![News News](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/news_64.png)
KT-Tech Sound Compression - Music at 32 Kbit/s 258
Robert Buccigrossi writes: "KT-Tech, whose wireless video compression was featured in a previous Slashdot story, has released a demo for real-time sound compression at http://www.kttech.com/. Like their video, the sound compression is symmetric and is suitable for wireless real-time communication in software. It sounds better than Windows Media and MP3 at 32 Kbit/s for music and 4 Kbit/s for voice." According to the site, "licensing KT-Tech's sound codec is easy," but I bet it's not as easy as .ogg.
as long (Score:2, Funny)
The comparison I want to see (Score:1, Funny)
Limited Use (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Limited Use (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Limited Use (Score:2, Funny)
Constructive criticism would make better
Re:Limited Use (Score:2, Informative)
Bandwidth isn't the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bandwidth isn't the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bandwidth isn't the problem (Score:1)
Re:Bandwidth isn't the problem (Score:2)
I agree wholeheartedly. Journalists/reporters in warzone areas don't have multimegabit links, in fact, they are happy they can get a 28k8 or higher link. And that's when 26fps PAL size video and 16bits 44khz audio with Dolby Pro Logic in super cool broadcast quality MPEG-2 format is just _right_ out.
Re:Bandwidth isn't the problem (Score:3, Informative)
The new packet based systems charge on a data download basis as opposed to the old per minute charge. This is great news for WAP, SMS and other small text-based things. Here in Sweden the biggest mobile operator Telia charges about 2 cents per Kb for GPRS, so reading som e-mails, broswing some news via WAP or whatever won't cost you much and you don't have to hurry as you did with the 50 cents/min charge over GSM. But with high bandwith features like audio the picture is quite different.
At 32kbit/s (which offers quite poor audio) you're downloading 4 Kbyte/s. That's 8 cents per second, or $4.80/min. That's a little hefty for me thank you very much... A more efficient codec could really save you some bucks.
I think I'll wait till 3G is widely available and not horribly overpriced. I'm hoping it won't be that many years. Streaming from monkeyradio.org directly to my handset would be really neat
Regards / ushac
Re:Bandwidth isn't the problem (Score:2)
Then you get locked into their content, everything else costs too much. Nice business model, locks customers into a controlled subscription rate.
Of course you can pay 10x the cost and listen to mp3.com.
-
Today you can go to a gas station and find the cash register open and the toilets locked. They must think toilet paper is worth more than money. - Joey Bishop
Re:Bandwidth isn't the problem (Score:2)
-- this is not a
Re:Bandwidth isn't the problem (Score:2)
The thing is though, the more bandwidth the phones need, the more it's going to cost the phone companies - phone base stations are limited (a) by range and (b) by the number of simultaneous transmissions they can handle, and (b) is dependent on the bandwidth required per phone. If you're putting base stations around a major city such as downtown London or Manhattan, where (b) is the limiting factor, then increasing the number of simultaneous transmissions will reduce the number of base stations required, and so reduce your costs.
Grab.
Re:as it should (Score:1)
License agreement (Score:3, Informative)
Re:License agreement (Score:2, Interesting)
Portable Audio (Score:1)
A one string violin (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I like free software as much as the next guy, but I understand and respect the fact that companies have to make money. I fail to see why it was necessary to throw in a dig at this company that is doing neat things just because they want to profit from their invention. Just because its not free doesn't make it bad.
Now go ahead and mod me down.
The Beam in Thy Eyes (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The Beam in Thy Eyes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Beam in Thy Eyes (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Beam in Thy Eyes (Score:2)
only partly as a smart-ass remark (Score:2)
[The comment about the licensing cost actually came from a different submission on the same topic, but I didn't feel like just glibly including their claim of 'easy' licensing -- easy compared to what? I just supplied one 'what.'
timothy
Re:The Beam in Thy Eyes (Score:2)
Re:The Beam in Thy Eyes (Score:2, Flamebait)
When you use software, you have to abide by the terms of the license it is released under. Unless you've been living under a rock, you must realize that licensing terms may vary, and that the choices you make about what licenses are and aren't acceptable profoundly affect your rights. Discussing the licensing terms associated with software is always topical.
Re:The Beam in Thy Eyes (Score:2)
Re:The Beam in Thy Eyes (Score:2)
I just got a mental picture of the BSD Daemon sitting on the Vorbis "Guy With a Shovel", poking him with his pitchfork and yelling, "Say 'uncle', say 'uncle'!"
