Yahoo & Broadcast.com Dumping Real Audio for MS 274
Well this rumor has been floating past my inbox a lot today, so I guess ought to pass it on. I have no proof, but the gist of it is that since Yahoo has acquired Broadcast.com, they have decided to dump Real Audio and replace all sound streams with Windows Media Player. As you can well imagine, this causes all sorts of problems for any alternative OS. This is apparently being kept very hush hush over there too, so keep your eyes open for confirmation.
Re:Real is pure evil from the 8th dimension! (Score:1)
and turning off that systray thing is so easy, it's in the preferences
it gives good streaming audio/video, i compressed a 21 minute long song to under 2MB, and it still sounded good enough to me
Unix Quicktime Revisited (Score:3)
I see a lot being said about "we can write an open source .ASF player" and "ASF is a documented format" -- but as a reminder:
Why? As many of you remember, the problem wasn't the availability of the player, but the availability of the Sorenson codec used extensively by Mac-centric Quicktime developers. Codecs, and getting ports of these highly proprietary (ie.: considered "trade secrets" oftentimes instead of patented, to avoid having to publish) will be the main issue in viewing Windows Media on other OSs.
Oh, and don't expect these codecs to be particularly cross-platform, either.... Having been involved with the development of one a couple years ago, I can tell you that in the development of these things there's an awful lot of bit-twiddling going on to milk as much out of a particular hardware platform you're designing around as possible -- taking full advantage of writing code heavily optimized for a particular processor in order to achieve the equivalent of decompressing dozens of 320x240 JPEGs per second. Consequently, there's a very real (no pun intended) possibility that a number of these codecs will NEVER fly on a lot of hardware, because the plumbing isn't optimized for them (ever run a FPU benchmark on a RISC box?).
So, the reality is that we may wind up in a world where we do have to run the WMP emulated on x86-based Unix boxes and suffer (or run players remotely over X) elsewhere. It's not pessimism, just a bit of a reality check... personally I just use my wife's Wintel whenever I want to watch video.
This is my opinion and my opinion only. Incidentally, IANAL.
Re:What about quicktime for Java? (Score:1)
Re:Fact Checking abounds (Score:1)
The news media reports rumors as rumors all the time. If you don't believe me, watch any of the hundreds of hours devoted each week to covering the 2000 presidential race. (If you can't pry yourself from the monitor, visit the kind of rumormongering journalism: Matt Drudge [drudgereport.com].)
If a rumor is widespread enough for it to be submitted numerous times to Slashdot, I think they serve a useful purpose by stating this -- as long as they include the caveat that it is a rumor. It's certainly 10 times more useful than Jon Katz taking the current week's hot-button issue, no matter what it is, and turning it into a pity party for misunderstood geeks.
As for picking up the phone and calling Yahoo!, do you really think some random public information droid at the company is going to be honest about a rumored switch to Windows Media Player?
Slashdot: "Hi. Can I speak to Mr. or Mrs. Yahoo?"
Yahoo: "Speaking."
Slashdot: "Have you received secret orders from Redmond that force you to abandon RealPlayer for Windows Media Player?"
Yahoo: "Yes."
Slashdot: "Thanks for letting us know!"
Yahoo: "Call anytime. B-bye."
Re:Windows clients (Score:1)
Re:You can use portable WMP today! (Score:1)
Re:The Secret of Microsoft's Success (Score:1)
If not rumor, then boycott (Score:1)
Need open source client and server. (Score:3)
The community responded well, with PNG, when Unisys started enforcing the patent on GIF. Surely we can come up with an open source, open protocol server and client for audio (and perhaps later, video)?
I mean, come on, people. Sending audio over the net is nothing new (I've been doing it since Sparcstation 1 days, using "cat annoying-audio-file.au | rsh othermachine cat >/dev/audio" to bug coworkers
All those workerbees who listen to the radio over the net while at work aren't going to be accepting Linux on the desktop without it.
for what reason ? (Score:1)
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
I have no proof, but the gist of it is that since Yahoo has acquired Broadcast.com, they have decided to dump Real Audio and replace all sound streams with Windows Media Player.
'nuf said...
Well.. (Score:1)
Is there a streaming media Player --> RA converter (Score:1)
I figured that was coming. (Score:2)
Sigh...
Aw who cares, I listen to MP3 stations anyway.
But WHY??? (Score:1)
=======
There was never a genius without a tincture of madness.
