AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Interesting development. According to Protocol today, Google is “looking to introduce two new media formats to offer HDR video and 3D audio under a new consumer-recognizable brand without the licensing fees hardware manufacturers currently have to pay Dolby.” The project is code named “Project Caviar”. Report states “attempts to make HDR10+ a household name have largely failed,” (ouch) thus Google wants to try again.

Edit: link to primary source
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,022 Posts
Google has too much money, I would have expected them to try to get into the TV show business like Apple did rather than AV formats. I mean, they own Youtube but it's not like there is premium original content there. Sure Cobra Kai originated on Youtube but that's an anomaly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
444 Posts
Hahahah Google !!! YouTube TV still doesn’t support surround sound on AppleTV and just recently started supporting surround sound on devices in 2022 !!! You are hardly the leader in the home theater space. Also, sorry Google, not everyone can make money selling user data and cramming ads down everybody’s throat. I would happily pay the extra few cents to not be bombarded with what Google deems is an acceptable form of earning money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
Interesting development. According to Protocol today, Google is “looking to introduce two new media formats to offer HDR video and 3D audio under a new consumer-recognizable brand without the licensing fees hardware manufacturers currently have to pay Dolby.” The project is code named “Project Caviar”. Report states “attempts to make HDR10+ a household name have largely failed,” (ouch) thus Google wants to try again.

Edit: link to primary source
Google should just buy Dolby and make it royalty free, it's probably chump change for them. Stranger things have happened, like Razor the gaming peripheral company buying THX.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
Expect to see this on Killed by Google , I'll grab the popcorn.
Stadia Is the next thing they will kill, they spend Millions to make a failed game streaming service. The current internet infrastructure in the US just doesn't have the bandwidth, and the lag is horrific. You also have to not only play a monthly fee for Stadia but you also have to pay for the games.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
21,860 Posts
The killing of ’works with Nest’ is one I will never forgive/forget: I saw a lot of integrators spend countless hours setting this up for customers, only to have it shot dead without notice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,838 Posts
History repeats
Appears when a MegaTechCorp gets too big and wealthy and sees a flattening growth curve, they always try schemes to claw back any outgoing royalties, license fees, etc.

Microsoft went through this 25+ years ago, first trying the video codec game with wmv, Video for Windows, then WMA audio codecs, lossy and then lossless during the Diamond Rio Mp3 early days, doing their iPod clone the Zune. Then they added multichannel and got lots of receiver and dap makers to support their audio codecs. Then they made a play at HD video discs with the Terminator release that predated Hddvd and Blu-ray.

It was expected at the time that more DVDs might include such Wmv HD discs

See how all that turned out- we all use only Microsoft audio and video codecs, right? ,😂

Same motivations, to avoid royalty, patent fees, and eventually collect some if they took over the market. And MSFT went all in, buying Pacific Microsonics to scarf up the Hdcd codec, gobbling up whatever codecs they thought might yield large scale ongoing royalties

Google could have had a real shot at DV and Atmos alternatives had they predated hdr10+ or at least announced with hdr10+, or collaborated with the Samsung's of the world back when they wanted to avoid Dolby fees years ago motivating hdr10+ in the first place.

But given Google's late-to-the-party hubris plus long track record of killing such projects...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,141 Posts
Yeah, this is going to be wild - are you going to upgrade all your equipment just to support this new HDR format? And didn't Samsung create hdr10+ to avoid Dolby vision?

Google should just buy Dolby and make it royalty free, it's probably chump change for them. Stranger things have happened, like Razor the gaming peripheral company buying THX.
Razor didn't get THX directly. Creative acquired THX because it made sense (the sound blaster guys wanted to differentiate their products by adding THX support). Razor then acquired creative because overpriced gaming peripherals tended to go with overpriced computer audio solutions. THX merely came along for the ride but wasn't something razor specifically acquired creative for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,838 Posts
Other history and comments

by steveha ( 103154 ) on Thursday September 22, 2022 @11:11PM (#62906651) Homepage
what is Google's endgame? Just cost saving?

I think so, yes.

Look at Google's history here. They bought the company On2, and then spent a year or so having lawyers check over the source code for On2's video coder, and then released that coder (VP8 [wikipedia.org] as open source. They released On2's patents as well, also for free.

There's a network effect in coders. Users want the decoders for the popular format; then companies license the encoders for the popular format, because so many decoders are out there. It's self-reinforcing. Trying to introduce a new format is like trying to start a competitor to Facebook. (Remember Google+? I had forgotten it so completely I had to do a Google search to remind me what it was called.)

The best chance at getting people to adopt a new alternative is to give it away as the free and open alternative format. Even with it free, when Google released VP8, most people on Slashdot sneered at it. "Only MPEG decoders have hardware support on mobile devices. Why would I burn my phone's battery just because Google wants to save a few pennies on licensing fees?" A few free-software fans were happy but we seemed like the minority voices here.

Now, years later, hardware decoding support [webmproject.org] is common, but MPEG coders still rule the popularity contest.