Re:A one string violin (Score:1)
It's not because they want to profit from their invention, it's because they want to control other people's use of the codec just because they publicly identified it first. There are a number of ways to get paid without abusing our idea ownership system (street performer protocol, support contracts, etc.) that don't violate the freedom of others by taking a government-sponsored monopoly.
I guess it's true what they say, if you have to ask, you'll never know. Proprietary knowledge *is* bad precisely because it's not free. It cuts off an entire branch of human inquiry, like pruning all the best branches off a tree before they've been given the chance to mature and bear fruit.
Re:A one string violin (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd like to be a farmer. My father owns a farm. Farmed it his whole life. My father's father owned the same farm, and his father before him. I bet I have lot more emotional investment in farming than you do in programming. But you know what, I decided it's not a practical decision to follow in my father's footsteps.
Farming has been mechanized. Farms are larger, and there are fewer farmers. Do you long for the days of yore, when farming was less efficient? I do. But I also realize that that is stupid.
I'm sorry if you're having a hard time making a living programming. The world is tough that way some times. But really, when you look at the big picture, it's better that way.
Re:A one string violin (Score:2)
Re:A one string violin (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you entitled to make a living as a one-string violinist, even if there's no market for it?
What if the government started handing out one-string violinist jobs. Then you may be legally, but not morally, entitled.
You're not entitled to anything in a market economy, you provide a service to meet a demand or you pray for a responsible safety net. But idea ownership creates government-sponsored monopolies which artificially inflate the value of programming skill. That's a bad thing in the long run, even if it serves your narrow interest now.
Re:A one string violin (Score:2)
You're entitled to try to make a living programming. The value of your services is, or rather should be, determined by the law of supply and demand. In a world where legal entanglements restrict consumers rights, that is however not the case. That is the problem free software attempts to redress.
The issue at the core of this discussion, the issue that started this thread, concerns to role of free market dynamics on the software industry. The issue is that the software industry as it stands is very much insulated from free operation by patent and copyright laws.
The argument has always been that such protections are necessary to promote progress. The runaway success of free software empirically demonstrates the falsehood of that premise, at least as it applies to the software industry. We gain nothing from these protections. Quite the contrary - we lose a great deal. We lose the ability to modify software we pay for. We lose the ability to recycle useful algorithms - even when you develop that algorithm yourself. We lose the ability to share. We have abdicated the rights of priviledges accorded to consumers of virtually every other type of product in a misguided attempt to promote progress. But we are not promoting progress, we are promoting servitude. The system is badly broken, and needs to be fixed.
The imbalance this system creates is clear. Witness Microsoft's utter domination of the software industry. Economists refer to this effect as positive feedback in the economy. It leads to a gross imbalance of wealth and power.
The software industry does not exist in a vacuum. It is part of the total economy. Your ability to run a hospital, an airport, an auto-body shop, a hair salon - these are all affected by what happens in the software industry. Yes, I believe that improved market efficiencies in the software industry will cause that industry to be accorded a smaller percentage of the pie. Overall, I think that's a good thing. Yes, it means some people will get squeezed out of business. That's not fun, but that will improve the overall health of the economy; and that is what really matters.
Re:A one string violin (Score:2)
Why do you continue to gloss over the fact that it also requires that someone find it worthwhile to pay you for your efforts?! You'd rather abuse the English language than answer the question.
As for how my farming analogy pertains to patents and copyrights - well it all depends on whether you believe patents and copyrights promote or hinder progress, doesn't it? And since I'm explicitly stating that I believe removing or alleviating the chilling effect that these regulations have on the software industry would promote progress, in that context my analogy stands. Again, you'd rather quibble usage than address the point.
If you'd like to specifically address the issue of how patents and copyrights promote progress, feel free to respond. But don't waste my time with quibbles and anectodal arguments about what kind of software you personally happen to prefer.
Re:A one string violin (Score:2)
And for the umpteenth time, no you are not entitled to earn a living programming. From www.m-w.com:
to furnish with proper grounds for seeking or claiming something
The word "entitlement" is neither obscure nor difficult to interpret in this context. Please explain to me how you are able to earn a living without getting paid! How can you properly claim to deserve to earn a living being a programmer if no one wants to pay you?!
