Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media

Windows Media Format Could Hit Linux-Based Devices 265

Posted by timothy from the mux-demux dept.
An anonymous reader writes "LinuxDevices.com reports that Microsoft has licensed InterVideo Inc. to supply Windows Media Technology to makers of Linux-based consumer devices. Under the agreement, InterVideo is licensed to take the components of the Windows Media Format, port them to Linux, and provide them to manufacturers who are interested in running Windows Media Technology on Linux-based consumer devices such as set-top boxes, personal video recorders, and other hybrid multimedia devices."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows Media Format Could Hit Linux-Based Devices More

Windows Media Format Could Hit Linux-Based Devices

Comments Filter:

  • Movie theaters? (Score:5, Funny)

    by mesach ( 191869 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @06:28PM (#5682238)
    so now will the movie theaters run linux?

  • Just say no. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 07, 2003 @06:30PM (#5682249)
    We don't want it. Continue sticking to something that isn't DRM-tastic and doesn't suck, device manufacturers.

    • Re:Just say no. (Score:3, Informative)

      by JebusIsLord ( 566856 )
      DRM is an optional component for WM. It will soon be an optional component in Ogg as well. There are plenty of reasons to avoid windows media format, audio quality being one of them. DRM is not a good reason though. If anything it really is an optional feature.
    • oh ya, we should all use grainy looking QuickTime. Fight the evil empire: watch crappy looking movie files!

  • A good thing, with some caveats... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PrimeWaveZ ( 513534 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @06:30PM (#5682251)
    I think that getting a (hopefully) well made and complete version of Windows Media working on Linux devices could be a good thing, but if it is not open-sourced (and it likely would not be) it will have few benefits on other open OSes. It is all in the implementation.

    More software with real-world uses is a good thing, when it is good. More crapware floating around makes the world that much worse.
    • I (kinda) disagree. At least regarding the *BSDs. If they can get the program to work under linux compatibility mode (ala' Oracle, IIRC); then it will hit all open OSes (except, perhaps, HURD and OSX).

    • Re:A good thing, with some caveats... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MoThugz ( 560556 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @07:47PM (#5682718) Homepage
      MS might be gauging the popularity of WM formats on non-MS platforms. Since Linux is undoubtedly one of the more popular OS platform, perhaps that is why it is chosen as the first platform to be ported to.

      Benefits? It never was meant to benefit anyone but MS. Why should they bother in the first place if it wasn't beneficial for them? What other OSs are embedded on devices with comparable popularity to embedded Windows (CE, XP, choose your poison)? PalmOS perhaps... however media en/decoding is more mature on the Linux platform (correct me if I'm wrong).

      Conclusion: MS couldn't give a rat's ass on what principles the OS is built upon... as long as it can benefit them in one way or another.

      • MS might be gauging the popularity of WM formats on non-MS platforms. Since Linux is undoubtedly one of the more popular OS platform, perhaps that is why it is chosen as the first platform to be ported to.

        Er, I hate to burst your bubble, but Mac's have had a version of Windows Media Player (yes, called Windows Media Player) for quite some time on both OS 9 and OS X. MS isn't experimenting with the popularity of WM formats on non-MS platforms, MS has reached the point where they figure it's worth inclu

    • Re:A good thing, with some caveats... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gregmac ( 629064 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @07:49PM (#5682724) Homepage
      Why is it a good thing? WMV is a closed, proprietary format. DRM or not (no matter if you like DRM or not), its not good to have proprietary formats. Porting it to linux means that content creators have less reason to encode things in open formats, espessially with the way microsoft crams things down everyone's throats.

      Marketing + availability on many systems + marketing + being the only encoder included with many products + marketing = content creators only making their stuff available in proprietary formats.

      I don't want to pay another $1 when I rent a dvd to pay for the WMV licence to be able to decode the content.. :p

  • HMMM (Score:4, Funny)

    by JohnwheeleR ( 662355 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @06:30PM (#5682261)
    April 1st was 6 days ago.

