iPhone's HEIC Format Causing Some Students to Fail AP Exams, Here's How to Fix It

[konqerror]

3. A failure of the school system to recognize the likelihood that the majority of their students will have an Apple device
4. Apple's habit of doing things "their way" because they believe it's better (no Flash, USB-C only, butterfly keyboards, FireWire, etc)

These are not true. As mentioned in the article, Android introduced HEIF 6 months after Apple did, in 2018.

5. A bias of IT personnel towards Windows, leading to Windows-centric new and legacy infrastructure

Windows introduced HEIF support 3 months after Apple did. The bias, if any, is towards Linux and Open Source IP-righteousness. They won't touch anything that you have to pay for.

 

[Ray2]

What I don't get here, is that it was a written exam... That was meant to be uploaded online... And they were apparently doing it in handwriting? . Full sympathy with the students, it's something their school should've taken care of - but why on Earth are exams that are in the end digital anyway being conducted this way, rather than just having them write it on their computer in the first place?

This is the USA. Patent and sue. But the application and use of tech is sorely behind Europe. After 25 years in Switzerland, I am amazed at how far behind the USA is. New is an advertising term. Has zero to do with technology.

 

[cmaier]

This is the USA. Patent and sue. But the application and use of tech is sorely behind Europe. After 25 years in Switzerland, I am amazed at how far behind the USA is. New is an advertising term. Has zero to do with technology.

There are plenty of tools which allow students to take tests on-line available in the US. Have been for years. Examsoft is just one example, which I used to take the california bar exam more than a decade ago.

This was a decision made by one company for inexplicable reasons. I suppose taking a math test might on-line might be a little difficult, since math on a computer is always a pain, but for many subjects there would have been no problem at all simply using a better technological solution.

 

[Abazigal]

Fool me once .... Why do people trust apple so much?

I don’t see what trust has to do with any of this.

A school screwed up. That’s all there is to it.

 

[friedmud]

All that's necessary is to turn off Live Photos. Regular photos will be exported as JPEGS.

That's it. That is all. I hate that even a website site dedicated to Mac stuff can't get this right.

The convoluted instructions posted here were meant to be convoluted on purpose to make this look worse than it is...
[automerge]1590504620[/automerge]

Can’t stand Live Photo’s. Worthless feature.

I'm so used to Live Photos now that I get frustrated when I come across one that's not! Everyone in my extended family uses them.

Especially with my son - I have SO many moments where having a little bit of video/audio around the photo is amazing. I don't want the burden of a full video all the time - but just a little bit of extra context and movement is so nice.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Again, you're totally wrong.

Read Apple's EULA. Use of their consumer-licensed AVC codec to say, record a business video is unlicensed activity. Now MPEG LA may not enforce this, but one can legitimately bring a lawsuit against such a user.

Again, you don't know what Velos Media's arrangement is. You're making guesses. The truth has been held confidential. Velos isn't even disclosing what patents they control. And again, you don't know what arrangements people are making with Cisco, technicolor, Blackberry, etc.

All we know is that with HEVC, you have to pay a large number of companies, or else you're open to lawsuits. Is that stupid? It sure is, and that's why AV1 is gaining popularity.

Oh look, just got an email back from MPEG-LA

"Can a non-profit organization decode HEIF images (containing HEVC frames) for educational purposes?"

Thank you for your message to MPEG LA. We appreciate hearing from you and I will be happy to assist you.

For your background, MPEG LA's HEVC License provides coverage for end products that include HEVC/H.265 functionality, including HEVC Products that use the HEVC still image profile. Included in the royalty paid by licensed product suppliers is the right for personal/internal use to watch HEVC video or view HEVC images as you described below. In that case, no additional royalties would be payable under our HEVC License.

With that said, MPEG LA can only speak to the coverage provided under our HEVC License. We cannot speak to coverage under any licenses that may be offered by other third parties, such as HEVC Advance.

I hope this is helpful. If you have additional questions or need further assistance, please feel free to contact me directly.

Best regards,
Ryan

Ryan Rodriguez
Manager, Global Licensing
MPEG LA

Now I know you're thinking: "But it says 'We cannot speak to coverage under any licenses that may be offered by other third parties'!!!". If you're saying Velos media might charge for internal use, then literally anyone working in an enterprise environment creating and sharing an HEIC image internally on an iPhone is violating Velos' terms.