Re:Well.. (Score:2)
-M
Re:Unix numbers are insignificant (Score:1)
Ideally, yes. People may think I'm jumping to conclusions again about the decommoditizing of protocols in the Halloween documents, but whether or not the Halloween docs represent MS's real stand doesn't matter. The idea of decommoditizing protocols basically strikes the bottom-line of MS's survival (at least the way it is). MS is NOT going to start opening API's anytime soon. Partial docs, maybe, like incomplete win32 specs missing all those "undocumented" special features that only MS products get to use. But full docs, not in the forseeable future. Why? because that's how they can keep their monopoly (or at least, advantageous position over competition). They own the platform, and therefore they can argue that they have the right to "reserve" parts of the APIs for "future development and use". And why should they open up their API's just for some weirdos out there who don't use their mainstream OS?
I'm not deliberately starting another MS bashing here, but frankly, it's exactly the case that they DON'T want to open the playground to the alternative kids outside. Doing so will cause them to lose so much power in the market that any sane businessman won't even consider it (and Bill is one heck of a businessman -- ethics aside, he is to be admired for the way he handles business.) Frankly I don't think the DoJ will be able to do much about it either -- structural breakup will at most only do a little. The protocols are what matter -- whether MS is one big giant corporation or a gazillion small companies doesn't matter -- as long as protocols are closed, they're locking out whoever isn't already in the "inner circle" who have access to these protocols. The DoJ may be able to pry open their APIs slightly by company breakup -- but who's to stop them from distributing API's only among a small group of companies? After all, there will be "fair competition" -- albeit only amongst the "inner circle".
If something like this happens, it will be the end of hackerdom the way we know it. Protocols will become things that are accessible only to the elite few. The casual Joe hacker will never be able to afford to pay the access fees -- only proprietary solutions will ever be possible -- and writing drivers for alternative OS's will be no more. And when you're in MS's business, this is exactly what you WANT -- you want to raise yourself to a level above the masses so that they will come to YOU for solutions. And of course, in the meantime, to avoid that pesky DoJ interfering with your cash cow, you make some deals with a few other companies in the name of "innovation" and "leading the future of technology", so that when they point the finger you can retort that there is healthy competition.
I don't know about you, but I want to be able to open up the black box and tinker around inside. I don't want to be voiding my warranty or worse, breaking the law, just to see what's inside my computer. And I don't want to be told, "we're sorry but you can't use such-and-such technology e.g. streaming video because you're using an unsupported OS. Switch to our OS and everything will be flowery and nice." But alas, in this age of corporations, individual freedom is merely an afterthought... or perhaps not even that, just a troublesome issue to be suppressed so that more $$$ can flow.
Sorry for this rant. I love computers and I hate to see the way this technology is heading towards total proprietarization.
Re:I'm in Distance Learning (Score:2)
Anyway, I recorded on a mac using SoundEdit. I hated it, but we couldn't buy new software. I would have loved to used PEAK. After editing all of the files, I converted them to QT3. QT4 broke cue points, or markers. If you can get Media Cleaner Pro it works pretty good for converting audio and video files, and their customer support were really helpful. I got a few beta releases.
Does your company need a recording engineer?
My email is ejarvi@megsinet.net
Windows clients (Score:2)
Back in the early days (circa 1995), RealAudio was king, and no one else could even come close. But now that the competition has caught up and overtaken Real (in several ways), having to play any kind of Real media is just a big annoyance to me.
Re:Bloated RealPlayer (Score:1)
Why go against market forces? (Score:1)
Re:umm quicktime sux (Score:1)
You can get around this. Set your system clock a few years in the future, open up the player, hit "later", and set your clock back. I know, you shouldn't have to do this, but it works.
Quicktime, quite frankly blowz head. It doesn't even use the video features of today's advanced video cards, like hardware colorspace conversion, secondary surface rendering with overlay and backend hardware scaling. Drag the Quicktime window out to three times its original postage stamp size and it slows to a crawl.
You might want to try a video card that actually has drivers that have some clue how to accelerate QuickTime. Most Mac video cards do this, and it scales up very nicely. I'm sure QuickTime acceleration must exist on the PC.
Until recently Real Player was the same, badly lagging in support of advanced features. It also sometimes inexplicably falls back to non-filtered, non-acceleration video when windows overlay it. It's clunky, and I don't have confidence in it.
The Mac version is even worse. Before it's even done installing it's already broken about 15 Mac standard Mac conventions.
I hate to admit it, but M$ has done good with their media player and they deserve to win. Quicktime would be my first choice if they supported the advanced multimedia features of modern video cards.
I must admit I don't use Windows much, and I never really thought of this issue. Hardware support for QuickTime on the Mac is very good, and I almost always play whatever I happen to be watching at full screen with no problems.
Quicktime looks pretty good (when played at its original size and there's not much motion [wtf is upwith those interlace artifacts in progressive video on QT4??]),
RealPlayer seems to get the same kinds of artifacts. They don't show up when the network is working well, it seems.
but I've not been able to compare it to one of the Windows Media codecs at high bitrates.
