Microsoft Plans Media Player for Linux? 337
theancient1 writes "According to this article, Microsoft is considering releasing a Linux version of Windows Media Player. 'Paul Boudreau, Microsoft's programme manager for music and entertainment, said at a briefing on the software giant's plans for digital media: We see a need for Unix players and are working in that direction, including Linux.' Of course, a little quote is quite a bit different from actually seeing a product, but it's still not exactly expected."
Let's hope it works better than the last one. (Score:1)
Karma Killer! (Score:3)
Just see if I'm wrong.
Hmm... (Score:1)
kwsNI
I hope you all realize this isn't a bad thing. (Score:3)
I'll take any media players I can get for Linux.. I don't really care who's writing it, I think it's important that if Windows Media Player does gain enough share over Real, that there is a way to still play media on Linux.
I think the fine print is also interesting (Score:1)
Rumour and Propaganda (Score:2)
-=-=-=-=-
Just like IE (Score:1)
But Unix didn't mean Linux and the product quality wasn't comparable to the windows version at all.
Vaporware (Score:5)
All mistakes in spelling and grammar are licensed under the GPL.
I wish.. (Score:2)
But then again, if you poke around Microsoft's web site, you can find a place that says a Unix version of media player will be out in a couple of weeks! Of course, it's said this since early '98. So I wouldn't get your hopes up that they are working hard on this, they may be doing what they did in another FAQ, telling people to use microsoft servers because soon every OS will be able to play asf, because the ports are 'coming soon'.
All this said, if they do release it and it is passably ok, I won't have much use for windows anymore, and I would be happy.
Could that be? (Score:2)
Microsoft competing with themselves. (Score:4)
To quote the article:
However, Boudreau said that the Apple Macintosh was more important today because it is used for "relevant content creation", and he confirmed that Media Player for the Mac would have digital rights management (DRM) software built-in.
Microsoft has never really acknowleged any competition from Apple--after all, there isn't much of a server market for Macs. Therefore, it doesn't seem too surprising that they might port a software product over to the Mac platform.
However, Microsoft has admitted Linux to be a major competitor and cause of concern. Can we really expect them to begin porting softare to run under *nix?
This is beginning to look similar to AT&T before they were split up. As Bell Labs was making lots of money selling circuits to MCI and Sprint, the long distance division was struggling to come up with new ways to squash those other companies. It shouldn't be long before Microsoft is doing the same--developing software for Linux, while simultaneously trying to keep the OS from taking over their precious NT Server market.
Personally, I am very interested to see where this leads.
Could have positive effects. (Score:2)
This would be better if... (Score:1)
MicroSoft released the relevant protocols and allowed the community build their own player(s)!
end wishful thinking */
Linux or Linux/x86? (Score:1)
It would be nice however if, instead of just releasing a closed source binary for x86 they either:
a) released the source (ha yeh right)
or b) released binaries at least for Alpha, G4, x86 and Sparc
Colleen:Its a black-hole.
Hunter:Is that a good thing?
C:It is if you want to be compressed into oblivion.
H:Oh.. coooool.
Saving their a$$es (Score:1)
Why would they be worried? They could just sue the author and them arrested. This is the New World Order, you know!
Seriously, though, you're probably right. If they are going to be the dominant force in streaming media, they need to support all platforms. And I suppose that they figure it would be better to have an official release, rather than have the Linux users use some hacked client (no offense to people who do hack these sorts of things)
~~~~~~~~~
auntfloyd
Re:I hope you all realize this isn't a bad thing. (Score:3)
A re-occuring trend. (Score:1)
P.S.
Does anybody remember the name of Microsoft's Unix, that was released either late 70's or early 80's?
Hidden agenda? (Score:1)
I say Yes! plan on it coming out sometime within the next 6 months and within 2 years expect the server portion of the streaming multimedia program to no longer be free. (there is a price for everything).
Hmmm (Score:1)
Trojan Horse? (Score:4)
"install media player as root" then the program totally messes up the system, for "optimalisation" purposes.. next thing you know your system is as buggy as a smartupdated version of win98.
Guess who will be the big winner?...
Cool initiave though.. :)
Regards,
Testing the water? (Score:2)
Media Player, Java, Codecs et al (Score:1)
Is there anyone out there trying to create a performance pack for the JMF on Linux ?
In other words, don't you write a media player (Score:3)
Re:I hope you all realize this isn't a bad thing. (Score:1)
So who's getting squished? (Score:1)
Same old Microsoft, same old FUD
Rich
Whats their Angle? (Score:1)
How do they stand to gain from doing this?
I think this is An attempt to clean up their name
in the Unix world so that people might be more
receptive to releases of their software (think
Office) in the future. (Operating systems are
not their only money maker)
Afterall...Unix based systems are a growing market
and one where alot of users are not all warm and
fuzzy about the Microsoft name.
Microsoft isn't exactly tottally foreign to the
Unix world...remember Xenix? (anyone ever actually
used Xenix?)
Will be interesting to see what they do and
how successfull they will be at this. Of course
that assumes this isn't total vaporware.
I'm not that surprised.. (Score:1)
IMHO, They've given up on the OS I think (sure doesn't Office bring in more cash and Gates is now working on "Windows technologies" or something and their motto has been officialy changed from "a PC on every desktop" to something 'Net related which I can't remember
I mean given up on it as a source of cash.
They've replaced Browser wars with Streaming Media Wars (to quote someone on
Their aim is that every site will buy their server side stuff - Windows Media Server 2000 or some such.