You're just flat out wrong here.

Anyways, I'm going back to work. *uploads HEIC file to Dropbox and views it as a JPG on Dropbox web*

 

[konqerror]

You're just flat out wrong here.

Again, you refuse to admit you're wrong. I showed the huge picture that showed there are 3 patent pools and a handful of unaffiliated patent holders.

You intentionally chose MPEG LA which is known not to charge content fees, whereas HEVC Advance is known to. Additionally, pose the same question to Velos Media and watch as you get a non-response because it's well known Velos's terms are confidential and rumored to charge content fees.

Your post proves absolutely nothing.
[automerge]1590522950[/automerge]

If you're saying Velos media might charge for internal use, then literally anyone working in an enterprise environment creating and sharing an HEIC image internally on an iPhone is violating Velos' terms.

And that's exactly why companies, especially those that can't afford expensive lawsuits, are hesitant to touch HEVC, and exactly why AV1 became popular.

 

[farewelwilliams]

You intentionally chose MPEG LA

Wrong. I sent emails to both. I actually sent the email to Velos first then reached out to MPEG-LA. MPEG-LA was the one that replied this morning. Waiting on Velos' reply. But don't worry, I'll reply back when I hear back.

Please don't assume I'd only ask MPEG-LA and not Velos. You're making an erroneous sweeping assumption with no facts to back it up, very similar to what you're doing with what College Board's intentions were.

HEVC Advance is known to

I didn't send an e-mail to HEVC Advance because they've already announced they won't charge fees for this use case. I've already shown you. Did you forget?
"Examples of the types of software within the policy include browsers, media players and various software applications."
https://www.hevcadvance.com/hevc-advance-announces-royalty-free-hevc-software-2/

Again, you're flat out wrong.

And that's exactly why companies, especially those that can't afford expensive lawsuits, are hesitant to touch HEVC, and exactly why AV1 became popular.

I've never seen a company with guidance telling employees to not use HEVC on their iPhones during work hours (since that would be considered "internal use"). Show me one. Guaranteed you can't find a reasonable example.

 

[konqerror]

I've never seen a company with guidance telling employees to not use HEVC on their iPhones during work hours (since that would be considered "internal use"). Show me one. Guaranteed you can't find a reasonable example.

Totally irrelevant. The issue here is a large customer-facing webapp. Anything a company does can attract lawsuits, some things more than others. You're making plain absurd statements.

I guarantee you, if some IT guy implements something without legal approving it, and the company ends up with a huge lawsuit, it will not be good for his career. I guarantee you that anything put out by a large company has had patent lawyers analyze for potential patent/IP infringement.

I didn't send an e-mail to HEVC Advance because they've already announced they won't charge fees for this use case. I've already shown you. Did you forget?
"Examples of the types of software within the policy include browsers, media players and various software applications."
https://www.hevcadvance.com/hevc-advance-announces-royalty-free-hevc-software-2/

Again, you're flat out wrong.

Completely irrelevant and wrong.

application layer software downloaded to mobile devices or personal computers after the initial sale of the device

This isn't merely nit-picking, it's because H.264 has completely separate licensing terms with a much higher royalty rate for "professional" applications, 250x IIRC. Again, this goes back to Apple's EULA: Apple did not pay for the professional licenses for iPhones, so the iPhone EULA explicitly has the non-commercial use clause.

That's why Apple's Compressor software is a separate purchase, even though it uses system APIs. That $50 largely is for licensing upgrades.

Which goes back to my original argument about commercial use.

Basically you're not listening to anything I say and completely ignoring relevant details.

 

[farewelwilliams]

The issue here is a large customer-facing webapp.

No. The issue here is "internal use" which, going back to the e-mail, MPEG-LA confirmed what this use case is.

I guarantee you, if some IT guy implements something without legal approving it, and the company ends up with a huge lawsuit, it will not be good for his career.

I've worked in IT for a Fortune 500 company and am currently in software engineering. I can tell you this is not how it works in most companies. Not every technical implementation goes through legal. Look at the recent VirnetX case where Apple was ordered to pay $500 million for patents related to FaceTime. That means Apple is going to fire the entire Facetime team right? Nope, proof: https://www.linkedin.com/in/roberto-garcia-2a582018b/ (he worked on Facetime back in 2010 which VirnetX was suing for and he's still there, head of Messages now).