QuickTime is really still king of quality. It scales right on up from modem streams to anything you could possably want. You could stream something at HDTV quality over QuickTime if you had the bandwidth.
--
Why go against market forces? (Score:1)
Sure, there's a Mac client, but no *nix that I'm aware of. I hate it when companies pull out checkbooks and stock options to make upgrades of otherwise dubious merit.
besides, won't it take quite a bit of effort to convert the existing data into the Windows Media format from RA, assuming they don't have .wav or .aiff sources? I'm genuinely curious.
Big Deal (Score:1)
So is there really a big difference? I may not be able to play ms formats but I haven't been able to play real either. And their user interface is second only to ICQ in its lameness and ugliness. This is one company I _would_ like to see crushed by the ms onslaught.(/doh!)
By the way, there was a asf or netmeeting client for irix and linux at one time, maybe more will get ported. Unlikely, but I can only hope.
More rumor mongering... (Score:1)
Maybe it's time they got an editor.
Re:Distance education and MSFT products (Score:2)
Real Vs. Microsoft (Score:1)
REAL-Slightly better products, but how much longer can they get away with charging $20,000+ for server software which will stream a large number of streams? It's just a matter of time till the server software will drop to the price it should be (under $1000 for unlimited streaming) Real is living on borowed time.
MS-Decent software, and many good features, but it's Microsoft.
Best part was when I ran into Microsoft Netshow developer at a conference and he complained that Microsoft was afraid to make an encoder which would encode MP3's over 128k due to fears from the RIAA.
I hope Napter wins the suit, I despise RIAA even slightly more than Microsoft but not as much as Network Solutions and Etoys.
So many companies to hate, so little time
Regards
Re:does WinCE have WMP? (Score:1)
Re:Why go against market forces? (Score:1)
I'll be surprised if someone doesn't stand up and sue broadcast.com for some sort of predatory business practices, etc. And I'm certain some one will add this to the evidence of the "Microsoft Monopoly."
As I recall, there is a windows media player for *NIX (solaris at least.) The one time I tried it, it really sucked. The reason it (and others) run so well under windows is generally because they are partially built into the OS and they are designed to use windows APIs (published and private.) Thoses APIs don't exist under any *NIX. And no admin is going to patch the kernel to run IE. (People already frown on the VMware kernel "tweaks".)
Oh, and don't forget!!! (Score:2)
They said.
In 1997.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
we need a good opensource video player (Score:1)
why standardize on a format that only supports one platform?
... and why add video when it's not needed. We're still bandwidth poor to the end users. Let's focus on page load times before we start adding video.
for the record. quicktime and real for linux suck. they're virtually orphaned! If I have to view new video clips, I must now run windows in vmware to use windows media player. That's about all I still need windows for!
so, tell me, how will windows media content work over WAP, on cell phones, on realtime OS-based information kiosks, on PDAs, on webTV, over digital cable boxes, on dreamcast, on playstation2?
can't you freakin' lame computer marketing execs see that Windows Media format won't get your content to all of those places.
Everyone and their dog knows that Microsoft has no interest in really supporting any non-MS os. (except to throw off the DOJ - like with Apple)
We've gotta get an opensource video player that's really good, or we're going to be forever writing decoders for MS's ever-changing protocols that aren't supported on anything but windows.
It'll be like the word doc format fiasco all over again!
and to those of you whinig about Slashdot printing rumors, you obviously haven't been around here for long. Slashdot's got a pretty good track record for getting the scoop early.
If your employees are leaking your company's confidential information on slashdot, that's an internal problem, not a slashdot problem.
But of course your network engineers can track down who's accessing slashdot when and cross reference posting times, right?
Sorry State of Real (Score:1)
I'm not sure how MS Media Player (formerly known as Netshow, formerly known as some non-Microsoft product) works in comparison, as I don't run Windows, but people will always go for the solution that works. Yes, it's possible there are other reasons, such as huge discounts for the people serving content or something, but in this case, I think it's more likely the MS player just works better.
To me, this whole situation just proves that the Open Source Community has to create new software around new video compression algorithms, or look at any algorithms already available. I have even thought about researching this field while I'm in college -- unfortunately, Mathematics (and thus the basis for many types of compression) is not my strong suit. I sincerely hope that anyone who has the skills and knowledge available (and who hasn't been unduly tempted by the promise of monetary gains) will put their talents to use in the development of new free software which everyone can use on every platform.
--
Re:Fact Checking abounds (Score:2)
Heh. The question is whether Yahoo! is dropping Real Media or not. They don't have much reason to lie to you about that one. Now as to why they're doing it--you can save the conspiracy theory questions for the end of the call. Perhaps you'll get lucky.
