MPEG 4, Windows Media 9 At War 727
Andy Tai writes "According to this
News.com report, backers of MPEG 4 are protesting Microsoft's licensing fee structure for Windows Media 9, which is up to 50% less than MPEG 4's. They accuse Microsoft of blocking the progress to move to an 'open standard' (MPEG 4), posing unfair competition and threatening consumer choice. Of course, what is really needed is a third choice, a totally Free Software media codec solution that's competitive with both Windows Media and MPEG 4."
Wow. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not often that people become angry because a corporation is selling things cheaply.
Rather than be mad at Microsoft for charging so little, I'd be mad at the MPEG body for charging what they do.
steve
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Informative)
it's the abuse of a monoply position to unfairly leverage another market.
So if they bundle WMP9 with a monopoly product and then set the licensing at a loss making level then that's unfair, since there leveraging a monopoly product (windows) by intergrating WMP9, and then undercutting the competition on content costs.
Re:Wow. (Score:4, Insightful)
Hell, they can leave out the bundling. Use the profits from Windows, Office, etc. to make it possible to undercut the competition for WMP2 is dumping in and of itself. The bundling is the kick in the nuts for the enemy who's already cut off at the keeps due to the MS product dumping.
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wow. (Score:3, Informative)
Also there is no choice, or very little.
If Microsoft price standards bodies out of existence then there will be no non M$ standards (ok gross oversimplification), open standards tend to be free for free use.
Standards bodies should really be not for profit.
Re:Wow. (Score:4, Insightful)
Secondly have you heard of Mozilla? What about Opera? Either are VERY credible competitors to Internet Explorer. Opera even charges money for their browser.
Re:Wow. (Score:3, Insightful)
Mosaic
Re:Wow. (Score:4, Interesting)
Netscape's rise was more like Google's, where it rose to "power" by being more and more favoured by web surfers; it's major competition was also free. We used Internet in a Box which came with Spry Mosaic, but DOWNLOADED Netscape on top of that because it was better.
My god man, Netscape 2.0 had BACKGROUNDS! The web was no longer gray!
Slightly wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft licensed Spyglass under a partner agreement, called it IE and then gave it away for free. (to Spyglass' great surprise and dismay - it almost killed them as a company immediately).
Please give credit where credit is due.
Re:Wow. (Score:3, Insightful)
They are creating a dominant environment for all their products by dumping (giving away, selling at a loss) a handful of core components.
Re:Wow. (Score:4, Interesting)
Has Microsoft ever, in its entire history, made a better product than the competition, sold it for a better price, and made a profit doing so? I'm not trolling; I'm genuinely curious to know if this has ever happened.
Better products at better prices? From MS to OSS (Score:3, Insightful)
yes and no--
What Microsoft has generally done through the DOS and Windows market has been to commoditize the hardware market and have a large volume, low cost model (compare the cost of a PC with Windows to a Mac). This has not really resulted in a better product, but it has really resulted in a better price. This in turn has helped to lead to:
1) the near ubiquity of personal computing and
2) tremendous profits for Microsoft.
Unfortunately they have also been extremely anti-competitive towards competitors, such as Digital Research (which did produce a better product-- DR-DOS), and quasi-competitors such as Netscape (whose ubiquity was threatening Microsft's control on the OS). I suspect that this latest spat with MPEG-4 vs WMA9 is the same sort of pattern.
The fundamental problem for Microsoft though is that unlike the telephone companies, there isn't a large physical infrastructure that they control, and unlike the power companies and LATA-based telecoms, there is no natural division of any infrastructure that they can control, so this monopoly is not natural. Controlling formats is how they try to make this up.
There are two problems which make the Microsoft monopoly impossible to maintian in my opinion. The first is Moor's Law, which is resulting in longer lifespans for computers as the computers are now powerful enough to meet business needs for a longer period of time. This results in fewer sales of Microsoft OS's because the upgrade cycle is lengthened. Why do you think they are pushing subscription licensing?