  • thr1d ps0t (Score:3, Insightful)

    by usotsuki ( 530037 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @06:31PM (#5682262) Homepage
    Damn, almost fristed.

    Pro: Linux gets Windoze proprietary formats.

    Con: Probably NOT going to be open-source.

    I'm torn.

    -uso.

    • Re:thr1d ps0t (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonvmous Coward ( 589068 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @06:36PM (#5682310)
      "Con: Probably NOT going to be open-source."

      Is that really a big stinking deal in this case? Maybe I'm just going numb to the "It's only good if it's Open Source' crap that keeps flying around here.

      P.S. I'm being serious here, I'd really like to know if it's a big deal or not. Not really my intention to troll or be insulting.

      • Re:thr1d ps0t (Score:5, Funny)

        by SunPin ( 596554 ) <slashspam AT cyberista DOT com> on Monday April 07, 2003 @06:44PM (#5682360) Homepage
        Then don't post AC and somebody might answer.

        • Re:thr1d ps0t (Score:5, Funny)

          by Anonvmous Coward ( 589068 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @06:47PM (#5682381)
          "Then don't post AC and somebody might answer."

          I'm not AC. AC's don't have user numbers, signatures, post at +2, or spell Anonymous with a V.

          Oops I bet you're surprised you got a response. ;)
        • "by Anonvmous Coward (589068) on Monday April 07, @07:36PM (#5682310)"

          ... "I'd really like to know if it's a big deal or not."

          _______________________________________

          "by SunPin (596554) on Monday April 07, @07:44PM (#5682360)"

          "Then don't post AC and somebody might answer."


          Mod parent up!! (So we can laugh!)
      • It being opensource would hurt Linux badly.
        If its closed source it can be pointed to as a Real Application(tm) running under Linux and we'd be taken seriously. If it gets opensourced, It will be pointless. We have mplayer for everything, no point in wmp.

        • Re:thr1d ps0t (Score:5, Interesting)

          by einhverfr ( 238914 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [srevart.sirhc]> on Monday April 07, 2003 @06:59PM (#5682462) Homepage Journal
          If its closed source it can be pointed to as a Real Application(tm) running under Linux and we'd be taken seriously. If it gets opensourced, It will be pointless. We have mplayer for everything, no point in wmp.

          Real Applications? Run RealPlayer.......

          It being opensource would hurt Linux badly.

          Not so sure. We already have StarOffice, Ximian Connector, And many other proprietary solutions on Linux. These are far closer to the "Real Applications" that you are referring to.

          I think having *an* open-source implimentation is important and will probably continue (mplayer is based in Hungary and may benefit from differences in copyright law). But as long as there is at least one program that can work with these files that is open source, I don't care how many proprietary projects there are. That is good. It is called competition.
          • Er, Don't get me wrong. I'm posting this from mozilla, while running xmms and gaim. But ask an average consumer what theyve heard about anything you listed -- It makes us look like we're too elitist. While OpenSource projects are some of the best, to thsoe that think 'you get what you pay for' having some more commercial applications would help a lot more than an opensource WMP
            • Er, Don't get me wrong. I'm posting this from mozilla, while running xmms and gaim. But ask an average consumer what theyve heard about anything you listed -- It makes us look like we're too elitist. While OpenSource projects are some of the best, to thsoe that think 'you get what you pay for' having some more commercial applications would help a lot more than an opensource WMP

              I am all for variety. I think you have a point that the average consumer doesn't really care about open vs closed source. But i

      • Re:thr1d ps0t (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rifter ( 147452 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @07:39PM (#5682671) Homepage

        Well, my reading of the article leads me to believe this is *not* as the slashdot headline implies a deal which means wmv will work on Linux. Far to the contrary. It appears MS is *licensing* the use of software that will be able to use wmv on specific PVRs which also happen to run an *embedded* Linux. It is extremely likely this solution will not only not be open source but not be distributable at all nor applicable to the general purpose Linux most people run.

