Coffeehouse Thread

35 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Windows Media Video 9

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    eagle

    BD-ROM

    The Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) today announced which advanced video codecs will be included in the BD-ROM specification. They had previously stated that they would include at least one advanced video codec, possibly more than one. The advanced video codecs that will be mandatory are MPEG-4 AVC High Profile and Microsoft's VC-1 video codec.

  • User profile image
    Manip

    Which means for each BR player your ever going to buy you now have to pay a MS tax. Plus no OSS player or at least not one that supports all disk types.

    What a wonderful day :-/

  • User profile image
    Keskos

    Manip wrote:
    Which means for each BR player your ever going to buy you now have to pay a MS tax. Plus no OSS player or at least not one that supports all disk types.

    What a wonderful day :-/


    If you don't have problem in paying Mpeg tax which is higher btw, why do you have problem paying MS tax? Oh wait you hate MS, well people hate paying more too.

  • User profile image
    Karim

    Oh please.  If by "MS tax" you mean "licensing fee added to the cost of a product," hello, welcome to the Real World.

    Sony doesn't mind if you make Beta-compatible video equipment, as long as you pay a "Sony tax."

    Nintendo doesn't mind if you write Nintendo games, as long as you pay a "Nintendo tax."

    Thompson (nee Fraunhofer) doesn't mind if you write a program to play MP3 files, as long as you pay a "Thompson tax."

    That's right, you even have to pay a "tax" to play a simple MP3 file:

    http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/software.html

    http://www.mp3-converter.com/encoders/

    Very few people come up with a good idea and just give it away.  Most people want to make money off their good ideas.  Why should Microsoft give away their codecs?

    If the license fees are insanely prohibitive, this drives up the cost of the product, which means -- guess what? -- less people buy them.  Or somebody else comes along with another codec that's 90% as good and costs 1/10th as much.

    Or, if you're evil, like Apple, and you hoard your intellectual property, and you never license jack *, someone devious like Real comes along and tries to take away your lunch money.  LOL

  • User profile image
    jamie

    there is anther c9 thread - that im too lazy to search for - that has every reason in the world why winmedia is either good - or bad.

    that said - i wouldnt be looking to ms for royalty free anything - thats for ogg heads Smiley

    (og? ogg? vobis? vorbis?) wadeber..

  • User profile image
    Keskos

    jamie wrote:
    there is anther c9 thread - that im too lazy to search for - that has every reason in the world why winmedia is either good - or bad.

    that said - i wouldnt be looking to ms for royalty free anything - thats for ogg heads Smiley

    (og? ogg? vobis? vorbis?) wadeber..


    Dude, you are already going to pay higher for the other standard, Mpeg 4. Microsoft tax is good for you despite what some say. Ogg standard is costing more. Why should we pay higher Open source tax, Mpeg tax, instead of less Microsoft tax? Let people decide it.

  • User profile image
    Manip

    Keskos wrote:
    Ogg standard is costing more.


    So zero costs more than more than zero? Your logic escapes me.. Ogg is in the public domain. Anyone can use it without paying a penny.

  • User profile image
    Loadsgood

    Hmmmmm... reading this makes me think I know why the 'underground world' of warez and every other serial no. sharing p2p people started what they do.
    Its because of guys like Bill Gates coming along and saying
    "Hey you, you've got to buy that piece of software. And no sharing!"
    Think about it, Bill Gates created piracy. What a world we live in...

  • User profile image
    ZippyV

    I think using wmv9 is a good thing because we don't have to pay for the player.

    With every software dvd player I got for free none of them supported 5.1 audio (unless you wanted to buy an extra dolby digital sound pack).