The other is a more subtle problem. The growth of the internet has made it more possible to effectively collaberate on large software development projects between companies, and with developers across the world. This has made developments like OpenOffice, GNOME, KDE, and Linux possible, and it is in part due to the ubiquity of personal computing which has been one of the hallmarks of Microsoft's success. Open Source software has a lower cost model than Microsoft, and is able hence to win at Microsoft's own game. I am sure that a video codec is probably in the works to compete with WMA and MPEG-4. In the end, I am confident that, except for niche markets, that open source software (and similar systems) will eventually take over most markets.
Re:Wow. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that Office is probably still the best. However, have you ever put a non-techie on a new version of Word and listened to them scream at their computer about all the "intelligent" changes it trys to make?
Also, I don't think they can make the help system any worse. When I click on Help, I don't want Excel taking up half the screen and help taking up the other half. That makes both apps unusuable.
Also IE. Netscape sucked, IE worked, prices were the same (free).
For clarification:
1. Netscape was not originally free (as in beer).
2. IE 2 sucked.
3. IE 3 sucked (a bit less).
4. IE 4 was almost as good as Netscape 4 (some would say as good.)
Re:Wow. (Score:4, Interesting)
Original question: Has Microsoft ever, in its entire history, made a better product than the competition, sold it for a better price, and made a profit doing so? I'm not trolling; I'm genuinely curious to know if this has ever happened.
Your answer: MS Office. Since Win3.11 days, MS Office has generally been easier to use than other similar apps. It's usually been fairly expensive too. But it has a *massive* market share, and the revenue from the Office suite is basically subsidising everything else in MS - operating systems make a small profit, Office makes an enormous profit, and everything else MS makes is actually making significant losses. And Office had to establish this position over the dead bodies of many other well-entrenched packages.
What you say is true, but it doesn't answer the question. Some of the well-entrenched packages (ie: WordPerfect) were superior to Word in the opinion of end users. WP had full functionality by about version 5. The later releases were mainly GUI enhancements (not entirely, but in general). I used to work in IT for the LDS Church, which used WP back in the mid 90's. While I worked there WP was phased out in favor of Word. Many of our users were irate about this, especially when Word would put an indent in the same place no matter what you did (or some similar stupid behavior). In WP you could just reveal the codes and easily see the problem. Not in Word. You could make an argument that Word is superior to WP, but it wouldn't fly so well with a lot of people.
Not a flame, just a nitpick.
Re:Wow. (Score:4, Interesting)
Imagine if they decided to make a math proggie, like matlab or mathematica, or even maple. Give it away at $10 a pop, and drive them out of business. Acceptable losses to gain long term market share.
Re:Wow. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah but here's the thing.. That doesn't always work. Microsoft has tried for years (after a failed buyout attempt) to become the leader in the Intuit-Quicken-land of personal financial software. Despite many releases of MS Money, etc, Intuit STILL owns this market because instead of acting like whiny little bitches (ala Netscape, Sun), they concentrated on producing a superior product with first rate technical support. People WILL pay for quality, they aren't as stupid as the average Slashdotter assumes.
Excel didn't knock out Lotus 1-2-3 because it was cheaper just like IE didn't knock out Netscape because it was free, in both cases, the Microsoft solution was simply a BETTER PRODUCT.
Re:Wow. (Score:3, Interesting)
The thing is that we're talking about licensing a technology here, and licenses of this nature don't really respond well to that kind of analysis. What is the marginal cost for me to license the format from Microsoft? Arguably, it's zero, or damn near: the costs for developing the format are fixed for the purposes of this conversation, so selling it to me costs a tiny bit of overhead, and that's about it.
So how do you decided how low is too low when it comes to licensing fees?
IANAL, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Undercutting is not illegal, though. Charging less than your competitors is the simplest business move one can make.
If and only if Microsoft gains market control through their behavior and then jacks up the prices, can they be guilty of anti-trust violations.
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Funny)
<sigh> ...
You really haven't got the hang of Slashdot, have you? All together, now:
RULE NUMBER ONE: MICROSOFT IS THE BAD GUY. ALWAYS.
