
AAC Licensors - zoobab
http://www.via-corp.com/us/en/licensing/aac/licensors.html
======
whyleyc
Except Fraunhofer did not promote MP3 as “dead". They put out a press release
announcing the "termination" of various MP3-related patents[1].

As Marco noted[2] news orgs took that original announcement and twisted it
into a "creators announce MP3 is dead" story, presumably because there are
more clicks to be had there than a story about patent expirations.

[1]
[https://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/en/ff/amm/prod/audiocodec/audi...](https://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/en/ff/amm/prod/audiocodec/audiocodecs/mp3.html)

[2] [https://marco.org/2017/05/15/mp3-isnt-
dead](https://marco.org/2017/05/15/mp3-isnt-dead)

~~~
noway421
Maybe it's just me, but I think "MP3 is patent-free" headline would get just
as many clicks.

~~~
Shywim
For the "standard" consumer, saying mp3 is dead will provoke more reaction as
in "OMG what will happen to muh pirated music library?", while they do not
care about patents.

------
pjc50
This is literally just a link to the AAC licensing page. Of course, Fraunhofer
originally invented MP3 and got licensing fees from its patents instead.

<strikethrough>The real WTF is how readily news organisations will just print
a press release put out by Fraunhofer saying "MP3 is dead".</strikethrough>

~~~
arrrg
Fraunhofer never said that. Not in the press release, no anywhere.

------
dang
We changed the submitted title from "Fraunhofer promoted MP3 as "dead",
because they get money from AAC patents" which is an egregious case of
editorializing, violating the HN guidelines
([https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html))
and the sort of thing that will get your story submission privileges removed
here.

One can see plainly from this thread how bad an effect polemical titles have
on discussions.

------
snvzz
It just so happens there's no real reasons to use AAC over OPUS.

~~~
raverbashing
Get a library for a low-powered device that supports OPUS

~~~
AstralStorm
And support is available in new Android versions (since 5.0).

The harder task would be to get an ASIC that accelerates decoding. Know of
any?

~~~
simias
Is ASIC audio decoding really common these days? I assumed it would be handled
on "general purpose" DSPs most of the time, not hardwired ASICs.

Audio decoding is really not a challenging task nowadays in my experience,
when your average "embedded" processor runs at hundreds of MHz. There's still
power consumption to factor in but that's never really been a limiting factor
for me in the past decade at least. Maybe I've just been spoiled with powerful
SoCs.

------
science404
Their response (may 18):
[http://www.audioblog.iis.fraunhofer.com/mp3-software-
patents...](http://www.audioblog.iis.fraunhofer.com/mp3-software-patents-
licenses/)

------
VMG
Expecting the headline to be changed soon, original headline was:

    
    
      Fraunhofer promoted MP3 as “dead”, because they get money from AAC patents

~~~
zoobab
"AAC Licensors" as a new title does not tell much.

A better title would have been:

"MP3 promoted as "dead", Fraunhofer will get money from AAC patents now"

------
snakeanus
Related
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14347648](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14347648)

------
leifg
This is same click baiting as the tech news "MP3 is dead" stories.

There is no proof that Fraunhofer did what they did because they are also a
licensor of AAC.

~~~
twelvedogs
from what i've read they bought several other patents that kind of covered mp3
but expired later to stretch out their hold on them, i wish i'd saved them
since google is just returning hundreds of articles about whether mp3 is dead
or not

------
kbart
I didn't follow this whole mp3 story deeper than headlines, so can somebody
explain to me, how expiring patents and becoming royalty free, public format
equates to _dead_? In my book, that's pretty much the opposite as everyone can
use it now.

------
A1phab3t
I would have been more interested to read a story that told me which software
should be cheaper now that it doesn't have to bake the MP3 license into its
selling price.

------
taneq
Is this one of those "Fraunhofer lines" I keep hearing about?

------
kristianc
Not a surprise. 90% of news is PR of some sort, you just need to ask with any
story who has paid to put it there.

~~~
kalleboo
The real problem here is discount journalism that doesn't have the time nor
inclination to figure out the real story.

Of course Fraunhofer would frame it this way, but when _tech blog_ writers
don't even understand what patents are, it's pretty sad.

------
threeseed
Sorry but this is just nonsense.

MP3 became irrelevant the second Apple made AAC the premier codec for iPods
and the iTunes Store back in 2003. And given that it was the dominant
player/store combination for the following decade it's not hard to see why AAC
became popular. The fact AAC sounded so much better was just the cherry.

MP3 officially became dead when everyone moved to streaming.

~~~
kbart
You mistaken "everyone" with "my bubble". Pretty much _everyone_ in my circle
still collects and listens to mp3 as the primary format. Furthermore, if you
have more obscure music taste, it's a rare find something interesting on the
streaming services.

~~~
sniglom
What you're missing is that collecting mp3's is your bubble. The vast majority
of people is streaming, not collecting mp3.

~~~
kbart
That's my whole point: you can't say "everyone" as it's not accurate
description. OP and my examples use different "everyones" to prove this point
and both are valid. Saying that mp3 is dead just based on your own anecdote is
wrong.

------
kuschku
As I already wrote the last time:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14348158](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14348158)

But don't villify Fraunhofer over this — as a public nonprofit research
institute, they're expected to finance their research with patent licenses.

If you want to be angry at someone, look at all the for-profit entities on
that list, who absolutely have no need to collect AAC license fees, as they've
got more than enough profit, but still do.

In fact, I'm also a bit disappointed that Google entered this fight with VP8
and VP9 — with their free products it means that only companies with already
large budgets will be able to create such standards in the future, and
research institutes will be unable to do so, giving even more power to
companies. I'd prefer a world where such standards are designed by impartial
nonprofit research institutes. A similar issue exists with the WHATWG
standards, which are dominated by Google, Apple and Microsoft, which is part
of why we now have EME.

~~~
zoobab
"they're expected to finance their research with patent licenses"

Why they cannot be funded 100% with public money? At least the "public" would
get some free technology back.

~~~
kuschku
We did that in the past, and it ends with those research institutes then
wasting money for everything, as another commenter mentioned.

This model is to ensure Fraunhofer only develops technology that has practical
applications (for more theoretical research, there's other research
societies).

Also, if it was free, it'd be the German taxpayer subsidizing foreign
companies — that wouldn't work in the long term, as German taxes would pay for
tech that Google f.e. would use, but Google wouldn't give anything back.

One could make the license fees tax deductible in Germany, though, that would
be a good solution.

~~~
zoobab
What could go wrong with turning universities in money making machines?

~~~
kuschku
The research institutes are entirely separate from the teaching part of the
universities, funded entirely separate (which is why nothing of this is
counted in university rankinds).

And this decision was done intentionally.

There's also research societies that work without any income (Max Planck,
Leibniz, Helmholtz), but the whole point of the Fraunhofer society is to take
science and turn it into something that companies can apply, use, and would
pay for.