Your guarantee doesn't hold up at all and you're just flat out wrong.

Completely irrelevant and wrong.

Students were literally using a browser to upload HEIC. To say it's "Completely" irrelevant would be factually wrong.

so the iPhone EULA explicitly has the non-commercial use clause.

For H264. Not H265.

HEVC Advance specifically says "HEVC Advance will not seek a license or royalties on HEVC functionality implemented in application layer software downloaded to mobile devices or personal computers after the initial sale of the device, where the HEVC encoding or decoding is fully executed in software on a general purpose CPU. ".

An IT or College Board employee viewing HEIC uploaded by a student literally is decoding HEVC frames in software on a general purpose CPU.

Basically you're not listening to anything I say and completely ignoring relevant details.

I've been literally quoting and replying to many of your arguments, piece by piece. Again, you're just wrong here.

 

[konqerror]

HEVC Advance specifically says "HEVC Advance will not seek a license or royalties on HEVC functionality implemented in application layer software downloaded to mobile devices or personal computers after the initial sale of the device, where the HEVC encoding or decoding is fully executed in software on a general purpose CPU. ".

An IT or College Board employee viewing HEIC uploaded by a student literally is decoding HEVC frames in software on a general purpose CPU.

Wrong again. You intentionally diverted my argument by highlighting the wrong words.

HEVC functionality implemented in application layer software downloaded to mobile devices or personal computers

Not server software or middleware. If College Board's server software handles HEVC files, say for validation or rescaling, then it likely does not fall under this exemption.

If you know what happened, this is to make Google Chrome and Firefox royalty-free. That's all. Google and Mozilla said outright that they would not implement any codec if they had to pay a single cent.

The specific clause does not apply to server or professional software. They want to charge royalties to Netflix. They want to charge royalties for Adobe Media Encoder. They want to charge extra royalties for Adobe Premier, if they can get away with it.

This has been going on for ages, including on AVC, again where professional software and hardware is charged at a much higher rate

I've been literally quoting and replying to many of your arguments, piece by piece. Again, you're just wrong here.

You've been literally misinterpreting and misquoting every single thing I said in order to save face. You obviously have not been following the HEVC drama, got the absolute wrong impression, and refuse to admit you're wrong. Nothing you've shown has contradicted anything I've said.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Wrong again. You intentionally diverted my argument by highlighting the wrong words.

HEVC functionality implemented in application layer software downloaded to mobile devices or personal computers

Not server software or middleware. If College Board's server software handles HEVC files, say for validation or rescaling, then it likely does not fall under this exemption.

College Board employees are literally viewing the photos on a personal computer. College Board can simply use the server to transport the raw bits of the image from the student to a file server to which a College Board employee can grab from the server and download to his/her personal computer for decoding.

If you read the Verge article, it says "Changing a file’s extension does not guarantee that it will be converted, but Spencer was still able to submit the demo test with no problem. Spencer used the same process on the real exam and thought it went through, but he received an email the next day saying the files were corrupted and that he needed to retake the test. " which means the server simply checked the extension to see if was not .heic. No decoding/encoding needs to happen on the server. All they needed to do was grab some software to view the images on a PC.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[konqerror]

College Board employees are literally viewing the photos on a personal computer. College Board can simply use the server to transport the raw bits of the image from the student to a file server to which a College Board employee can grab from the server and download to his/her personal computer for decoding.

If you read the Verge article, it says "Changing a file’s extension does not guarantee that it will be converted, but Spencer was still able to submit the demo test with no problem. Spencer used the same process on the real exam and thought it went through, but he received an email the next day saying the files were corrupted and that he needed to retake the test. " which means the server simply checked the extension to see if was not .heic. No decoding/encoding needs to happen on the server. All they needed to do was grab some software to view the images on a PC.

Thanks for proving my point.

Wrong again. Which browser supports HEIC? None. You think evaluators are going to download files one by one? That creates a FERPA issue (again, showing your inexperience in this matter), not to mention being slow and error-prone.

Further, they used to have the graders, which are not employees, but rather high school teachers who volunteer, handle the paper exams in a single location, empty dorms.

It's unlikely they'll do this in person, so the equivalent this year will likely be a web-app. Since there's no HEIC support in browsers, they'll have to transcode.