Oh, and one thing you might not have noticed: Yahoo! and MSN are direct competitors. Yahoo! has little reason to be doing Microsoft any favors.
Re:I'm in Distance Learning (Score:1)
By definition, you're not an employee; you're a volunteer.
As for what streaming media format one should use... that all depends on the party to whom you're streaming. Realplayer may be spyware, but it works just about everywhere. If you want the entire planet to be able to view it, MPEG is the solution. (maybe even AVI.)
Reak & MS Are both as bad as each other (Score:1)
What's wrong with bias? (Score:2)
I don't think you can ever really escape bias. I haven't seen much truly objective journalism from *any* source. But if there is to be an element of bias, it might as well be in favour of a good cause such as the open source movement.
Re:Maybe it's not so bad... (Score:1)
People scream about privacy but then apply zero common sense to protecting it.
Re:Yes, explain... (Score:1)
(And maybe MacOS?)
Re:A Linux WMA client is VERY feasible (Score:2)
The proven greater reliability of open-source solutions is also an issue.
Re:What about MPEG and/or QuickTime? (Score:1)
Re:Fact Checking abounds (Score:1)
Are you new to the web? I can go out and get ten different email addresses at hotmail, yahoo, excite, etc. in about twenty minutes and send ten different convincing messages telling you the sky is falling.
And Slashdot's editors would see the same submission posted 12 different times in rapid succession. If you think it's so easy to get Slashdot to bite on a rumor, do it: Send me a rumor by e-mail from one of the freebie e-mail providers and get Slashdot to report that rumor by the end of the week.
Uh-Oh Mr. Bill! Fact checking is difficult!! I don't know what I'm going to do!
You're missing the point. Calling the flack at Yahoo! who answers the media relations phone isn't going to confirm or deny the rumor. The idea that a single call is going to be useful at all is laughable to anyone who knows anything about newsgathering.
Streaming Servers are real issue (Score:2)
This has obvious implications for the Linux community. One way to increase the viability of Linux is to create a standard multimedia format, and create a highly scalable media server for Linux. Unfortunately, the only Microsoft can maintain their unfair advantage is to keep the format propietary, so don't expect a standard anytime soon.
This was why the talk about standards from MS regarding AOL and chat was so funny. They only champion standards when they've lost a market and have nothing to loose.
Re:I'm in Distance Learning (Score:1)
audio is being done by an intern now. i'm just assembling the packages and making tech rcommendations.
there's a strong push for streaming media which is why i referred to QT4 rather than 3.
Re:Real is pure evil from the 8th dimension! (Score:1)
The Xing mp3 engine inside realjukebox is the only reason I tolerate it at all. I do wish it would stop scanning the hard drives every time I start it -- it takes too damned long.
Re:A Linux WMA client is VERY feasible (Score:3)
Because that'll only work for GNU/Linux (or maybe *BSD) running on x86 boxen?
What about people running Linux on PPCs or Macs? Or Sun workstations? Or BeOS on some other hardware config.?
Just plugging in to some proprietary system ain't good enough if the proprietary system is only available to plug into on some target platforms. And if you're going to do x86 emulation to run something like Wine on (can Wine run on non-x86 hardware via some emulation layer?) I bet it ain't gonna be fast enough to decode & display streaming video in real time.
K.
Annoyed? Annoy them too. (Score:1)
When you do, remember to stay polite as in the Linux-Advocacy-HOWTO described.
After all, they won't just sit and watch them loose all the users of different platforms than windows. Remember: It worked with fox.com, it'll work again. At least it's worth a try.
Re:Confirmation (Score:1)
Anyone who listens to Art Bell, PLEASE send LOTS of email and faxes telling him he needs to raise hell about this! He uses the G2 player for all his streaming audio and video for his radio show. Sounds like it's time for competition to Broadcast.com. Someone who will use Real Audio not Winblows garbage!
(www.artbell.com) (for contact information)
Re:A Linux WMA client is VERY feasible (Score:1)
How about the plain fact that lots of people cannot and never will be able to use it? Windows won't even boot on my (Intel) computer, and even if it did, I doubt I'd waste the disk space.
Re:Distance education and MSFT products (Score:1)
Re:Real is pure evil from the 8th dimension! (Score:1)
Re:Yes, explain... (Score:1)
Last time i tried to run a qt video on linux, i was told that qt wasn't supported. Oh, wait, that was the sorenson codec. What a huge difference.
Re:Windows clients (Score:1)
On my Windows box, whenever given a choice, I always opt for Windows Media over Real. Why? Because the current RealPlayer clients are bloated, clunky, unstable, and slow.