      • Re:thr1d ps0t (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Art Tatum ( 6890 )
        I think it is indeed a big deal. The Microsoft leadership is very market savvy and they *ONLY* do things that significantly enhance their ability to raid and corner markets. Their goal is to destroy anybody and everybody who competes in every given market by embracing and extending them. It's their proven tactic for ruling markets. Ergo, this move *IS* designed to further complete control of the embedded media device market.

        After observing every move they've ever made, it is not possible to come to a di

      • Re:thr1d ps0t (Score:2, Insightful)

        by antiMStroll ( 664213 )
        Usually they're not saying it isn't good if isn't Open Source, just saying it's better when it is.

      • Re:thr1d ps0t (Score:2, Interesting)

        by shepd ( 155729 )
        >Is that really a big stinking deal in this case?

        Yes. This is Microsoft [amug.org] we're talking about here (well, an M$ sponsored project). Wonder what it'll phone home with today?

        But hey, it's all your own personal choice.

        Now, if it were coming from a trusted company, not a problem. I never had major problems with VMWare being binary, for example.
      • Well, from my perspective if it's a platform then really it needs to be Free these days, at least in computing - I couldn't give a rats ass about word processors as long as you can read their file formats, or photoshop, or photoshop plugins etc etc because the companies involved have to rely on the merits of the product to sell them, rather than network effects.

        It's difficult to decide here whether in this context WMV is a platform or not. I rather suspect it is.

    • Hasn't Real done a clean room reimplementation of the Windows Media formats(atleast the big ones like wma and wmv)? Why don't they opensource their implementations?

  • Windows Media on Linux (Score:3, Informative)

    by xYoni69x ( 652510 ) <yoni.vl@gmail.com> on Monday April 07, 2003 @06:31PM (#5682265) Journal
    I thought this was already possible? [mplayerhq.hu]
    • I was going to post the same thing. :)

      My take on it is that it will now be able to do it on non-x86 machines. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the way that mplayer currently plays these files is by using the codecs copied straight from a windows install. So... now they can use codecs that were written to work on a linux platform.
    • This is the reason I am really leery of anything to do with Microsoft.

      You know the flap about whether or not you can use .GIF or .JPG ? Apparently, the protocols are copyrighted and "permission to use" can be yanked at any time?

      I am very afraid of incorporating anything I do not have clear access to in any business system I have anything to do with.

      Just as that student got hit with some 90 Billion fine, I just do not trust anything proprietary, kinda like I do not trust the concept of building anything

    • Re:Windows Media on Linux (Score:4, Informative)

      by joe_bruin ( 266648 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @07:17PM (#5682565) Homepage Journal
      windows media has been available on linux-based devices for years. microsoft has released wma decoders for arm- and mips-based linux systems (as well as other os's). the phatnoise car audio system [phatnoise.com] (aka kenwood music keg) has been playing wma for 2 years now (it's a car mp3 player running linux on arm).

      windows media drm, on the other hand, has not been available until now. however, the upcoming release of the mercury system, linux (and other os) based embedded systems will be able to play drm'd wma files (without additional hardware support). note that this is a "write only" type of scheme, where the files will be useless if you pull them off the device (unless it's on the windows desktop that created them).

  • What's the reaction? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonvmous Coward ( 589068 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @06:31PM (#5682268)
    Boy this is puzzling. Is everybody going to be happy that the Windows Media stuff will make it's way to Linux, or will they complain that MS is trying to extend it's monopoly? So far it's for Linux based devices, as opposed to the desktop machines. Ah nice ugly mix.

    I, for one, think ya'll should be happy about it. It means:

    a.) Linux will probably one day support WM formats. Thus no more bitching that you don't have the right OS to watch the cool vids that fly around here sometimes.

    b.) MS recognizes that they just can't get everybody to use CE for embedded stuff. Might as well join the crowd, right?