They now that [protocols/server side/Application Service Provider] is what the have to concentrate on to survive.
MS know longer care if this development means less people pirate ^H^H^H^H^H^H buy Windows 98/2k
It's a cunning move.
Microsoft, The Man, and Big Brother. (Score:1)
Don't get me wrong, I like everyone else think that Microsoft is a little big for its own good. However, now that I've realized that AOL is truly Big Brother, I have significantly less antipathy towards the not-quite-so-evil empire that is Microsoft.
But...if Microsoft wants to release Media Player for Linux, DON'T COMPLAIN. Media player would bring a much needed full media application to Linux. Right now, playing most foreign media types in linux is just a nightmare. I don't want to have to use fifteen different applications to watch files because they're in a different format. I would be perfectly content with my friend, Microsoft Media Player, playing all of my .asf files without a care.
--
Danger! (Score:1)
Let's try out a few theories. (Score:3)
The market for streaming media - despite what people say - is not currently the workplace since many offices dont allow audio and lets face it video without audio is a little lame. The home market - where there is a burgeoning number of Linux installations - is where the money is going to be in delivering digital media content and Microsoft has a large and growing stake in content providers.
Not all of the press is going to be sceptical about this and will happily swallow everything Microsoft gives to them - including the spiel of "We're supporting other operating systems" and "Linux is a true competitor otherwise we wouldn't be supporting it"
Sceptic - yes. Happy - sorta, this is needed - especially is web media providers do start to ditch Real for the Microsoft offerings - and who can blame them all the Microsoft stuff is free while Real expect licences for streams. Waiting to see the flames brought on by this - God yeah. ;o)
This could be a bad thing. (Score:1)
Munky_v2
"Warning: you are logged into reality as root..."
This is a Good Thing(TM) (Score:1)
I know it sounds like I'm advocating M$, but I'm trying to make a point. Of all the media-players available, I end up using M$'s product as well. It's cleaner and clearer than RealPlayer, and RP only works about half the time under Linux anyhow. I'd really like to see M$ contribute some to Linux anyhow. It'd be a first step in the company growing up and being a player in the IT arena, not a bully.
Good, unless... (Score:1)
This is good, unless they use it as an excuse to keep the format closed/secret/undocumented. The real test will be to see if they allow competing players that play the same streams.
A paranoid person could view this as an attempt to leverage their ownership of a format into a monopoly on players. But we're not all that paranoid, are we? :-)
---
MS sees the light? (Score:1)
Is this a good thing? (Score:1)
Here is an example of this in action. For a long time, RealPlayer G2 has been available for Windows (and Mac), but only RealPlayer 5.0 for unix. 5.0 was all that many people needed, and it looked possible that a G2 player might be on the way, so the urge for independent programmers to develop a G2 player was not very strong. Real have finally made a G2 Player for Linux, but it's so unstable that it's better to use the Windows player under Wine.
If there hadn't been a RealPlayer at all for unix, then it's quite possible that independent programmers would have written a player, but the existence of the 5.0 player stymied that. As a result, Windows is still a better platform for viewing G2 streams than Linux.
That example could apply to Windows Media Player. However now there is an extra factor. It would be in Real's interest to have as good a Linux player as possible, subject to development costs. But MS could do well out of putting time-wasting for loops in the code, or not debugging it very well. In this case, MS is more dangerous than just any closed-source vendor, because their main product is in direct competition with Linux. I think this sounds ominous.
Re:I hope you all realize this isn't a bad thing. (Score:2)
Well, Microsoft also has a few hundred million dollars worth of stock in Apple, so they have a vested interest in keeping the platform alive, and that means writing software for that platform. The difference here is that if RedHat exploded one day, it wouldn't make much of a difference in Redmond. Instead of contributing to the survival of a market which directly benefits them (Apple) they are exploring a new market entirely.
One word (Score:2)
ASF standardisation (Score:2)
In this context, it would be a good idea for them to offer a non-Windows player. Real has Unix players, Apple is considering other platforms than Mac and Windows.
If this is not just a rumour, I guess MS will have to put a lot of money into the development. Porting their Media player to *ix certainly is quite a task...
Re:Microsoft competing with themselves. (Score:2)
But only in the server market. I think they don't see it as much of a threat to Windows 97±2, and this is very much a desktop application.
Re:A re-occuring trend. (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure they think that we are stupid, and don't realize that they haven't released anything. Everything is talk, just so we will slow down our efforts at reverse enginneering there technology. I say that we continue to work hard at reverse enginneering and that we show them, that weather or not they want it, we will use thier propritery standards.
I agree with you that these announcements are designed to stifle competition, because they aren't new product announcements, but rather announcements that "we're looking into doing something and it sounds like a good idea."
Truth is, these announcements aren't aimed at us. Micro$oft knows that we know better, and could care less what we think of them. After all, we don't use their products, right? These announcements are aimed at the press, who in turn distill them down to drivel for the "consumer." These announcements are supposed to make those users of M$ software feel better about M$.
So, in other words, M$ doesn't think you're stupid. They think the people who buy their software are stupid.
Who, exactly, is trying to reverse engineer the M$ streaming media format? I hadn't heard of anyone undertaking such an operation.