Just the opposite for me. I find the sound quality for RealAudio to be noticably better than Windows Media. I agree that Real is much more bloated, though.Re:But WHY??? (Score:1)
Re:thinking different like everyone else (Score:1)
you seem awfully whiney about getting something for free. Do you really leave a site just because they use quicktime. are you sure you dont stay and read/look at the non quicktime content? be honest.
Quicktime for UNIX (Score:1)
Also, I have to believe that there is a Linux version of QuickTime in the works. MacOS X will be a UNIX based system. QuickTime will be made for MacOS X. Apple wants QuickTime to be the defacto standard for playing video on your computer. I can't see why they wouldn't port QuickTime to Linux.
I'm sure Sorenson could make a UNIX version of their Codec. It's gotta be possible. I just wish someone would just get off their ass and do it.
--
Re:Big Deal (Score:1)
Re:Unfortunate, but Very Understandable (Score:1)
And in the future:
1) Customer sees link
2) Customer clicks on link
3) Customer sees multimedia clip
4) Customer gets billed for seeing clip that webmaster had to pay a per-use license for making (and broadcasting)
Re:Streaming Servers are real issue (Score:1)
ASF specs (Score:5)
Re:What about MPEG and/or QuickTime? (Score:1)
The newer versions of Real can serve multiple bitrates off of a single encoder. So in terms of hardware, serving QT requires more of a financial outlay than Real.
Furthermore, Real streams now renegotiate at different bitrates while the stream is being played, rather than continually rebuffering. This is good for users on slow/inconsistent connections.
MS doesn't support, and probably won't support, some critical client platforms that we want to support (i.e. Linux), so we'd rather not use it.
-Alex
Re:A Linux WMA client is VERY feasible (Score:1)
Re:QuickTime player infects Windows Machines (Score:1)
when you first use the quicktime player doesnt it ask if you want to associate the file types w/ qt? If you do a custom install cant you pick and choose the associations? To be honest i dont remember
Re:They BOTH suck! Where is the QT player? (Score:2)
Distance education and MSFT products (Score:4)
Now to the meat:
This particular course offered its lectures (which were the bulk of the course) only in streaming video. That was all well and good; I had an ISDN line at the time, and was well able to cope with it. However, it utilized MSFT's proprietary streaming video protocol. Furthermore, the Netscape plugin failed to work to any semblance of perfection, so I was forced to use IE. In my opinion, this was the biggest flaw in the course - especially something aimed at one who will be knowledgeable about computers (it was a graduate level course). The use of Real Player would have made me much more willing to participate in the course, as I had to reboot into an environment that I hated to listen to any lectures with Microsoft's protocol.
What I want to know is this: when will people learn that using proprietary protocols only hurts their customerbase?
In defense of Yahoo... (Score:2)
It's Sad...But Not An Overwhelming Surprise (Score:3)
Since Yahoo created the worlds sweetest browser plug in [yahoo.com] which coincidentally is Windows-only. It seems that Windows-only solutions are not anathema to Yahoo. I can only hope that enough people hit Broadcast.com from non-Windows boxes for us not to be an acceptable loss (i.e. over 5%).
Bad Command Or File Name
Re:A Linux WMA client is VERY feasible (Score:2)
Re:Windows clients (Score:3)
Re:They BOTH suck! Where is the QT player? (Score:2)
Re:Unfortunate, but Very Understandable (Score:2)
Linux is next on Microsoft's list. Be ready.
-Rich
The Secret of Microsoft's Success (Score:4)
A lot of places have been dumping Real in favor of MS Windows Media because of disagreements with Real.
ABC last month or so had a story out where they selected MS over Real because of Real's refusal to place their logo less prominently on a site carrying a web video feed of the Drew Carey show.
This is really Microsoft's secret to success. They wait until the competition starts shooting themselves in the foot, and then they move in with very favorable terms.
Real is pure evil from the 8th dimension! (Score:4)
Scum.
AC
They BOTH suck! Where is the QT player? (Score:4)
OK, vent's over, nothing more to see here. It is oo bad that nobody's snuck the MoviePlayer.app out of Mac OS X DP2 and onto a LinuxPPC box to see if it'll run in binary-compatible mode...(hint-hint)
Alternatives. (Score:2)
--
Unfortunate, but Very Understandable (Score:5)
When you're trying to build a site with seamlessly integrated multimedia, what you want to happen is this:
1) Customer sees link
2) Customer clicks on link
3) Customer sees multimedia clip
What you get with RealPlayer is more like this:
1) Customer sees link
2) Customer clicks on link
3) 8 million pop-up menus: "REGISTER YOUR VERSION OF REALPLAYER!!!" or "DOWNLOAD THE LATEST VERSION OF REALPLAYER!!!" or "CHECK OUT ALL THE NEW STUFF AT REAL.COM"
This is a Bad Thing for a number of reason:
1) It destroys branding, i.e. the customer thinks "Real.com" instead of "Broadcast.com"
2) Every one of those pop-up menus gives the customer a chance to leave your site -- and go to Real.com instead to register, download, etc.
