[opendtv] Re: Continuous performance improvements or not
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:03:37 -0500
At 10:26 AM -0500 2/19/08, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
You like to compare the IETF and ATSC, so explain this.
Why has there been CONTINUOUS evolution of video codecs used
for Web applications?
It's obvious, Craig. It's because the hosts connected to the web are
primarily COMPUTERS, with hard drives, which can more or less be
upgraded. They aren't consumer electronics appliances.
Last time I looked, consumers were buying millions and millions of
computing appliances for their homes...
Is a video game console a consumer electronics appliance?
Is a Media Center PC a consumer electronics appliance?
Is an iPod Touch a consumer electronics appliance?
Is Apple TV a consumer electronics appliance?
The whole notion of the web being a bunch of hosts to which we
connect our PCs and smartphones is wrongheaded. The Internet is a
network of networked computers - yes the hosts are important, but the
computing appliances in our homes and offices are part of that fabric
too...
Can you say Bit torrent?
This absurd notion that CE appliance must be hard wired is dying
Bert. We will soon be carrying around mobile appliances with smart
radios that can be programmed to tune to almost anything that can be
broadcast. My iPhone has GSM, WiFi, Bluetooth, and support for the
AT&T edge network.
Purpose built device will not go away overnight - look how long it is
taking to get the cable industry to unbundle their STBs. When an
industry has control over this stuff they can and often do try to
keep it closed and proprietary. We dismantled Ma Bell 24 years ago,
but somehow "all the kings men" have put most of that monopoly back
together again. Wow, we get to choose from three or four carriers who
are screwing us again with device that only work on their networks.
It's interesting that the iPhone distribution system is so "leaky."
The street is pounding Apple stock because they are "losing" billions
in potential revenue because millions of iPhones are being unlocked
and re-programmed to work on other networks. Apple makes a profit on
every phone they sell, and they have more than a million evangelists
around the world paying a premium to help promote this product.
Imagine how many iPhones would be sold in the U.S. if you could buy
one and use it on ANY network without a two year contract?
Consumer don't want purpose built devices that have limited
futures...just ask anyone with an HD-DVD player. They will invest in
products that are extensible and will remain useful as long as the
hardware still works. Some of the people who bought the iPod touch
were pissed that Apple wants twenty bucks for a software upgrade - an
upgrade that SIGNIFICANTLY enhances the functionality of the device.
It's a new world out there Bert. One that is leaving your notion of
what a CE device should be behind.
As a matter of fact, when the streaming media business started,
computers would regularly run out of steam as new codecs were developed.
But it was par for the course. People were used to the idea that their
machines couldn't keep up with the newest codecs, and they'd just go and
buy a new PC. I had a series of 486, Pentium 100, and Pentium 333 MHz
computers that quickly became overwhelmed with every streaming media
innovation.
Yup!
Moore's law works that way. You proved it to us with the progression
in DTV receiver chips.
The Moore's Law progression is akin to an avalanche - you start a
tiny snow ball rolling (eg the 8086 processor) and it gathers steam.
The computer industry had us on a treadmill for more than a decade as
that snowball gathered steam. Along the way PCs gobbled up the audio
industry - that didn't take many MIPS. By 1992 we KNEW that the same
thing was going to happen to video. Today's CPUs can handle HD
formats without breathing hard. All of this was entirely predictable.
The FACT that is most important, however, is that the computer
industry was providing something that caused most of us to get on
that treadmill. Now that Moore's Law has turned that snowball into an
avalanche, it is FAR less critical to upgrade frequently - I think a
seven year life span for a laptop that cost about $2,000 is
reasonable. I would have NO PROBLEM replacing a box that connects to
my TV every five years, especially if it only cost a few hundred
bucks in the first place. But even this will not be necessary. we are
at the point now, where it is possible to build programmable CE
appliances that may last for decades, unless you think the masses
with have ten foot home theater screens with 4k x 2K resolution any
time soon.
The TV application simply does not demand it. In my book 720P is more
than adequate. 1080P is certainly good enough to satisfy broadcast
needs for the future. But that's not where the real action is. Yes
big screen displays are moving to this level; that's a good thing.
Display oversampling is helpful, but far more important, if we start
running decent GUIs on that big screen the extra pixels will actually
be useful for something more than watching sitcoms and movies...