But IMHO Google doesn't actually care that much if they need to spend a few pennies on MPEG licensing fees. IMHO they wanted a credible threat to make sure that the MPEG licensing authority didn't put the screws to Google's thumbs. Suppose MPEG licensing got greedy and tried to jack the fees... maybe even only jacking the fees for people using the coder at large scale (i.e. targeted fees that only Google had to pay)? Or perhaps introduced obnoxious licensing requirements, like Google needing to submit reports on how many users were watching videos. "Hey, Google, now that you have a hugely profitable business in YouTube, we have decided you need to start paying us a whole lot more." Google needs effective coders; MPEG-1 level technology won't even work for them. But with VP8, Google now could credibly say "gee, your new licensing won't work for us. We're going to have to pass. We have the free software coders; we're using those."

The MPEG licensing guys, in turn, were now incented by this threat to treat Google well, reducing Google's motivation to switch. The current situation is working pretty well for all parties.

Something similar to the above happened in the world of MP3 audio coding. Vorbis, a free software audio coder, is arguably better than MP3, but it never really caught on; MP3 was so popular that everyone was using it (or AAC for the higher-quality streams). Vorbis didn't displace the proprietary formats but IMHO spared us from any major abuses at the hands of the people holding the patents. (I do believe that Vorbis became quite popular for applications like music in video games. The game engines don't have to license any patents and gaming computers have no difficulty decoding Vorbis.)

Also, aside from the issues of control and licensing fees, I believe that many people who work for Google would like to make a positive change in the world. Everyone is better off if the commonly-used media formats are free and open. (Well, everyone except those who profit from the proprietary stuff.) Google can do things for more than one reason and some of the reasons might actually be altruistic.

P.S. Around the time Google released VP8, the MPEG licensing authority was starting to make noises about making end users get patent licenses for "commercial uses" [engadget.com] of H.264, the MPEG4 video coder. If you bought a digital video camera and recorded a video, the owner's manual said you couldn't use it for commercial uses (e.g. shooting video of a wedding for a fee) without getting a suitable license. This freaked a lot of people out (including me).

This seemed to me like simple greed. They made the camera manufacturer get a patent license, and then wanted more money from the people who use the camera! Just say no.
IIRC they backed down and gave up on the idea, but would they have done so if Google hadn't released VP8 to the world? My guess is: no. But because VP8 was a thing, now they had to be careful not to drive the video camera makers to stop bothering to license MPEG coders.

Flag as Inappropriate
Re:
Kill a competitor's income is a common capitalism game. Make a free competitor that negates all research they've done. Then reap the customers who think you did it all for them.
Re:
Commoditize all intellectual property, equipment, etc. required to run a cloud service advertising business... with the exception of IP owned by either Google or Meta (aka Facebook). The only IP that is allowed to be valuable is the algorithm that decides what piece of content shows up at the top of a webpage... that might be a search engine or it could be a Facebook news feed.Everything other than that must be worth as close to ~$0 as possible because if other types of viable business exists in the technol
Re:
To avoid paying licence fees to Dolby. At the moment if you want Dolby Vision (HDR) and Dolby Atmos (3D sound) you have to pay them royalties on every device sold, and of course buy their over-priced documentation and developer kits. You have to pay them to certify your equipment too.That limits the availability of those technologies to higher profit margin devices and services.Google already did this with video, creating a free codec that performs at least as well as the proprietary ones. It's used on YouT
Re:
I agree that they were pretty successful with AV1: They managed to get many important companies on board thus ensuring wide support. Hardware companies also were there so now we're getting hardware support for encoding in mainstream videocards. Even if AV1 was only used on YouTube and Netflix that's a decent slice of the streamed video.
Re:
In case you were living under a rock for the last 23+ years, there's been a war on general computing and honest text based executables. Beginning with ultima online in 1997 and everquest in 1999.The public has been robbed of getting local applications as Google, valve, intel, AMD and the rest push us towards a return of mainframe computing (DRM is just the return of client-server model of computing, where you own nothing).The whole point was to take over the entire input output of the machine and put it un
Re:
It's a free audio codec dude, not a DRM scheme. Your rant may apply to many things Google does but it has zero relevance to this.
Re:
You don't get they want the "free codecs" so they can use it in their DRM implementation idiot, so they don't have to pay money to dolby, aka the reason they want those codecs is you don't grasp once trusted computing and pluton is in every intel and AMD processor, the streams you dl from youtube will be encrypted, the whole point is to get back the "product model" of television so they can sell content to idiots and push unblockable adds.You don't grasp that google has already been experimenting with DRM o
It Won't Be Open (Score:5, Insightful)
by WankerWeasel ( 875277 ) on Thursday September 22, 2022 @08:38PM (#62906415)
It'll be as 'open' as AMP, which Google touted as an open format yet they completely control it and all updates to it are to benefit themselves and prevent competitors from benefitting from it. They talk about RCS messaging but that too they use their own version of it which is outside the open source implementation and requires everyone to utilize their servers so that they can capture data about all the messages.
by rsmith-mac ( 639075 ) on Friday September 23, 2022 @12:41AM (#62906769)
It won't be open

Even as someone who hates Google more than most people, I have to concede that it doesn't look like that will be the case. That is to say, this stuff is open.