What would be cool, would be an Open Source video streaming format with Open Source server and viewer software. This could then be ported to any platform: Mac, Sun, M$, you name it. It would also break the stranglehold that just three companies have on the whole market: Real, M$, and Apple. Of course, it would also help if this format could blow the others away in performance and quality. :-)
Your kind of right ... (Score:3)
However, many people might *not* switch OS because it would *stop* them from watching video clips.
The lack of good linux videoclip support won't repel current linux users, but it might stop current windows users from becoming linux users.
Then again, I'm not sure that WMP will have a positive overall effect on the linux video playback capability, in the long term. It may squash some good offerings that are just getting started now. It might be manipulated by MS to ensure that Linux is not *quite* as good as Windows for video playback (you might decide to write a video player if the current situation is dire, but you probably won't bother if the current situation is merely tolerable).
All this talk of hidden agendas... (Score:2)
So let's look at this realistically. Linux is steadily becoming a choice OS for a lot of people. And if you people remember the Halloween Documents, Microsoft knows that Linux is also a choice OS, and is a source of competition. So wouldn't it make sense that Microsoft would be looking to port their apps to Linux? To me, it's a VERY smart business move. Microsoft knows the potential of Linux. Hell, Microsoft actually has a few Linux boxes on their campus for R&D purposes (learned by way of a relative who works for Microsoft's MoneyCentral division). And you think they're saying "screw you" to Linux?
I realize that Slashdot is a Linux-centric board, but whether you'll admit it or not, Microsoft is making a wise move here, even if this idea is still just that, an idea.
Not surprised at this (Score:3)
Remember, you can get a lot more information on the
Media players - Plugger (Score:3)
audio/x-mpegurl
audio/mpegurl
audio/x-mpeg-url
audio/mpeg-url
image/x-sun-raster
image/sun-raster
image/x-png
image/png
image/x-tiff
image/tiff
audio/x-wav
audio/wav
audio/x-basic
audio/basic
audio/x-psid
audio/psid
audio/x-mpeg
audio/mpeg
audio/x-mpeg3
audio/mpeg3
audio/x-mpeg2
audio/mpeg2
audio/x-mod
audio/mod
audio/x-midi
audio/midi
video/x-fli
video/fli
video/x-msvideo
video/msvideo
video/x-anim
video/anim
video/x-sgi-movie
video/sgi-movie
video/x-dl
video/dl
video/x-quicktime
video/quicktime
video/x-mpeg
video/mpeg
Whoa, big paste.. =] It uses programs like xanim, and another free one, that I can't rememeber the name for now. I recommend checking it out. The readme from the program is pretty good too, and will tell you what you need to do, and download.
Could be a kiss of death... (Score:3)
2) Non-windows users have no other choice than Real, and that keeps Real alive and prevents MS from reaching 1)
3) MS decides to release WM player for alternative platforms and to start aggressive partnership with content providers
4) Real dies, WM becomes the new standard
5) MS starts delaying non-windows versions of WM player, and eventually cancels them.
6) "Linux for multimedia ? nahhh, you can't even play streaming movies from the internet"
I wonder if they'll be able to get away with it after the DOJ trial, though...
What we really need here is an open standard (IETF, where are you ?), possibly based on a new technology (wavelets/fractal, whatever works best) so that it gains wide acceptance.
If content providers and MS get to decide the specs of future audio and video formats, prepare for SDMI-type crap...
Fight for your right! (Score:2)
Quicktime has movie formats that you just can't show!
You ask for codecs, "please?" but they still say no!
You've missed two 'Net films 'cause your player don't work!
But Apple keeps on acting like some kind of jerk!
You gotta fight
for your right
to moooooooovies!!!!
Valenti caught you watching DVD's and he said "no way"!
That hypocrite says "fair use" ain't okay!
Man, lawyers and lawsuits are such a drag!
They drag you into court if you use the anchor tag!
(Busted!)
You gotta fight
for your right
to moooooooooovies!!!!
"If you want to watch movies don't use an OS you can share!"
But we know the situation is just unfair!
Now guess which bad bunch might give us movie toys--
I don't know what they're plotting, but it's Bill G's Boys!
Re:In other words, don't you write a media player (Score:4)
If MS releases player, then Real will have competition. If they want Linux market-share, they'll have to do a little better than one bug-riddled alpha release. Then MS will have to raise it's standards, and in a few iterations we'll have the same or better quality players as the windows/mac crowd.
Either that, or this is a vaporware announcement, they'll never make a release, and Real will go back to pretending Linux doesn't exist. In other words, we'll be back to where we are now.
Re:A re-occuring trend. (Score:2)
Does anybody remember the name of Microsoft's Unix, that was released either late 70's or early 80's?
I think they called it DOS.
Re:Testing the water? (Score:2)
What MS are up to - Pretty obvious really (Score:3)
"[H]e confirmed that Media Player for the Mac would have digital rights management (DRM) software built-in.
Within the next six to nine months, Microsoft plans to roll out a version of DRM that will enable consumers to manipulate and back up their own licence stores of video and music clips... [T]he software giant has yet to decide whether users will do this themselves or whether it will be kept on a secure site."
The media companies need this sort of functionality to go on existing - as the DVD debacle has shown, no amount of security features will have long term viability. What will therefore be required is a method by which consumers can demonstrate ownership of a license to posess music. MS wants to control the means by which this license is stored and validated.
This might not be the eventual standard but MS being MS, they'll want to get their foot in the door early. To control the standard they'll need to have their SW on as many platforms as possible - otherwise there would be Linux specific licensing authorities.
