That's most of the reason I supported Parallela. That promises to be open, it probably won't be as much power as a nice GPU, but I want to compute with that hardware, and more problems will fit better. Plus I won't get trapped in some flawed API that has weird black boxes bugs and unpredictable performance issues.
- beagle3 14y ago
  They still can, no one is stopping them! All they have to do is compile ffmpeg in software only mode. It would be dog slow, but it's what you are after. They are optimizing for the British education market, not for some ideal libertarian education market in Somalia that can ignore patents. And licensing agreements are a bitch. It might be against Broadcom's license with MPEG-LA to give enough info about implementing MPEG-2 regardless of jurisdiction.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - neverm0re 14y ago
    > All they have to do is compile ffmpeg in software only mode. Let them eat cake!
iuguy 14y ago
Given that I (and everyone I've spoken to) thought that one of the main goals for the Raspberry Pi was to provide an open platform for childrens education and development (right or wrong, this is how it was marketed to me and quite a few others that I know personally) it makes me feel a bit like I've been had. If it's not an open platform why are we supporting it? What's the difference between this and insert a n other board? Cheapness? I can get that with an MSP430. Linux? I can get that elsewhere in a more open capacity.

beagle3 14y ago

> Not quite sure what they're getting at there. It's not like they have a choice. Since MPEG-2 is covered by patents (which are underwritten by customs, police and eventually armies), they cannot really provide an MPEG-2 capable product without permission from the patent owners. And those patent owners demand $2/chip or so; So RPi, instead of passing it on to all users, whether they need it or not, pass it through only to those who are interested. It's >5% of the cost for the Model B, and >8% of the cost of the Model A. I'm sure if they included it as part of the base, there would be people outraged that they did as well. Despite the best intentions, limited resources and (despite what some people who have no experience with actually producing and selling hardware think) spectacular success - there will always be people who think they can do better. To those people I say: I'm here to cheer for you when you actually do. Until then, I will join Eben in ignoring you (or even Liz in mocking you silly)