  • User profile image
    nektar

    I can see how MP3 costs quite some money for licensing. However, the strange thing about it is that many programs still include MP3 playback and even MP3 recording despite the fact that WMA for Windows is free and has no licensing costs. I mean for software, not hardware. Moreover, and that is even more peculiour, there are many encoders out there which encode and decode to and from MP3 format which are free and which have obviously paid no licensing fees, like Lamenc. Also, many programs which are also free like Winamp or Real Player encode and do things like ripping songs in MP3 and AAC but not in WMA. And these programs are still free. Don't they pay licensing for MP3 or AAC? Whilst on the other hand WMA is cheaper or free for Windows and yet very few programs support it, and even few    encode in WMA too. Don't the other companies mind paying licensing costs for MP3 recording or AAC (MP4)? How can some encoders like Lamenc get away without paying licensing fees? Do the major players (Winamp, Real, Musicmatch, etc) pay all these licenses and if so why don't they choose or add more WMA encoding support which is free for software use? After all, Microsoft's excuse for not including MP3 ripping in   WMP is that MP3 would cost the company some 5 dolars extra for each copy of the player. or something.

  • User profile image
    Manip

    But the WMA decoder is only free on MS Windows, so if you own a Mac or a Linux/BSD desktop then you can't play WMAs. It is not a free format, Microsoft just doesn't charge.

  • User profile image
    nektar

    Yes but still it is interesting how some software choices are made. WMA is free on Windows but most players ignore it and choose to pay for licensing MP3 or AAC for ripping. These same players might be Windows applications only or at least mostly. And I am sure that currently some Linux distributions can play WMAs. And there are Linux players that play them and which are free. And WMP works on Macs, so WMAs can at least be played by one software on the Mac. But I am sure other software can do that today as well. Is it better for companies to pay to license the more expensive MP3 and AAC formats for recording on every device or to use WMA free for most computers out there? I am not saying that companies should drop MP3. In any way it is very popular. However, I am interested to know what drives their choices. It seems that it is not quality, WMA has a higher quality than MP3 and it seems that it is not cost, MP3 costs more. It is not compatibility also since WMAs play freely in Windows and on other platforms, if they do not wish to pay for the cheapest licensing fees, there is at least one free player out there which can play WMA. So why does nobody choose WMA? Why do all major players put WMA/WMV aside?

  • User profile image
    Blkbam

    I don't know how many developers there are in this thread but unless you guys are using Notepad or some other free text editor to write code and not using any third party tools (api's, drivers, dlls, contols, namespaces, assemblies or whatever), you are going to pay for something. 

  • User profile image
    Tom Malone

    Isn't the money made on the encoder on these software suites.

    It makes sense to write an open source decoder that everyone can use for free, and charge for the encoder, as this means the target audience of your customer will be 100%, not 95%.

    Also a thought, for better or worse their is a slow drift of web and email servers to non ms alternatives, is there not a problem in writing codecs these platforms do not support, as it cuts down on the people you can sell them to, does this matter i don't know.

    Tom

  • User profile image
    eagle

    Tom Malone wrote:
     i don't know.



    You're right, you don't know anything.
     
    Your name is NOT Tom Malone anyway, maybe it's Fred Gump?

    Windows Server 2003 and Exchange Server 2003's market share is increasing. 

  • User profile image
    Karim

    Loadsgood wrote:

    Think about it, Bill Gates created piracy. What a world we live in...


    Your logic is not exactly of Aristotelian rigor...

    First of all, Bill Gates "created" cheap software, if you want to call him the creator of something.  Prior to Bill, IBM didn't sell you mainframe software, they LOANED it to you, at annual rates that would make a house mortgage look like cab fare.

    Second, theft was invented about twenty-seven minutes after the invention of the wheel.  (The following day saw the invention of insurance companies and locking wheel hubs.)

  • User profile image
    Keskos

    Karim wrote:
    Loadsgood wrote:
    Think about it, Bill Gates created piracy. What a world we live in...


    Your logic is not exactly of Aristotelian rigor...

    First of all, Bill Gates "created" cheap software, if you want to call him the creator of something.  Prior to Bill, IBM didn't sell you mainframe software, they LOANED it to you, at annual rates that would make a house mortgage look like cab fare.

    Second, theft was invented about twenty-seven minutes after the invention of the wheel.  (The following day saw the invention of insurance companies and locking wheel hubs.)


    I have to correct something, not twenty-seven minutes after the invention of the wheel. I think it is at least 2 hours. 27 minutes is a myth.Wink

  • User profile image
    Manip

    I read on slashdot it was 27min's.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.