3) It's a royal pain in the ass.
Until someone comes up with a better solution -- i.e. a widely supported, open standard for streaming media (hopefully without a plug-in) -- Microsoft is the best game in town.
Fact Checking abounds (Score:4)
That's not a very journalistic approach. Passing rumors about large internet companies does not seem to be the most responsible way to establish credibility or gain influence. I certainly hope this was not just a ploy to use that borg logo again.
The Story Entangles... (Score:2)
So it's pretty evident that breaking up Microsoft shouldn't be the DOJ's priority, rather opening up all proprietary standards, protocols, and open-sourcing Windows will be the key to controlling this monopoly.
This way Microsoft will always be forced to be competitive, but at the same time it will be restricted from monopolizing any part of the computer industry and thereby stifling competition. As long as Linux and every other OS can easily play Windows audio/video formats, we will not be threatened by a gradual monopoly from happening, after all the next big thing on the Net will be high-bandwidth audio/video streams and a gradual convergence with TV, radio and telephone.
But one must still appreciate the way Microsoft executes its business strategies.
What about MPEG and/or QuickTime? (Score:5)
Here's why I wouldn't pick the other formats...
REAL AUDIO
- The video and audio quality is terrible. Real Networks doesn't write quality playback software (don't know about the Win version but the Mac version is absolute shit). You also have to pay for the software to encode, serve, and decode the content (for the good versions). I've also never had a good experience trying to stream RealAudio content -- strange because streaming QuickTime and MP3 formats work fine.
I just get a funny feeling from RealAudio anyhow -- I avoid at all costs.
MICROSOFT VIDEO PLAYER
- Do I really need to explain this one?
I would use QuickTime or MPEG because they are truly cross-platform a/v formats. And FREE. You can serve QuickTime movies (streaming even) for free, hello DARWIN. QuickTime movies are easy to make and they look and sound damn good for the compression you get. Also, if you use QT3, Xanim can play it under Linux/UNIX (not sure about QT4 though... last I checked you couldn't).
MPEG Video, I'm a bit less familiar with, but from what I've seen it looks almost as good as QuickTime (if you're comparing quality vs file size) and I believe you can play it back on ANY platform.
-----------------------------------------------
It just really disturbs me in general when sites pick formats that are only truly compatible with Windows. With so many excellent cross platform options available, I just don't see why big companies pick these closed formats. Sure, I don't expect them to make a player for every single OS in use, but at least use one of the open formats out there. Then at least we can code our own players.
Do these guys want our business or not?
*sigh*
Ben
A Linux WMA client is VERY feasible (Score:5)
Even if we can't reverse engineer it, there's another alternative: A VQF plugin was recently released which simply used Yamaha's Windows
There's currently a plugin competition over at XMMS.org. Already someone's built an AAC decoder [AAC is semi-MP4]...
The price of Reals backend software right now is extraordinary comapared to Windows Media. Shoutcast can compete on price but not on bandwidth. WMA will be an unfortunate part of the future...
Coders, earn the respect of your peers, the admiration of Linux users everywhere, and some prizes to boot. Write a WMA client for XMMS!
Cmon - we have the technology. Let's do it!
Re:Distance education and MSFT products (Score:3)
Um, aren't all streaming video protocols at this time "proprietary"? Barring half-baked, homegrown Java video streaming on a few sites, the only streaming video platforms are RealPlayer, MS Media Player, and Quicktime.
Quicktime is virtually dead on non-Mac platforms due to Apple's bungled handling of QT4. Real is struggling to get G2 ported to all platforms (how long has the Linux version been in alpha?). And that leaves MS -- with money to burn and only one OS (Win32) to support. It's only natural that MS leading the pack.
Research in media compression is one of the fields of computer science that does not parallelize well. Fraunhofer poured money into research and came up with MP3. No open source team could have matched that effort. Just imagine how difficult developing a video compression scheme is. Yes, we may have various levels of MPEG, but none are designed for low-bandwidth connections.
Our only hope is that Real falls to the same fate as Netscape and, before giving up the ghost, releases the sources of the encoder and player. It would probably take a good couple of years before yielding any usable product, but the necessity for video support on non-Windows platforms and Internet appliances would give the project a big boost.
Wow, an open source project that would dwarf Mozilla... Doesn't seem possible... :)
- Richie
whining abounds (Score:3)
Surprisingly, thanks partly to the moderation system, it ends up that (if you read a few of the high-rated comments at least) you get a level of accuracy that often exceeds what you get with the traditional media.