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Funny)
Killing Microsoft in your spare time (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Informative)
They did. XP is more expensive than 98/2K. Will IE 7 even run on anything but XP?
Re:Wow. (Score:3, Insightful)
No matter what version of IE you use, you first have to pay for a Windows license. "Included with Windows" is not the same thing as "Free".
Basic economics (Score:4, Insightful)
They cannot survive selling lower! (Score:5, Insightful)
Too bad. (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft can price their product however they please. When they start causing problems, by restricting the platforms their codec performs on, or restricting the performance on other platforms, or if they wait 'til MPEG is dead and then raise their rates, THEN you can slam them for monopolistic practices.
In the meantime, projects like Ogg will proceed, as will DivX, producing competitors MS may prove hard to beat. So let 'em try to take over the market...
Re:They cannot survive selling lower! (Score:4, Interesting)
Sooooo...Microsoft should be forced to continue to charge a high price for its product in order to benefit consumers?
GF
Re:They cannot survive selling lower! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They cannot survive selling lower! (Score:4, Insightful)
Both Office and Windows exhibit this behavior. Back when Office had stiff competition from competing suites the price was lower. When Windows was facing off against OS/2 it was cheaper as well.
We may see a reduction in price in the near future, since there is some backing behind competing office suites (with HP and Gateway bundling non-MS suites, plus OSS products like AbiWord and OO.org). Windows is feeling increasing pressure on the server pricing from Linux as well.
That said, I can't really whine about the royalties on MPEG4 vs MP9. The royalties on MPEG4 are generally considered excessive in the first place, particularly since most of the R&D by various companies was done as a tax write off. This really isn't a case where the competition can't afford to match prices.
It's really amusing watching this thread as people try to decide which is the lesser of two evils.
If they're pissed at MS... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If they're pissed at MS... (Score:3)
Re:If they're pissed at MS... (Score:3, Informative)
Pot, meet kettle. (Score:5, Funny)
The jello... (Score:4, Funny)
Gawd, more whining from an also-ran (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course MPEG4 could be:
a) cheaper
b) better
or
c) all of the above.
I don't need another 'open standard' like MPEG2.
Re:Gawd, more whining from an also-ran (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, like all the progress from the startups that never started due to VC's refusing to fund a business that even _might_ compete with MS.
Microsoft and Standards (Score:4, Insightful)
Calling the Kettle Black (Score:5, Insightful)
"You're killing innovation because you charge less than us"
Please... If you were really that worried about adoption of your standard you would either A) Drop your license rate, B) Open your codec completely or C) Make a better product than MS' and the cost is a moot point.
It's hilarious to see people cry foul at Microsoft when their business practices are practically the same.
This worked so well for Netscape... (Score:5, Insightful)
MS called it "cutting off their air supply" if I recall correctly.
2) Open your codec completely
Then how can you get any license revenue from it?
3) Make a better product
It was widely regarded that the versions of NS were far superior to IE up to 4.0 (and there it's a debate).
The foul is something called dumping. The practice of below cost in an effort to drive competitors out of the market.
Now whether MS was dumping or MPEG-LA was gouging is something to be decided by the courts.
Re:This worked so well for Netscape... (Score:3, Insightful)
I have made absolutely no comments on the merits of the MPEG group's claims. I was merely pointing out that the collection of "this is how it works in the free market", "what's the matter, can't compete?", and "make a better product" retorts that I've seen here conveniently ignore the ramifications of actions by companies.
The fact that I chose to do this using historical evidence of previous behavior from the company being accused in this case should give everyone a little more pause for thought.
Let me get this straight.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Did the definition of "Open" change while I wasn't looking?
No. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Let me get this straight.... (Score:5, Insightful)
They define "proprietary" as "Microsoft will sell it to anyone".
Pure PR move. They count on the geek community viewing Microsoft as evil, vile monsters, and themselves as a committee of care bears.
