Slashdot Mirror
Streaming Media - Can Linux Keep Up?
raphinou asks: "I am really worried because Microsoft is making serious progress on streaming media fields. Realplayer is available to Linux users. Windows Media isn't. How do you want Linux to succeed on the desktop if there aren't any streaming players for it? If Microsoft can convince broacasters to use Windows Media, they'll again control the desktop. It really makes me think about the Netscape thing. And I'm afraid we'll have the same end: RealNetworks dead. This is really the same thing: Microsoft is giving away for free what RealNetworks has to sell." What do you think? Have the BrowserWars become the StreamingMedia wars?
The answer is: it depends.
Working against us:
Working for us:
What will decide this battle:
Summary: streaming media is an *extremely* young technology. Of the 10% or so of the population with net access, probably only 5% (the DSL/Cable/University crowd) or so of those can even use streaming media effectively. (Most people can't deal with static images very well.) We have some time before streaming media becomes the 'killer app'. Even if we don't win on streaming media, we're the 'small, nimble competitor'. Microsoft is the 'large, entrenched industry leader'. Call it manifest destiny, if you like. We're bound to win one of these days. :)
At the risk of being a heretic, I would like to say that this is a symptom of a much larger problem than whether Linux users can play some streaming media or not. Basically, the whole key to the freedom and success of the Internet has been that the protocols, which date back to the pre-billion-dollar-dot-com-marketcap days, have been open and standardized. It is very concerning that this is not the case for many of the protocols that will be important on the Internet of tomorrow.
Streaming media may or may not be a big deal (on the one hand Real Networks and Microsoft are both evil as sin, on the other, how long until we can just stream with the semi-open mpeg standard instead?) but there are certainly other protocols that are. Is there any standard for Voice over IP? Are these open? Or just look at instant messaging. Flash. Secure communications.
Sooner or later the services that make up the Internet today are going to fade into obscurity and be replaced by whatever comes next. However, it seems that ever since commercial interest came to the Internet, they have not been able to agree on one single standard. Is the future of the Internet going to be one perpetual standards war because everyone believes that a monopoly is the only way to do bussiness?
I believe very firmly that this has already hurt the Internet and it's developement. Why has there not been a single new standard service since the WWW? Why has the last ten years seen the least developement of new innovations on the Internet although more money has been spent on it then every before?
Of course, as always our hope lies in that the Open Source revolution can convince companies that terms like "proprietary" and "patented" are everything but marketing catch phrases, and that fostering freedom is the only way to be successful on the Internet. But as long as Steve Case is looked up to as the archetype Internet executive, I wouldn't hold my breath.
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
The issue is that there is not a garunteed open standard. Projects that rely on reverse-engineering proprietary protocols are not reliable. Eventually the company (which is "competing" for control of the standard) will either find a way to completely stifle such activities or will give up and release it as a standard. My experience is that the former is far more common. And the latter rarely results in truly un-biased standards (if ever - note java).
By way of example... I believe that the WINE project is the key project to Linux on the desktop (of equal import with desktop environs, I suppose). But the WINE project is only a step. I don't forsee a day when people will run Windows applications and Linux applications side by side w/o thought as to the original target platform.
Why?
The Win32 API is a moving target. Microsoft will attempt to break WINE compatibility with every new release of Windows. History shows this is true! "DOS isn't done 'til Lotus doesn't run" sound familiar? Now imagine what they could do to a competing API... Just change a couple specs - presto.
Now I'll admit that Free Software adapts, evolves, whatever with incredible speed compared with its commercial kindred - but look how long it took to "get into" things like DVDs. And the final solution was based on a simple stupidity committed by the DVD consortium. Companies will always fight to retain command of their protocols.
Compare this with a more "open" protocol like HTML or HTTP. Coorperations like Netscape and Microsoft have attempted to hijack these protocols at various points (particularly html), and have somtimes succeeded - at least partially. But other companies and Free Software were not sufficiently disadvantaged to be uncompetitive. Netscape never owned HTML. Microsoft still doesn't (though both still have enourmous power).