As for credibility and influence -- who said anyone is looking for those?
--
/. is rumor mongering again (Score:2)
am i going to see a "scoop" on Leonardo DiCaprio next? at least he's cuter then Corel's CFO. . . [slashdot.org]
Not that worrying IMO (Score:2)
the three main choices (MS, Real & Quicktime).
Real: The codecs and to some extent, the streaming format are very closed. There is source out there for the version 2.0 and 3.0 audio codecs, but the later ones and the video codec seem to be very propietary. Also they don't appear to be able to write very good players - eg the well-known 'video crapping out halfway through streams' problem etc.
The only players out there are ones Real wrote themselves.
Quicktime: More documented. The stream and file structure is well documented, but the codecs aren't. For instance, most of (or a lot of) the HQ streams around seem to use the Sorensen codec, which I believe Apple bought and are keeping very close to their chests.
MS: Seems to me to be the most friendly option to the free software community.. their streaming format doesn't appear to be too hard to reverse engineer (assuming it's not documented anywhere - I haven't checked that out), I remember having a snoop at it when ASF/Media Player was first released. As for codecs - most of the streams appear to use MPEG4 or H323 type compression.
Ie. standard codecs with available source.
Nah, it's a result of both (Score:2)
They definitely benefit from bumbling competition, just look at Netscape and Real and Apple and OS/2, but it's nuts to say that their products don't get drastically better over time. Just look at IE5, Windows Media Player 6.4, and Win2K.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Re:Yay! More pain for Real. (Score:2)
M$ (Score:2)
try it. you'll be surprised.
ASF is documented, but critical details are left out of the documentation. MS is pulling all sorts of shenanigans to make sure no-one implements ASF compatibility (for instance, the documentation available is for ASF version 2, but media player uses version 1 of ASF)
As for codecs - most of the streams appear to use MPEG4
MS has a codec which they call MPEG 4 which is compatible with the current draft standard of the MPEG 4 video stream, but MPEG 4 hasn't been finalized yet. These are not MPEG 4 files and MS is just confusing everybody by implying that they are.
Basically from a technical standpoint you can say anything you want about MS, but ethically they are up to the same old tricks in the streaming media area that they are famous for with OSes and office suites: FUD, embrace and extend, twisting arms with backroom deals, etc.
What slashdot integrity? (Score:3)
As an editorial enterprise, Slashdot is becoming a joke, agreed.
Slashdot's editors seem to follow one of several well-worn ruts when they write their article headers:
Not surprisingly, the discussion that results fits the mold cast by the editors. Keep up the yellow journalism, editors, and the "Slashdot community" you cultivate won't be worth listening to.streaming video/audio blows anyway (Score:2)
Re:Distance education and MSFT products (Score:2)
When it affects their bottom line. Vote with your wallet.
Also, complain to the college. Maybe you did, but there's no mention in your story about complaining to the people in charge of the course. If you don't make your voice heard people assume things are fine the way they are.
What are you talking about you ridiculous goon? (Score:2)
True, many Windows Media Streams such as ASFs happen to have MP3 as its audio codec, but when a stream is in WMA, it has been proven over and over that Windows Media Audio sounds far better than MP3 when compared at the same bitrates. If you have the newest version of Winamp there is even a WMA compressor plug-in that you can try out to prove it to yourself.
Sorry if I sound too much like a Microsoft advocate on this, but Windows Media really impresses me and I hope it goes open soon.
Re:Hmmmm. (Score:2)
Re:whining abounds (Score:2)
Then take the News for Nerds out of the masthead. Change it to Unattributed Rumors for Nerds.
People who post stories are editors, whatever they call themselves. Those newfound millionaires that run this site aren't just "some guys who post stuff they find interesting." Like it or not, they've achieved a fair amount of importance and influence. A rumor can gain an enormous amount of momentum just because they found it "interesting" enough to post, whatever the responses. And as for moderation, I've seen stuff that I knew to be untrue moderated up while someone who actually posts the facts languishes at Score 1 because they signed in too late. Moderation is heavily biased toward reasonable- sounding posts that are submitted early to the neglect of better posts that are submitted a couple of hours later.
As for credibility--is it too much to ask for?
Re:Fact Checking abounds (Score:3)
I've gotta agree. The frequency with which a rumor is repeated has little to do with its truth or falsehood. What's sad is that it's not that hard to pick up the phone and check out a rumor like this. Yahoo's phone number is (408)731-3300, as a call to LD information (or a visit to their site) would quickly reveal. Just ask to speak to their "Public Information Department." Even if they don't have one, this will get you pointed in the right direction.
