Microsoft Codec Required For Blu-Ray Players 490
dmayle writes "According to ExtremeTech, the Blu-Ray Disc Association (which consists of many big names, like Sony, Philips, and Pioneer) has decided to mandate Microsoft's VC-1 video codec. With HD-DVD incorporating Microsoft's patented video codecs as well, what will happen to the state of media players on Open Source? (Here's an additional source for Blu-Ray info)."
MSFT media domination begins? (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft will maintain its neutral position in supporting the emerging high definition video formats, said Amir Majidimehr, corporate vice president of Microsoft's Windows Media division, in a statement.
MSFT will remain "neutral" as long as they are getting paid royalties to use the codec in the design. This will likely mean that Open Source alternatives will be shutout although with other technologies OSS has been able to make its way around those roadblocks.
How long until the MPAA gives in or will yet ANOTHER media format be created that won't include MSFT or OSS?
CORRECT LINK IN COMMENT ABOVE! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:MSFT media domination begins? (Score:5, Informative)
From the Blu-ray FAQ:
What video codecs will Blu-ray support? UPDATED
The Blu-ray Disc Founders (BDF) still haven't made a final decision about what video codecs will be included, but MPEG-2 is already part of the specification. According to the BDF technical spokesman Richard Doherty, they will also include at least one, possibly more than one, advanced video codec beyond MPEG-2 in the Blu-ray Disc format. Current canidates include MPEG-4 AVC High Profile (previously called FRExt) and VC-9. They plan to announce which advanced video codec(s) will be used sometime in September and expect the specification to be finshed by the end of the year.
Obviously MPEG-2 will be the compression algorithm for most video playback. It just happens that they are adding other codecs to the standard so that in order for hardware to be compliant they will have to decode various other MPEG-4 codecs....VC-9 being one chosen for the spec.
Why not MPEG-2? Compression efficiency! (Score:4, Informative)
I believe the big driver behind this is the competition form the DVD Forum's own blue laser format. DVD Forum already has tentative support for VC-1 and H.264. Even though the DVD Forum has lower digital capacity, the support for better codecs meant that DVD Forum could actually get more hours of good quality content on the disc. So equalizing the codecs means that Blu-Ray's capacity advantage can shine.
That said, I'm still betting on DVD Forum. 30 GB will mean more hours of HD content that DVD can do of SD. Also, DVD Forum discs are MUCH easier to convert an existing DVD plant to, and likely will be more durable in day to day use.
Blu-ray seems more likely to win inside cameras and that kind of thing, where capacity is a bigger deal. Think VHS v. Beta, where Beta turned into the Betacam format, giving Sony a 15-year dominance in professional video formats.
Re:Why not MPEG-2? Compression efficiency! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:MSFT media domination begins? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:MSFT media domination begins? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a given:
They bitched when CD burners let us copy their precious music, albums at a time.
They bitched when players were released to play that [mp3] music, from CD/Flash/HDD
They bitched when DVD recordables were released to allow people to shrink and burn their precious movies.
They're bitching about the dual-layer DVD formar becoming recordable and available to the puclic.
Guess what they're going to do when we can slap 4-8 of their precious DVDs onto one BluRay disc for 50c? [hint: bitch.]
The Chinese Already Dominate (Score:3, Informative)
A side note: all dvd drives and players are made in China. There may be some stereo tweeks out there doing custom boxes, but the drives are all sourced from the same 10 or so plants.
Re:MSFT media domination begins? (Score:5, Insightful)
I, for one, wish the MPAA, Microsoft, the RIAA, etc all the best in their attempts to protect and overcharge insane amounts for their content and media.
The more restricted the $40 DRM-enabled Brittney-Spears Clone that can only be played 3 times before triggering the $2/viewing per-use license becomes; the more opportunity there is for Creative-Commons-licensed music to become popular and mainstream.
As Sony/MPAA/Microsoft and nuts like Zaentz [americanhistorycd.com](the guy who sued Fogerty for sounding like Fogerty, and then brought us LotR) keep gettting greedier and greedier; they are in fact _creating_ the same kind of opportunity for reasonably licensed Arts that similar nutcases did for Open Source software when they thought they could charge $100 for commodities like OS's and Relational databases.