TVs and radios aren't that sort of appliance. People would be mighty
irked if their TVs and radios became part of that same PC racket. Ditto
with toasters and refrigerators. Even on here, people have talked about
how a TV bought 60 years ago can still work today. This was not said
disparagingly, Craig. This was put out there as a model of what people
expect. You choose not to listen.
Yeah, and some cars built 60 years ago are still running too. So what.
People expect a TV to last about seven years.
You have provided a perfect example of what is wrong with TV and
radio, not what is good about it.
I'm not suggesting that TVs should become part of the PC
racket...that too is dying.
I've lived with Apple through thick and thin. One thing I can tell
you is that they did not force me to start over every time they
wanted to sell new hardware. Apple dropped "computer" from their name
a year ago, although about half of their business is still computers.
They are a CE company and they are demonstrating that we do not need
to live with the Microsoft kool-aid.
What is amazing is that so many people pu up with their crap for so
long. The same can be said for the media conglomerates.
Worst case the performance might be less that perfect on an
older underpowered computer, but nothing broke.
Nonsense. The PC couldn't keep up with the media stream. Period. They
would decode a little snippet, then big skip, another snippet, etc.
Simply incompatible with the new codec software.
You missed my point entirely. What's new?
The lack of performance did not cause my computer to crash and burn.
It did provide an incentive to get a new computer so that I could do
more stuff.
I gave you concrete examples of issues with the ATSC and MPEG
standards that have frozen implementations in the marketplace at 1995
levels. These standards cannot be updated because any changes - even
those that were designed in up front to allow extensibility - would
cause some of those early receiver to BREAK, not to slow down. Change
on bit in a reserved extension and the product just stops working,
even for the stuff that used to work.
You, and whoever you claim the others were, simply didn't get it, Craig.
ATSC was always as extensible as any other layered protocol. As I tried
to explain many, many times, the publication of A/90 proved that.
Yeah right Bert. You can trey to make a silk purse from a sows ear,
but I doubt many people will buy it.
In the end, the only layer that matters is the modulation layer.
That's exactly what we told the FCC in the 92-95 timeframe.
Everything else will be replaced as technology progresses.
What we got was a questionable modulation layer, and millions of
receivers that don;t know A-90 from Adam. Sure you can add new
layers, but that means starting over, as we are about to see with the
MPH standard. All they can hope to achieve with MPH is to have a
separate parallel standard that does not cause the old standard to
break, and for that we will pay a large bit penalty.
We are never going to agree about this Bert.
Let's just agree to disagree.
If the ATSC refuses to allow extensions, that's another matter. The
standard itself isn't the problem. I showed you eons ago, when A/90
first came out, how ATSC could be extended to carry H.264 or other,
newer codecs, for example.
It's been done for demo purpose Bert. I've taken the rides on the
vans in Las Vegas and seen it. But this does not a market make. We
still have millions of receivers that have been forced down out
throats that will not work with any enhancements. That's good news
for the companies that participate in theGrand Alliance patent pools,
the same companies that dominate the ATSC, but it sucks for consumers.
Because TVs aren't PCs, so it takes a big investment for broadcasters to
deploy the necessary new hardware for the new service. USDTV tried.
Cable and DBS companies do this, of course, but their systems end up
being walled gardens and expensive to run.
USDTV could not provide a viable service. End of story.
Cable and DBS can do it because they make enough money on the service
to subsidize the receivers and the generational changes that are
needed to remain competitive. Basically the same business model as
the wireless telcos. I'm paying about $17/mo for my Cox DVR box. For
that I should be able to BUY a good broadcast DVR that is upgradable.
But there is no market for such a device, other than a PC with a DTV
tuner card.
Ironically, the broadcast industry has much higher profits and profit
margins that cable and DBS, but they won't invest a dime in consumer
infrastructure.
There's a good reason for this -their milking this cash cow until it
dries up. it will be interesting to see whether broadcasters invest
in MHP.
You have always wished for TVs to become PCs. I doubt this is what
anyone else really wants.
Another missed perception on your part Bert. I have always wanted PCs
to be more friendly as an information appliance. Not as dumb as a TV
but just as bulletproof. That's why I went with Apple rather than
Microsoft.
Nobody wants the crap that comes with using a Microsoft OS on cheap
hardware. But Microsoft won that war by dominating the enterprise,
and then invading homes with game machines. Too many people got on
their treadmill and don't know how to get off.
By the way Bert, an iPod is a computer too. Apple has now sold about
150,000,000 of these little appliances., and now you can watch TV
shows on them.
Go figure...
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
