Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Code in Every HD-DVD Player
Neophytus writes "The DVD Forum steering group has given preliminary backing to Microsoft's VC-9 codec along with H.264 and MPEG-2 as mandatory playback modes for HD-DVD players. Having this technology, the most fundamental part of Windows Media Player 9, in every new DVD player could well give Microsoft major leverage into the Cable and Satellite TV markets where currently MPEG2 dominates. The approval is pending an update in licencing terms and other conditions within 60 days."
It's a good codec (technically), and they'll document it.
I don't know what exactly the chances of that happening are, considering Microsoft's record, but it's possible..
One can hope.
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
If M$ makes a mandatory codec, say goodbye to watching HD-DVDs in linux.
The formats on the next gen dvds needs to be open and royalty free.
The amount that Microsoft would get paid (if any) would be pennies. I would probably bet that Microsoft would make a deal so they don't have to pay the licensing fee on the Xbox 2 to play DVDs.
The Chinese have developed their own format for HDTV capable DVD's, and if high licencing costs is needed for the competition they could easily succeed worldwide. (Despite what major corporations claim they do actually need customers able to view their media)
Well, since I'm not a big fan of Microsoft's multimedia products, I am very sceptical. Well, of cource, if they manage to keep the software small, free of bugs, and reliable, then it would work. The only problem is that my experience with Microsoft's multimedia software is that they add too many features that the average user dont need/want in a player.
A quote that can be compared to this:
"Emacs would be a great Operating System, if someone wrote a good text-editor for it"
Well, Windows Media Player would be an awesome operating system, if someone wrote a good app for viewing videos. Dont misunderstand me here, wmp is good, but it would be better without all of the effects and features that does nothing more than slow down the entire program. This makes me think of something: In Windows 3.1/3.11 there was this program called mplayer. It worked perfectly, it didnt have any other features than those you need, and it was stable as hell. It is still included in Windows98, but like notepad: Microsoft does not like keeping simple things simple. I can only hope they do so when injecting their code into my DVD-player..
this is probably the most boring sig in the world
M$ has dropped proprietary rights to this codec as a precondition to its circulation. That will allow their content and management tools for that format to have the advantage of a much wider installed base to target than just their own M$ customers. Perhaps the increased profits from this "open standards" model will encourage them to open more of their standards, and interoperate directly with those opened by others. It's hard to imagine M$ trading away control even for more money, but their interest is in striking a balance in favor of the money.
--
make install -not war
Why don't they just put the the codec in some byte code format on the media? That way the player can play any codec [within reason: e.g. you'd still have to spec out a codec size, memory alotment, hardware assist standards].
This way the content producers can use the codec they like not the ones they are forced to by another governing body. OSS people can use their Xvid [or whatever] and the commercial entities can use their MPEG2 [or whatever].
Put something like a Crusoe with CMS+8MB of ram in the player and just load the codec at play time. Cheap, power efficient and enough MIPS to run any decent codec.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Unless and until there's an open standard for subscription digital video from signal distributor to consumer, cable comapanies and DBS companies will always need their own box connected to your TV. Therefore, having any given codec in the DVD player isn't going to lower the cost of selecting that same codec for signal distributors...
I was really hoping that something like this would happen, especially since hearing that MS was opening it up to the standards organization.
HDTV content really does look and sound awesome and I itch to get my hands on HD movies. But if it would require a whole new format HD-DVD would fall flat on its face, not because of the need for new players as having to introduce another disc format in stores at a time when DVD has huge momentum. It would annoy customers and retailers.
WM9 can fit a feature length film at 720p with decent 5.1 sound in 3-5 GB. With so many DVDs now coming as a 2-Disc set anyway it doesn't seem like much effort to throw in a HD WM9 version along side the standard DVD version and some movies (e.g. Terminator 2) have already done this. No need for a new production processes, wacky labeling at retail outlets, etc. This way those of us wanting HD content won't get snubbed while waiting for a more lossless based (MPEG2) HD-DVD format to get settled and at the same time it won't upset the currently booming DVD market.
The only annoying thing about movies like this at the moment is they usually require that the player bundled with the movie is used to aquire the license instead of just the standard media player. Most of those bundled players are annoying and mess up far more often. It will be nice when the internet authentication based DRM gets removed so I can just watch things on my netless media PC.
You can view clips of WM9-HD stuff on the MS website, but honestly their samples are a little disappointing and the two feature length films I watched in the format looked WAY better. It takes quite a bit of horsepower to play the 1080p clips, but the 720p ones aren't so bad. I for one hope to see WM9-HD to pick up ASAP.
With MPEG2, H.264 (aka MPEG4 AVC) and WMV, they're trying to ensure that one player plays all. Kinda how burnable DVDs didn't start to take off until they went both DVD+R and DVD-R.
With movies, I imagine most people would wait much longer for the "winner" than for burnable DVDs - after all, I plan to have my movies far longer than my DVD burner.