Re:Let me get this straight.... (Score:5, Informative)
MPEG-4 is open because all implementation details are public. You can get a copy of the standard, and build your encoder, decoder, server, etcetera based on it. No NDA's to sign or anything. You have to pay license fees in some cases if you distribute commerical products, but writing the software is something anyone can do.
This isn't true with Windows Media 9. While some details are avalable, not all are, and some are under restrictive licenses.
Re:Free implementation? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is RAND licensing, folks. The same fine mess the W3C wants to get into. It hinders adoption, plain and simple, and locks out the Free Software community. I don't mind so much if companies want to keep intellectual property to themselves, but don't go around claiming it's a fucking "standard" if I can't implement it without paying you a fortune for the right to do so.
And this is surprising because? (Score:3, Insightful)
Um. Yeah right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on... (Score:3, Insightful)
Most open standards cost nothing right? I mean, that's what I thought TCP/IP, XML, C/C++, and so forth were all about. So what's with calling something that requires a license fee to use an open standard?
If they were really open, at least in the sense that I have come to expect, then MS couldn't possibly undercut them.
I'm extremely confused (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems like they're giving the whole idea of "open standards" a bad name. I realize it's more open than windows media, but I don't really think it's that open.
What am I missing? What are the licensing fees for?
Re:I'm extremely confused (Score:5, Interesting)
MPEG is "open" in that the standard was developed by a consortium of companies and other institutions. Therefore, it is propriety, patented, copyrighted and whatever... but these rights are not owned by a single company that's reluctant to reveal the ins and outs of its "standard". MPEG is open in that it openly discussed MPEG4's features before it hit the market.
So, although MPEG indeed extorts consumers for using their stuff just like any company, a consortium is a much healthier construction viewed from other company's perspectieves. And therefore ultimately (due to competition) also to customers.
So yes. It is confusing. (And I agree with the majority of posts that only a fully open standard, like Ogg Theora [theora.org] will settle this matter.)
--
The good thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from -- Andrew S. Tanenbaum
Progress to move to an open standard (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Progress to move to an open standard (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed, but I know what my dad would say to that (he works in the UK digital tv industry and is on several digital tv standards boards):
Him: "Son, things like MPEG aren't simple, and take a lot of smart people a lot of time to create. They should be rewarded for their efforts"
Me: "But how can something be an open standard if you have to pay for it?"
Him: "Who says open standards have to be free to implement? It's documented and vendor neutral, that makes it open in my eyes"
Me: "What about GPLd decoders though! Everyone will just end up using Ogg instead."
Him: "What about them? It's easy for people to recreate technologies once the expensive research has been done, Vorbis is based on similar ideas to MP3 for instance. Creating them in the first place takes money though, who's going to do that if all the codecs have to be free of charge?"
At that point I usually shut up, because I don't have a good answer. Looking at the way Ogg is developed I have tremendous respect for those guys, but they are working out their metaphorical basements. See how Tarkin (the research codec) lies abandoned? How would the people who worked on MPEG4 make money without licensing fees? Anybody? I'm sure there must be answers.
Heh, perhaps we can chat about this on irc over the weekend foo :)
Re:Progress to move to an open standard (Score:4, Informative)
At that point I usually shut up, because I don't have a good answer.
I'll help you. The answer is science. This old fashioned thing they do on universities. There are these people called scientists, who gave and many still give a flying shit about "patent license fees". Without them, all these "lots of smart people" working on compression schemes would still live in a cage and go in the woods to berry for their daily food.
The idea that mp3 was so original that ogg wouldn't exist without it is blatantly wrong. At best, it showed that there is a market for that which motivated the creator, but nothing more.
All the foundations were well known long before mp3 emerged.
Re:How about something like Ogg Theora? (Score:3, Insightful)
An open source codec that implements an open standard without licensing fees, now that would be sweet...
room to prove themselves? (Score:4, Insightful)
yes, as I recall, there was a college kid who coded a peer to peer network so that he could swap mp3s with his buddies. he called it Napster. the guy had absolutely no room to prove himself in the market and until the lawsuits rolled out, he was dominating it.
another college kid coded a windows gui for playing mp3s. he called it Win-Amp. he eventually got his product bought by AOL-TW for several million and with virtually no marketing, winamp is one of the most preferred mp3 players out there.
point is, you don't need "room to prove yourself". if your product is superior, the market will MAKE room for it.