You can respond with as much symantic sophistry as you like. It doesn't bolster your point or flatter your intelligence. The only flat-out-wrong use of the English language here is yours.
Now, if you'd like to have a discussion about the pros and cons of patent and copyright law as applied to the software industry, that's fine.
Re:A one string violin (Score:2)
Under the patent system, the science of centuries culminates in a particular invention, one person benefits.
I'm all for rewarding ideas. But giving people a monopoly over those ideas is not the way to do it.
Re:A one string violin (Score:2)
A minor nitpick... (Score:1)
Companies do not have to make money - they either will or they won't, according to free market forces.
Or at least that is the way it is supposed to work...
grumble.
Re:A minor nitpick... (Score:2)
On another note, most people @ slashdot probably don't care about this anyway as it will only be really useful in the realm of portable devices. I mean who wants to rip their cd collection to hd and have it sound less then perfect? The only reason that I keep versions of my music around at a bitrate lower then 192kbps is for my Nomad II.
Quality (Score:1)
Interesting, but how good? (Score:1)
Comparisons (Score:2, Informative)
Anybody compare them yet? Too bad they don't have a comparison with ogg vorbis. :(
ya. (Score:2)
Of course this comparision means nothing, every time i've been invited to listen and compare, whether it's for WMA, RM and MP3Plus the samples i'm given always sound better for the product the company is pushing, so what it really works and sounds like in real applications remains to be seen.
btw, they're "player", is a "strait off the template" SDI MFC application with no installer. The app opens with an empty document and the menu options File->Open, File->Stop and File->Close. Not even a play button!
-Jon
Re:ya. (Score:2, Insightful)
think about it: any flunky can write mfc apps, how many people out there can do codec work? not many, i assure you.
Re:ya. (Score:2)
Whats the reasoning for it anyway? Are they that in a hurry to beat the guy who next week is going to claim "better then mp3 at 32kbit", it's been done, they only way a company with a product like that is going to get anywhere is to market it as well as possible, and one way to do that is not have a shitty looking player.
-Jon
Re:Comparisons (Score:1)
Yes, and frankly it doesn't sound all that great. All three formats sound like crap at 32kbps and 64kbps. I don't anticipate anyone forsaking their mp3 collection to switch over to this.
They cheated (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Comparisons (Score:2)
At 8 kbps, the KT voice was better, sure. And at 4 kbps it was roughly intelligible. But the 32 and 64 kbps tests were of questionable materials. The 32k was of electronic rock, and the 64 of synth. How do you take electronic synthesizer music and judge what it's supposed to sound like?
Let me hear the same tests on acoustical instruments (say, flute and piano) or an orchestra. Then maybe it'll count.
Re:Comparisons - Translated (Score:2)
Actually, the electronic stuff is nice and broadband, so it'll give the codec a real workout. I use electronically generated test tones for setting up broadcast-quality MPEG encoders, then optimise with whatever content they're going to be streaming.
Granted, orchestral music is going to be very hard to compress well, but if you like how an orchestra sounds, you're going to *hate* lossy compression.
Come back and post when you've heard a *real* orchestra, or better yet played in one.
The question is.... (Score:2, Insightful)
The other problem is that it won't co-exist with MP3. One format or the other will win out, and as we see with minidiscs, it's all about marketshare.
It's nice for proprietary technology (VOIP comnes to mind) but otherwise seems useless. With commercial technology, in 6 months there will be better compression, just like
Re:The question is.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The question is.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing in the Ktech codec profiles suggested that they couldn't be adapted to higher quality stuff, which after all is easier to do right than the low bitrate performers. Their still image compressor can handle lossless, too.
Re:The question is.... (Score:2)
I thought the quote was something along the lines of "If your only tool is hammer, all the problems seem like nails", which implies that there is the concept of "right tool for the job". You don't usually try digging holes with a hammer do you?
Whether the problems domains for high-quality (ogg) and high-compression (ktech codec) are overlapping enough or not to make one codec potentially work for both I don't know (I'm sure there are ./ readers who can give decent answer), but I wouldn't count on that being the case.
Much like JPEGs and PNGs can peacefully co-exists -- even though both are for image compression -- I can easily see the need for at least 2 separate codecs, if their goals are different. Larger the audience, more compromises one has to make.
