Comment by shmerl | Hacker News Reader

Comment by shmerl | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Adding Vorbis in hardware is not hard. The reason it's not usually added is because of Apple precisely, since they are one of the major manufacturers of hardware players. I.e. if they'd add support for Vorbis, it will become widespread pretty soon. So your argument is reversed. And, in mobile SoCs it is gaining traction now, because of Google and WebM. Hardware players are a bigger problem.

1) There is nothing confusing about codecs support. Just specify what's supported. Sansa players list supported codecs which include Vorbis and FLAC for example.

2) So what? Keep it as much as you want. What's the problem with that?

3) Barring newer and better codecs from adoption because of "debugging burden" is just ridiculous.

> Free codecs are a niche concern, almost all users get them free from their OS provider

So, how do OS X or iOS users get it from Apple? They don't. And that's the reason why HTML5 audio and video is such a mess. Apple know perfectly that they cause it, and they don't care, because they are jerks.

1) So Apple add Vorbis in the iPhone 6 and iPod fifth generation. "Why does this work on his iPod and not mine?"

2) For the iPhone 8 a new super low power, low cost chip with better integration of audio output becomes available but doesn't support Vorbis. Nevermind we will just use the old expensive high power chip instead. Every feature you add is a limitation on the future changes you can make.

3) Not always. Just a new encoder that does something differently can work on one player and not others, then you have to work out whether it is an encoder bug or decoder bug.

I meant almost all users get AAC/AVC/MPEG4 from their OS provider or Linux users can install open source (although probably not patent licensed) AAC/AVC/MPEG4 codecs from various locations. I wasn't clear and I will re-edit for clarity.

1) So? Instead of breaking your head on "how and where do I get a player which supports the codec I need", you'll worry about "which of these from the same manufacturer supports the codec I need". I surely prefer the second case to the first.

2) Why doesn't it support Vorbis? Let them make it low power low cost and add support for all modern codecs. It's doable. Apple sabotages it not because of any technical reasons.

Also, modern SoCs allow optimal decoding of any custom codec potentially, by allowing it to be defined programmatically, even if hardwired decoder is not available. See:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEON_%28instruction_set%29#NEO...

* http://mobile.arm.com/products/processors/technologies/neon....

3) Let them debug it. Or they shouldn't make players if they can't support modern codecs because it's "hard to debug".

It's not about what users or developers and publishers can do. It's about what they can't (because of Apple). And what people can't do is using open codecs without worrying that some users won't be able to access them.

AAC/AVC/MPEG4 are open. Your other points are arguing that it isn't that hard to do which I don't dispute but it isn't free and doesn't benefit them.

They are open as in "specs are available". They aren't open as in freedom to use them. Let's not start the semantics arguments, you know what was meant above.

Whether that benefits them not to do it - you are correct. My point is, it benefits them to sabotage the industry and to hold back innovation. It's because they view control as their main benefit, not the innovation. And that's why they are a problem for the open Web (it defines the medium that diminishes control of the likes of Apple). That was in my original point, so we don't argue here.

We have gone quite far off course but I thought I would summarise our polite disagreements which I doubt we will resolve:

1) How much effort it would be to introduce and support Vorbis over the long term. You seem to believe it is negligible in cost while I believe it is quite achievable if they wanted to do it but VERY far from free to support additional codecs.

2) Terminology. I don't like appropriation of words and think that terminology does matter. I was clear in an early post that I understood that the AAC/AVC/MPEG4 codecs are not free (or Free). I will continue to argue against claims (even implicit) that Open Standards are not open.

3) Innovation. Although I haven't responded to the point I don't see Vorbis as a significant innovation beyond AAC so I don't see Apple as holding back innovation by not supporting it. I don't see much innovation held back by the lack of Free codecs but perhaps you do.

4) "it benefits them to sabotage the industry and to hold back innovation" This is a really strange one to me. As (3) I'm not sure about the innovation. Also the idea that they have a duty to at their own expense (1) take actions that benefit other people seems odd to me. If they were using their own proprietary codec that would be different but I just don't see the duty that they are breaching.

5) My view is that there are advantages to the limited set of codec required to support virtually all devices that may even outweigh the disadvantages of them not being Free. This is probably our core disagreement. Until there is at least a factor of two improvement in coding efficiency it is unlikely to be worth making a leap in codecs. Vorbis, theora, VP8 all came too late (at least with hardware implementations) to win this generation and it is best that an open non-proprietary winner takes all. The presence of the Free codecs (and to an even greater degree VC-1 which at the time was pitched as royalty free) helped ensure reasonable licensing terms for AAC/AVC etc. (unlike MPEG4 part2/H.263) so for almost all use cases the cost of AAC/AVC/MPEG4 is negligible in business scenarios. (Shipping a free Linux distribution or other free player/encoder software is the only case that I can see being troubled but they mostly get around it by not including the codecs while making it easy for the user to obtain them elsewhere.)

