I agree it isn't correct, the implication is that the only "value" that generate new codecs is 'money for royalties.'
There are many reasons for developing better codecs, whether they perform better on hardware, they allow for more channels in a pipe with fixed bandwidth, or optimize the viewing experience for particular types of signals.
When I read the reference post I heard the echos of rationalizations that have been used for years and years to justify applying rents against someone else's labor. I can only hope that the author is correct in that this rent seeking behavior has become unsustainable. That would be a good thing indeed.
There are many reasons for developing better codecs, whether they perform better on hardware, they allow for more channels in a pipe with fixed bandwidth, or optimize the viewing experience for particular types of signals.
When I read the reference post I heard the echos of rationalizations that have been used for years and years to justify applying rents against someone else's labor. I can only hope that the author is correct in that this rent seeking behavior has become unsustainable. That would be a good thing indeed.