Re:room to prove themselves? (Score:3, Insightful)
winamp is one of the most preferred mp3 players out there.
point is, you don't need "room to prove yourself". if your product is superior, the market will MAKE room for it.
You've demonstrated that it's easier to make room for oneself in a market by giving your product away for free. Now show me how to get a product adopted when your competitor is pushing a loss leader financed by $40 billion in cash reserves and MS Office.
Bit tougher, isn't it? Not to say that it can't be done, but this would not be the first time that MS has crushed a better product by pushing its own products at a loss--at least until the competition went away.
Re:room to prove themselves? (Score:3, Interesting)
Make a better product. Oracle costs way more than MS SQL Server, but people still use it. People (or, more specifically, companies) will pay more for a better product. Rather than whine about MS undercutting them, they should be trying to explain why their codec is better. If my DVD player costs an extra 25 cents to make but I know I'm getting a superior product, I'll spend it. Hell, I'll even eat that extra 25 cents per unit to keep my player priced with the competition who used the cheaper, inferior codec. The MPEG consortium has large corporations as members. I'm sure none of them are going out of business because they're selling fewer 50 cent licenses.
Neither standard is open (Score:5, Informative)
From a free software purists point of view, does it matter who wins? Neither format is an "open" format.... MPEG-4 may be developed by an industry consortium, but as with so-called RAND licencing, unless I misunderstand something their licencing fees make it impossible to implement the code legally in free software. (Is this the case? I'm guessing that MPlayer's mpeg4 support is dubious legally.)
What would be best is that if they make it contentions and messy enough fighting each other that both standards are weakend. That will make Ogg Theora look even that much more attractive to companies and the world at large once it comes out, and hasten the support of Ogg Theora. With some luck, that will become the standard, or at least a standard, that is so widely supported that those of us who care about and pay attention to these things can just use it.
-Rob
Re:Neither standard is open (Score:5, Informative)
MPEG-4 is open because full implementation details are public. While you certainly need to pay to do commerical products with MPEG-4, all details are available for implementation. This NOT true of Windows Media 9. There are nearly a dozen companies today competing to develop the best MPEG-4 encoder. But the only company that can produce the WM9 codec is Microsoft.
And Ogg Theora is still vaporware, with a public release not until this summer. It's based on VP3 and Vorbis, neither of which are as efficient as today's MPEG-4, let alone the next generation codecs like AVC and the AAC-SBR audio codec, both of which should be in products this year.
Re:Neither standard is open (Score:3, Interesting)
The licensing terms aren't that bad, and getting better for newer versions. For example, the forthcoming AVC MPEG-4 codec will be free to implement in all no-cost software. Even now, you get a pass on the first 50,000 distributed players. MPEG-4 is less difficult do deal with than MP3 licensing, and there are certainly lots of stuff in the Free Software community that can author and play back MP3 files!
Free to implement in no-cost software is better than per-seat licenses.... It does mean that Linux users (for example) can get something that will work. Still, that kind of limitation prevents a true open source implementation.
Re: all the free software things that author and play back MP3 files, my understanding is that they are all black sheep-- not really legal given the current MP3 licencing requirements. Which practically may not be that big a deal, but it is a worry out there.
Your point about the MPEG-4 standards being published is good, though. It's more open-- or at least far less closed-- than WM9, I would fully agree with that. It's just not completely an open standard :)
As for Ogg Theora: vaporware, yes, but I predict we'll see it "for real" in 2003. (Come make fun of me if my prediction is wrong.) As for the technical quality, I don't know enough to comment intelligently. How does the efficiency really compare to MPEG-4? What are the efficiency drawbacks? (I.e. is it a speed thing, a size thing, etc.?) How does the quality compare? (Although that latter one, from watching some of the early Vorbis/MP3 debates, is necessarily subjective. I know from my point of view Ogg Vorbis is great and it's what I use for encoding audio.)
