LG halts production of ATSC 3.0-compatible TVs over patent concerns
lightreading.com
lightreading.com
Traditional 64QAM:
https://www.w6rz.net/64qamrect.png
ATSC 3.0 64QAM for 9/15 code rate:
https://www.w6rz.net/64qamnuc.png
You can explore this with my open source ATSC 3.0 transmitter.
https://github.com/drmpeg/gr-atsc3
Demo clip.
https://www.w6rz.net/64qamnuc1315.png
With really heavy error coding (2/15 code rate), the constellation becomes almost unrecognizable with points very close to each other.
The DRM and patents effectively destroyed the value and purpose of having an open standard, for consumers. It's what gave spotify and google music room to kill radio and now online streaming will do the same to broadcast TV.
Even with live events and sports, Amazon has started live streaming thursday night football on Twitch, you only need prime to watch. Youtube and Twitch are also creating a new way to consume the content, adding interactability. A charity recent soccer match that included major content creators had 1.3m average live viewers, 2.5m+ peak on Youtube.
This was eventually going to happen, but these decisions accelerate it. The concept of being limited by tv "channels" has already started to feel foreign to me.
The recommendation system around broadcast media seems immature and doesn't feel personal, the cable model makes it worse. People don't subscribe to every service every month, like they did for cable, people cycle through them. Keeping a viewer will always be cheaper than trying to regain a lost one.
Youtube and Twitch has gained social signficiance and some content is on par with traditional media. Kids who only watch YT, Twitch, and TikTok do not feel left out socially. Memes and social media fill in any gaps. I've noticed that the younger generations are more surprised when a peer doesn't know the Mr Beast YT channel than when they don't know a specific TV channel/show.
I think the future of live events and sports will look like Twitch, with a heavy emphasis on interactability. I think branding for shows/channels will get more focused on the characters/actors and creators. And larger categorization will be based on genre. Basically the same way it works with movies.
On the other hand, I have listened to 'Lofi HipHop' and 'oldies playing in another room' and aquarium/submarine streams. For videos where it's not live, you can create 'custom' channels with a looped playlist. It doesn't feel the same as broadcast to me.
citation needed
That is not a shift by consumer usage, but a forced selection from Streaming services.
Despite being hosted on https://www.twitch.tv/primevideo you do not actually need prime. I watch it without prime just fine.
I don’t see DRM killing many standards. It mostly seems to fail because it’s released too late or to an existing open standard.
I don’t see why HD Radio failed due to DRM. I’d say it failed due to MP3 players and streaming music services meaning people didn’t care, so it wasn’t worth car makers bothering.
The existing standard that people are going to use is the previous version of ATSC without DRM and encryption. Althrough DRM and encryption are not technically the same, they are practically in this kind of situation.
It's funny watching spotify try to move closer to radio with AI generated DJ curation. I hope it dies sooner rather than later so we can reallocate those bands to something more useful.
Patents on standards is largely how standards are financed, by company who will then recoup their research spent on that via those patents.
I think that RAND patents and with the list of patents published alongside the standard are an acceptable compromise.
In France for the equivalent on ATSC 3.0, we standardized on Dolby audio (AC4), which is NOT available as RAND at all (and is stupid for many other reasons). So well, we've put ourselves in a worst situation.
Thankfully those companies have a sense of fair play, and wouldn't dream of charging more than they spent on research, or of using patented standard to stifle competition for anyone not in their industry group.
Perhaps if technology corporations in this boat did more to dismantle the weird world of patent litigation around West Texas as a whole, the world and innovation everywhere would be better off for it.
The real solution is to make patent trolling impossible. Make it so if you own a patent you actually have to use it to make something. Not just use it to steal money from people who are actually making things.
I get the sense that many of these ideas of e.g. patents and copyright, etc. are based on good faith actors, while we're currently seeing extreme optimization towards 'just how close to the legal/illegal line can I get'.
Declaring that the IP of failed companies (and individuals who hope to but never bring a product to market) is public domain just makes the problem worse. Is a patent valid if I sell one single product? If that one sale comes after an infringing product? Years after?
Patents are a mess and need reform, but IMO we are better served by reform that emphasizes truly novel inventions and not small improvements / variations that are essentially obvious.
As long as those investors end up actually using those patents for something other than what is effectively legalized extortion who cares?
Though I do generally agree reform is necessary, and it should have a bias against trivial nonsense getting patents. But also against people who stockpile patents for no other reason than to sue people.
Even if you look at chip design, there are only a few companies that I can actually manufacture chips. But plenty of companies that can design processors.
Your law would only help big companies.
That way, the small-time inventor can sell their patent to Apple, or (yes) they could act as a patent troll. But they can't sell it to Intellectual Ventures or another professional patent troll that produces nothing but lawsuits.
It seems like a whole lot of folks are worried that this will upset something, and can seemingly be unable to name/describe what that thing is except to claim that crap is incredibly cost expensive/difficult to theorize/design/develop...then some guy does it in his basement and gets sued for a bajillion dollars.
I actually do support patents, but really, money is not effort, and if effort is zero, you should not be allowed to patent said effort. Using your brain is also not effort. I can think of a million different ways to patent a device that "bends you over and shoves a large stick like device in your anus", should I be granted said patent?
I suspect a proper solution would be to make patent licensing completely illegal, and make patents have a 3 year expiration instead of 10 years unless you try to develop/market your patent on your own. Even in those cases, you should not be allowed to license your patent.
That is just me, however.
How is the chip designer going to make money if they can’t license their designs to companies that actually make products?
3 years is barely enough time to get hardware to market. It took Panic 10 years to get the Playdate to market.
> that build a better widget for a larger device - cars, computers, phones ever suppose to make money?
The same they do today? By selling actual products?
Why would you sign a contract with someone for their inventions if you didn’t have to?
> The same they do today? By selling actual products?
Do you realize how hard it is to do hardware at scale? One of my examples was chip design. Are you saying that ARMs business model of coming up with chip designs and then licensing them shouldn’t be legal?
Because you're buying the blueprints for the actual project instead of wasting time reverse-engineering it or developing it yourself
There are plenty of ASIC/VHDL IP libraries not backed by patents, for example, and people still buy them
How is that going to work? Does Apple pay the same price as some no name Android manufacturer?
Sounds like nothing of value was lost
At this day and age, few people care about it. And ATSC "legacy" will continue to work so you can still watch your local news (or Days of Our Lives I guess)
It will it until it doesn't. My market currently has two physical channels for ATSC 3.0, and the rest are ATSC 1.0. If there's adoption (or a mandate), I can imagine the ratio flipping. If you like you programming at low bitrates, you'll be fine as they compress everything down, but there's a lot of potential for better video on ATSC 3, if users and broadcasters switch.
Otoh, using a poorly supported, non-free audio codec makes things unusable for me.
Yeah, I mean, 2/3rds of this sounds great.
Obviously both can be done without the DRM parts (some discussion on codecs and patents is warranted though).
has any streamer taken the challenge of making the "soaps" available from their beginning? i can imagine this would appeal to a Peggy Bundy type eating bonbons marathoning her soaps.
Only the US and Canada bothered with the abomination that is ATSC.