Slashdot Mirror
Windows Media Format Could Hit Linux-Based Devices
An anonymous reader writes "LinuxDevices.com reports that Microsoft has licensed InterVideo Inc. to supply Windows Media Technology to makers of Linux-based consumer devices. Under the agreement, InterVideo is licensed to take the components of the Windows Media Format, port them to Linux, and provide them to manufacturers who are interested in running Windows Media Technology on Linux-based consumer devices such as set-top boxes, personal video recorders, and other hybrid multimedia devices."
so now will the movie theaters run linux?
moo.
We don't want it. Continue sticking to something that isn't DRM-tastic and doesn't suck, device manufacturers.
I think that getting a (hopefully) well made and complete version of Windows Media working on Linux devices could be a good thing, but if it is not open-sourced (and it likely would not be) it will have few benefits on other open OSes. It is all in the implementation.
More software with real-world uses is a good thing, when it is good. More crapware floating around makes the world that much worse.
April 1st was 6 days ago.
Damn, almost fristed.
Pro: Linux gets Windoze proprietary formats.
Con: Probably NOT going to be open-source.
I'm torn.
-uso.
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
I thought this was already possible?
void*x=(*((void*(*)())&(x=(void*)0xfdeb58)))();
Boy this is puzzling. Is everybody going to be happy that the Windows Media stuff will make it's way to Linux, or will they complain that MS is trying to extend it's monopoly? So far it's for Linux based devices, as opposed to the desktop machines. Ah nice ugly mix.
I, for one, think ya'll should be happy about it. It means:
a.) Linux will probably one day support WM formats. Thus no more bitching that you don't have the right OS to watch the cool vids that fly around here sometimes.
b.) MS recognizes that they just can't get everybody to use CE for embedded stuff. Might as well join the crowd, right?
Either way, Linux users win. Put your pitchforks down.
Most interesting since it was Intervideo that made LinDVD over 3 years ago. To date, only IBM has every shipped it (pre-packaged on some stinkpads). Their site still (3 years later) says it's released to OEMs and developers only. I've emailed them, but they didn't want me as a developer I guess. :) Funny that the first legal DVD player for Linux never made it to the public arena, yet MS could now bring it there...
If not, it will make it difficult (impossible) for the different distros to include it if it is not GPL'd.
I realize that this is isn's a strict requirement for all Linux software, but it would be nice to have it included as part of the distro. I guess that in the end, it will be nice to not have to boot back over to windows every time I download something from website where the idiot who made it thinks windows is the only OS.
You can rightly accuse Microsoft of many things but being dumb isn't one of them. Due to their lack of headway in the embedded systems market and the extreme popularity of Linux in this same market Microsoft is smart enough not to mortgage the Windows Media farm on the success of their embedded OSes.
The cynical among us might think that by porting Windows Media to Linux and then "enhancing" the Windows versions faster than the Linux version you could lure Linux-committed companies to make an "easy port" to CE. Personally I think it should be watched-for but unlikely as embedded-Windows is decent, companies are abandoning it not for functionality issues, but cost and choice -- things much more important in the embedded space.
Did Microsoft just blink?
manufacturers who are interested in running Windows Media Technology on Linux-based consumer devices
Wow.. they must have a huge* target audience with this one...
*Please excuse the incorrect use of the word "huge" in the above sentence. To read correctly, replace "huge" with "non existant"
Work sucked, until it became unemployment, when it became slightly more tolerable. -Tet
For you Linux nuts who are worrying about it not being open-source and therefore not being able to use it in your own distro, just use MPlayer .I use it, and it plays Windows Media files very well. There are plenty of other progs for *nix that can play Windows Media, so this isn't really that special.
I remember the controversy that Realplayer introduced after it was reported that the player sent back the file paths/links to Real Networks.
:)
Is there the danger that Microsoft might try and do this with the components of the media player?
I guess they want to make sure that their DRM technology is universal.
Performing a hex dump of your multimedia files may become a violation of the RIAA
I think you missed it. This isn't for Linux. It is for consumer devices that are *based* on Linux. Someone else commented that the market for this is non-existant. They are wrong. The market for this is everyone that has a Windows PC who goes into Best Buy for a stereo system that can play their music files. They don't care one bit whether it is based on Windows CE or Linux because it doesn't matter. They can't play with the OS anyways.
-BrentI am reminded of an Arab proverb about not letting the camel's nose into the tent, as soon the rest of the camel will follow.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Are they ethically obligated to set the evil bit on?
I know... It was funny a week ago...
As in... performance hit?
Oh, Intervideo has plenty of working DVD-on-LInux product. They just haven't delivered LinDVD as a standalone product. So where is LinDVD? Inside Sony's new Tivo-like player/80 GB disk drive/DVD burner that was on slashdot last week.
How do I know this? Um, you gotta trust me and my high karma on this one...Those NDAs are a bitch.
"one treats others with courtesy not because they are gentlemen or gentlewomen, but because you are" --G. Henrichs
I think it's pretty safe to say that anything involving a currently proprietary technology from MS will not be released as open source. Given the current battle (and one they're losing, according to many) Microsoft is engaged in with OSS, they're in no position to help Linux users out and give more people a reason to ditch their money-making OS.
I don't see how this could possibly hurt Linux or the OSS wordl; this will help Linux. One of the major problems with Linux is it's inability to work 100% properly with some proprietary technologies. This brings us one step closer.