---No Judgement Just an Assesment---
----------Probably Wrong------------
Re:Microsoft competing with themselves. (Score:3)
Not a user but used to work in a Mac shop. Yes, they lead the field in low-medium end digital video, most 2D image manipulation, digital photography, compositing, DTP, and typesetting.
Partly this is cultural, partly technological, partly software support.
What's interesting to me is how well entrenched this is. The fact that Photoshop on a PC is nigh identical to Photoshop on a Mac will not make anyone switch, despite the obvious advantage of integrating with all the other PC users in the company. There are good reasons for this - graphic designers use their computers more intensely than almost anyone - certainly as much as hardcore programmers. They should be given the tools they prefer, and I.T. should deal with it.
As a non-Mac person who had to design an IT strategy around them, I know (a bit) about what I'm talking about.
The Power of Perception (Score:2)
Someone said recently that M$ is in a tough position because they are expected to always make a profit. I think Bill G. knew exacly what he was doing when he "integrated" the web browser. I think he knew, even wanted to be declared a monopoly. If the courts break up M$ he is the big winner.
Imagine what the market will be like when this happens: Office for every platform, yes Linux too. Windows Media Players for every platform. Internet Explorer, and on and on.
Right now, M$ is stuck in their own Windows world, they can't wait to be broken up.
Re:I hope you all realize this isn't a bad thing. (Score:2)
Are they going to call this program "Windows Media Player for Linux"? That's funny as hell.
-B
I wouldn't trust closed source, especially M$ (Score:2)
--
Re:Microsoft competing with themselves. (Score:2)
I'd go with diversification of my product platforms. Linux has a steadily increasing user base, and most of these users don't give a rodent's Glutius Maximus about whether or not MS is providing applications for the *nix users.
However, if MS were to start providing interoperability (and not immediately breaking it), many of these users might be inclined to purchace MS Offix 2001, and not write it off as a POS product just because it has MS in the name.
The Other Nate
Re:Microsoft may have to compete with themselves. (Score:2)
The question is: Will what they write on other platforms be any good? The reason that WMP is a good viewing platform for Windows is because they have full access to and knowledge of the little bits of API that accelerate graphics under Windows. The same applies to Apple with QuickTime (especially QT2). Ever tried comparing speed between WMP/ActiveMovie's QT rendering under Windows with the QT2 program? ActiveMovie really flew, was more reliable, and far less clunky to operate.
By /.'s own admission, XWindows can be notoriously tricky to write for. The head start that MS programmers normally have (by writing solely for Windows) is gone, and WMP for Linux's only advantage will be the ability to play ASF files. It will certainly make interesting viewing if and when it dows show up.
Bullshit! It's FUD. (Score:2)
I'd read Microsoft's comments as trying to discourage anyone else from trying to compete, rather than any honest intention to support Linux themselves.
Re:Microsoft competing with themselves. (Score:2)
Re:Could that be? (Score:3)
So in order to compete on the serverside, microsoft needs to make sure that the potential audience for the content is as large as possible. The content providing market is going to be huge and MS simply cannot afford to miss that boat just to protect their OS.
So releasing a linux client seems like a good idea. Of course MS has suffered from sigthedness before so there's a difference between anouncing a thing like this and actually delivering a usable product. But if they are serious about becoming a major player on the content providing market (which I think they are) they will have to make sure that their content works everywhere, even on Linux.
Nice move. (Score:2)
Re:Karma Killer! (Score:2)
Re:Netshow for Linux (Score:2)
Re:Saving their a$$es (Score:4)
Temporarily. Once they crush all of the other streaming media formats, then they can drop support for all other platforms than their own and maybe the Mac, if there is something they need to coerce Apple to do. Once that is done, they can make some small "upgrades" that break backwards compatibility, and convince everyone only to support their new format. Then every other platform is locked out of streaming media.
It is for this reason that I'd prefer to support RealPlayer, and like to see Apple release a QuickTime for Linux and other platforms. Real doesn't really have a reason to cut other platforms off, and Apple probably will never make the Mac a dominant enough platform that they could afford not to support other platforms.
Not an announcement at all - I was there... (Score:4)
The important (IMHO) thing was not the discussion of a Unix ASF player, but the fact that Microsoft were willing to discuss the licensing of the WMA codecs.
S.
Ah, but free at a price? (Score:2)
1. Real actually comes up with some real prices (sorry, couldn't resist--I've bought their stuff before)
2. Real dies, or all but dies.
#2 is quite scary, because if this happens, then MS could at any time pull the rug out from under the Linux server/client software, if it's closed-source. Therefore, I would be very careful in this matter. As someone who already has 2 flavors of RealAudio, one MP3 stream, and is considering Darwin, I will certainly look at this if it comes to pass--but I will be careful not to help MS if things seem shady.
Yes, it's for real ALREADY, and here's a link. (Score:4)
Take a look at the Mac OS player... (Score:2)
Nothing would make me happier than having more cross-platform streaming solutions, but it's highly unlikely that Microsoft will make a viable player for anything besides Windows.
Remember... (Score:2)
If you lay down with a snake, you'll get bit.
Microsoft has always shown themselves to be a snake pit. They play nice and then screw any partner when it's to their advantage. Why would they be different now?
Here's my take. Microsoft releases a product to stave off the DeCSS and Samba type hackers (ie. someone who will hack the protocol and open source an implementation just because they have no other alternative.) Their fear is that once this is done they have to enter whack-the-mole mode, which several large groups have found to be ridiculously ineffective.