This drive to dominate protocols is natural behavior for a company. Why? Protocols are valuable entities. Unless an organization, without commercial interest (like the W3) is willing to be heavy handed, there's a tendency for a profit hungry entity to capture the market. Free Software often stands as a bulwark against such behavior because it brings such information into the light. I don't think I can honestly condemn companies for trying - that's capitalism. Still, unless we throw our weight as consumers, programmers, and users against such things they will inevitably occur.
This brings us back to a set of Operating Systems many of us hold dear; those beautiful free Unixen. Unix, for all its infighting (or perhaps because of), thrives on standards. Think X, HTTP, FTP, Telnet, vt100 (not a real standard, but effectively is now), etc. Things like SMB (samba) were hacked in only because a company lost control of a protocol. Don't expect Microsoft to make another mistake like that. *nix will almost always benefit from a truly open protocol.
Often the best protocols come when a company subjects immediate gain, and chooses a long term view. In spite of their onerous community license, Sun (for example) has done this in numerous instances. SGI hopefully will with the donation of a journaled filesystem. IBM has by simply porting numerous products to Linux w/o much hope for immediate profits (Voice Dictation API anyone?).
Will some benificant company do the same for streaming media?
Unlikely. The problem is that not many companies have expertise in this area. And those that do are either engaged in a fight to survive (Real), blind to the needs of a large market segment (Apple), or hostile to *nix (Microsoft).
At the moment I would say that Apple is the strongest contender. They've released much of the source to their back-end server. Now they need to complete the loop and release a client. Apple could stand to lose the control and hence profit in the short term (very broad assets / liquid assets) in return for a strong hand in a far larger pot. But they've made the wrong choice repeatedly. I wouldn't be betting on Apple with regards to open protocols (but I'll keep hoping!).
So what does this leave? I honestly don't know. I have great confidence in the Free Software community, that we will overcome hurdles before they become insurmountable. We have - again and again.
But it is less painful when we are supporting a standard!
What forces came together to create MPEG? Could they be unleased again? How many Open Source programmers have the skills or knowledge to take a stab at video codecs?
Open Protocols happen because people make them happen.
--nullity--
I am nothing.
I have a very fast cable connection at home, and I have a very fast T3 line at work. Streaming Media doesn't work so well at either place. Its frustrating, tedious and annoying. I haven't clicked on a media clip in at least 6 months. I cant even imagine how bad it is for folks using analog modems.
The bigger issue is, IMHO, the issue of focus. To beat Microsoft, IMHO, don't get into a war over features. They can churn out features faster than anyone. Look at the software we have as a result. What Linux should be concerning itself with is superior stability with less features...initially. Tackle the features that actually have to get done later, after a need has been established, relying on your reputation as superior software craftpeople. Nobody has ever beat Microsoft going toe to to on features. Its a a distraction at best.
I'm still working on a clever footer.
Yes, that's right. Their license agreement specifically states that redistribution is not permitted, only end users are permitted to download and install their player. There is nothing on their web site stating of a way this restriction can be removed either.
Somehow they got it in their mind that corporate business users are permitted to freely download and install apps on their managed PCs. Plus, as a college, we have to keep lab PCs orderly by locking down permissions so students can install stuff on the computers either.
(Yes, they all run NT, not Linux).
I wrote to Real and complained and they told me to send my request to client_redistribution@real.com but they never respond to my e-mails. (My latest attempt to contact them was the middle of January 2000)
So -- flock() 'em. I installed WMP along with IE, which is permitted (license wise) if done via the IEAK.
Free is useless to me if I am forbidden by license to freely copy the software onto the client machines I maintain. If Real thinks all users manage their own PCs, they are horribly out of touch with reality.
You may hate Microsoft, but at least they understand the business environment. Real can shrivel up and die for all I care.
BTW, did we all forget already Real's huge intentional privacy violation regarding their players sending player listening info back to Real?
I don't mean to get off on a rant here, but Microsoft bashing is getting old. Yeah, I love Linux. Where I control the decisions (my home network of 6 machines), I have everything run by Linux clients and servers and use UNIX on servers at work to run everything from Apache to Samba. But the desktop corporate world still revolves around Microsoft and I can make no sane business case to have students to use anything other than that.
If you read my post history, you can see me ranting about the often horrible cruft Microsoft shovels out too. But in this case, WMP beats Real in the Windows world and beyond that, there are no other viable alternatives (Quicktime install methods and redistribution crap deserves a separate rant...)