Let them kill themselves. Personally, I'll go see local bands that let me tape & publish MP3s of their shows and actually want people to hear their stuff.
Re:MSFT media domination begins? (Score:3, Informative)
Read you own link. He wasn't sued for "sounding" like, he was sued for plagerization, which is a perfectly valid thing to sue over. He lost, by the way.
From link:
"In 1985 when John Fogerty made his comeback album Centerfield he include a song called Zanz Kant Danz. The first line of lyric in the song is; 'Vanz can't dance, but he'll steal your money'. Zaentz sued Fogerty and the song title was subsequently changed to Vanz Kant Danz on later pressi
Re:MSFT media domination begins? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh dear. The good old times when copyrights served to protect the artist are really long, long gone.
Overcharge? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, I have to weigh in here in the interest of some objectivity. Most DVDs currently are in the $25 or less range. Most of the DVDs I've recently purchased have been $10 to $14. I don't see that as overcharging, particularly since a matinee ticket costs $5.00-$5.50 and as high as $9 for evening showings, and you have to schedule yourself to be at the theater at their showing time, not when best fits your schedule.
Some people apparently missed the Good Old Days when VHS tapes of movies were $30 up to $80 (one studio was always in the $70 to 80 range, while others were much lower) and if you adjust the dollars these would be considerably more in today's bucks.
Blank media may be pricey, but don't confuse that with what's on sale with content.
Re:Overcharge? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:MSFT media domination begins? (Score:3, Interesting)
What will happen? (Score:5, Insightful)
Either that or it'll fail as a format. I'm kinda guessing the latter.
Re:What will happen? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What will happen? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What will happen? (Score:5, Interesting)
They're doing what now? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:They're doing what now? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They're doing what now? (Score:4, Informative)
codec (Score:3, Informative)
Re:They're doing what now? (Score:3, Interesting)
Some third company could pay the license and write a closed source plugin for that open source media player, and sell the plugin. Although the third company would probably be run out of business by the screaming masses shouting "your plugin is a derivative work therefor it must be made open source!" So maybe they would write an open source interface to the clo
In management this is called (Score:5, Insightful)
MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 (Score:5, Insightful)
the Man is out to own us! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:the Man is out to own us! (Score:2, Funny)
> appliances... Next to the very cable TV we watch...
I hope you still have the receipt for that 'Orwell' book you're paraphrasing...
Misrepresented literature (Score:2)
Re:the Man is out to own us! (Score:5, Insightful)
What, you mean forcing them to innovate? I know this won't be a popular opinion around here, but if the OSS Community really wants to win things like this, they're going to have to treat their projects like they're products, and compete with the alternatives out there. That means coming up with new stuff that hasn't been done before. That means making interfaces and documentation that dumb-asses such as my self can figure out without having to run to Google. That means making the presence of these things known.
Microsoft may be a nuisance, but the OSS Community isn't doing near enough to deal with them. The expectation that all the businesses out there who thrive on making money should just stand aside and let the righteous OSS movement stroll right in is self-destructive.
For the record, nothing about this post is intended to defend MS in any sort of way.
Similar licenses (Score:3, Informative)
Now, if what you want is an open-source VC-1 encoder, I'm sure it'll happen once the standard is fully finalized, ala LAME and Xvid. The same kind of open-source but unlicensed codec implementation should be perfectly applicable there.
MS quality codecs.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Pleased: Despite all the MS bashing that occurs here, MS does make some very nice A/V codecs.
Worried: MS has a history of hamstringing their good codecs with DRM and other crap too.
Indifferent: Nothing to see here folks, FOSS will reverse-engineer and/or come out with far better codecs.
Re:MS quality codecs.... (Score:3, Insightful)
*WE* don't want DRM but the rest of the public doesn't know/care and the industry *wants* it. So their "history of hamstringing codecs with DRM" is what makes them attractive.
Re:MS quality codecs.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't matter if they do or not. The point is that FOSS will never be legally allowed to play these *standard* media discs, ever. The codecs are patented and not available for Free. Every single set-top box or other such hardware will be forced to run at least partially closed software. They might even be forced not to use Linux/BSD/etc. if Microsoft won't release or license versions of their codecs for those OSes.