But going back to the licensing issue, you're still dead wrong. The patent license is still needed in order to utilize encoded content commercially, e.g. on a Blu-Ray or streaming service, regardless of the licensing of the encoder.

Again, you're wrong in all counts.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Wrong again. Which browser supports HEIC?

I didn't say the browser needs to support HEIC decoding. I said Spencer literally transferred an HEIC file through the browser. This isn't a hypothetical, it literally happened in the past. College Board just needs software to open the HEIC files on their personal computers for graders to grade.

You're failing to comprehend what is being said here.

Further, they used to have the graders, which are not employees, but rather high school teachers who volunteer, handle the paper exams in a single location, empty dorms.

For onsite readers? AP Readers are compensated: "Readers who travel to the Reading are paid a regular hourly rate, which, with applicable overtime, will amount to $1,639 if the expected number of hours are worked during the Reading event. "
http://www.ets.org/scoring_opportunities/ap_scoring/general_ap_faq/

which was linked from College Board's website: https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/professional-development/become-an-ap-reader which also says "All Readers receive compensation for their work during the Reading. Expenses, lodging, and meals are covered for Readers who travel."

And I can dig up some reddit IAMAs of personal accounts from AP exam readers backing up the monetary compensation several years ago.

Of course there probably were a few "volunteers" in the past but currently they are technically employees of an entity. You're wrong again.

It's unlikely they'll do this in person, so the equivalent this year will likely be a web-app. Since there's no HEIC support in browsers, they'll have to transcode.

Even if they are using a web-app in browser (you're simply guessing), they can easily click the attachment to download the heic locally to view. College Board can point graders to install the free official Microsoft HEIF/HEVC extensions (link) onto their local personal computers to view the content. Once installed, it's not anymore difficult than clicking an attachment link that pops open a new browser window which is likely what is happening now.

Judging by College Board's previous job openings, they do have Electron engineers. Electron allows the engineers to wrap the web app into a desktop app and have access to native desktop APIs with full cross platform capability (iPad, macOS, Windows, iPhone). Electron runs node.js and there are plenty of node.js modules that can decode HEIF/HEVC frames locally on computer like this.

All happening locally on the reader's personal computer.

But going back to the licensing issue, you're still dead wrong. The patent license is still needed in order to utilize encoded content commercially, e.g. on a Blu-Ray or streaming service, regardless of the licensing of the encoder.

Again, you're wrong in all counts.

Nope, MPEG-LA already okayed this scenario in the e-mail I shared. HEVC Advance okayed it too in that announcement. With that said, it's odd that you mentioned Velos' terms is "unknown", yet you're so sure a patent license is needed. If it's unknown, then you can't really say for sure a license is needed, which pretty much contradicts your statement of it being "unknown".

All you provided so far in this entire discussion was a graph of the HEVC licensing landscape while I've provided an official e-mail from one of the licensing groups and many links to backup my statements.

You're wrong about engineers being fired for lawsuits which you seem to agree with now since you haven't replied about it.
You're wrong for accusing me of "not listening to anything" of what you said as I've provided many line-by-line replies.
You're wrong for AP readers not getting compensated/not being employees as I've shown in the links above.
And you're just wrong about how the licensing works.

 

[konqerror]

Nope, MPEG-LA already okayed this scenario in the e-mail I shared. HEVC Advance okayed it too in that announcement. With that said, it's odd that you mentioned Velos' terms is "unknown", yet you're so sure a patent license is needed. If it's unknown, then you can't really say for sure a license is needed, which pretty much contradicts your statement of it being "unknown".

Nope, you blatantly misinterpreted a non-legally binding press release by HEVC Advance. MPEG LA is known not to charge content fees but as I keep saying, MPEG LA is only one part of the puzzle. You violate any patent, you are liable to get sued.

Which goes back to the whole problem with HEVC. The patent situation is murky and ANY company using HEVC is liable to get sued. Some companies like Apple figure they are going to get sued no matter what (e.g. patent trolls), some companies like Netflix and Amazon figure the money they save on bandwidth is more than they would lose in a suit. Some companies can't afford to get sued, like Mozilla, who won't touch it. Some organizations, like VLC, have no assets to sue over.

The situation is whether College Board, which is not a tech giant, and does not have a staff of patent lawyers, can afford a lawsuit.

