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."
I'm thinking Microsoft will have spent 2+ years developing this only to have it cracked in under 6 months...
What are the licensing terms for MS's VC-9 codec? Is it free, or is every HD-DVD player manufacturer going to be required to pay MS a licensing fee? I don't necessarily mind MS being the ones to author a commonly used codec, but I'm pretty violently opposed to them getting automatic royalties on every HD-DVD player manufactured, and getting stuck in the same position we were with decss regarding open source players.
Coming soon to Slashdot: meta-meta-moderation!
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!
"At the end of the day they said, We're going to trust Microsoft. It does require us to be responsive in providing the kind of licensing terms that the industry can accept."
Sometimes the shortest sentences can mean the most. Here's one: Uh oh.
Sunny
Be my Friend
before this thread degenerates into Java vs .NET
Microsoft has clearly working towards extending their influence from PCs to more general game console/home entertainment centres.
My question is, why has there been no professioanl lobbyist for open source involved with this workgroup? At this level, technical merits don't matter. It's all about politics (which is kind of a good thing; I'd hate to live in a technocratic soceity run by engineers).
The owls are not what they seem
Microsoft doesn't make money off Media Player. It isn't a real selling point for Windows. Media Player isn't used in any productive manner by businesses.
But, if you make sure that your video codec, which only Media Player will can ever use to it's full potential, is the de facto standard, and insure that Media Player only runs on Windows.....
Unlike some submitters, I RTFA :-)
Aye! Mea culpa!
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
At first sight, this seemed scary - more Microsoft, more monopoly power, etc.
However, this quote reduced the fear factor for me: "Last September, Microsoft submitted its Windows Media Series 9 as a standards candidate to the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE)--a first for the company and a marked departure from its longtime commitment to keeping its technology proprietary".
At least they went to an appropriate standards body and are sharing this codec with the public. It's an interesting thing when a technology takes the path from proprietary to standard. Lots of technologies take the path from research -> standard, and not as many go from proprietary -> standard.
"All those fears were on their mind," Majidimehr said. "At the end of the day they said, We're going to trust Microsoft."
Now, forgive me from laughing at that, but my mind is wandering towards the various ways that Microsoft will exploit this for their own gain:
1) They can increase the licence fees on the new DVD-9 standard. That's not ineffective because once endorsed and DVDs are released, all players will have to support (and pay) for Microsoft's DVD-9 even if other formats are supported.
2) They will 'extend' the standard. You can see this coming, can't you? "New DVD-9.1 with extra tracks that are only accessible if you buy Microsoft's new dvd player/software/media unit... etc. etc." This is pretty predictable.
3) They will offer discounts for those players that remove support for the other standards, thus forcing DVD producers to produce in the only format guaranteed to be multiplayer. Again, pretty predictable -- it's what they always do.
4) They will patent the transmission of "over the air" DVD-9, so any future Tivo like device will have to pay royalties.
I could go on, but you see where Microsoft's going with this. It's a horrible, horrible decision for the DVD steering committee. They've just voted themselves into the guillotine. "Trust Microsoft" -- sheesh!
The baby's fine -- please stop sending business cards.
And why is that?
Anyone can buy a license for writing a legit DVD player for Linux today. I don't see how that would be different in the future.
Just license the damn thing.
The owls are not what they seem
Buy yourself a clue.
MPEG2/4 requires payment of royalties as well.
"No facts, no reasons, no nothing."
/. story says really clearly 'proprietary codec in international standard'.
Yes that is the description of your posting. To the rest of us the
That is a lot of facts with a lot of implications.
If you study the history of standards and technology, you will know that that will most likely be very bad for consumers in the end (or for the standard itself to take off to begin with: what do you think will happen with the chinse hd-dvd standard with this news?)
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
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
No one is forced to used WMV 9, they can still use MPEG-2. A dual layered disc (30GB of data) holds 200 minutes of MPEG-2 HD at 20mbit/s. Thats almost long enough to hold Return of the King.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Great.
If this gets put through we will (in)voluntarily be helping the corporation whom we all love to hate. Other than the licencing issues, what other problems will this create? More costly DVD players?
I really can't see this working out in places like Belgium (where you'd be hard-pressed to find an un-chiped dvd player.) Most countries other than the US have no respect for this money hungry corporation, but everyone uses their products. This 'company' is trying to force people to use them again, and again.
This should be struck down by FTC regulations, within the allotted '60 days.'
... We will see blue screens on TV too!
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.
And this is proff ???
TV got you already, huh?
> Microsoft on the other hand, has something to gain from blocking DVD playback from Linux...
The codec is about to become an open SMPTE standard. Anyone will able to implement the codec. Those who live in coutries without software patents won't even have to pay royalties.
Microsoft can't stop anyone from implementing the codec once it becomes a SMPTE standard.