Since the client plays everywhere, Media Player becomes the defacto standard while the hackers are quietly content using MS' closed source solution (Why would I work on writing my own code when I have a decent client already?). Microsoft can now cut off any further development/bug fixes for the Linux client. It is left to stagnate. It takes a year for the hackers to wake up, and another 6 months to develope a client. By this time MS has had time to extend (read, break) the protocol. Everyone now knows that if you want to watch online movies you have to use a MS excuse for an OS.
Don't be played for a fool, people. Don't accept a closed source client or protocol. If they don't release the source and specs, then start asking people why they are letting MS put a noose around their business' neck.
DVD (Score:2)
heres how you do it:
Open Regedit, navigate to HKEY_CURRENT_USER > Software > Microsoft > MediaPlayer > Player > Settings. Right-click on the Settings key and choose New > String Value. Name that string "EnableDVDUI" (without the quotes). For
the value, use "yes" (again, without the quotes). Next time you start Windows Media Player, you should have DVD viewing abilities.
Re:I hope you all realize this isn't a bad thing. (Score:2)
from the article..
Within the next six to nine months, Microsoft plans to roll out a version of DRM that will enable consumers to manipulate and back up their own licence stores of video and music clips. But Boudreau said that the software giant has yet to decide whether users will do this themselves or whether it will be kept on a secure site.
not only can they track what you watch, but they want to make sure you only watch specially "licensed" media. DRM + SDMI, and you thought you owned the bits you bought...
This move may make sense for MS (Score:2)
Plus they can get extra media attention for their products, because all the news sites will run "MS ports products to Linux" stories for a few days (i.e. every business loves free good news stories about themselves".)
Finally, it can make it appear that they want to help Linux, when in fact, it is more likely they just want to be the only media platform on Linux, which then becomes a standard that they control.
Re:isn't it a bad thing? (Score:3)
2. Even if Microsoft releases one, many programmers/users will be unhappy with it and clone a better application that plays the same files, albeit in a longer length of time.
3. Microsoft is looking to displace Real; Real is an easy target, with the insane pricing scheme and all. They've [ms] shown themselves unable to deal with the surge of Linux popularity, so they're going to treat us indifferently, much like Apple.
4. Once we have a client, the server is a stones throw. If MS qoesn't release one open source, one will appear.
Look at ICQ for example. ICQ became popular with Win9x users, ICQ waits on a Unix client. Lots of people, who couldn't live with out it, began to r/e ICQ and clone it. Voila! ICQ releases a Java based client Unixy folks can use. But we don't like it; it hogs memory, crashes, etc. We go back to our clones, and along the way someone writes a bit of OSS server code, someone else writes a proxy, another writes an email-forwarder. It took us a little over a year from ICQ beta release to an functionally superior *nix clone. If there hadn't been that damn AIM distraction, we could have done it in far less. You don't need to worry about being 'left out in the cold'. Nobody ever gives us (the OSS community) a bone, and we've done just fine.
Re:We're going by Microsoft's history... (Score:2)
You can go by Microsoft's history all you'd like, but in doing so, you're really showing an extreme bias against this initative IMHO.
Why arty people love Macs (Score:2)
But it's so much prettier on a Mac
Of course this is why Linux is absolutely hopeless for artists, and why I'd rather use a SGI workstation than a Linux box, open source movement or no.
D
----
Unix media player, maybe . . . (Score:2)
While true that they've bothered to port IE to some Unix platforms, the problem is that they don't consider a "platform" to be anything more than "a collection of hardware on which Windows does not run in some form". Thus they tooted their own horn about being "cross-platform" with IE for UNIX, while only creating the browser for those hardware platforms on which there was not ever/was no longer a Windows NT port. Forget about Linux on Intel.
There was an article some time ago on Slashdot about winning the temporary battle while losing the long-term browser war. The recent push towards third-generation display technologies (Apple's Aqua + OSX) and de-facto standardization of browser features against IE as a benchmark will extend farther into media formats and the players that are required to use them.
Re:I hope you all realize this isn't a bad thing. (Score:2)
Well then, I won't use it. It's that simple.
Re:This move may make sense for MS (Score:2)
Really? First wins?
The IBM PC beat the Apple II and the TRS-80.
Windows beat Macintosh.
1-2-3 beat VisiCalc.
Excel beat 1-2-3.
Wordperfect beat WordStar.
Word beat Wordperfect.
Nestcape beat Mosaic.
IE beat Netscape.
Being first is ultimately meaningless. (Which is the flaw in the Amazon.com buisness plan. They aren't going to be the Wal-Mart of the Web -- they're going to be the the K-Mart of the Web).
Steven E. Ehrbar
I'm not holding my breath (Score:2)
- It's just an announcement. We all know about Microsoft pre-competitive announcements to stall competing (in this case, open source) product efforts.
- Microsoft wants to dominate the on-line media market. If they accept Linux as a viable operation system (at least in the short term), this makes sense: it gives them a few % more market share.
- If you read the article, you see that their player has the predictable closed-source controls: digital rights management enforced through a binary-only distribution.
I think this is fairly predictable behavior on the part of a large, rational corporation that wants to dominate the market, eliminate competition, and control the use of media. In the long run, I think it is not generally in the interest of Linux users.Anybody remember the Linux Media Player MS site? (Score:3)
(We should believe them now?)