Again, your lack of knowledge is showing. Paying attention and reading between the lines >>> Googling.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Nope, you blatantly misinterpreted a non-legally binding press release by HEVC Advance.

Nope. You incorrectly assumed that the only way for readers to view HEIF is through server re-encoding when the reader can simply download to his/her personal computer (which HEVC Advance has specifically said it's okay to do) to view which you seem to not want to respond about that scenario.

Paying attention and reading between the lines >>> Googling.

You do know that reading between the lines and not providing any evidence to back up your statements will do you no good in the court of law right? For a person that makes the thesis all about potential lawsuits, this makes zero sense coming from you.

 

[konqerror]

You do know that reading between the lines and not providing any evidence to back up your statements will do you no good in the court of law right? For a person that makes the thesis all about potential lawsuits, this makes zero sense coming from you.

Right cause we're not allowed to talk about law without being held to the standard of a court of law. Better explain that to all the law journals out there.

Nope. You incorrectly assumed that the only way for readers to view HEIF is through server re-encoding when the reader can simply download to his/her personal computer (which HEVC Advance has specifically said it's okay to do) to view which you seem to not want to respond about that scenario.

Once again, let's repeat your errors:
1. You didn't know that HEVC has content fees (just like AVC does)
2. You didn't know that HEVC SEPs are split across 3 patent pools+unaffiliated holders.
3. You didn't know that MPEG LA is a pool that specifically doesn't charge content fees
4. You didn't know that the terms and patents under Velos Media are confidential
5. You didn't know that professional and consumer software are distinct (just like AVC does)
6. You didn't know that most licensing that's bundled in consumer products explicitly excludes commercial use

In fact, let's read Apple's EULA terms on HEVC:

To the extent that the Apple Software contains HEVC functionality, the following provision applies: THIS PRODUCT INCLUDES TECHNOLOGY COMPLIANT WITH THE HEVC/H.265 STANDARD AND THUS MAY BE SUBJECT TO THIRD PARTY PATENT LICENSING OBLIGATIONS FROM VARIOUS PATENT POOLS HOLDING PATENT RIGHTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE HEVC/H.265 STANDARD. CUSTOMER SHOULD CONSULT INDEPENDENT LEGAL COUNSEL WHEN DETERMINING WHETHER A LICENSE IS REQUIRED.

Basically Apple says you can be sued for using HEVC in Apple software, because of the murky patent situation, agreeing with my entire point. Not only are they saying it's not sufficient to buy Apple software, they're saying you need to get your own lawyer to work out the situation.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Right cause we're not allowed to talk about law without being held to the standard of a court of law. Better explain that to all the law journals out there.

If you're going to talk about the law, you should talk about the law and not about your guesses on what may or may not be true with 0 links to back it up.

Once again, let's repeat your errors:
1. You didn't know that HEVC has content fees (just like AVC does)

Go read: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...ams-heres-how-to-fix-it.2237570/post-28493046

I said "And since they're not distributing any content, they wouldn't pay any distributing costs of HEVC content." which implies my knowledge about content fees.

And BTW, I know you saw this post considering you downvoted it. So either you blindly downvoted my posts, or you did actually read, but either forgot, didn't understand, or you intentionally made a false statement.

Yet, another one of your statement that was proved wrong.

2. You didn't know that HEVC SEPs are split across 3 patent pools+unaffiliated holders.
3. You didn't know that MPEG LA is a pool that specifically doesn't charge content fees
4. You didn't know that the terms and patents under Velos Media are confidential

And where is your proof? I brought my facts forward with proof, where are yours? As usual, like nearly every other reply, you provide 0 links and make sweeping erroneous assumptions.

5. You didn't know that professional and consumer software are distinct (just like AVC does)
6. You didn't know that most licensing that's bundled in consumer products explicitly excludes commercial use

I've worked in this industry for over 7 years developing iOS, macOS, and web software developing both professional and consumer software. I've worked at the big fruit company as a software engineer. I've also made contributions to FFmpeg in which one national sports league used in a TV event (FFmpeg was having trouble creating FCP7 optimized clips for import due to its unauthorized ProRes implementation so I helped solve some audio interleaving issues). And lastly, I've created plenty of consumer software on my downtime.

So I know a thing or two when it comes to differentiating professional and consumer software. Again, you're making guesses with 0 proof.