Insightful? Wha? (Score:2)
Who said THIS? No no, not "who" because no *person* could have said something this inane. WHAT said this? This is just about *the* *stupidest* thing I have ever heard.
You want ONE tool for all jobs? You want a bicycle that doubles as a toothbrush, a microscope and an entertainment system? An airplane that can wash dishes and clean swimming pools while being used to direct traffic at busy intersections? A coke machine that styles hair, photographs the license plates on speeding cars and sterilizes surgical equipment all while at the same time taking high resolution pictures of interstellar space?
Different tools for different jobs are GOOD things. Sure it's nice to have tools that can be used for multiple purposes like, say, duct tape, but you won't want your house to be built with it in lieu of nails!
PLEASE tell me you were making a really poor attempt at humor and relieve my fears that the human race is devolving.
I'll consider it... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The next golden egg (Score:4, Insightful)
I do notice some differences at the lower levels
As much as it hurts to say this, having multiple compeating forms is gonna be hard in the digital music world. How many non-geeks have a diamond rio.
If you bought into the mp3 craze for $286.00 (a few years ago) and spent a month making yourself computer literate enough to use the rio for your morning workouts at the gym. What are the odds that you are going to be willing to shell out more $$
I think the mass market [the same folks buying into the m-life hype] is going to be a little less inclined to jump on a band wagon
I think this falls under the 10X rule again.
[the 10X rule being that something either has to be 10X cheaper
Re:The next golden egg (Score:2)
Besides, you can always re-encode your downloaded music into mp3.
BTW, the iPod was also designed to handle multiple formats. The next generation of firmware that comes out alongside Quicktime 6 whould handle the
Re:The next golden egg (Score:1)
unless you like listening to
chirps, static, and the band at
the end of a tunnel.
Re:The next golden egg (Score:1)
Re:The next golden egg (Score:1)
I dunno about that, I can count 20 people off my head easy whom I know have, and use frequently mp3 players of various types. [only about 4 of them are computer geeks, a lot are just people who were sick of cd players skipping, or loved to dl music off napster]
I think that Diamond, a tleast has sold *MANY* of these units, enough for them to be banned at my wife's school (a VERY low income middle school)
Of course the logic also applies that if diamond didnt sell enough of the rio 300
But i digress, keep in mind im talking 'mass-market' here. Folks that own a pII 300, and use AOL on a 56k dialup. Early adopting (fools) like myself *grin* know hopefully what we are getting into. I expect about 1/3 of the crap i buy to be useless: I cite OmniSky, Adlib Sound Cards, and EISA card supporting motherboards as my biggest gripes *chuckle* But to your average american consumer.. the power AOL user.. who just now are starting to get into the DVD market. Trust takes a while.
mp3 is easy, its been in so many newspapers, and all over the media. I mean, its been in use since when 92' 93' ? (and earlier if you used mp2) Its what the non technical american feels comfortable with.
I'm not dissing KT at all
My point was just that, the mass market knows mp3. and the cold,hard,(sad) truth of the matter is that unless something is either sierously marketed
Re:The next golden egg (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, nobody encodes their cds at 32k or 64k, but they do broadcast at those bitrates. An improvement there could be useful.
I encode at 64k (Score:2)
Of course, this gets used in fairly noisy environments, so I can't really hear the sound quality lapsing.
Re:The next golden egg (Score:2)
Nobody, but you obviously didn't read the article. This format is meant to be used for wireless-realtime communication (which are voice applications). There is no need (right now at least) for voice to use 128kbps.
This format is trying to get a good sound with fewer bits per second. Anybody can make a codec that sounds good over 128kbps.
Re:The next golden egg (Score:2)
This isn't a competitor for mp3. They're obviously not TRYING to compete in the high bandwidth area, where mp3 (as you correctly noted) has such a lion's share of the market that it probably won't be unseated in the neat future.
By focusing on 8-32kbps bitrates, they're obviously shooting for a whole different market... probably for the 2-way real-time and streaming communications markets, where mega-low bitrates come into play.
I don't think they're trying to replace the 128kbps+ music that's commonly downloaded off the internet.
not as easy as ogg but... (Score:2, Interesting)
ogg has bit rate scaling and such but good luck finding example code to do this or even a decent document describing it. it could be very cool for internet streaming of audio by encoding at a high bitrate and simply shaving off bits to whatever rate the end user is connected and low processor useage to. provided it even works.
hell the faqs at both ogg sites haven't been updated sine 2000 so far as i know.
i work for a large company who has some interest in providing ogg support in it's products (more as more people ask for it) but without decent documentation and sample code, it's not going to happen on any product for quite some time.