Even if we have a much better Free codec, that codec is worthless if every single DVD/movie released *must* be encoded in Microsoft's codecs because the standard mandates it and the hardware for playing those discs all supports Microsoft's codecs, but only one or two support the Free codec.
It's just like the MP3 situation. The vast majority of people, even geeks that are pro-Free Software, must use MP3, because many of their devices do not support Ogg Vorbis or another high quality Free codec.
Now that this standard is out that mandates Microsoft codecs, it can *never* be undone, because backwards compatibility must always be maintained in devices that use this standard (or you risk severely pissing off the end users who bought them or media for them), and that then mandates lockin to Microsoft and lockout of Free Software.
The only hope in this case is that this new technology doesn't catch on (DVDs are still fairly new, many consumers will resist another video format upgrade so soon) and that by the time the market is ready for an upgrade, another Free-friendly standard is dominant.
Mandated for hardware, not software (Score:5, Insightful)
The support for Media Player 9 codec is mandated for the players, to ensure that they are capable of showing video files encoded in that format. They are also mandated to do good ol' Mpeg 2 (just like DVD) and Mpeg 4 as well.
Of course, Mpeg 2 has its patents as well, but that doesn't seem to be hugely bothering people when discussing what this does over DVD, just because "Microsoft = Bad".
I'm just happy because a more efficient video codec leaves more room for audio on the discs, and we might see some MLP-encoded films.
Re:Mandated for hardware, not software (Score:3, Insightful)
If can't play them under linux, I'm not buying them.
Re:Mandated for hardware, not software (Score:3, Informative)
That's the thing here, it's not that it's no
Re:MS quality codecs.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:MS quality codecs.... (Score:3, Informative)
I think you meant 1998.
Re:Four isn't much more than three (Score:3, Informative)
The Revision of Copyright act of 1830, and the adoption of the Berne Convention in 1886. That makes 6 times.
Re:MS quality codecs.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Despite all the MS bashing that occurs here, MS does make some very nice A/V codecs.
Examples? I know that WMA did quite badly in double-blind experiments. I'm pretty sure it was even here on Slashdot [slashdot.org] that I read about it (that link seems right). I'm not familiar with their video codecs. Are they any better?
Re:MS quality codecs.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, you mean like the ogg codec [vorbis.com]? Yeah ogg is great. I love being able to play ogg file on my iPod..oh wait, no. I mean I love being able to stream them to my Tivo. Wait, no I mean, It's great that I can burn ogg files onto a cd and play them in my car mp3...er ogg...wait, no.
Better technical solutions do not prevail simply because they're better. Mandating a patented codec is a very bad thing because now legal (i.e. DMCA) and licensing issues become much more important than the technical merit of the codec in determining it's success. FOSS can't save you from Microsoft's undead army of lawyers and marketing drones in this case.
MPEG-2 ISN'T FREE (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone seems to be thinking that somehow VC-1 is more patent or license protected than MPEG-2. This simply isn't true. Now, maybe real-world enforcement of the MPEG-2 patents aren't particularly aggressive for OSS software decoders, but every DVD player, and EVERY DVD DISC STAMPED requires a payment to MPEG-LA. And VC-1 license payments will also be handled by MPEG-LA. MPEG-2 or VC-1, there still will be payments, and the checks go to the same company. The interesting differences here are technical
Just one option of many... (Score:5, Informative)
"We've been committed to adding advanced codecs to enrich the Blu-ray Disc format," said Maureen Weber, general manager of HP's optical storage solutions business and a member of the Blu-Ray group, in a statement.
"We want to offer content providers a variety of compression codecs to suit their various needs. With the addition of Microsoft's VC-1, we extend that option in a package that makes Blu-ray Disc's capacity advantage even more substantial while still delivering the picture quality that consumers demand from high-definition technology."
A variety of compression codecs sure makes me think we're going to have options...
Don't jump to conclusions just yet (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, if MS licenses this and plays nice (and yes, MS can play nice if it benefits them to do so, i.e. making money by licensing the use of their codecs), we won't have any problems and this isn't necessarily a bad thing. IMO, only if MS keeps it closed, secret and has no licensing options will this hurt OSS.