-Rob
Re:Neither standard is open (Score:3, Insightful)
And I expect a lot of "black sheep" apps ala MP3, to exist for Linux. Check out MPEG4IP for a LAME-equivalent.
As for Theora, who knows? It isn't even in beta yet. It's VP3 based, and unless they enhance that code a LOT, it isn't going to be quality competitive with the best MPEG-4 implementations. But maybe they are enhancing it a lot.
Video codecs are a lot harder than audio codecs. And the new MPEG-4 audio codec (AAC-SBR) is a LOT better than Vorbis.
Re:Neither standard is open (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed... in fact Alan Cox himself has said that the licensing of the code doesn't matter so much as open interfaces, so if people want to charge for implementations that's fine by me as long as free implementations are allowed as well...
And I expect a lot of "black sheep" apps ala MP3, to exist for Linux. Check out MPEG4IP for a LAME-equivalent.
Yes, well that's the worry isn't it - it's open now, and hopefully it'll stay open, but can the licensing be changed in future? Everybody thought you didn't need a license to decode MP3s until recently, and now people aren't so sure. That kind of legal vagueness is something to be warey of.
As for Theora, who knows? It isn't even in beta yet. It's VP3 based, and unless they enhance that code a LOT
According to the FAQ they have replaced the fixed lookup tables with dynamic ones that they can vary and tweak after Theora is actually released, and can possibly be altered on the fly. I don't know enough about codecs to say, but this approach seems to have worked well for Vorbis with the codec approaching and then surpassing MP3 for compression quality (though not by a huge amount).
One Robber Baron to Another (Score:5, Funny)
Not as Simple as it seems (Score:4, Insightful)
That being said, keep in mind that what is true today may not be true tomorrow. It may not even be true today. Er...
Anyway:
1. WMP9 may be cheaper _right now_. MS can change that tomorrow. WMP10 may be 2x as much.
2. Just because the CODEC is cheaper doesn't mean its cheaper to implement Windows Media Streaimng over a solution streaming MP4.
3. WMP9 limits (to what degree is debateable) your audience.
4. Both of these technologies are on the path of the Dodo, IMO. Just as Real Technologies has fallen from techno-marvel to techno-garbage, so will these.
The past has shown that a truly open standard usually emerges in these areas, via governmental intervention or not. NTSC for North American television. Whatever guage the current railroad system runs on. An RJ-11 phone jack. Streaming video is just too young to be at that stage yet.
In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
They think MS should be required to sell for more. How the hell does this help consumers? It doesn't. They're simply trying to ride on anti-MS sentiment and maintain the rate which they can fleece the public.
Unless MPEG-4 is significantly better than Windows Media, they should drop their prices and be competitive. Suggesting that the consumers should be forced to pay more for similar service JUST because it's not MS is ridiculous.
If they think their product is so much better that it warrants a higher price do what Kraft does and market the damn thing as such. If it's not, cut the price. That's the way a free economy works, you have a right to charge whatever you want, but don't have the right to mandate what your competitors charge.
No, you have it backwards (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a huge difference between arguing about premium priced products versus below-cost products. MPEG-LA would have to prove that MS is actually selling their codec below cost.
BTW, you don't have a right to charge whatever you want in the US. There are anti-gouging and anti-dumping laws that keep things in check.
Paying for standard or implimentation? (Score:3, Insightful)
But for MPEG-4 someone wishing to write code which is compatiable has to pay money to license the technology for every copy distributed, correct?
What is the good of that? A "closed" system couldn't be legally reversed (DMCA.. grrr...) but any implementor's could license the spec from the owner and then do it.
So what has been gained? The ability to go to jail for writing the application rather than for cracking the format?
Reason they can't undercut... (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that it's silly in a capitalist society to be complaining that someone's selling something for less than you.