1) It's not even the point whether there is some cost or none. It's not the cost that prevents Apple from implementing open codecs. It's control, I already emphasized that above. They spend a lot on other things, it's not like they direly lack resources.

2) I didn't invent the usage of "open" as in "liberated". That's used in open Web, open technologies and etc. Usually some try to complain that free software is different from open source software and so on. While it's formally valid, most often you can deduce what's implied from the context. Open codecs imply liberated codecs. Open standard (in many contexts) includes being not encumbered by patents (surely, even closed codec can be implemented as open source, it doesn't make it free because of that). And that's not the case with proprietary codecs - they are patent encumbered. That's why they are not open standards. When something is discussed as open vs closed as in not having a public specification, it's usually pretty clear.

3) Vorbis is clearly innovative over MP3. We were talking about digital players, and most of them use MP3, not AAC.

Opus is clearly innovative over any above, including AAC.

4) I already explained, it's not about expenses. It's about control. It's not just about "taking actions that benefit other people". It's about taking the opposite - actions which damage others (i.e. HTML5 codecs mess). Apple can't escape being blamed for it.

5) Even if there is some benefit in limiting the number of codecs, it's not what drives Apple not to use open ones, especially when they are technically better.

So we agree that Apple doesn't see a benefit in using open codecs, but we disagree on their motivation or what exactly they see as a benefit. You view them equating benefit with reducing expenses. I think they consider control as the primary benefit.

(1) Even Apple prioritise and focus. Do you have evidence besides the bank balance that it isn't cost but control?

(2) I'm not saying you invented the use of open or that Vorbis isn't open but that the word applies at least equally to traditional open standards. Open standard does not mean that there are now patents and the software people new to standardisation who believe otherwise are wrong. The attempt to appropriate the word (which you didn't start but you are continuing) isn't an attempt to debate on the merits. Patent encumbered standards can be compatible with many proper open source licenses.

(3) I don't know Opus or how good it is but it seems too new. The proposed standard RFC is only a year old and silicon specification lead times are often several times that.

All iPods support AAC in MP4 containers and have since the first iPod shipped so that is why I was comparing with AAC, MP3 is just for backwards compatibility in my view.

(5) Do you have any evidence for this.

1) Aren't recent patent events demonstrate that Apple is clearly paranoidally interested in control? Monopolistic grip = control. Banning competitive technologies = control. Codecs are just in line of Apple's usual behavior. Vorbis isn't even new. You could say that VP8 is relatively new and Opus is very new, so Apple is too slow to adopt them. But Vorbis is nowhere new. Apple always showed clear disdain towards open codecs, and it was never based on technical merits. Closed codecs equals control (or to make it more clear patents = control).

2) Arguments about what's an "open standard" aren't new either. I hold - open standards means unencumbered by patents. Especially when applied to the idea "open Web requires open standards". Luckily, W3C adopted that position.

3) Ubiquitous common denominator in audio players is still MP3. They aren't forward compatible though, i.e. players which support just MP3 can't play AAC.

5) Clear evidence is that other manufacturers successfully implement open codecs. It's not a downside, it's a benefit (for them and for their users).

I don't think anyone else is reading and doubt that we will change each other's minds. But I'll give you one more response.

1) No. Sort of but I'm not sure they have achieved a monopoly. When have they banned competitive technologies? An alternative perspective is that they felt their technology and design were ripped off improperly and responded with the legal remedies open to them. Even so that show that their codec decisions were about control of anyone else. Vorbis is old but newer (at least the integer version) than AAC which matches it for quality. VO8 is newer and not much better than AVC. Opus is just too new. Apple doesn't use closed codecs, I won't concede the language to you.

2) W3C requires royalty free open standards which is great but does not make that the definition of open standards (although it is within the definition).

3) Yes and Apple support that too. It is old and poor by modern standards but I'm not sure of the relevance to this debate.

5) That is nice. I have the feeling that many of them may drop it in subsequent models if it was inconvenient. Again I'm not sure of the relevance of this to our disagreements.

> When have they banned competitive technologies?

Many times. One of the glaring examples - competing browser engines on iOS.

> Vorbis is old but newer (at least the integer version) than AAC which matches it for quality.

Yet, AAC can't be used in an interoperable way because it's patent encumbered. Vorbis can, but Apple still refused to adopt it. Control conflicts with interoperability. Open Web requires interoperability. Apple obviously doesn't care.

> I won't concede the language to you.

I'm calling them closed, you can call them restricted, non free or whatever codecs. The main point - you understood what was implied.

> W3C requires royalty free open standards which is great but does not make that the definition of open standards

Neither does anyone else make such definition. It's not formal and shouldn't be. The main point that it should be clear what's implied, to avoid word play, when some call standards "open" (so fitting for the open Web), while implying that they are encumbered by patents. It caused problems in W3C in the past.