    Either way, Linux users win. Put your pitchforks down.

    • Re:What's the reaction? (Score:2, Informative)

      by mvdw ( 613057 )
      Linux will probably one day support WM formats.

      If by "one day" you mean "now", and if by "WM formats" you mean "just about every media format there is (including MPEG4, wma, wmv, mov)", then you'd be right. It's called mplayer, it's available now, it's open source, and it works.

      You can find it here [mplayerhq.hu]

    • Well, MPlayer plays the video just fine on Linux. There's just some question about using the (free as in beer) DLLs from WMP with it. MPlayer plays just about every avi, asf or wmv I've ever thrown at it. Quicktime's a bit dicier, but it's also much more recently supported.

      Of course, if you're arguing from a Free as in speech stance, then nothing here is good. It's closed on Windows to closed on Linux. Zero advancement.

      --
      Evan

    • Re:What's the reaction? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I'm not sure Linux users do win, nor do users as a whole. Here's why: If Windows Media appears officialy to a PC near me, absolutely nothing will change in my life whatsoever as far as what I view or listen to. However, Microsoft will now be able to say to clients (such as the RIAA), "Hey, we've got this format, and it's an industry standard. It's available on every modern platform on all modern operating systems. Plus, it has been built with the entertainment industry's needs in mind, so you no longer

    • Re:What's the reaction? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Billly Gates ( 198444 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @06:45PM (#5682374) Journal
      I think the answer is

      c.) Microsoft is doing another IE and will wait until it takes over the market then kill it by releasing the later versions only with Windows. palladium will probably be a part of the plot.

      Microsoft wants to be the multimedia hub of all household devices. Sun, Apple and Tivo are all fighting for this. Microsoft will start with proprietary encrypted file formats in the Entertainment center and work from there.

      I noticed that MS not only is not charging video producers licensing fee's for using wmv but they are even paying them to use WMV over .mov's or mpegs. They are probably losing money in development for their multimedia technologies and using their Office and Windows monopolies to fund it ala IE style.

      I do notice that mpegs seem jerky with the media player while wmv seem smooth. Hmmm wonder why that is? Many media players like Winamp use the media player libraries. This will fool users into thinking WMV is a supperior video format. This I am sure is part of Microsoft's pitch into why to use WMV and not mpeg.

      I think the napster mp3 revolution got Bill Gates envious as usually and he wants Windows to be somehow supperior or the only platform available for virtual jokeboxes or PVR's.

      Either way, Microsoft wins. Please raise your pitchforks indeed.

      • Uh, you talk about it being like IE - you mean they will make a version for other platforms that is superior to the windows version, and keep giving it away because people like it?
        I hardly see how palladium could have anything to do with this, except maybe WMA/WMV DRM... Palladium is about content/software creators controlling the use of their content/software, and while I don't like that idea, it has nothing to do with the evil-empire-FUD you're spouting.
      • I wouldn't get too "Dr Evil" about it.

        Microsoft sees a big future in production of digital video. Therefore, they are flooding ALL markets with their creation tools (which were previously restricted to Windows).

        This is not really about linux or IE, it is about Apple and MPEG4. The MPEG4 consortium has pooled patents, and consists of Apple, Intel, and a few other players. They want MPEG4 to dominate the future. They make tools for Mac and Windows and whatever other OS you like (provided you pay patent lice
      • I was with you right up until the mpeg plays poorly under windows bit. That must be your system setup. I use a windows pc to drive my front-screen projector with a 10' wide screen. I use it to play the mpeg video from DVDs and the mpeg video from recorded HDTV broadcasts. In either case, as long as I don't run some sort of cpu hog in the background, the video plays smooth as silk with a video card set to 1360x1024. So far I get better quality mpeg decode using windows based decoders (in particular the

    • Re:What's the reaction? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Deagol ( 323173 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @06:49PM (#5682392) Homepage
      I'd be happy if there were an open spec, with perhaps a reference implementation, available. Maybe.