Noone wants to get stuck with the Beta of HD-DVDs. Particularly since this standard is probably going to be around until we move to something better than HDTV - goodness knows how long that'll take.
But for now, my 19" CRT is the only thing doing HDTV anyway. So I guess, no hurry.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The MPEG2/4 codecs which were already part of the standard already required "automatic royalties" on players so Microsoft or no this standard will mean players will carry a royalty.
However, an open source player, distributed in source form, could be considered a sample implementation and might thus avoid said royalties for users savvy enough to be able to compile them on their own.
]{
The present licensing for H.264 is term limited to 2010 ... I dont understand why anyone would want to put themselves into a future hostage situation by either H.264 patent owners or microsoft myself.
...
Basically both H.264 and WM9 are in the same boat at the moment, they are unacceptable standards and the DVD Forum consists of idiots.
Hell, the Chinese are probably the only ones to have made a good deal
Even tough this is simply the video codec, let's assume MS will also do the DRM. MS logic dictates that will be no problems because you can't issue a patch for something like this, right?
MPEG-4 has been universally ignored by real business because they couldnt work out their licensing issues in time, and when they finally worked them out everyone found them so objectionable they decided to wait till the next generation.
The H.264 licensing seems to be going the same way, making m$ the winner. Prooving once again that you have to be either very big or very small to use a patent.
In the first case you use the patent to leverage your pre-existing power, paying some pittances to other patent owners (actually they get discounts on their own licensing fees for WM9, I am not shitting you) which they will accept because the alternative is going up against you in court (which is a sure way to go bankrupt and/or getting your patent invalidated).
In the second case you hire a lawyer on continguency and try to hustle other companies with a submarined patent.
So who do patents make rich? Big companies and hustlers (which includes the lawyers of course).
Trusts and leeches, what a winning combination.
I am longing and willing to pay... altho you didn't include unable to pay... :P I'd go buy a hdtv and hd-dvd system now if it was available and I could freakin' afford it.
Good post - the best point you make is about windows/DVD interop, which is the main driver behind this. This potentially heads off the possiblity of pc-unfriendly DVD standards. The money to be made with licensing fees on DVD players is relatively small if the vc-9 licensing is anything like the WMV9 licensing.
Why am I not at all surprised to find that the DVDForum website uses Dynamic HTML in its navigation which fails to render under (for example) FireFox?
Anyone want to comment whether the navigation (ie menu on the left) works under other browsers?
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Look around and you'll find that digital TV, wide-screen, high-definition, is gaining traction even with the Walmart crowd.
What it will be like to try and rip a DVD in the near future? Does the phrase M$ DRM leap out at anyone else.
Rip all you want but they won't play on anything.
Either that or they will crash 5 times during each movie.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Yes, t2 required online license acquisition - but newer WMV-HD disks get licenses locally from the media and thus don't require iaccess and don't require registration. they also don't use interactual - they custom built a dhtml interface that's much easier to use. as to your quality comparison, it may be your display technology. It's 6x the resolution of a DVD, but on an ntsc screen or 1280x768 vga you'll not take full advantage of the quality.
1 million pennies is still only 10,000.00. I'd wager that they spent way more than that on R&D for the codec.
This still assumes the following:
1) HD-DVD takes off, and BluRay or (insert competition here) doesn't
2) The manufactuers mostly based in South East Asia don't sign on to the DRM & Royaltee Free Chinese HD DVD standard. (Wow China free'er than the US, interesting times indeed.)
3) They don't price themselves out of a cutthroat market
Those are all pretty big assumptions. With the average dvd player costing around 60 bucks, HD DVD will have to be really clear and cost really cheap to license.
In addition, with a free standard available in a region where all the manufacturing takes place there is a possibility that we may all end up using that instead. These South East Asian companies are like the OPEC of the Entertainment Industry, and don't think for one second that they don't realize they can wreak havoc on how things are done in the US with a few tweaks or changes here and there.
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
In this case Microsoft doesn't give a damn about hackers. They want to own the industry like they own the desktop,
1) I don't need the 'entertainment industry', I personally don't care about thier products. So if Microsoft and others locked up 'hollywood content' I don't care. I care more about the extension of copyright and would like to see that 'lockup' needs to stop.
2) Microsoft was able to establish itself in the computing industry by 'being first' and the nasty contracts they wrote. The entertainment industry is a bigger pool, with meaner sharks who write nasty contracts for cheap laughs.
Microsoft may want to own the entertainment world, but their ownership doesn't matter to me. And to the people who DO now own that world? They won't let Microsoft leverage them out.
Funny you should mention Wiki, since the its inventor Ward Cunningham now works for Microsoft.
s ft notebook26.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/158020_m
(Note: I'm not claiming this fact refutes your statement at all.)
And I wasn't the only one. At the time 10 to 20% of the windows user on Cnet.com who downloaded that same driver had the same problem, and for some reason deinstalling it and reinstalling the old mouse wouldn't fix it. In any case, I think Microsoft just lends its name to Mouse manufacturers -- I don't think they would be stupid enough to break their own OS.