[opendtv] News: M'soft coup starts media codec fight
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: OpenDTV Mail List <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 07:23:06 -0400
<http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=50500181>http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=50500181
M'soft coup starts media codec fight
By Junko Yoshida
EE Times
October 18, 2004 (9:17 AM EDT)
Paris - Microsoft Corp.'s effort to shoulder its way into consumer
electronics, movies and TV broadcasting worldwide by proposing its
proprietary Windows Media Video 9 to the Society of Motion Picture
and Television Engineers as an industry-standard codec seemed like a
coup. But the standardization of WMV9 has not gone as smoothly as the
software giant expected. The process, begun last year, appears bogged
down by infighting and general distrust, with no clear sign of when
VC-1 - the SMPTE standard based on WMV9 - will reach fruition.
It certainly won't be within the time frame outlined by Patrick
Griffis, Microsoft's director of worldwide media standards, who
predicted at the time of the donation, in September 2003, that WMV9
would be an SMPTE standard within six to 12 months.
A number of technical and political issues surrounding VC-1 have
reportedly caused growing frustration and constant bickering in the
SMPTE engineering community. In addition, licensing issues loom
large, and some fear that royalties may prove too expensive for the
SMPTE codec to be usable.
The uncertainty has raised questions about the future of Microsoft's
Windows Media Video codec. On the assumption that WMV9 was destined
to become an industry standard, Microsoft convinced both the Blu-ray
Disc Association and the DVD Forum to include it as a mandatory video
compression format (along with MPEG-2 and H.264/MPEG-4 AVC) for
next-generation high-definition DVD formats. Now, there is
speculation that delays or licensing problems for VC-1 could prompt
either - or both - of the DVD industry groups to simply delete the
Microsoft technology from their specifications.
Others believe that political infighting might make VC-1 a
short-lived, interim industry standard that eventually gives way to
H.264/MPEG-4 AVC. That specification is an open video compression
standard jointly developed by the International Telecommunication
Union and MPEG members.
"VC-1 may be interesting at some point in the future, but [our]
members have shown that [H.264/MPEG-4] AVC is technically superior,"
said Richard Mavrogeanes, founder and chief technology officer of
VBrick Systems Inc., and a board member of the MPEG Industry Forum
and the Internet Streaming Media Alliance. ISMA advocates a
multivendor, interoperable standard, "because that moves the industry
ahead," he added.
Multiple sources close to the SMPTE process told EE Times last week
that Microsoft created the impression in the industry that its WMV9
codec had a leg up on H.264/MPEG-4 AVC in quality and licensing
terms. But now that the WMV9-based VC-1 has been put to the test in
the arduous SMPTE standardization process, VC-1 is "perceived as
behind in quality and behind in licensing terms, compared to
H.264/MPEG-4 AVC," one source said.
Moreover, by passing the WMV9 codec to SMPTE, Microsoft is no longer
in control of VC-1 royalties. Those terms and conditions must be
agreed upon by the essential-patent holders for VC-1. There are 12 of
them at the moment, according to the MPEG LA licensing agency.
At the heart of the issues that have slowed SMPTE's standardization
process lies the industry's general suspicion of Microsoft. One
industry analyst characterized Microsoft's donation of WMV9 to SMPTE
as a "calculated maneuver to gain respect for the proprietary
technology" from the broadcast and movie industries. With the move,
the analyst added, Microsoft singlehandedly undermined years of
intensive H.264/MPEG-4 AVC joint development efforts by the ITU and
MPEG, and derailed the industry's embrace of H.264 as a standard.
Ironically, a Microsoft executive chaired the H.264 joint video team
and successfully guided the group to the H.264 spec ratified at ITU-T
in May 2003. Nevertheless, Microsoft has been promoting WMV9 as a
proven codec that strikes a better balance between compression
efficiency and computational efficiency than H.264.
Microsoft's Griffis acknowledged that some "filibuster" moves by
Microsoft detractors within SMPTE have slowed the standardization
process. But he expressed no regrets.
"We know this is a big commitment on our part," he said. "The open,
recognized, international standard is very important to us. Through
the SMPTE process, we believe that our technology has, in fact,
become a significantly better standard."