But hey, you're obviously fond of FUD, so keep it up.
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...
Yes that is the description of your posting. To the rest of us the /. story says really clearly 'proprietary codec in international standard'.
Yeah, well, apparently "the rest of you" can't read, or just prefer to bash Microsoft without justification.
As a condition to Microsoft before it could establish VC-9 as a standard, it had to strip VC-9 of proprietary status, Majidimehr said. The company satisfied that condition when it submitted the underlying video compression technology to SMPTE last year and opened up its software to developers for the first time. Now developers can download the technical spec, build on it and not be beholden to Microsoft.
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.
Wrong.
Licence Defintion
KFG
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
It is a fact that Microsoft has hoodwinked and swindled their way to the top. Ask about GO, STAC, DR-DOS, forged video evidence at the anti-trust trial, rigged bencharks, blatant lies and FUD, any period of their history, including that the very MS-BASIC that Bill Gates so infamously complained about being stolen when he himself had stolen the computer time to develop it, and you will find blatant decption and skulduggery.
Then the other side of it, what has Microsoft actually done that is new? You sure won't find much. They are excellent at doing a shoddy job of copying others.
Consider a serial killer, say that guy in Canada who murdered several dozen prostitutes. Would you suggest that some other prostitute should take a chance on that guy?
I doubt it. So why should anyone believe a thing Microsoft says, or have any expectations for future decency in any of their current activities?
Reputations take time to build. Microsoft has shot their own reputation so many times that it will take a wholesale change of corporate leadership to change their reputation, and years and years of reinforcing that new sense of ethics. In the meantime, they continue to reinforce their current reputation. Apologists like yourself do them no good.
Infuriate left and right
Play a 640x360 DivX on your machine. Watch the CPU usage. Then multiply by 9 to get a 1920x1080 pic. Then imagine that in every DVD player. A hardware chip can scale - simply more parallell decoding circuits. If you can do it just as easily with a CPU, apply for a job at Intel or AMD right now.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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
What are the chances of this codec being supported by Linux? I put it right up there will Ballmer suddenly growing all his hair back...
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
"It looks like you're trying to watch a DVD..."
You do realize that DVDs today, utilizing only MPEG-2, require payment of royalties to the MPEG-2 Licensing Association. Furthermore, if you enable Macrovision, CSS, or Dolby Digital audio, you are also paying royalties to the respective organizations because they own patents regarding these technologies. See Section 6.1 of the DVD Demystified FAQ for details.
Neither MPEG-2 nor the other technologies that are part of the DVD standard are free (save for possibly PCM audio). Furthermore, the hardware royalties are quite nominal as shown by the proliferation of DVD players, on the order of less than a dollar as the FAQ shows clearly. MPEG-4 Part 10 (aka H.264) and MPEG-2 are still available for use in authoring DVDs. Nobody is forcing anyone to use WMV9 if they don't want to. Just because Microsoft's CODEC is included in the standard doesn't mean that they're taking over anything. It's not mandatory.
You're missing the point. In this case Microsoft doesn't give a damn about hackers. They want to own the industry like they own the desktop, and they want to strengthen their hold on the desktop. Microsoft pattented property being required for playing a HD-DVD will be the tool they need to be sure that no official Linux release ever has a HD-DVD player. Sure, a few hackers may add on after the fact, but for the masses Windows software will be able to play HD-DVDs and Linux will not.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Seem to be just as good as this codec. In any case i don't really mind as long as i can burn dvd's with this codec. I can fit FAR more in this format then using mpeg2. Saves me about 5x the dvd discs for same quality files.
This amount is based on me burning dvd video backups using codecs like xvid and others video files using wm9 codec to be played on the pc versus me burning in mpeg2 for standalone dvd players.
Hmmm... Pie...
Just talk to Microsoft. Or go look at their site, it's all layed out there. $0.10USD per copy was the going rate last I checked.
It's no different than MPEG-4. An open, but not free, standard that you pay a royalty to the owner to use. Open standards can still be patented, all it means is that the technology is open to the world and there is a standard licensing fee that anyone can pay to use said technology.
Firewire would be another example. It's not a free technology, Apple owns it and you have to pay them royalties to use it. However the technical spec is open for anyone to look at and provided you pay the royalties, Apple is happy to have you implement their technology.
This is actually an example of the patent system working as it should. A company does research, makes the results available to the world to use, and profits from it. That was the intent as perscribed in the constitution.
How many people really out the longing for better than DVD resolution and are willing to pay for it.
The only obvious reason to push this new-and-improved DVD is to try for a whole new round of DRM lock-in. Since they lost the CCS battle, they'll start over with DVD-HD. Feh.Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
Everything was OK until I used my all-in-one remote with my HD-DVD and invoked WPA.