In fact, let's read Apple's EULA terms on HEVC:


Basically Apple says you can be sued for using HEVC in Apple software, because of the murky patent situation, agreeing with my entire point. Not only are they saying it's not sufficient to buy Apple software, they're saying you need to get your own lawyer to work out the situation.

All these terms say is that you should ask a lawyer before using Final Cut Pro X (which in the introductory paragraphs is defined to be "the Apple Software" in question) to render out HEVC clips for commercial distribution. Has nothing to do with an AP test reader opening an HEIF image containing an HEVC frame for viewing on his/her personal computer to grade papers for a non-profit organization.

It sounds like you just googled "apple 'hevc' eula" and found this document in one of the results but you didn't even bother to read the first part. I'm glad you did finally link something concrete though, so that's good. It just doesn't really apply here in this context, unfortunately.

 

[konqerror]

All these terms say is that you should ask a lawyer before using Final Cut Pro X (which in the introductory paragraphs is defined to be "the Apple Software" in question) to render out HEVC clips for commercial distribution. Has nothing to do with an AP test reader opening an HEIF image containing an HEVC frame for viewing on his/her personal computer to grade papers for a non-profit organization.

Wrong. The same clause is in every single Apple Pro App EULA. Apple makes the reasonable assessment that consumer products, like an iPhone, have a low risk of being sued. Grandma isn't going to get sued.

When it comes to commercial, pro apps, the view is different, and Apple knows that commercial use is liable to attract lawsuits.

Further, it's very telling that Apple says you need to hire a lawyer to figure out the licensing situation. Blowing a hole in your argument that nobody is going to get sued.

Which only proves my point. College Board's commercial use of HEVC has a non-trivial risk of licensing issues.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Wrong. The same clause is in every single Apple Pro App EULA. Apple makes the reasonable assessment that consumer products, like an iPhone, have a low risk of being sued. Grandma isn't going to get sued.

When it comes to commercial, pro apps, the view is different, and Apple knows that commercial use is liable to attract lawsuits.

Further, it's very telling that Apple says you need to hire a lawyer to figure out the licensing situation. Blowing a hole in your argument that nobody is going to get sued.

Which only proves my point. College Board's commercial use of HEVC has a non-trivial risk of licensing issues.

Good morning.

I’m still waiting on Velos to get back to me BUT, I e-mailed HEVC Advance since you complained that I didn’t bother asking them. They asked for more info. I told them this.

What we're imagining: a non-profit educational organization builds a website for students to upload their written homework/exams. Teachers will then use our app to retrieve and grade these papers in a more efficient manner.

Specifically, either one of these two scenarios can happen:
1. Our server converts HEIF (containing HEVC frames) to JPG or PNG before storing on our file server (essentially our server is being used to decode HEIF with HEVC frames).
OR
2. Our server stores raw HEIF on our file server. Our teachers/graders will then retrieve the HEIF images from our file server using our software which will use third party libraries to decode HEIF to a viewable form (essentially the decoding of HEVC frames happen on the user's local personal computer).

The organization will charge for the service but, like I mentioned, it is a non-profit organization to serve various educational institutions during this COVD-19 crisis.
I would love your take on both of these scenarios to see if a license is absolutely necessary.

Today, I received a response.

For scenario 1, no license would be needed as this service would fall under our Commercial HEVC Excluded Product category.

For scenario 2, if your software or the third party libraries implement a decoder, you would be required to take the license. However, if the third party libraries use a HEVC codec already installed on the user’s PC to decode the files, the PC vendor would be required to take the license.

Best,

Rachel

Scenario 1, it’s fine if the server re-encodes.
Scenario 2, Apple and Microsoft already have licenses so it’s fine too. Windows users will just need to install that free Microsoft HEVC codec like I mentioned before.

There goes your argument about HEVC Advance.

You have no idea what tf you’re talking about. You’re just wrong here.

 

[konqerror]

There goes your argument about HEVC Advance.

You have no idea what tf you’re talking about. You’re just wrong here.

Two down, one huge patent pool with confidential results, and 10s of unaffiliated patentholders waiting. Again, you refuse to admit it that's the whole problem with HEVC licensing.

Face it Apple says you have to hire a lawyer to figure out licensing. Black and white. You refuse to admit you got told by Apple.

Windows users will just need to install that free Microsoft HEVC codec like I mentioned before.