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
XMMS kicks butt (Score:5)
The XMMS streaming audio is solid as a rock. Even without using the realtime priority feature, I couldn't get it to skip. (I guess I could if I tried *really* hard) The audio quality is superb - considering the bit rate and the miniscule speakers on my laptop. Gosh, that equalizer helps, and they do a lovely job of compression-amplifying. If you've been turned off by crappy streaming audio from Realnetworks, you have to try this.
My conclusion is, this totally rocks, and we don't need Microsoft's help in getting streaming media on Linux. Just the opposite I'd say. What we need to do is (1) beat on more sites to give us streaming mp3 (or we won't bloody go to your site, thanks) (2) give the people that are working on free video codecs for Linux all the support we can.
This is about Digital Rights Management (Score:2)
This is what I feel the AOL/Warner merger was all about as well. Microsoft is positioning themselves to compete against this new media giant by attempting to control the standards by which music and other media are distributed.
What can the open source community do to stop this freedom from being swept away right under their noses? Unfortunately, not much. Soon, new distributable media like CDs and DVDs and other new standards emerging will be using similar encrypted systems and will block the spread of data through the hardware end. There is a very powerful movement in the industry trying to push this through. Don't underestimate it.
It seems to me that the only way to stop this from really taking over (of course the average unix user knows that anything sent to a /dev can also be captured, but most people are ignorant enough not to even bother with this) is to reverse engineer the system. That is why the DeCSS case is so incredibly important.
If these companies have their way, soon, much information will no longer be free, but distributed through encrypted systems. And the freedom that the internet has offered so many people will be swept away by business that profit by controlling it.
Re:Vaporware (Score:3)
Would that be so bad? A Microsoft certified Windows(TM) environment which could sit on top of any *nix, and would behave (to the user) like Windows(TM) on a desktop.
I'm not saying I'd want to use it (actually, I might, when forced to write in Word or wanting to play a game not yet available elsewhere), but think of the millions who would use it and suddenly be comfortable in *nix. They might just try *nix without the Windows(TM) environment once in a while
Yes, I know, "use WINE", "use VMWare", etc
MS Media Player is my favorite (regrettably) (Score:2)
I must admit with regret that Media Player is the best streaming media solution I've used.
This summer I worked setting up web sites with streaming video for a major record label; we dealt with Real, Apple (Quicktime), and Microsoft.
Apple was the nicest company to deal with; we got to chat with their encoding guys, and they helped us set up exactly what we wanted. Real was OK, though they "accidentally" launched the video a day before they was supposed to. Microsoft was of course heavy-handed, demanding that we remove the "get G2" and "get quicktime" buttons from the page, and not letting us use a redesigned button for their media player (their default one is too big and ugly!).
Yet, when all the links were up and we ran them side by side, Media Player was my favorite. Nobody liked Realplayer (terrible quality, even when it negotiated a higher bandwidth; proxy issues). Quicktime had a very smooth feel (smoother than Media Player), but the detail was low and the video was noticeably crunchy when there was a lot of action. Media player had the best image fidelity/detail, though it was slightly less fluid than Quicktime.
Note, these are with the maximum bandwidth settings; I'm not sure how well each one scales down to modem speeds.
It's sad but true. And it's getting to be such a pain to deal with all three formats that newcomers will be extremely unwelcome, unless they can perform. IMO, the best bet would be to develop a new codec that can work in an existing windows product (QT/Media Player) which is so good it can't be ignored, and make it a free standard. This seems hard and unrewarding, but I can't think of any viable alternatives.
- Tom 7
Re:Yep. Makers make things to sell. (Score:2)
It only opens the market a little more horizontally, and does nothing to helping them grow the market upwards (in terms of scalability)...
The moment microsoft starts offering their core products on linux is the moment that people can actually run those apps without need to buy windows, which would quickly spiral out of control, IMO... Microsoft serves their shareholders interests best by limiting who they sell their products to to the 95% of people who already own their products.
Don't bash me for this... I'm just pointing it out.
Re:VMWare *is* There (Score:2)
1) aren't completely there yet
VMWare emulates all of the standard hardware that is "there" on a PC. The remaining limitations -- IMHO, are pretty trivial
2) don't have Microsoft Certification
It's a virtual machine! It's not an emulator. If Micros~1 software ever was intended to work on Intel hardware as implemented by VMWare, then it *is* by definition certified on VMware (or else VMWare implemented it wrong).
I look at VMWare as a great reference platform for OS testing. Every VM you create on any system is essentially using the same hardware. Try to get that level of consistency from your local PC dealer.
Re:Microsoft competing with themselves. (Score:2)
One technical advantage is superior color management, especially ColorSync, on the Mac. This, by the way, is the reason why the "The GIMP has everything Photoshop has!!" argument is false. The GIMP is great at what GIMP users use it for -- drop-shadowed, gradient-filled text for on-monitor display -- but lacks all sorts of features and third-party add-ons for prepress work.
Yes, I know the original question was about audio. I don't know much about that, but had a vague understanding is that coperative multitasking was advantageous there...?