      Free codecs just aren't enough for many people, myself included. I won't use Real fomats because of this reason, even though there's a player for Linux.

      Free, open apps are a little better. GIF, PDF, and MP3 are things that fall into this category. Yeah, there's tons of open and free software out there for these, but technically, they're encumbered with patents, licensing, etc. But at least I can trust the folks who write apps (the open source authors, anyways). These are handy, but there's still an "impurity" with using these formats.

      The ideal is open source apps/codecs which are not laden with licensing and patent restrictions. The Vorbis project (or is it the Ogg proejct?) is a good idea. I'm sick of trailers and video clips being released in Real, QuickTime, and M$ formats. You would think that from a purely cost/licensing perspective, site owners would want to use a very open and well-defined standard that would reach all platforms (like MPEG)? It just doesn't make sense.

      No, I for one will not be happy about this. I guess I'll be one of the complainers.

    • Well, what I'm wondering is this -- will they be barred from making a player for Linux distributions for computers? The story talks entirely about set-top boxes and dedicated media players. I wonder if that's an officially imposed boundary in their license?

  • You mean LinDVD? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Supp0rtLinux ( 594509 ) <Supp0rtLinux@yahoo.com> on Monday April 07, 2003 @06:32PM (#5682273)
    Most interesting since it was Intervideo that made LinDVD over 3 years ago. To date, only IBM has every shipped it (pre-packaged on some stinkpads). Their site still (3 years later) says it's released to OEMs and developers only. I've emailed them, but they didn't want me as a developer I guess. :) Funny that the first legal DVD player for Linux never made it to the public arena, yet MS could now bring it there...
    • Here's a tough question for you, is vlc [videolan.org] a legal DVD player (and WMV 1/2) under Linux? The developers think it is [videolan.org]! Perhaps what you meant to say was the first legal DVD for Linux in the USA!
  • If not, it will make it difficult (impossible) for the different distros to include it if it is not GPL'd.

    I realize that this is isn's a strict requirement for all Linux software, but it would be nice to have it included as part of the distro. I guess that in the end, it will be nice to not have to boot back over to windows every time I download something from website where the idiot who made it thinks windows is the only OS.

  • Haha, smart move from MS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by coupland ( 160334 ) <dchase@hotm a i l . c om> on Monday April 07, 2003 @06:33PM (#5682287) Journal

    You can rightly accuse Microsoft of many things but being dumb isn't one of them. Due to their lack of headway in the embedded systems market and the extreme popularity of Linux in this same market Microsoft is smart enough not to mortgage the Windows Media farm on the success of their embedded OSes.

    The cynical among us might think that by porting Windows Media to Linux and then "enhancing" the Windows versions faster than the Linux version you could lure Linux-committed companies to make an "easy port" to CE. Personally I think it should be watched-for but unlikely as embedded-Windows is decent, companies are abandoning it not for functionality issues, but cost and choice -- things much more important in the embedded space.

    • Actually, I think it was a smart move, but for a different reason:

      They are effectively removing some of the complaints that could come up in future legal action. First, they can rightfully claim that Windows Media is no longer tied to their operating system, enforcing a monopoly. Second, they can also (well, at least try to) claim that those mangy open-source hackers have no good reason to reverse-engineer their software under the DMCA, since there's already a compatible player available for Linux.
  • Did Microsoft just blink?

  • logic error (Score:4, Funny)

    by trmj ( 579410 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @06:35PM (#5682297) Journal
    manufacturers who are interested in running Windows Media Technology on Linux-based consumer devices

    Wow.. they must have a huge* target audience with this one...


    *Please excuse the incorrect use of the word "huge" in the above sentence. To read correctly, replace "huge" with "non existant"

    • Re:logic error (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bsharitt ( 580506 )
      In the consumer devices that this is meant for, Linux isn't really a visible part. It'll just be regular people who want to play their Windows Media formatted stuff on their DVD player.