Re:not as easy as ogg but... (Score:2)
Re:not as easy as ogg but... (Score:2)
In common with many open source projects, user participation is encouraged. If you find the documentation lacking, why don't you try and help write some? I'm writing up some stuff on
That's nothing (Score:5, Funny)
I can compress any Britney Spears song down to zero bits without loss of quality.
Winamp rul3z! (Score:3, Funny)
It doesn't sound better (Score:1)
Duplication of effort? (Score:2)
Btw. I tried the demo but it's only available in (Microsoft Windows?) binary executable format with no source available.
I'll believe it when... (Score:1)
..or at least the pops/dings/digital blurbs
Mass market? I don't think so... (Score:5, Interesting)
I can see applications for this beyond just the mass market. My first thought would be for carrying additioanl voice circuits over a T1 line. (Say, for carryting voice traffic between two locations in a large company.)
A T1 line suports 24 circuits, each of which has IIRC 64Kbps (ignoring RBS, etc.) Whatever. Each of these circuits can support one conversation. Using this technology, several more conversations could be carried on one circuit. (Their web site states 8Kbits for high-quality voice; 4Kbits for intelligible voice.) Even using the 8Kbit rate, that means 8 conversations could be carried on one voice circuit.
The result? A single T1 could carry 192 conversations instead of just 24. Or, put another way, get 8 T1's of voice capacity for the price of just one T1. At anywhere from $600-$1000 per T1, that adds up really fast.
Now, how long would it be until the phone company decides to replace POTS circuits with one of these? Dial-up users would find their modems capped at 8Kbits? Blech!
Re:Mass market? I don't think so... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Mass market? I don't think so... (Score:3, Interesting)
We've been doing compression for decades. (Score:4, Informative)
But the place you really see voice compression on T1s is between corporate PBXs - if you've got enough traffic between your offices to keep 12 or 24 channels full, it might make sense to run a private line, and until the mid-80s lots of companies did this, but by the time everybody's PBX was smart enough to be good at it, the price of Voice-by-the-minute from long distance telcos was cheap enough that almost everybody ripped that stuff out except for multiple offices in the same city. But compression equipment has become cheap enough and good enough that lots of people are rebuilding those networks that we ripped out in the 80s, especially since IP data networks mean that even if VOIP isn't cost-effective by itself, you can piggyback some voice on a data network for not much extra operating cost, and the equipment cost may pay off pretty quickly.
Companies are more likely to use voice compression on international circuits, because the price of pipes across the ocean is usually atrociously high, but the price per minute for phone calls to much of Asia is also atrociously high, so a dedicated line using compressed voice is still often a good deal. It doesn't usually sound as good as a Real Telephone Call, but lots of Asian telcos don't have the best sound quality either. The other big trend that's appearing in international calls is VOIP over internet connections - the quality is more variable, but the price of a T1 or E1 internet connection in Asia is often similar to the price of a 64kbps or 128kbps frame relay PVC.
The Next Big Thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, all my stuff is now at a higher bitrate, but my machine is twenty times as efficient in every category mentioned above. Forget more efficient lossy algorithms. I'm going to be interested in lossless compression Real Soon Now.
Re:The Next Big Thing (Score:2)
Re:The Next Big Thing (Score:2)
The thing is though, when encoded right, Mp3's are practically indistinguishable from the source, even by "golden ears", or by looking at the waveforms.
When I say "high quality mp3", I'm talking about high bitrate VBR mp3's encoded with newer versions of LAME. See www.r3mix.net [r3mix.net] for more info. Even with 8:1 compression you get 4 times as much music as lossless formats, at practically indistinguishable quality.
Unfortunately, 99% of the mp3's you see out there on the web are recorded at low bitrates with crappy encoders.
Now, I'm not saying that lossless compression doesn't have its place... once audio is lossy-compressed once, even if it's compressed well, it's essentially useless for further editing if you care about sound quaslity. But for just LISTENING to music, trading uncompressed audio seems like overkill no matter how much bandwidth and storage space you have....