Re:Don't jump to conclusions just yet (Score:5, Funny)
Damnit, you tell me now, after I already bought the mat...
Re:Don't jump to conclusions just yet (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually no. It exists so that VC companies will not fund individuals who have "Great Ideas" because there are MS patents lurking within the realm of said "Great Idea".
They are there to limit innovation.
Let's say Idea A has been discovered and patented by MSFT. Then idea B comes along and is related to idea A. No investor in their right mind will plunk down $15M on idea B.
So it leaves MSFT very abl
Ummmm.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether the codec will be closed or secret is irrelavent. If the spec is not published, someone will reverse-engineer it. Therefore, there will undoubtably be ways to technically play this media on Linux/BSD/etc.
Legally, however, is a totally different issue. Sure, there will be licensing options. How much do you want to bet that there will be no options compatible with FOSS (ie. free of cost and distribution res
The Auto Industry (Score:2, Insightful)
The difference is, as long as the blue-ray players drop in price quickly, the average consumer really won't give a damn.
You'll only hear a true uproar once prices go beyond what the majority of the market can bear. So prepared to be screwed - because there isn't a damn thing you or I can do about it.
Yeah, I'm Free. Right.
Re:The Auto Industry (Score:5, Insightful)
There have been plenty of new media formats that have been superior to previous formats that never really caught on. Laser disc, DVD Audio, Betamax, Minidisc, etc. I'm not at all convinced that consumers are going to want to switch to a new video media so soon after adopting DVD. I think DVD is here to stay for a while. I look at Blue Ray much like I used to look at Laser Discs, it's a cool format that videophiles will no doubt love, but the average consumer won't care because what's already available is good enough.
Look at the new media formats that caught on fast. CD's were leaps and bound better than tapes in the eyes of the average consumer. No more tape players that can shred tapes. Say goodbye to having to fast forward or rewind to find a song and say hello to better audio quality. It was a huge improvement in the eyes of the average consumer. Now consider DVD's. No more worrying about the VCR shredding the tape. Say goodbye to rewinding the tape to the watch the movie and say hello to superior video quality, 5.1 channel surround, extras and deleted scenes. All that Blue Ray is going to have over DVD is that it can hold more extras, will have higher video quality and room for more channels of surround sound. While this is an improvement, the average consumer doesn't have equipment that can take advantage of it. DVD's are good enough, and thus Blue Ray will be akin to Laser Disc. Videophiles will adopt it, but it'll never really catch on with the average consumer.
Standard def is the new black and white (Score:3, Insightful)
See many new black and white sets anymore? This changeover will be quite a lot faster.
My prediction (Score:2, Funny)
My prediction is this, someone will reverse engineer the codec and release it a la DeCSS and everyone will have it. Microsoft will try to shut it down and there will be T shirts with the code printed on them.
LK
What about Dolby Digital? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What about Dolby Digital? (Score:3, Insightful)
they're going to hamper 3rd party unlicensed player development anyways... no matter which codec.
Re:What about Dolby Digital? (Score:2)
Two solutions, really... (Score:5, Insightful)
All in all, I think this may be more of an annoyance than a real problem. But I'd be interested in the opinion of other
Re:Two solutions, really... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you read the article ... (Score:3, Informative)
Notice "A VARIETY OF COMPRESSION CODECS". VC-1 is merely one of several and is being added for those who want better images on high definition displays.
Incrediably Short sighted (Score:2, Interesting)
State of open source players? (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose you could make an argument MPEG2 is somewhat more open, if not unencumbered, than Microsoft codex XXX, but CSS certainly isn't.
VC-1 is NOT the only codec (Score:5, Informative)
It might seem surprising that they would mandate 3 codecs, due to the added complexity of supporting them together. But it turns out that once you've implemented an MPEG4 decoder in silicon, VC-1 is not that difficult to add on. As for MPEG2, that's needed for back compatability, but as anyone who uses DivX knows, it's far less efficient than modern codecs.