Get your Microsoft NetShow here! (Score:2)
You're referring to Microsoft's NetShow Revision 2.00, Build 251 beta (aka Media Player), the very first Microsoft application for Linux, released in Oct. 1998. This is a stripped, statically linked x86 ELF binary. 2MB. http://linuxmafia.com/pub/linux/ apps/netshow_linux [linuxmafia.com]
The above is now the main distribution point for that software, since Microsoft removed it and all mention of it from its Web pages. It's not half bad, though I'm keeping it available mostly for historical reasons.
they released netshow once (Score:2)
send flames > /dev/null
they released netshow once (Score:2)
send flames > /dev/null
Re:VMWare *is* There (Score:2)
I think you are taking umbrage with the wrong "end" of this point. That point doesn't read to me as a condemation of VMWare for not supplying a "Microsoft certified" environment, but as a comment that there are a group of people who need to see that certification to spend their money. Just because you understand that "it should just work" doesn't mean Joe Consumer will understand (or care). We may not agree with such a group, but trying to ignore them won't make them go away.
Re:XMMS kicks butt (Score:2)
I just wrote them a letter asking when they plan on supporting MP3 streaming using Shoutcast or Icecast. After all, MP3 streaming can be done for free, and there are TONS of potential listeners out there that have Win/X11/MacAMP installed.
I know broadcast.com is only one company, but it's part of yahoo now. I honestly expect them to not bother with a response to one geek complaining about streamed media formats, but if enough people would write letters (in their own NICE way of course), maybe we could see some change of attitude.
Re:Yes, it's for real ALREADY, and here's a link. (Score:3)
The 'other operating systems' page lists versions for NT4, 98, 95, win3.x (As if any machine running win3.x would play anything but mono sound anyway...). Way at the bottom, there's a player for the mac. (version 6.3, not 6.4 like the rest of them). *NOWHERE* is there a linux version.
Re:Saving their a$$es (Score:2)
#1. What the hell do you want MS to do then (in regards to releasign a player)? You act like them releasing it is the worst thing in the world. What ever happened to the complaint that WMP was Windows and Macintosh only? What about the complaint that WMP was evil because you could only get it on Windows or Macs? Now MS is expanding it and your bitching at them? I don't know about you, but this is the best news I've heard all week. WMP may be a MS product, but a hell of a lot of the sites I visit use it, and it's a pain in the ass not to be able to play it in Linux. I'm over-joyed they're bringing it to Linux. Now if only I could get IE on here......
#2. If Linux grows like its' "supposed" to, how can MS regain the market again? I mean, with WMP and maybe Quicktime coming to Linux, there is even less reason to run Windows. And by the time MS gets a monopoly of streaming audio (assuming it ever gets it), I'd hope that linux users would at least make up 25% of the desktop market. That'd be suicide to drop support then. And how can it crush all the other formats anyway? Windows is still the dominating OS by a huge margin, and if everyone wanted to, they could have already totally switched to WMP. But they haven't, and I don't see how bringing it to Linux will change that.
Some of the conspiracy theory's you guys come up with amaze me. Can you not just believe that MS sees that to expand it's format, it's going to have to support other OS's? Netscape and Real saw that, and they don't get bitched at like MS. Don't you want a big OS orgy, where you can get just about everything for just about every OS? A thought like that sure sounds good to me.
Re:Yes, it's for real ALREADY, and here's a link. (Score:2)
I doubt it'd gain much popularity among the Linux crowd though. Nobody trusts MS and we wouldn't want to install it unless we had the source, and IIRC the UI didn't feel like an X app, it felt like a Windows app.
My bet is that they're being forced to release this by their clients in the streaming media server market who want their content available to as wide an audience as possible. Microsoft would probably be all too happy to keep Unix/Linux users out, but to a third-party content provider they're customers like everyone else.
Re:Vaporware (Score:2)
And the Internet is truely inovative. PHP is not a reapplication of something that already existed. Nor is HTML (or rather, the initial markup languages that HTML sprang from)
Most of the things that he mentioned are truely inovative - the idea may not be, but the code is. The unreal engine wasn't/isn't innovative if you look at it from the perspective you're looking at. In reality, though, the unreal engine hasbeen completely origonal and innovative at the code level - way ahead of it's time (when it was written). Nobody had ever done it before that well. The idea of a first person shooter was already there, brought from Quake/doom/wolf.
From your perspective, windows wouldn't be innovative either, in any manner. The idea of a computer in every home was initially from Steve Jobs of Apple. Initial technologies mocked and mimicked other OSes. My goodness, even "Active Directories," which is being highly acclaimed as soemthing new, smells remotely like something that I'm fairly familiar with in UNIX right now - which has been around the block a couple times, I believe.
-------
CAIMLAS
Required files... (Score:2)
You download an RPM/elf bin file from the net, install, and start to run. A nice friendly seggie occurs.
You try to run it again. This time you get the message "Unable to find MSVB60.dll. Please click here to update your files." You press OK, and you encouter your system shutting down. (oh my) You boot up again, and to your horror, encounter MS Linux 2000.
Seriously, though, I'd not trust a thing on my linux box that came from Redmond. They're too hostile about the entire thing, and who knows how security conscious they were about making the media player. They might even code a backdoor into it, who knows. Now, if I could untar the download and compile it myself...
I see it as a move to try and take over the online media market. Fortunately, I think linux users know enough about what they're doing to not fall for it. Blast, we need those codecs, though.
-------
CAIMLAS
Re:finally a good media player for linux (Score:2)
Sure theres that mpegtv player for linux, its better but its SLOW compared with windows. It gets around 15fps on an mpeg encoded at 30.
Hint: don't run it through X server emulator on Windows box, epecially over 10baseT network with misconfigured routers, especially under a DoS attack.
Re:Saving their a$$es (Score:2)
So who is keeping score?
#1. What the hell do you want MS to do then (in regards to releasign a player)?