I've tested the lossless encoders (Score:2)
If you encode with oggenc at 100% quality, it makes files about 1/3 of the original size and you probably can't tell the difference. But you might possibly have some artifacts that are a caused by a flaw in the algorithm which you won't have in a lossless encoder that works correctly.
Re:I've tested the lossless encoders (Score:2)
Now you've got me curious. Two questions... did you mean to say "average of 60% and a maximum of 75%", or are the words "average" and "maximum" in the right place, and you typo'd the numbers? Second, what sort of source material do you get those numbers with (music genre if applicable).
I guess lossless compression is a bit more of a contender if it can put up numbers like that. Thanks for the informative post.
Re:I've tested the lossless encoders (Score:2)
Re:I've tested the lossless encoders (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, some types of music will get better compression than that, like some classical and jazz. I have some Ella Fitzgerald that gets 5:1. But usually classical gets around 50%, pop/rock gets 60%, and death metal 70%. I have a comparison of different genres and different codecs on the FLAC site:
http://flac.sf.net/comparison.html [sf.net]
Since the KT guys haven't even released an encoder yet there's no way to see how they measure up.
Why bother with compression at all then? (Score:2)
Re:The Next Big Thing (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, there exist lossless audio compression schemes that will give you fairly reliable results in the 25%-75% compression range. These are great for high-quality reproduction and high speed (high speed as in fast disk access, not as in cable modem/DSL) access, but you're still looking at a 160 MB download (near-best case scenario) for a single CD of music.
File size (Score:3, Interesting)
8kbps =
32kbps = 3.3KB larger
64kbps = 4KB larger
I know that its not a big deal with those small amounts. But, also, those demo files are pretty small. What will be difference when using larger files or streaming?
Re:File size (Score:2)
It depends on how their algorithm works. If the file contains information (this could be a mother wavelet and a set of reconstruction filter constants) tuned for a particular song, then there will be a little up-front-cost, but an overall smaller file size..
Not enough info to determine usability (Score:4, Informative)
Ogg Vorbis not ready for 32kbps yet (Score:2, Informative)
Re:News FLash (Score:1)
Re:Uh Oh (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Uh Oh (Score:2)
Uh... Dude.. This is a top level post... (Score:1)
Personally, I can't wait until Ogg Tarkin is functional. I hate the current MPEG-2 and proposed MPEG-4 licensing restrictions. I want to be able to encode video that's just as high quality at the same bitrate as some big hollywood studio. No, I'm not pirating videos, I make my own videos (or legal edited copies of movies I purchased legally -- supreme court ruling: it's legal to edit copies of movies you have legally purchased, for example removing scenes you don't like. It's also legal to pay someone to do that editing for you. It's not legal to sell the modified copy itself, however).
Re:Won't beat out .ogg (Score:1)
Sometimes they have stockholders who would like to see them developing IP, any kind of IP, just something to justify investment.
Re:Won't beat out .ogg (Score:2, Insightful)
Its unique selling proposition is "It sounds good at extremely low bit rates" which is good for wireless. Yes, 3G will come out sometime in our lifetime (maybe) but that still doesn't mean that we know how the pricing is going to be structured for this. We could get nailed with a per megabyte fee. Also, the carriers only have so much bandwidth on each cell tower. Remember they have T1s and the like running to these cell towers and each cell has to service hundreds and up to thousands of users at the same time. So, to the carriers it makes a big difference what the band width is. (Yes, I work in the wireless business and this is a very real concern)
So what does this mean to you? Well, the carriers will be the ones who specify, to a certain degree, what codec they would like to see on the phones from their OEMs and you can be sure they would rather see a codec which requires less bandwidth. So, some partnerships are most likely developing between the carriers and these guys (and the carriers' default WAP portal site owners - which usually are just the carriers themselves).
If we look at this from the point of just comparing it to MP3 it makes no sense. But if we look at it from a broader business sense it may make very good sense.
Re:Horribly off topic I know but... (Score:2)
Re:Horribly off topic I know but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Vorbis is an audio codec. You can in principle use Vorbis outside of its Ogg wrapper (there is code to do this in recent versions of NanDub, but it never really left the experimental stage).
More interestingly, you can wrap DivX video + Vorbis audio (+ subtitles, + anything else) inside an Ogg wrapper, and get a versatile, streamable replacement for
Re:Horribly off topic I know but... (Score:2)
Re:are you guys deaf? (Score:3, Informative)