Re:VC-1 is NOT the only codec (Score:3, Informative)
However, this is a long way from saying that it will only work on Microsoft OS's. First of all, VC-1 is fully published and adopted by SMPTE. The decoder is set in stone, and as a result, nobody need worry thta Microsoft will suddenly change how
How is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
HD DVD supports MPEG-2, H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, and Microsoft VC-9.
Blu-Ray Disc (BD) already supported [blu-ray.com] MPEG-2 and H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, and now just added Microsoft VC-9. So what?
Re:How is this news? (Score:4, Insightful)
You fail to recognize what the implication of the standard including a codec is. If You have a choice of codecs as a content supllier, that means you can put content on it in any of the formats you choose.
As an end user of this tech, my player has to support ALL of the codecs in order to watch media, because the dics will likely come in one format only. So, YES, the content provider will have plenty of choice, but the end users will have none, especially if the content providers end up rallying around the Microsoft codec.
RTFA.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How is this news? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's important because if you want to build an HD-DVD (and now Blu-Ray DVD) player, you have to support all the codecs specified by the format. You only have a choice when you're a content producer deciding which codec to use. You can't just build a player and decide "Well, I like MPEG but I don't like Microsoft, so I'll omit the VC-9 codec." If you do that, your player won't get certified. And of course, users will complain when their VC-9 encoded discs won't play on your player.
So now what do you do if you're building, say, a Linux player? Now you have to acquire IP rights from not only the MPEG people, but also from Microsoft. Think that'll be easy?
Yes, this will be reverse-engineered in some part of the world which is not dominated by the Corporate/Government oligarchy that exists in the US. In fact, the xine/mplayer stuff can probably handle it today. But you can be sure that both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray will carry a brand new scrambling system as well. Perhaps DVD Jon will crack it, but don't count on it happening quickly.
Re:How is this news? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. Because MPEG LA is handling licensing for them all, including VC-9 [mpegla.com], considering it has been submitted to SMTPE as a standard [google.com].
Patents (Score:2)
And as long as algorithms are not patentable in the EU (and I hope it remains so), mplayer will implement it without worries.
Prediction: blu-ray for movies will die (Score:3, Interesting)
2- Royalties jack up the price of things
3- There is still plenty of time for bickering and delay to kill this a-la-Digital-Audio-Tape.
Re:Prediction: blu-ray for movies will die (Score:3, Insightful)
Kind of a circular logic there, don't you think? Of course Slashdot is going to claim Hollywood is "afraid" of Microsoft. Of course this article is going to make it seem like Microsoft's codec is the only codec for Blu-Ray (it's not, there are plenty).
This isn't even news. It's been known for a long time that VC-1 was part of the Blu-Ray spec. But hey, we needed yet another bash-Microsoft article
Great! (Score:5, Informative)
Please note that MPEG2 is still a part of the spec and content providers will still be free to use it if they choose. I believe there is still a chance for H.264 to be included as well. (HD-DVD includs all three codecs)
I'm of the opinion that Blu-ray will ultimately win this format war, but we shall see. It has a nice capacity advantage over HD-DVD (and now a next-gen codec to utilize it efficiently). I think the only real advantage HD-DVD has right now is intial lower duplication costs due to its physical similarity to DVD. Sony has stated they are going to run with Blu-ray to the bitter end, so I expect them to press enough discs to overcome that initial disadvantage.
Bad: MPEG2 is MUCH better (Score:3, Interesting)
The draw-back to new CODECs? HDTV was SUPPOSED to standardize on MPEG2, not because it was the best, but because it was pretty good when it came out and would be cheap to implement by the changeover in a few years.
Remember, televisions are going to start having to ship with HDTV decoders (err, did have to start shipping as of a few months ago, a certain percen
Re:Great! (Score:3, Insightful)
What I want to know is this: Sure, it may be better than MPEG2 -- but is it better than Theora? Is it better than that codec the BBC came up with? Is it better than all other non-patent-encumbered codecs?
If it isn't, then why the hell did they use it? Don't all the other parties involved in the standard realize that even they would have to pay royalties to Microsoft that would be completely unnecessary?
Same thing that happened last time (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone will reverse engineer it, you will be able to play these movies on a linux system but it won't be legal.