I would just like to ask a question. Let's just imagine, for a moment, that in the near future, Microsoft suddenly start doing things well. By that I mean, what if they suddenly started coding neat software, stop coding bloatware and have a clean marketing plan.
How would Slashdot Linux zealots bash them then?
"Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect" -- Linus Torval
The correct date is September 1, 1939. Easy typo... but i fanybody's going to be vigilant about anything, might as well be this.
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.
2) Microsoft audio codec (optional)
3) Microsoft DRM
4) Media companies displaced by Microsoft as the middleman between studios and consumers.
I must give MS credit for their patience - world domination doesn't happen over night and they know it. MPAA and RIAA don't seem to get this do they? Or do they think they'll somehow control MS?
Given the publicly stated Microsoft Policy of Embrace And Extend is this the first step in The Monopoly making a land-grab and successfully screwing up yet another boon to our lives?
And before you caffeine-freak mods cut off my air-supply, I'm hoping there'll be some rational commentary here.
I realise all they're currently doing is mandating that some form of Monopoly-Tech be one of the several supported codecs, but seriously - is this a sign that MS is "moving in on" DVDs and is there any scope for them to (in some way) take ownership of key aspects in a way that "Us Geeks" (ie The Thinkers, as opposed to The Sheep) would not be happy with?
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
What part of "free" doesn't make sense to you here?
ten Cents per copy fee means that you cannot distribute a WM9 decoder with your OpenSource OS.
There's a ten cent fee per copy.
Who dya think is going to pay that fee? The Developer? The Distributer? The End-User?
THAT's what this is all about - Microsoft Locking out OpenSource from HD-DVD. If you don't support *all* the codecs, then you're not "officially" supporting the HD-DVD standard.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
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.
Why the splash screen of my DVD player is BLUE.
siggy played guitar
I bought T2 Extreme recently. To play the WM9 version you need a fast processor. My 1.8 GHz P4 couldn't play it, but my 2.4 GHz with 800MHz FSB could. I had to register my copy of the movie and then the InterActual DVD player has to acquire a license via the Internet whenever I watch it.
Here's the kicker- I played the HDTV version alongside the MP2 version and I couldn't see a dramatic difference in quality.
I repeat myself:
Open standards need not be free ones. They just need to be ones that anyone is free to implement for a standard fee. There are lots and lots of open standards that are not free. People seem to be confusing open standards with open source.
There is also confusion with open source. Having the source open doesn't imply free like Linux seems to think. There are many products that ship with full source that you are NOT free to distribute. You can use the product and it's source for your own ends, but no redistribution.
With standards it is a matter of control and licensing restrictions. Closed standards, like WM was, are ones where the company controls everything and dictates terms. If you want to license it, you have to do as they say. If they don't like your project, too bad. It's their technology and they dictate the terms. They can also change it at any time and you are SOL.
Open standards are ones that are controled by a standards body, like WM is now and Firewire. STMPE in the case of WM, IEEE in the case of Firewire (properly called IEEE-1394). This means the company just can't change things, they have to submit the changes to the standards body to be approved. It also means that licensing is standardised. They release standard terms which ANYONE can get for ANY purpose.
So, if you were feeling philanthropic, you'd be free to drop $400,000 on an unlimited license and release a Linux WM9 player. MS can't stop you. Also, you'd be gaurenteed that if the WM9 format ever changed, you'd be able to get the changes from STMPE. MS could develop WM10, or whatever, but they couldn't go and change WM9 on you. They also couldn't pull your license just because they didn't like you making Linux software.
So remember: open standard != no cost standard. Just openly available.
What it will be like to try and rip a DVD in the near future? Does the phrase M$ 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.
No, the way M$ benefits is the $0.10 per player copy licensing kickback from the DVD industry. The rest of that complex marketing positioning is just gravy.
--
make install -not war
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.
Whats it mean when you see "Microsoft" in a topic and immediatley scroll down looking for anything modded as "Funny"?
(\_/)
(O.o) This is Bunny. Add Bunny to your signature
(> <) to help him achieve world domination.
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.)
In the long run this won't matter anyways, as the Blu-ray format is both technologically superior (holds 50GB compared to 30GB), and also has much wider support in the electronics industry. Though HD-DVD is technically the "standard" espoused by the DVD Forum, only two major companies support it, NEC and Toshiba. On the other hand Sony, Hitachi, LG, Matsushita, Mitsubishi, Pioneer, Royal Philips, Samsung, Sharp and Thompson (not to mention Dell and HP) back the Blu-ray.
Check out this report comparing the two at CES. HD-DVD sounds like it is getting left in the dust.
As far as I know, the only company which does this is Intervideo, who make LinDVD. LinDVD is not available to the general public, however, and is only licensed to OEMs making Linux-based DVD players.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News