How does "open but non-free" for the MOEG4 standards and "open and Free" for the Xiph ones. Closed is wrong.

Openness and freeness are separate axis.

AAC is interoperable, there are many implementations; open, closed source and hardware on Linux, Windows, iOS, Android devices and many more devices than support Vorbis so in many ways AAC is more interoperable despite not being suitable for zero cost codec distribution or GPLv3 compatible (probably some more licenses too, not sure about MPL and CDDL off the top of my head).

Yes Apple impose limits on their iOS platform with a mixture of reasons including, security, reliability and their commercial advantage. I don't think it is an arbitrary control grab but some aspects are for their commercial benefit. Note VLC on iOS will play ogg files.

I agree that calling them free and non free is more correct. Even more correct is calling them liberated and restricted. But they are already commonly called open and closed.

Interoperability (required for the open Web) means that any participant should have equal ability to interoperate (legally). This includes both creators and consumers, including private individuals, open source projects, non profit organizations and anyone else. Patent encumbrance means that one has to pay for a license. This contradicts the requirement above, so it makes it not really interoperable in a complete sense. It wasn't without a strong opposition from Apple and Co, but these principles were accepted by W3C as a premise for the development of the Web (unfortunately this failed in case of DRM, but that's another story). Apple and similar minded managed to sabotage mandatory codecs for the video and audio tags though, making these principles easy to ignore (which they do).

Mozilla manifesto summarizes these points about interoperability and openness well:

https://www.mozilla.org/about/manifesto/

Interoperable means that things operate together and they undoubtably do in the MPEG4 ecosystem. Anyone can legally interoperate with MPEG4 with some limitations (equally anyone can use GPL code but some requirements come with distribution). That some choose not to join in and operate together does not make a thing lack interoperability. Note that I am not saying Mozilla are wrong to stay out, they have that right. For a long time they chose not to use even existing licensed codecs provided by the OS. They have a valid manifesto and a valid point of view and I am a Firefox and Thunderbird user when on a proper computer but it was a choice. That doesn't oblige other companies or groups to bend or change to support their ideologically based position.

On the interoperability scale (it isn't a binary yes/no) MPEG4 almost certainly wins by the pure range of devices supporting it from blu-ray players, mobile devices, RaspPi etc.

It is you that want to control other organisations to bend them to your ideological position via the W3C.

If you want open codecs to become ubiquitous the next generation is where the fight is now. I don't know of an HEVC beater out there but if there isn't one getting into silicon roadmaps right now you may have lost the next generation already.

A royalty free codec would be nice but for me a ubiquitous one is better. That is a valid disagreement that we have but it shows how Apple (and others) opposition to standardising on codecs doesn't need to be seen as an evil plot but a difference in prioties between different "good" choices.

> Interoperable means that things operate together and they undoubtably do in the MPEG4 ecosystem.

No, they don't. Technical feasibility to interoperate is only part of the picture. I clearly said above, that any participant should have an equal ability to interoperate legally. This includes no barriers to enter. License is like a visa to a country - it's a barrier to enter (which makes it not open).

If it's still not clear, license means "only those who can afford can use the encoder" and etc. Only those who can afford is a barrier to enter. I hope this is clear. Open codecs ensure equal accessibility and no barriers to enter. Encoders and decoders are available to everyone equally.

Pushing Apple and Co to support open technologies? It's only a natural thing to expect, since now they have a disproportionate grip as gatekeepers (in this context - it's about controlling codecs with patents). That was the whole point above, and that's exactly why Apple opposes it so strongly. It comes back to the same thing - control. You can call it an evil plot on their part, a basic instinct (desire for power) or whatever. But they clearly are allergic to the idea of the open Web, because it leaves them less leverage and makes it better for the people.

> If you want open codecs to become ubiquitous the next generation is where the fight is now.

Google does a lot with enabling VPx support in hardware. It's more up to OS developers to support it in software now. Hardware (at least mobile SoCs) is shaping up well. With wider usage of WebRTC things will get even better, since WebRTC mandates open [free] codecs (here Apple and Co. didn't manage to sabotage it). The next big thing is Daala, which is next generation to both VP9 and H.265. That won't appear in hardware soon.

Android has the larger market share. If it were just a matter Apple being jerks, all the open goodness you want would be widely available.

But it isn't that simple.

Android doesn't affect media players directly. Also, even with biggest market share, as far as someone with smaller but still significant market share sabotages codecs adoption - there is a problem. Only if Apple will become completely irrelevant as in "can be ignored", then it won't affect the situation. But so far it didn't happen yet.

Surely Apple aren't alone in causing these kind of problems, but they are a major factor.

They managed to sabotage open codecs for audio and video tags in W3C, but now there is some hope that WebRTC will make open codecs part of the standard, and Apple will be forced either to follow the standard or admit they are jerks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com