Chinese manufacturers (Score:5, Interesting)
With all these codecs on board i'd imagine it's a lot more than for regular DVD, and seeing the Chinese manufacturers attitude towards this they'll just go right ahead with their own patent-free platform. Hollywood will ignore them, at first, then they'll panic like mad knowing that a couple of billion users can only buy pirated copies of their films. Brilliant, way to go.
Re:Chinese manufacturers (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't see this as an issue at all. EVD devices would likely be cheap, since they'd be oriented towards the Chinese market, and would therefore likely be popular in the entire Asian rim of the Pacific.
Which in turn means a huge market, either legitimate, or otherwise. Movies in format xx would be dubbed or trans
not exclusive, but lucrative (Score:3, Interesting)
Other codecs can also run. There might be pricing pressure on manufacturers to exclude the other, non-mandated codecs. Just like the PC "bundling" coup that drove Microsoft to their monopoly position. Blu-Ray needs at least one required codec to be a stable target for media delivery. By requiring Microsoft's codec, they've pushed Microsoft's monopoly-perpetuation strategy into the wider world of consumer TV.
People are missing details (Score:3, Insightful)
That doesn't mean anything! It's not Copyright, it's Patents that is the problem here. Microsoft could give away the source without licensing the patent for use in any given software.
Detail #2: A patent in a legal monopoly by definition. Until patent law is changed, they can't be hit with anti-trust or monopoly abuse quite so easily.
I think "Open Source" should be organized into a religion... it's just about the ONLY way it will get government protection.
So what.... (Score:5, Insightful)
In the worst case scenario, us OpenSource/GPL freaks won't be able to watch these wonderful hi-definition movies on our wonderful full-room TVs.
Instead will have to do something else with our time....like...
Go hiking.
Learn to play an instrument.
Drink beer with friends.
Read obscure books.
Learn a foreign language.
Play with children.
Cook good food.
Run.
Microsoft can keep it's crap for all I care.
Re:So what.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right - there's a lot of time-wasting stuff on TV. That doesn't mean that there's nothing worth viewing, though.
The future is EVD (Score:4, Insightful)
-
Most players are made in China.
-
The Chinese government wants to reduce dependencies on foreign technology that requires royalties.
-
With players selling for as little as $29.95, paying royalties to high-wage countries is no longer competitive.
-
The top-grossing movie this week is
Hero [nwsource.com].
It's from China.
It no longer matters what Microsoft or Hollywood wants. EVD players will be in Wal-Mart.The present is EVD. The future is unknown. (Score:3, Informative)
First EVD disks and software players have been presented in April 2004. As the disk is physically a DVD disk it can be read with any computer DVD drive. Successful copies have been made with DVD-R disks. The number of films offered is still very limited. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_Versatile_D
What will happen to Open Source players? (Score:3, Interesting)
Cinches the Deal (Score:5, Informative)
HD-DVD thinks pressing cost (a few cents difference now) will be what wins the war, and cites the VHS/BETA wars as precedent.
But it wasn't blank tape costs that killed BETA, what killed BETA (in the home market), it was 3 HR record time (extended to 4 ½) versus 6 for VHS on standard tapes.
Consumers will make the same decision here. Blu-Ray now supports all the HD-DVD formats on 25 gig single layer vs HD-DVD 15 gig. Not only this, but HD-DVD is 2 layers max (per side), while Blu-Ray is planning on going anywhere from 4 to 8. Exactly how many hasn't quite been worked out yet, but at least 4 are almost a certainty and 100 Gig on one side as a result (can you say one full season in HD on one side?).
HD-DVD's only advantage (and it is a slim one) is the DVD name. But Blu-Ray is a good name too, and one I think the general public will pick up quickly, and assume better because it's using that newer Blue Laser don't you know (even though HD-DVD will be using Blue Lasers also).
The new Holographic storage is nice too at 200 Gig, but it may be too late to the party to be a video standard storage, it still has a year or two of basic development left. Better to keep working on this one and release it in 2010+ at 1T plus to support Ultra-HDTV. By 2020 I predict Movie Theaters will be an anachronistic oddity like Drive-Ins now. Of course we may not be using Disks at all by then, and downloading U-HD straight off of the internet.