  • MPlayer (Score:5, Interesting)

    by swtaarrs ( 640506 ) <swtaarrsNO@SPAMcomcast.net> on Monday April 07, 2003 @06:37PM (#5682315)
    For you Linux nuts who are worrying about it not being open-source and therefore not being able to use it in your own distro, just use MPlayer [mplayerhq.hu] .I use it, and it plays Windows Media files very well. There are plenty of other progs for *nix that can play Windows Media, so this isn't really that special.

    • xine! (was: Re:MPlayer) (Score:2, Interesting)

      by gooofy ( 548515 )

      of course xine [sf.net] and all media players based on this nice multimedia engine (totem, gxine, kde's arts,...) play back windows media as well, mms/mmsh/http streaming included.

      btw the technology behind this comes from ffmpeg [sf.net] and avifile/wine.

    • Re:MPlayer (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sls1j ( 580823 )
      I downloaded and compiled MPlayer last week and discovred that is plays Windows Media formats better than Windows Media player. For instance streaming video scaled to full screen with no noticable slow-down in frame-rate on mplayer. Do the same thing, on the same machine with XP and Window Media Player, and it's a filmstrip 1 to 2 frames a second. Also noticed that MPlayer doesn't drop connections like WMP does.

  • But will they include spyware... (Score:3, Informative)

    by SmackCrackandPot ( 641205 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @06:42PM (#5682348)
    I remember the controversy that Realplayer introduced after it was reported that the player sent back the file paths/links to Real Networks.
    Is there the danger that Microsoft might try and do this with the components of the media player?

    I guess they want to make sure that their DRM technology is universal.

    Performing a hex dump of your multimedia files may become a violation of the RIAA :)

  • Hmmn (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hawthorne01 ( 575586 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @06:45PM (#5682369)
    I am reminded of an Arab proverb about not letting the camel's nose into the tent, as soon the rest of the camel will follow.

    • I am reminded of an Arab proverb about not letting the camel's nose into the tent, as soon the rest of the camel will follow.

      Indeed, even assuming that the Linux version works and continues to work in subsequent versions, the past practices of Microsoft suggest that this will only be a loss leader to gain critical market share with DRM-encumbered multi-media file formats.

      Once the critical market share is reached, then client support for non-DRM/Palladium encumbered platforms can then be dropped.

  • Evil Bit? (Score:3, Funny)

    by SpaceForRent ( 664515 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @06:49PM (#5682393)
    Are they ethically obligated to set the evil bit on?
    I know... It was funny a week ago...
  • As in... performance hit?
  • I think it's pretty safe to say that anything involving a currently proprietary technology from MS will not be released as open source. Given the current battle (and one they're losing, according to many) Microsoft is engaged in with OSS, they're in no position to help Linux users out and give more people a reason to ditch their money-making OS.

    I don't see how this could possibly hurt Linux or the OSS wordl; this will help Linux. One of the major problems with Linux is it's inability to work 100% properly
  • Hm...the only thing I can really think of, is to allow Linux users to view underpriveleged video content that hasn't realized windows media sucks.

  • prediction (Score:4, Insightful)

    by geekoid ( 135745 ) <{moc.oohay} {ta} {dnaltropnidad}> on Monday April 07, 2003 @06:57PM (#5682443) Homepage Journal
    Won't work quite right, people complain, MS says "Thats open source for you."
    Linux Fans say "Its not linux, its the app"
    Company says" You're right, but what choice do we have? our contract says to use the windows format, so will have to switch are machines to windows"

    Bada-boom, bada bing.

    Sure, you think I paranoid, or some conspiracy fanatic, but I am not. This is how MS has moved into most of its dominate fields.

    in short:
    1.extend
    2.embrace
    3.profit
  • "It's evil! Don't touch it!"

