Slashdot Mirror
MPEG 4, Windows Media 9 At War
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."
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
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
If a competitor offers a comparable product for a lower price than you do, he will sell more. The MPEG 4 people should rather lower their fees instead of complaining how evil MS is for making low prices.
If they're angry that Microsoft is selling WMA9 for 50% less than MPEG-4, imagine how pissed they'd be with a fully Free software solution, selling for 100% less than MPEG-4.
Let the MSFT-flaming commence.
Of course MPEG4 could be:
a) cheaper
b) better
or
c) all of the above.
I don't need another 'open standard' like MPEG2.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
I think that Microsoft is trying very hard to create the standard rather then accept a standard. As in the past, Microsoft wants to have ownership of important software and video is the next major software hurdle.
rejected (19) accepted (0)
Is there a psychological term related to getting your stories rejected on slashdot?
I can't believe that MPEG-LA would even consider airing this out publicly.
"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.
--The space between my ears was intentionally left blank--
Let me get this straight... these folks say they're promoting an "Open Standard" that costs twice as much to implement as much as Microsoft's proprietary solution?
Did the definition of "Open" change while I wasn't looking?
"posing unfair competition and threatening consumer choice" - Of course... Don't you think Intel would have said something like that when AMD started selling cheaper CPUs? (Not nessecarily better, just cheaper). And what about Star Office? Cheap or even for free at times. It's just plain ridiculous to start complaining about the opponents' pricing points, instead of pushing your own advantages. But, of course, as far as "consumer choice" is regarded, a free alternative would probably make both of the others go bonkers.
"If you go to the next town, going across a desert is a shorter way." - Pu-Li-Ru-La (Taito)
Since when does open == free?
They don't want Microsoft to block progress to an open standard? Then they should get rid of that stupid MPEG-4 licensing fees! It should be free for anyone. The licensing fee issues have blocked the progress of a lot of open source MPEG-4 codecs, like XviD.
Have you not followed the entire Monopoly cases? Microsoft undercuts its competitors to the point where the competition simply CANNOT sell any lower because they dont have the BILLIONS in resources to stay in business like Microsoft can, their strategy is to out live the competitor. They (MPEG) will eventually go belly up, like most of Microsofts competitors. This is standard Microsoft Monopolistic tactics. Find market to take over, then release a product far cheaper than competitor with NO INTENTION of making a profit, watch competitor unable to compete with price wars, watch competitor fold shop. Microsoft wins!
As many such issues get ironed out, supporters of MPEG-4 want to ensure that it has room to prove itself in the market.
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.
The World's Worst Webcomic!
It is true that MPEG-LA is being ridiculous. I have no sympathy for them and we can all see what 'reasonable and non-discrinatory' type licensing schemes get you.
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.
1) Drop the license rate.
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.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
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.
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
There is.... It's called XVID
Computer playback is a relatively minor aspect of MPEG-4. MPEG-4 projects are in progress on integrating playback in everything from replacing the GSM codecs for audio transmission in cell phones, to HD DVD with red laser, to replacing MPEG-2 in set top boxes, to replacing Flash for interactive presentations.
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.
My video compression blog
So what would be a fair price? This does seem to be a little suspicious -- the very low price -- but how much is something like that worth? For that matter, how much is any piece of software worth. I never understood those people who were trying to get money back from MSFT for overpricing Office. I mean, how can you even determine what the price is for something like that? Isn't it whatever the market can bear?
-- Hobbits suck!
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.