MPEG2 and MPEG4 are patented too... (Score:4, Informative)
Microsoft will likely have to submit to some kind of RAND licensing as part of the deal, which will probably still exclude free players, but last I checked there was no such think as a free MPEG4 patent license either (just plenty of unlicensed implementations).
You are NOT the customer (Score:3, Insightful)
The studios are the customer, they are buying a distribution mechanism. They want a good standard so that this channel will work well when it is deployed to the movie customers.
People don't buy DVD players to have a DVD player, they buy a DVD player to gain access to the DVD entertainment channel.
Damn I sound like a management/marketing droid.
Aaargh! (Score:3, Insightful)
In order to be used for next-gen media, VC-1 has to be OPEN SPEC. Therefore, no-one needs to do any reverse engineering in order to get it to play back, like with the MPEG1-4 family. The bitstream specs are available for anyone to look at. However, like MPEG, VC-1 will be haevily patented.
What is interesting is how MS will handle things when someone *does* write and open source encoder/decoder. While the MPEG patent holders (Fraunhofer and Thomson IIRC) don't seem to mind too much when people write MPEG codecs* without paying royalties, something strikes me that MS are going to be alot less liberal with their patent portfolio once it gets bundled into the version X of mPlayer and Xine. Expect them to get driven away from US and other shores to have their pages located in somewhere that doesn't give a crap about US patents.
*Most of you will note that in order to remain semi-immune to patents, all the popular open source MPEG codecs I know of (LAME, XviD) are distributed as source-only, and they leave it to third parties to (semi-illegally) build them into binaries.
Re:No thanks Microsoft (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Does not matter (Score:2)
Re:Does not matter (Score:5, Insightful)
While BD-ROM will appeal to the home cinema fanatics, who will have the kit to really appreciate the HD images and ungodly number of sound channels that can be put on these disks. For most people though, the jump in image and sound quality is trivial compared to that when going from cassette to DVD.
What is NOT trivial... (Score:4, Insightful)
If for instance Sony decides to only release Spiderman 4 on Blu-Ray, whatcha gonna do? It would only take one mega-hit for people to starting shelling out the cash. Hell, I've bought GAME SYSTEMS because I liked one game.
Just imagine how they will put us all on the rack with two competing formats.
Re:What is NOT trivial... (Score:3, Interesting)
Another note: VHS is still popular because it is the only medium people can record on. Now that DVD player prices have dropped to obscene lows in price, where manufacturers are only making a few dollars proffit on a player, a DVD recorder (for
Re:What is NOT trivial... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, personally I didn't even see Spiderman 1 until it arrived at the 99-cent rental rack at the grocery store, so I won't care.
I imagine many others will find someone to rip a DVD or VCD, or download the equivalent. Worst case, absent some software method, such a rip can be done by aiming a camera at a screen. Sure it suffers in quality, but many people are willing to put up with that.
Hell, I've bought GAME SYS
Re:Does not matter (Score:3, Funny)
Wow, you must know some very developmentally challenged 13 year olds. If a 13 year old cannot read, (s)he has bigger problems than not being able to watch foreign movies.
Re:Beta-Ray (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:here we go again (Score:3, Insightful)
Do we already make the whole 1% ? And reducing that number by the servers (non-desktop after all) what is left. The monopoly is as strong as ever and IF there's a recognizable number of alternative desktops it will have to be Apple..
Ayes, I'm among the 1%..;) It's just reality kicking in..
Re:here we go again (Score:5, Funny)
I remember reading a "report" in a "men's entertainment" magazine that gave the statistic that 2% of men could orally pleasure themselves.
If these numbers are accurate, that means for every person using Linux, there are 2 guys who can suck their own dicks.
I wouldn't call that penetration.
Wrong again. (Score:3, Informative)
As a more valid analogy, assume that 2% of Linux users users use Emacs, and 1% of Windows users use Notepad. Does this mean that Emacs has twice the usage of Notepad ? Of course not. The group of Windows use
Re:MS will remain neutral? (Score:2)
Re:Not much meat... (Score:3, Insightful)