Completely wrong. That is not available on Windows Server versions: there is no Windows Store on server versions, to begin with. Again, a huge misconception on your part. Add this to the long list of your errors.

You can't use Windows 10 client editions as a server due to the EULA (more specifically, Windows enforces 20 simultaneous users max).

Again, Microsoft, like Apple, is avoiding commercial use due to the patent situation.

Even if there was, that "free" codec punts the problem over to the hardware codec licensing. First, there is no Intel iGPU on server CPUs, so you don't get any licensing there.

Second, you could buy a GPU. Fine, but it's against NVidia's EULA to use consumer GPUs on a datacenter application, which means you have to fork over $1,000 for a Quadro. Then you have to specifically talk to NVidia's codec hardware because system APIs are not available.

You're the one who refuses to admit you're plain wrong and you have no clue about commercial use restrictions on IP.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Two down, one huge patent pool with confidential results, and 10s of unaffiliated patentholders waiting. Again, you refuse to admit it that's the whole problem with HEVC licensing.

Face it Apple says you have to hire a lawyer to figure out licensing. Black and white. You refuse to admit you got told by Apple.



Completely wrong. That is not available on Windows Server versions: there is no Windows Store on server versions, to begin with. Again, a huge misconception on your part. Add this to the long list of your errors.

You can't use Windows 10 client editions as a server due to the EULA (more specifically, Windows enforces 20 simultaneous users max).

Again, Microsoft, like Apple, is avoiding commercial use due to the patent situation.

Even if there was, that "free" codec punts the problem over to the hardware codec licensing. First, there is no Intel iGPU on server CPUs, so you don't get any licensing there.

Second, you could buy a GPU. Fine, but it's against NVidia's EULA to use consumer GPUs on a datacenter application, which means you have to fork over $1,000 for a Quadro. Then you have to specifically talk to NVidia's codec hardware because system APIs are not available.

You're the one who refuses to admit you're plain wrong and you have no clue about commercial use restrictions on IP.

Uh, what AP Exam reader is using Windows 10 server on their PC? You’re reaching too hard here. Those HEVC codecs from Microsoft works perfectly fine with the consumer editions of Windows 10 without an HEVC license. Your point is moot.

And I’ve already showed you that HEVC Advance said Scenario 1 (a server is free to convert HEIF with HEVC frames without a license in this context) is perfectly fine. You’re going to tell HEVC Advance that they’re wrong? Come on dude.

I’ve shown you proof directly from MPEG-LA and HEVC Advance (which you specifically asked for) that contradicts what you’re trying to say. The fact that you’re refusing to admit any wrong (at the very least with regards to HEVC Advance) suggests there’s no point in continuing this debate. I’ll update you if I ever hear back from Velos but other than that, I’m done here. Have a nice day.

 

[konqerror]

Uh, what AP Exam reader is using Windows 10 server on their PC? You’re reaching too hard here. Those HEVC codecs from Microsoft works perfectly fine with the consumer editions of Windows 10 without an HEVC license. Your point is moot.

Wrong. We went over this. There is little support for HEIF in random Windows computers. What if they're on a school computer that's banned Windows Store access? You have to get IT to install HEIF and HEVC extensions. What if, like some schools, they're running Windows 10 LTSC, which has no store access, and the earlier versions have no HEVC support?

What if they use a school-provided Chromebook? What if they're on Windows 8?

Should they put in their hiring ad "must have a computer with HEVC support"?

Simply an untenable situation. You asked the patent pools about transcoding, and now you're backpedaling when I point out that Windows Server can't transcode for free.

Again, Apple explicitly said you need a lawyer to figure out if you need to buy additional licenses. What technology has that?

Again, you're arguing against a position that 100% of the industry has acknowledged. Find one reputable person who doesn't think the HEVC situation is a big disaster. Apparently you're the only one with that very wrong opinion.

 

[AvengerDragon]

So, students are failing because teachers fail to keep with the technological times? All they had to do when they failed was download a free HEIC plug-in the Windows store.

 

[SAIRUS]

The quickest thing to do is to put a warning on upload what the file format should be.

Then make a decision that should have been caught before on what image formats should be supported. That’ll determine what and if there should be additional adapters, viewers etc.

Users shouldn’t be punished for flaws in a poorly thought out system.