HDR10+, the HDR transport format Google is now pushing, is already an industry standard that's controlled by a non-profit consortium [hdr10plus.org]. The technical specifications are accessible for free to software groups, while hardware groups do have to pay a trivial annual membership fee (so it's open in the same way that DisplayPort is open).

In fact Google is a latecommer here, as the consortium and the standard is already several years old. They aren't even listed as a consortium member right now, so it seems they technically have zero control over the standard.

As for the 3D audio standard they're pushing, Immersive Audio Container [github.io], that is a bona fide open standard with the spec fully and freely published. Furthermore it's being overseen by the Alliance for Open Media, the same group that developed AV1.

Now, Google is a contributor to the initial spec, along with Samsung. But as it's now an AOM project, they only have as much control over it as the other members of the AOM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
Yeah, this is going to be wild - are you going to upgrade all your equipment just to support this new HDR format? And didn't Samsung create hdr10+ to avoid Dolby vision?



Razor didn't get THX directly. Creative acquired THX because it made sense (the sound blaster guys wanted to differentiate their products by adding THX support). Razor then acquired creative because overpriced gaming peripherals tended to go with overpriced computer audio solutions. THX merely came along for the ride but wasn't something razor specifically acquired creative for.
I didn't know that, no idea why Razor would buy Creative, Soundcards have been dead for a longtime now. the MediaTek chips that come on motherboards now days are pretty good for stereo with headphones, and if someone wants to upgrade their sound they normally get a DAC from a company like Topping and a headphone amp to go with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,673 Posts
And Sony wants everyone to use 360 Reality Audio.... Yeah, how's that working out for them outside PS4 video games on headphones?

Sony would have had more luck that late in the game buying Auro-3D as it at least has decent AVR/AVP support already and the streaming version was reportedly finished before they went bankrupt.

All Sony would have needed is software. Given it owns the PS4 and Columbia Pictures, that should have been a no-brainer, but instead they went with a headphone format where the only speaker support I've seen is some Sony brand only home-pod wannabe system. It doesn't take Einstein to see how ridiculously stupid that plan was.

Now Google thinks, hey, let's step in to the party about 8 years too late and push for an open standard. We have HDR+ already. Nobody uses it! I can't even get a projector with HDR+ or DV so really big screens have to suffer, I guess. No wonder I haven't bothered with a 4K projector upgrade yet...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,141 Posts
I didn't know that, no idea why Razor would buy Creative, Soundcards have been dead for a longtime now. the MediaTek chips that come on motherboards now days are pretty good for stereo with headphones, and if someone wants to upgrade their sound they normally get a DAC from a company like Topping and a headphone amp to go with it.
Except gamers. Creative is a name in PC sound and the do lots if sound stuff. Gamers buy sound blaster to improve their sound. The more RGB the better.

And creative makes all sorts of overpriced gaming accessories like headsets and such too, complimenting razor's business.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,383 Posts
And Sony wants everyone to use 360 Reality Audio.... Yeah, how's that working out for them outside PS4 video games on headphones?

Sony would have had more luck that late in the game buying Auro-3D as it at least has decent AVR/AVP support already and the streaming version was reportedly finished before they went bankrupt.

All Sony would have needed is software. Given it owns the PS4 and Columbia Pictures, that should have been a no-brainer, but instead they went with a headphone format where the only speaker support I've seen is some Sony brand only home-pod wannabe system. It doesn't take Einstein to see how ridiculously stupid that plan was.

Now Google thinks, hey, let's step in to the party about 8 years too late and push for an open standard. We have HDR+ already. Nobody uses it! I can't even get a projector with HDR+ or DV so really big screens have to suffer, I guess. No wonder I haven't bothered with a 4K projector upgrade yet...
Sure you can the new JVC Projectors do HDR10+
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Soundblaster isn't a name most people know at this point. I've been building gaming PCs since 1995, and, as you said, they used to be THE NAME in sound. Now, they're just a barely recognized name that makes some mediocre effects software, and some embedded DACs that are almost never used, plus some extremely overpriced junk that very few people want. Gamers don't buy their stuff, and have not for many years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,022 Posts
Soundblaster isn't a name most people know at this point. I've been building gaming PCs since 1995, and, as you said, they used to be THE NAME in sound. Now, they're just a barely recognized name that makes some mediocre effects software, and some embedded DACs that are almost never used, plus some extremely overpriced junk that very few people want. Gamers don't buy their stuff, and have not for many years.
I have a Soundblaster 32 and a Soundblaster Live card in a box in my storage room. They can't even go in modern computers because one is ISA and the other original PCI :ROFLMAO: Soundcards are integrated on motherboards now like you were saying and have a much, much smaller footprint and better sound than in the old days
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top