    With apologies to those responsible for Time Bandits

    Why should we trust Microsoft to do anything for us at this point? They've already stated that their goal is to eradicate Linux, and they've already started lobbying against the entire idea of the GPL. They'd make this kind of thing illegal in a heartbeat, if they could.

    What we really need is someone on the inside, someone to release the specs for how their version is to be implemented, without releasing the exact implem

  • woopty do, but where's the beef? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Gyorg_Lavode ( 520114 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @07:05PM (#5682485)
    While this is a reasonable step in linux's eventual takeover of the world, I really don't think it's that great. I'm sure it's very exciting that we can now play those random movies we downloaded off the internet on our pvr, but where I want native linux codecs is on my linux box. When I build a media center, it won't be an embeded system, it will be a full blown linux box with dvd, pvr, music and video playback, etc. And right now I use the windows DLL's through mplayer on my main computer all the time. So what I want is wmv and wma native to my computer, even if it isn't open source. I can live with it. The dlls I'm using now aren't.

    The only really good thing I can see coming from this might be apple reliquishing and allowing someone to port the quicktime libraries to linux. While the windows codecs play great on linux, the hacked up quicktime dll's are pretty hit or miss.

  • I think TiVo has the right idea with thier technology as far as MPEG encoding goes. I cannot see this as a real "break-through" for PVRs and the like especially considering the predicted performance and "stableness" of windows media running on linux. Granted, I'm sure this will be a neat thing to play with for the home user!

    -Rob

  • Microsoft is Smart about Licensing (Score:4, Interesting)

    by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @07:08PM (#5682509) Journal
    There is one, and only one reason that there is a market for Windows Media Formats... They are based on MPEG-4, but Microsoft charges about half the licensing fees for it's use.

    Even someone who has incredible disdain for Microsoft (like myself) would strongly consider using WMV rather than MPEG4 for license reasons alone.

    Of course, it is possible to play Windows Media on Unix systems right now, but you don't get the great microsoft feature of DRM. No doubt Microsoft's player will have it. If I owned a theatre, I would NOT use the new digital projects because of the DRM. At least a reel doesn't explode after your 1-month subscription is over, or you have your computer's clock set incorrectly.

    So why are they getting into the market now, after all this time? I'd bet it is almost completely due to On2's free licensing of VP3. Xiph.org's Theora is due for beta in a couple months, and from what I've seen of videos encoded using the VP3 plugin, it beats out MPEG4 in quality versus filesize, and to top it all off, it doesn't show signs of any of MPEG(1/2/4)'s artifacts, which really stand out, to my eyes. So, not only will there be completely free (BSD-licensed, patent-free) audio and video codecs, but they (ogg, vp3/theora) are far better than the dominant video and audio codecs available right now.
    • How much would you bet that you will be able to watch a movie compressed with the beta version of VP3 in 10 years? That is, without spending weeks programming? Compared, to let's say a VCD? For me, this makes it a better format to record my TV episode, artifacts and all. Because I don't want to worry about which OS my next PC, or my friend's PC is going to run.

      Of course, the reason is that so many people already have VCD movies that someone will come up with a way to watch them in future. Obviously open so

      • How much would you bet that you will be able to watch a movie compressed with the beta version of VP3 in 10 years? That is, without spending weeks programming?

        Hmm, how much have you got?

        Because I don't want to worry about which OS my next PC, or my friend's PC is going to run.

        Which is one of the main reasons I'm excited about Theora.

        But let's say only a few people start using VP3 before Xiph developers discover the "next big thing" and stop maintaining the old format. Are you really up to taking over

        • Well, ogg is released and people are using it but it has't exploded in popularity. The difference here is in 10 years, there will be still millions of people who have VCDs. If you release a $19.95 program on even an obscure platform, you are likely to sell hundreds of copies and earn a nice vacation. Or, a few of the hundred will be programmers who decide to cooperate and write a free player. I know I am optimisitic when I am betting that there will be still countries which do not enforce software patents o
    • There is one, and only one reason that there is a market for Windows Media Formats... They are based on MPEG-4, but Microsoft charges about half the licensing fees for it's use.
      Ahem... DivX ;-) [divx.com]

  • Bad mojo (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Struct ( 660658 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @07:26PM (#5682616)
    Putting all of the upfront analysis aside for a second, what could Microsoft be up to here? Hmmm... what does Microsoft want? I think everybody can agree that it isn't to give linux a hand, right? They're always trying to dominate some market, so it's a safe bet without even reading into it that they're probably thinking a few moves ahead with that end in mind.

