Where’s Microsoft?
Microsoft also downplays the potential of a ubiquitous MPEG-4 standard, confident in the future of its proprietary format. The current lack of specifications for transmission protocol and digital rights management are just two examples among its claims of MPEG-4 shortcomings.
"Its only use is interoperability between vendors," claims Amir Majidimehr, general manager, Microsoft Windows Media Audio and Video Codec Development. "Given the dearth of MPEG-4 devices, it is hard to say what advantage, if any, MPEG-4 provides business in the next 12 months."
On the issue of quality, Majidimehr adds, "The scalable codecs in MPEG-4 actually perform worse than multi-bit-rate solution[s] that we and others in the market provide already. It [MPEG-4] is really a set of technologies looking for a solution."
Look Ma, No Wires!
Indeed, the area of MPEG-4 with the most smoke, if not the hottest fire, is wireless access to streamed content.
Why is MPEG-4 so well-suited to wireless applications? MPEG-4 files compress smaller than MPEG-2, but not due to a significant difference in the types of compression between the two formats. MPEG-4's smaller file sizes are attributable to a lower frame rate and its ability to extract individual objects from a frame and compress or otherwise take advantage of using objects, such as static backgrounds, or 2D and 3D polygonal meshes to represent and animate video objects.
Within the wireless arena, the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), is perhaps most notable in its potential influence on MPEG-4 standardization. In Europe, the Third Generation Partners Project (3GPP) focuses on the 3G cellular networks that will carry MPEG-4 video. A U.S. version of this group, 3GPP2, has recently been organized and will be active in the slower 3G adoption happening in the United States. Other bodies are active in this arena as well, including the Wireless Multimedia Forum.
PacketVideo and Emblaze Systems are the two most visible technology players focused exclusively on the wireless market. But RealNetworks, Microsoft and Apple are all active in the developing market, to varying degrees, and much of their interest in MPEG-4 centers on wireless applications. Moreover, all three are represented in at least one of the above-named standards groups.
In discussing Microsoft's, RealNetworks' and Apple's participation in wireless standards bodies, Raviv Pablo, director of product management at Emblaze Systems, cites motivations that could be applied to almost any player in any industry.
"There are two evident reactions to the process of standardizations. One is their (Microsoft's, Apple's and Real's) effort to promote their existing formats as standards, thus winning the wireless domain and enjoying potential licensing fees," says Pablo. "The second reaction is their effort to be aware of any direction taken in the standards organizations so they can prepare their wireless businesses for whatever outcomes."
But James Carol, chief executive officer and co-founder of PacketVideo, gives the MPEG body credit for having risen above the self-interest of the individual member corporations.
"A standards body is either a sanctioned research body or it's where everyone tries to get a piece of their own pet thing into the given standard and it doesn't work," he says. "I think that the MPEG group has been a place that people can solve problems and get a solution that interoperates."
The Bottom Line
As the cable, satellite and telecom industries become more involved in distribution of media assets across multiple systems and devices, it brings greater pressure to bear on the computing industry. Those "other" technologies and service providers are more likely to demand a standards-based solution, not only because they're used to working that way, but because the wireless and set-top box client-side technologies have less inherent flexibility than the desktop PC. And as we've seen recently, the desktop PC will likely have less market share in the coming years.
page 1 2 3