Well, to be totally honest, I don't really care as much as you think I do. Personally I'd prefer that they release the specs for their format and let the Linux community (and anyone else who may care) develop their own player. I'd say that them releasing source code for their player if they do one would be a good thing, but in general not the way they do things. As I've said before, I'd prefer that Real or QuickTime become the de-facto standard than Microsoft's format. I'd really prefer a truly open standard.
You act like them releasing it is the worst thing in the world.
That isn't quite true. I merely stated that I would suspect that Microsoft has more sinister reasons for doing a port than what a lot of people might think. I'm also trying to goad Apple and Real towards taking the Linux market seriously before Microsoft can gain a toehold in media players here.
What ever happened to the complaint that WMP was Windows and Macintosh only?
I don't recall ever making that complaint. It would be a good thing if everything that was supported on Windows and the Mac was supported under Linux, IF we could be assured that such support wasn't just a temporary thing. The availability of 3rd party players or source code would insure that. As I've said, that seems unlikely.
What about the complaint that WMP was evil because you could only get it on Windows or Macs?
I don't believe I ever made that complaint either. However, unless there was a long term commitment to support WMP on all platforms, that wouldn't cease to be true in the long run.
Now MS is expanding it and your bitching at them? I don't know about you, but this is the best news I've heard all week.
You've certainly got the right to your opinion, but I've heard a lot of other things this week that I would rate above that.
WMP may be a MS product, but a hell of a lot of the sites I visit use it,
Your surfing habits must be different than mine, since I've noticed at least 10x as many sites using Real formats, and probably 3x as many sites using QuickTime. I'd much rather have a good Real G2 player and a QuickTime player than Microsoft's player.
and it's a pain in the ass not to be able to play it in Linux. I'm over-joyed they're bringing it to Linux. Now if only I could get IE on here......
Erk. Whatever. I personally don't use IE when I am subjected to using Windows. I've seen the Solaris version of IE. I wasn't impressed. I would never choose IE on Linux.
#2. If Linux grows like its' "supposed" to, how can MS regain the market again?
Through honest means, they probably couldn't. However, as history has shown, Microsoft is not above resorting to unethical and/or illegal tactics to win at any cost. It is really hard to say how Linux is "supposed" to grow. I've seen all sorts of estimates, and I don't think anyone can tell the future. While I am fairly optimistic about Linux's future, I don't like counting chickens before the eggs have hatched.
I mean, with WMP and maybe Quicktime coming to Linux, there is even less reason to run Windows. And by the time MS gets a monopoly of streaming audio (assuming it ever gets it), I'd hope that linux users would at least make up 25% of the desktop market.
Linux has a long way to go to get to 25% of the desktop market. It still hasn't achieved that sort of penetration in the server market. Microsoft could easily marginalize Real and QuickTime quicker than Linux can gain that kind of market share on the desktop. If they aren't brought into check, they could probably buy Real, and so far Apple doesn't seem to be doing what it takes to make QuickTime a truly multiplatform solution.
That'd be suicide to drop support then.
I don't see it that way. What is the downside for Microsoft? Lost revenue? Linux users aren't making Microsoft any money. Their player probably would have to be free (as in beer) in order to succeed, so no revenue there. Bad publicity? Doesn't seem to bother them that much, especially when it comes to Linux users.
And how can it crush all the other formats anyway?
All they have to do is find a way to convince the content suppliers to support their format instead of Real and QuickTime. They only need to get to about 60% of the market, then the market will decide that all the momentum is shifting that direction and Real and QuickTime would probably go downhill quickly for all but a few loyalists. That sort of thing has happened too many times.
Windows is still the dominating OS by a huge margin, and if everyone wanted to, they could have already totally switched to WMP.
Microsoft hasn't started moving aggresively against Real and QuickTime yet. But what you are saying as far as them controlling the platform does give them tremendous advantages in taking over other bits of infrastructure. Make no mistake that if Microsoft decides they want to take over the media player market, that Linux players will only be one small part in a large, orchestrated effort.
But they haven't, and I don't see how bringing it to Linux will change that.
By itself, it probably won't. But if Microsoft ports their player and Apple doesn't port QuickTime, and Real keeps dragging their feet on G2 players for Linux, it could give Microsoft the window of opportunity to use that as a club to beat the other formats over the head with.
Some of the conspiracy theory's you guys come up with amaze me.
What is so amazing about looking at what they have done with other proprietary file formats in the past and guessing as to what they might do in the future? If you've read the Halloween documents, this is the sort of strategy they've been talking about in taking over the Internet.
Can you not just believe that MS sees that to expand it's format, it's going to have to support other OS's?
No, I've seen Microsoft use and withdraw support of products on other platforms to their advantage to believe that.
Netscape and Real saw that, and they don't get bitched at like MS.
Neither of those companies has a vested interest in seeing a particular platform dominate the whole computer world. Microsoft is not very secretive that their vision is dominance of the whole world.
Don't you want a big OS orgy, where you can get just about everything for just about every OS?
Yes, but I don't think Microsoft shares that vision. Actually, I am sure that they don't. I'm sure their vision is the exact opposite. As I said, I expect that they will only supply things for other platforms as long as it serves some purpose for them. Once it no longer suits them they will let that product die on the vine.
A thought like that sure sounds good to me.
As I said before, only if there is a long term commitment to the products being and staying viable.
Re:Media players - Plugger (Score:2)
--
Re:Media players - Plugger (Score:2)