    So then, reading into it, it looks to me like Microsoft is licensing some proprietary technology out to a market they can't compete well in. So whether you're running Microsoft embedded or linux embedded, you're still using Microsoft's format, right? And a few years from now, everybody's using Microsoft's proprietary format in their various devices. Microsoft would have the keys to the kingdom at that point.

    It's really hard to ignore Microsoft's history when I look at stuff like this. They want to be in this market, and they see that linux has legs in this market. It's silly to think that they're knuckling under or doing this out of charity, or even doing it just for the licensing profits. They've never done business like that. They want the whole enchilada.

  • Here's why (Score:2, Insightful)

    by PenguinLord ( 555013 )
    The big question is "Why would M$ do anything to support Linux?" The answer is that it allows them to sell wmf as a cross platform format. This is probably a hurdle that they need to overcome to con the content world (or legislators) into embracing their evil plan. Don't worry they can alway screw the Linux community over in the future when their goals have been met.

  • Don't use it (Score:4, Insightful)

    by vandan ( 151516 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @09:55PM (#5683463) Homepage
    I would urge developers and systems builders and all people to avoide the Windows Media format like the plague. M$ are only licencing it to Linux developers to gain market penetration. When they get enough penetration, it will be every man for themselves. The licences will not be renewed, and we will have mandatory DRM following shortly after.
    We need to promote open standards and boycott Windows Media format.
  • WHO NEEDS IT?

    Not I

  • No Windows XP Pro (Score:2, Informative)

    by MarkLR ( 236125 )
    They will be using Windows XP Pro and a custom written media player. MS has an whitepaper [microsoft.com] out.

  • Why do content providers use Windows Media? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MobyDisk ( 75490 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @10:59PM (#5683786) Homepage
    Why would a content provider choose to use Microsoft's implementation of MPEG4, when there are freely available royalty-free open-source implementations?

    Scenario: I make a web site, I want to distribute media. Why not use DIVX? Or XVid? Those codecs are as easily available as any others, and I don't have to pay a fee to encode using them. Further, I make a movie I want to show in one of these new "digital" theaters -- same question. Why? OR screw that and use MPEG2. Is the performance difference worth the cost?
    • Scenario: I make a web site, I want to distribute media. Why not use DIVX? Or XVid? Those codecs are as easily available as any others, and I don't have to pay a fee to encode using them.

      The software is free, and the specs are freely available, but you sure as hell do have to pay patent-licensing fees. Just ask the MPEG-LA.

      That's why WMV has a market. Microsoft is charging about half the licensing fees for their codec, compared to MPEG4.
    • Scenario: I make a web site, I want to distribute media. Why not use DIVX? Or XVid? Those codecs are as easily available as any others, and I don't have to pay a fee to encode using them.

      And unless you pay the MPEG4 patent licencing fees [mpegla.com], you get sued by the following companies for violating the following patents:

      Canon, Inc.
      US 4,982,270
      Curitel Communications, Inc.
      US 6,215,905 - KR 303,685 - KR 211,917
      France Télécom, société anonyme
      US 4,796,087 - FR 2,599,577 - DE 3767919 - GB 248,711
  • ...that Linux embedded devices providing WMA uses Wine and WineX (for DirectSound output emulation), and also a vmWare system.

    Woot!!
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slashdot Top Deals

How many QA engineers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? 3: 1 to screw it in and 2 to say "I told you so" when it doesn't work.

Close