If the spokesperson you reach says that they can't reveal such plans, then put that in your report. If they say they don't know, ask them to find out and call you back. If they don't call back, call them again. Finally, if they're still evasive, put that in your report. Take notes. Be friendly, especially if you're asking for a favor (like a call back).
This is Journalism 101, I know, and it's a shame that someone even needs to suggest it.
Slashdot, whither goest thou?
Poor headline choice (Score:2)
I don't see anything wrong with reporting this rumor, but when the summary itself specifically states that it's only a rumor, it's disappointing to see the headline blaring the news as if it were a fact. Slashdot should add the word "rumor" or a question mark to the headline. It's things like this which give rise to so much knee-jerk flaming around here.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Unix numbers are insignificant (Score:2)
The number of *nix users is commercially small compared with those using windows. The only reason Mac clients exist is because a lot of schools and artist-types use Macs, IMNSHO. Would you spend twice what you had to just to reach a few percent of the market place?
It annoys me because all of the cool stuff on the web grew up under Unix years before M$ realized the importance of TCP/IP and now they are usurping everything.
The real question is, since it seems everyone thinks RealAudio is crappy technology, how many M$ products are actually better than the competition (ignoring the bloated and buggy OS they sell)?
Also, do they succeed because they can offer the best and brightest a nice chunk of change after they've sacrificed their youth?
And would breaking them up do any good? Or should they just be forced to make regular API/file format releases so that others can at least adhere to their "standards"?
I personally think they should have full API/format releases *before* they release the product. Let M$ make all the money they want, just don't lock the gate to the playground with the alternative kids outside.
Re:Bloated RealPlayer (Score:2)
A couple years ago, I remember it working relatively well even with video on my old 133. You'd think they'd at least maintain the same level of stability, much less make improvements. Don't you just hate when software gets worse with each new version?
It's Real (Score:3)
For thoese of you who think it is not a big deal, your wrong. Broadcast.com is one of the few places were you can find non-profit radio programming. These stations have *no* money to buy there own T3s and deserve to reach the most people. Once Yahoo makes this switch, we will lose this content.
If MS made Media Player on all platforms, it would not be a big deal. The fact that MS has claimed that the streaming feature in it's Media Player would be open-protcal for years and still has yet to show some docs means something. The fact that we will be losing a lot of good, imporant content means something. Maybe this will encourage someone to reverse the Media Player and come out with a Open player, but I don't think so. We need to prevent MS from claiming the entire streaming Media world, becuase that makes it that much easyer for the rest of the parts of the internet. Don't take this lightly.
Spell Check broke, sorry.
Re:A Linux WMA client is VERY feasible (Score:2)
MS isn't all bad, man. Maybe you can start by telling us why WMA sucks? Because it's not open-source? Sorry but you're going to have to do better than that.
WMA is technically superior to many things out there. The codec that they use sounds great at low bandwidths and a 64kbit WMA stream sounds almost as good as a 128kbit MP3. Got to www.windowsmedia.com and listen for yourself.
Now, I agree it sucks that Linux users are SOL until there is a player available, but that's what open source is all about, man. Get cracking on a decoder! Dig it!
umm quicktime sux (Score:3)
Quicktime, quite frankly blowz head. It doesn't even use the video features of today's advanced video cards, like hardware colorspace conversion, secondary surface rendering with overlay and backend hardware scaling. Drag the Quicktime window out to three times its original postage stamp size and it slows to a crawl.
Until recently Real Player was the same, badly lagging in support of advanced features. It also sometimes inexplicably falls back to non-filtered, non-acceleration video when windows overlay it. It's clunky, and I don't have confidence in it.
Windows Media Player on the other hand is unobtrusive and just does what you ask it to do: play the fucking video and shaddup. It also makes use of any multimedia acceleration features your DirectDraw driver can support, including video filtering, scaling, and color space conversion. All without ads. And I've run it for six hours at a time watching streaming MPEG4 NASA TV at 300k and had no problems.
WMP is multimedia done right. It works awesome for me and the video quality is better than Real. Catch a 300k Real stream from pseudo.com, and then check out the 300k MPEG4 NASA TV stream from broadcast.com [broadcast.com].
I hate to admit it, but M$ has done good with their media player and they deserve to win. Quicktime would be my first choice if they supported the advanced multimedia features of modern video cards. Quicktime looks pretty good (when played at its original size and there's not much motion [wtf is upwith those interlace artifacts in progressive video on QT4??]), but I've not been able to compare it to one of the Windows Media codecs at high bitrates.
In summary: Real Player truly sux, Quicktime sucks somewhat less, but Media Player is all I ever wanted feature wise.
Re:What about MPEG and/or QuickTime? (Score:2)