Won't work quite right, people complain, MS says "Thats open source for you."
Linux Fans say "Its not linux, its the app"
Company says" You're right, but what choice do we have? our contract says to use the windows format, so will have to switch are machines to windows"
Bada-boom, bada bing.
Sure, you think I paranoid, or some conspiracy fanatic, but I am not. This is how MS has moved into most of its dominate fields.
in short:
1.extend
2.embrace
3.profit
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
What porn sites do you visit that require Windows proprietary media format?
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
"It's evil! Don't touch it!"
With apologies to those responsible for Time Bandits
Why should we trust Microsoft to do anything for us at this point? They've already stated that their goal is to eradicate Linux, and they've already started lobbying against the entire idea of the GPL. They'd make this kind of thing illegal in a heartbeat, if they could.
What we really need is someone on the inside, someone to release the specs for how their version is to be implemented, without releasing the exact implementation. This way, we can build workalikes and not have to deal with Microsoft directly.
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
The only really good thing I can see coming from this might be apple reliquishing and allowing someone to port the quicktime libraries to linux. While the windows codecs play great on linux, the hacked up quicktime dll's are pretty hit or miss.
I do security
I think TiVo has the right idea with thier technology as far as MPEG encoding goes. I cannot see this as a real "break-through" for PVRs and the like especially considering the predicted performance and "stableness" of windows media running on linux. Granted, I'm sure this will be a neat thing to play with for the home user!
-Rob
There is one, and only one reason that there is a market for Windows Media Formats... They are based on MPEG-4, but Microsoft charges about half the licensing fees for it's use.
Even someone who has incredible disdain for Microsoft (like myself) would strongly consider using WMV rather than MPEG4 for license reasons alone.
Of course, it is possible to play Windows Media on Unix systems right now, but you don't get the great microsoft feature of DRM. No doubt Microsoft's player will have it. If I owned a theatre, I would NOT use the new digital projects because of the DRM. At least a reel doesn't explode after your 1-month subscription is over, or you have your computer's clock set incorrectly.
So why are they getting into the market now, after all this time? I'd bet it is almost completely due to On2's free licensing of VP3. Xiph.org's Theora is due for beta in a couple months, and from what I've seen of videos encoded using the VP3 plugin, it beats out MPEG4 in quality versus filesize, and to top it all off, it doesn't show signs of any of MPEG(1/2/4)'s artifacts, which really stand out, to my eyes. So, not only will there be completely free (BSD-licensed, patent-free) audio and video codecs, but they (ogg, vp3/theora) are far better than the dominant video and audio codecs available right now.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Putting all of the upfront analysis aside for a second, what could Microsoft be up to here? Hmmm... what does Microsoft want? I think everybody can agree that it isn't to give linux a hand, right? They're always trying to dominate some market, so it's a safe bet without even reading into it that they're probably thinking a few moves ahead with that end in mind.
So then, reading into it, it looks to me like Microsoft is licensing some proprietary technology out to a market they can't compete well in. So whether you're running Microsoft embedded or linux embedded, you're still using Microsoft's format, right? And a few years from now, everybody's using Microsoft's proprietary format in their various devices. Microsoft would have the keys to the kingdom at that point.
It's really hard to ignore Microsoft's history when I look at stuff like this. They want to be in this market, and they see that linux has legs in this market. It's silly to think that they're knuckling under or doing this out of charity, or even doing it just for the licensing profits. They've never done business like that. They want the whole enchilada.
That's odd ... I've been doing that for years. (Whoops ... did I really post that with my user account?)
of course xine and all media players based on this nice multimedia engine (totem, gxine, kde's arts,...) play back windows media as well, mms/mmsh/http streaming included.
btw the technology behind this comes from ffmpeg and avifile/wine.
time is a funny concept
The big question is "Why would M$ do anything to support Linux?" The answer is that it allows them to sell wmf as a cross platform format. This is probably a hurdle that they need to overcome to con the content world (or legislators) into embracing their evil plan. Don't worry they can alway screw the Linux community over in the future when their goals have been met.
Show me an affordable method for supporting xvid, divx, or ogg in the hardware I use every day (rca lyra, mitsubishi dvd player, sony cd player in the car), and we can talk about it not being hit-or-miss. Right now, ogg support is scarce, and getting the right video codec installed and configured for divx is a pain in the ass.
And you refuse to use products just because they include drm features? I guess you don't use quicktime, dvd/dvd-r, or encrypting filesystems then?
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
I would urge developers and systems builders and all people to avoide the Windows Media format like the plague. M$ are only licencing it to Linux developers to gain market penetration. When they get enough penetration, it will be every man for themselves. The licences will not be renewed, and we will have mandatory DRM following shortly after.
We need to promote open standards and boycott Windows Media format.
They will be using Windows XP Pro and a custom written media player. MS has an whitepaper out.
Why would a content provider choose to use Microsoft's implementation of MPEG4, when there are freely available royalty-free open-source implementations?
Scenario: I make a web site, I want to distribute media. Why not use DIVX? Or XVid? Those codecs are as easily available as any others, and I don't have to pay a fee to encode using them. Further, I make a movie I want to show in one of these new "digital" theaters -- same question. Why? OR screw that and use MPEG2. Is the performance difference worth the cost?