Microsoft has a significant other source of income. They can afford to LOSE money selling their codec licensing, as it will strenghen the hold of their OS on the market.
the mpeg4 people, as far as I know, only do that, and can't really afford to lose money on it.
Look at the xbox. MS lost massive quantities of money on it, and didn't care, because it gave them a foothold into a new market that they wanted to dominate.
Yes, on the surface, it's a stupid and silly request. But when you consider the above, it's bordering on unfair competition.
just my thoughts.
Apple warned them.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Apple warned them.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple warned them that their rates were too high. They had to fight tooth and nail to get MPEG-LA to drop its rates to their current level, maybe now they'll listen...
I doubt the MPEG-LA will ever drop licensing entirely. It's possible, but unlikely.
That then raises the question - how is QuickTime open again? Yes yes, I know the container format is documented (although documenting something does not make it open obviously) but whenever people say "Apple should open QuickTime", the Mac apologists always say "QuickTime is open, it's just the codecs, and when everybody uses MPEG4 you won't have anything to complain about".
So, what will Apple do now? It's getting easier to setup MPlayer to use the QuickTime codecs via Wine, but it's still ugly. When will all those trailors be encoded in a format that can be easily played on the platform from which it borrow so much? They say like want digital video for everyone, why don't they fund the Theora team?
Not quite so anticompetative (Score:3, Interesting)
Their pricing may be a lot less than MPEG-4, but it's almost identical to the pricing already announced by realnetworks for their proprietary audio and video codecs.
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and who was screamig about Real's pricing? I can't see a proprietary solution effectively competing with MPEG in the consumer market, so it's probably the only way they can make headway.
Simon Hibbs
There *is* an alternative - XVID (Score:5, Insightful)
There is.... It's called XVID [xvid.org]
Re:There *is* an alternative - XVID (Score:5, Interesting)
"XviD is an ISO MPEG-4 compliant video codec. "
MPEG4 is a framework for video codecs - not an algorithm in its own right.
With MPEG4 video codecs (COmpression/DECompression algorithms) are handled "plugin" style, much like the plugins to WinAmp or XMMS.
Using XviD would still require you to use the MPEG4 video framework, and thus you are still choosing between WM or MPEG4!
-Ben
well, ain't that just too bad (Score:3, Insightful)
What we have here is two greedy organizations battling it out. If we want to avoid getting dragged into this, we really do need open video standards.
MS Has Seen the Error of It's Ways (Score:5, Funny)
"Lowering and removing licensing barriers is not only great for the consumer electronics and software industries, but also offers consumers the benefits of better quality video at smaller file sizes," said Michael Aldridge, lead product manager for Windows Digital Media division at Microsoft.
I don't think I have anything to add to this except a smiley.
Doesn't WMV Violate Said Patents? (Score:3, Interesting)
As for MPEG-LA and the rest of the "standards comittee." There should be absolutely no charge for "standards" that are issued by a "standard comittee," unless that "standard comittee" actually provides something (software, hardware, etc.). Otherwise, the whole thing is a thinly veiled process to come up with ideas and then profit from someone else's actual work.
At the point where you label it "standard" and push everyone to adopt it for "compatibility," you should lose the right to charge for the idea.
Xesdeeni
I'd love a free software option.... (Score:5, Funny)
Determining Price? (Score:5, Insightful)
MPEG-4 Fees (Score:3, Insightful)
Anger meets MPEG-4 licensing scheme [eetimes.com]
Companies fear costly MPEG-4 licenses [com.com]
Apple backs MPEG-4 despite fee dispute [com.com]
MPEG LA claim that Microsoft is blocking progress? As my dear old grandmother used to say, bitch please.
Re:Some antitrust legislation (and enforcement) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Some antitrust legislation (and enforcement) (Score:5, Insightful)
And even though MS's software may not always be the most robust, they are always one step ahead on legalese.
