Slashdot Mirror
AOL, Microsoft Squabble Over Control of Online Music
Section8 writes: "As if Microsoft wasn't pushing on so many other fronts already (see Part 1 and Part 2), now it seems that Microsoft is seeking to place itself in total control of what format we use on the Internet to view anything. This article in the Wall Street Journal gives some interesting facts about what Microsoft is trying to do out there. Great quote from AOL rep: "[it is] Microsoft's intention to gain as much control over music on the Internet as they have over operating systems on the computer desktop, and we couldn't accept that"." AOL's merger with Time-Warner has given them greater incentive to not use Microsoft's media format... There's also a report on the AOL/Microsoft talks published by AOL.
now it seems that Microsoft is seeking to place itself in total control of what format we use on the Internet to view anything
That's shocking! What, have they developed some sort of ultra-secret "explorer for the internet" application that can be used to view web pages?
Is there some "media player for windows" that will be provided with every copy of their OSes?
Nexy you'll tell me they have even built an "encoder" of some sort for this strange new audio technology.
Its a good thing AOL has discovered this secret, nefarious plot and warned us all in advance!...
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
...AOL Time Warner has announced an alliance with Red Hat Linux to bundle the Real Audio streaming content software on a bootable CD to its 16 million customers...
(and then I woke up)
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
BTW Netscape 6.1beta1 is now out and it's based on Mozilla 0.9.1 it's a MASSIVE improvement over Netscape 6.01 and 6.0 which were quite frankly a joke, therefore Netscape's not dead yet and if we can get AOL to support Netscape/Mozilla then there's a good future for the browser.
Which of the following is most evil:
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine! =P
I'm not a big fan of either one, personally. While both are nice for watching broadcast media like NASA TV, I don't like the way many sites use them as a "Thou shalt not download" tool on their media (it feels like a TV station trying to prevent me from using my VCR). Especially when they force me to download a proprietary player to view something they could have easily just encoded as an MPG.
(Anybody else miss the days before the banner ad?)
And as far as who I think we should support, I think we should support the idea of both of them mutually driving each other out of business. While Windows wants to make their own music encoding scheme the new standard, AOL/TW is also trying to fuck with on-line music through the RIAA.
All in all, these two companies were in talks to try to divy up markets, deciding how we can and cannot access parts of the internet, while a new MP3 codec was released.
Try Netscape 6.1 PR 1, it's much better than the crappy Netscape 6.0 browser, if you've not tried it, give it a go and let them know what you think (select Help > Feedback Center), even if Mozilla based browsers get a 20% market share it should be enough to encourage webmasters to code to standards and write pages to work anywhere.
As long as you write your own damn code you aren't 'forced' into using any license.
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
Naysayer checking in here...
.ogg, they can't apply Digital Rights Management to it to make the RIAA happy and they can't control it. ...Well maybe they could if they attempted to 'pollute' it like they did to Java. But why would they bother, they just use their desktop monopoly to force people to use their own Media Player formats by breaking the competitors product. "It ain't done 'til Lotus won't run."
...endeavours outside software...
They are not using open standards to distribute the music, that's the whole point to the article.
The content may be transmitted via TCP/IP, but they are encoding in their own media format (including DRM and being proprietary source just for starters) and trying to kill the Real format.
MS will never do anything with
MS using open standards? I think not. They have subverted or attempted to subvert every single standard they have come near (Kerberos, smart tags, anybody?)
One doesn't trust an addict until they have admitted that they have a problem, apologized/made amends *and* exhibited changed behavior. MS has made no steps whatsoever of this kind. They continue to thumb thier nose at government anti-trust action, lie, deceive and subvert to this very moment.
Well, they don't have a monopoly on endeavours outside software, they are at least required to compete on the merits of the product.
Kudos to Microsoft and shame on you if you revert to your proprietary tactics of yesteryear!
??? Huh? Revert? Yesteryear?
Shame on them? Proprietary tactics? Yup. To this very day. That's what the whole problem is in the negotiations between them and AOL.
And shame on AOL too. They're no angels. They demand proprietary solutions as well. They just don't have quite as large a monopoly to leverage.
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. - George Orwell or George Bush?
That's the part that still scares me.
If MS really wanted to take over the world, they'd do to MP3 what they did to AVI.
That is, they'd use the same file extension to represent dozens of codecs, many of which were proprietary.
Download an arbitrary .AVI and ask yourself what you really have. It's pretty tough. YUV? IV31, IV41, IV51? 2.63? MPEG4v2? MPEG4v3? DivX ;-)
Attempt to play an AVI with even one byte screwed up in Windoze Media Player, and it says "Nope, I won't even show you the video up until the corrupt part." (Sometimes you can get around this with File->Properties->Preview in the 'doze explorer, which just shows how brain-dead WindozeMediaPlayer is).
So WTF does this have to do with MP3? Plenty.
People like to swap files that end in the .MP3 extension. All Bill has to do is pay Thompson enough money, and buy the right to stuff whatever crap he wants into a file ending in .MP3, and stuff whatever brains he wants into Windoze Media Player to say "Ah, the file ends in .MP3, but it's actually a WinMedia or RealVideo file. I'll decode it accordingly".
On the encoding front, it'd be easy for him to do the same thing - MP3Pro (different codec, same file extension, albeit with some backwards compatibility) from Thompson is already doing this. Bill could make his "music recorder" tool record in a proprietary codec, but save the file with the .MP3 extension.
Within a month, clueless luzers would flood the pool of MP3s with these Windoze-only files that happen to end in ".MP3", and we'd be in the .AVI situation - "Damn, this thing won't play, what the hell codec do I need today" all over again.
With .AVI, it was inevitable, as we had CPU speeds going from 16 MHz to 1.6 GHz - a factor of 1000 - and similar growth in hard drive sizes. We really can do better video today that we couldn't have fantasized about when the first .AVI codecs were introduced.
But music? No thanks. MP3 at 320 is indistinguishable (for me and anyone I know) from CD. For most folks, MP3 at 192 is "good enough". For anyone - by definition - a lossless compression of the original .WAV is "perfect". We already have most, if not all, of the technology we're ever likely to need when it comes to "How can I make this compressed bitstream sound like the 2-channel stereo recorded on this CD".
All that's left is to screw it up by embedding it in various DRM schemes. I dunno about you, but I think I'll pass on that.
I'm surprised nobody else really commented on this. Read that line again in the article. Microsoft wanted AOL to sign a "Mutual Legal Release" which basically said they wouldn't take legal action against each other for the term of the contract.
Would YOU sign an agreement like that with Micrsoft?