Peter Symes, SMPTE engineering vice president, declined to predict
when VC-1 will become a Full Committee Draft (FCD). "There were some
delays at the beginning, but an enormous amount of work has been
done. It's very complex; it takes time," he said. SMPTE expects to
have an FCD ballot soon, which would mark the end of technical
changes to VC-1.
Microsoft stirred up animosity against standardization efforts last
month when company representatives prematurely declared that VC-1 was
already an FCD. In fact, SMPTE is currently conducting a second
Committee Draft ballot.
Other sources suggested that VC-1 may not become a full standard
until the end of 2005, or later. Speaking on condition of anonymity,
many critics admitted to hard feelings - caused by Microsoft's
attempts to "railroad" participants in the SMPTE process, by
mismanagement of the SMPTE committee and by SMPTE's and Microsoft's
"gross underestimation" of the difficulties of standardization.
One computer industry executive said he was stunned by the level of
confusion at SMPTE's engineering group. "SMPTE consists of prime
movers of the invention of TVs and films, with a glorious tradition
of doing good work. And yet, SMPTE today is genuinely struggling with
the complexity of convergence between IT and media worlds," he said.
"There are a lot of SMPTE old-timers who are very upset and angry
about this VC-1 issue."
Rob Koenen, chairman of the MPEG Requirements Group, said he has
observed the VC-1 process closely. "I believe that SMPTE had no clue
what their responsibility was," he said. "I also think Microsoft
greatly underestimated what it takes to develop WMV9 into an industry
standard and to ensure its interoperability." Koenen added, "It is a
very complex technical process. It just takes time - even without
politics."
Microsoft has given the impression that its WMV9 and SMPTE's VC-1 are
one and the same, but there are differences. Windows Media includes
many things that are not part of VC-1, including digital rights
management, metadata, a playlist and a user interface. VC-1 is purely
a video compression algorithm.
In addition to transport and conformance documents for VC-1, the
SMPTE group still needs a reference software decoder and reference
bit streams to ensure interoperability among different VC-1
implementations. This work is not yet completed. Nor are there any
signs of a reference encoder for VC-1. Without it, some SMPTE members
claim they cannot test decoders, since each has proprietary test
sequences that require encoding. The test bit streams currently
provided by Microsoft are not enough, one critic said. "There are
elements in a VC-1 bit stream, provided by Microsoft, that are simply
not there."
Also at issue is whether VC-1 creates a level playing field for those
who wish to build their own codec, rather than licensing Microsoft's
implementation.
In other standardization processes, such as the development of
H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, participants had free access to reference encoder
and decoder source code. "It has become the norm in standards bodies
to do it this way to guarantee extensive testing by all participants
to check out all potential interpretations of the text of the
standard," said another industry source close to the SMPTE process.
There is also growing concern that SMPTE's VC-1 and Microsoft's WMV9
may not evolve in lockstep. Griffis said Microsoft intends "to make
future versions of Windows Media Video [such as WMV10] compatible
with VC-1." But some believe Microsoft could add a new video codec -
VC-2, for example - to future versions of Windows Media Video. Such a
scenario is "unlikely" in the next few years, said Jordi Rivas,
director of Microsoft's Windows Digital Media Division. But he
acknowledged that it may be possible "five to six years from now." If
encoder advancements justify a change, it will be "the market's
decision," he said.
Some see an inherent danger in the disconnect between WMVx and VC-1.
Microsoft is likely to include all features of VC-1 plus more in a
newer version of Windows Media Video, if not a VC-1 codec
replacement. "The bottom line is that any VC-1 implementer will be
disadvantaged in the marketplace unless they also add all the
then-current features of WMVx," one source said. Another industry
observer added, "If we see some new features in WMVx, Microsoft will
simply tell us, 'Well, come and get them from us.' "
In short, industry players that have embraced VC-1 fear they may have
to go back to Microsoft and pony up fees for a WMVx license in the
future. MPEG's Koenen dismissed such a possibility. "Microsoft knows
better than that," he said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