Re:Again they sell at a loss to kill competition.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're missing the point. Development may be a fixed cost, but running a company is not. One must pay employees and keep the lights on. These costs are all ongoing. The Backers of MPEG4 are attempting to make a profit. They cannot do so If they are spending money to keep their MPEG4 teams operating and generating no revenue. Microsoft will undercut them (using their 40 Billion is cash reserves to do do) Until the MPEG4 team decides it is unprofitable and either sells out to Microsoft, who will still have plenty of cash, or opens the code to spite Microsoft. I feel the former is more likely then the latter, and this would leave us with one choice, Microsoft. While your statement about product life cycle is true, It lacks scope.
Re:Ogg! (Score:5, Informative)
Tarkin isn't coming out for a long time -- try Ogg Theora [theora.org] instead, which is due this summer (or so Xiph says).
/* Steinar */
Re:Ogg! (Score:3, Informative)
MP3 != MPEG3 (Score:3, Informative)
MP3 is not MPEG3 (Score:4, Informative)
mp3 IS NOT MPEG3. It is MPEG1, layer 3.
MPEG4 is not an mp3 replacement.
See this [apple.com] for details.
Re:Free option already available (Score:3, Informative)
Currently we have no Free Software alternative to these codecs, tho OGG Theora may be done in the next year.
Re:Free option already available (Score:3, Funny)
Let's make a deal: tell me how do you store videos in OGG format and I'll tell you how I archive all the pr0n I create in gzipped textfiles.
OpenDivX is dead (Score:5, Informative)
In case you didn't know what happened: Project Mayo suddenly closed the CVS, removed the source code and used that source code to create their own, proprietary DivX 4 codec. OpenDivX isn't developed anymore. It's codebase is dead. The latest release (from more than a year ago) is full of bugs.
Oh, and DivX is not OpenDivX in case you didn't know. They are 2 completely different things.
Re:OpenDivX? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Just do what I do (Score:3, Insightful)
it's really a matter of personal opinion. if you view your box as a tool and your other electrionics as fun, then you'll naturally gravitate to your other electronics. however, I tend to view my computer as fun and something that I just so happen to be able to get work done on. so I'd rather be on a computer.
Re:Just do what I do (Score:4, Insightful)
MPEG-4 is really meant to replace MPEG-1 and MPEG-2, not QuickTime, Real, and Windows Media. Of course, given those open standards (with HIGHER licensing fees) are responsible for probably 98% of all digital video watched worldwide, that's the real game. MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 are used in VideoCD, DVD, digital cable, etcetera.
Windows Media 9 is incredibly good for computer-based authoring and playback, but is a Win32 only system right now. MPEG-4 already works on all kinds of devices.
Re:XviD (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Unfair? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course not. Nobody who doesn't have a $40 Billion war chest and a direct distribution back door hook (Tools->Windows Update) into 95% of the world's computers could possibly compete.
That's why we have laws that are theoretically supposed to prevent this kind of market abuse.
Re:Warped Logic? (Score:4, Interesting)
While I agree with you in principle, in practice it doesn't hold wrt M$. Why? Because M$ IS a court-recognized illegal monopoly violating just about every anti-trust law in existence then and now. Monopolists get to live by different regulations than others, particularly convicted monopolists. The problem here is that MPEG-4 really cannot compete. M$ has such a huge cash reserve and cash flow that even if MPEG-4 matches M$ price on WMP, M$ can still go lower, even to 0 cost for as long as it takes to kill MPEG-4.
While MPEG-4 should drop its price as Apple suggests, M$ cannot be left to run as they wish because of their proven illegal activities. They WILL go to 0 pricing if anyone tries to compete (MPEG-4) on price. M$ can afford it for a lot longer than any (even better) innovators or software producers.
That isn't the market in action as it is supposed to work and is envisioned by la-la land capitalism apologists, that is abuse of monopoly position and leveraging monopoly in one area to gain monopoly in another. Illegal.
Re:yet another stupid anti-microsoft thread. (Score:5, Informative)
Netscape was de-facto free well before IE came along. Early on, they figured that they needed to get the browser out to everybody to make it THE platform. Anyone that actually paid for it, well that was found money. They really wanted to make money from servers, bu Apache and IIS killed them on this.