On 3 Apr 2012, at 18:03, Marc Lavallée <m...@hacklava.net> wrote: > I would fear an "applelization" of ambisonics. Apple could impose its > own "ok" format (probably as a CAF "chunk" specification) with patents > and lock-ins, because it's a common practice in the audio industry. Not > everything in this world needs to be mainstream (but that's just my > opinion).
I think that's baseless FUD. Apple has no history of pushing proprietary file formats, except for DRM. So of course, some multi-channel Ambisonic music for sale in the iTunes Store would likely be in some sort of m4a container with some proprietary purchase information chunk, but what do you expect? On the other hand, DRM free formats Apple has a long history of publishing and making available. Apple focuses on where its PRODUCTS have a competitive advantage, and for THOSE THINGS patents the shit out of everything. Underlying mainstream technologies, however, anything from HTML5, networking, the CoreOS, etc. are all based on open standards, published, and often even open source. I see no reason why that would be different with Ambisonic audio. Besides, I really don't care. Right now, the price of admission for a non-tinker setup is north of $40k for a Meridian setup. Comparatively speaking, I don't care if I'm "forced" to buy an AppleTV for $99 or an iPad or MacMini for $500 as price of admission. There are plenty of patents already in the Ambisonic field, a few more won't hurt, and if a giant like Apple were to enter this market, chances are, they would be able (due to the volume of licensing), to coax the rest of the patent holders to throw all the patents into a pool, like was done for H.264, and license them under FRAND terms as standard essential patents. Everyone would win. Ronald _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
