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."

64 of 375 comments (clear)

  1. Hmm... by Phoenixhunter · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm thinking Microsoft will have spent 2+ years developing this only to have it cracked in under 6 months...

    1. Re:Hmm... by dcaulton · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, no. This has nothing to do with DRM. It's a video codec.

    2. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Though seeing as how both MS and most media conglomerates are looking towards DRM lately, I would imagine it's just around the corner.

      If they would have loaded these things with DRM right away there would have been more outcry from the knowledgable public (bit of an oxymoron there). Just having their plain codec onboard so many machines gives them the leverage to toss in DRM when the time is right.

    3. Re:Hmm... by jimbosworldorg · · Score: 5, Informative
      I'm not quite sure how it gives them leverage to "toss in DRM", since the codec effectively became frozen as a standard when they submitted it to SMPTE.

      Microsoft will no longer be the ones to control revisions added to the codec if it's approved. SMPTE will be.

      --

      Coming soon to Slashdot: meta-meta-moderation!

    4. Re:Hmm... by dcaulton · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think it's nearly certain that HD-DVD and other formats will include SOME DRM since DVD has some today. But this announcement is limited to video codecs. The decision around DRM choice will be independent of video.

    5. Re:Hmm... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, what this will involve is not actual Microsoft-authored code in each compatible player, but software written using patented and licensed Microsoft algorithms.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    6. Re:Hmm... by abandonment · · Score: 5, Insightful

      exactly, to submit the standard, ms had to specifically remove the codec from its proprietary 'vault' and make it publically licensable. after the years of development that they've put into their video compression, this is quite the move for them - considering that years ago the idea of a microsoft standard was simply breaking existing ones with proprietary extensions. frankly the video compression is the ONE thing that microsoft gets right. not that i want ms tech in my dvd player mind you.

    7. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      "considering that years ago the idea of a microsoft standard was simply breaking existing ones with proprietary extensions"

      I still can't believe they wanted to replace .html with .htm.

    8. Re:Hmm... by .@. · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Really?

      Let's take a look at the T2 disc that is available with WM9 HD content now.

      To watch it, you have to install the player on the disc.

      Then, the player needs to "call home" to make sure you're allowed to use it (via the Internet).

      Then, the player needs to be updated.

      Then the update needs to call home.

      If it hasn't crashed by then (mine did, three times), you MIGHT get to watch your DVD.


      Remember DIVX? Not the codec, the abomination Circuit City was pushing as an alternative to what we now call DVD? Basically a dial-home, pay-per-view DVD format.

      Do we REALLY want that whole scenario all over again?


      I HATE the way companies try to push all of this before the general consumer populace is even aware it's occurring. DVD early-adopters won the DIVX battle, but primarily because Circuit City was the only distributor, and they were easy to boycott. They were also in poor financial shape to begin with, and couldn't bankroll a protracted battle to push their format through.

      MS can. MS will. And our DVD players will have to dial home to ask for permission every time we want to watch a DVD. And you can be certain that "ask permission" will morph into "pay for use" at some point in the future.

      --
      .@.
    9. Re:Hmm... by Michalson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Paranoia anyone?

      Microsoft submitted a codec standard. That standard was accepted as one of the new codecs that will be implimented (by the manufacturers) into the new style DVD players. MS has no control over individual implimentations. This is no different then how some DVD players can now play DivX DVDs (DVDs containing a DivX 5 compatiblity mode encoded avi), except that it will be standard on all units, not just a few special ones.

      How does this benefit Microsoft?
      Since it doesn't give them any control over your DVD player, no special software installed (you can't install software on a DVD player) like the crackhead suggests, they must be getting something. What they are getting is a foot in the DVD door. They can now make more comprehensive DVD burning tools in Longhorn (MS is also likely looking at trying to get digital video camera makers to support the codec too, so you can seamlessly move video from camera, to computer, to DVD-R). The other $advantage$ is that they are now the IBM of one of the new DVD codecs. If studios want to encode DVDs in this manner (which MS will of course strongly market it as the being the "best" choice) they'll want to use tools from the people who know the codec best, which means MS can make lots of money licencing encoders to the people who have lots of money to spend.

    10. Re:Hmm... by dcaulton · · Score: 5, Informative

      perhaps should clarify. distributing mpeg-2 decoding or encoding without paying a license fee to MPEG-LA is illegal. This is why linux distros pretty much never ship with DVD playback built in. however, I agree that CSS and other DRM schemes are a much bigger challenge to OSS than license fees, which can always be done with separate, binary distributions.

    11. Re:Hmm... by Wolfier · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Theoretically, you're right....

      That is, until MS wins the contract with most manufacturers to be the implementator of the software. Then, you'll no longer be able to separate the codec and the DRM package that comes with it.

      Does bundling sound familiar?

    12. Re:Hmm... by jrockway · · Score: 4, Funny

      > I don't think they would be stupid enough to break their own OS.

      MS? No. Never. :)

      --
      My other car is first.
  2. what are the licensing terms? by jimbosworldorg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:what are the licensing terms? by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      " 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. "

      That's pretty much how it's going to work, man. The industry really wants to prevent competition from their own customers.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    2. Re:what are the licensing terms? by PPGMD · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Royalties have to be paid anyways. The $30 DVD remote for the Xbox is a $10 remote (retail price) with $20 royalties to the DVD group.

      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.

    3. Re:what are the licensing terms? by Keebler71 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Read the article. Your answer is in the last paragraphs.

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    4. Re:what are the licensing terms? by KrackHouse · · Score: 5, Informative

      Good question. It's patented so they can charge if they want. http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3 305461 Patent 6,510,177, granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Jan. 21, is entitled "System and method for layered video coding enhancement." Patent 6,683,980, issued Jan. 27, is entitled "System and method for compressing data." Both touch on the same development; one is systems oriented, the other is focused on bit-level encoding. Now here is an interesting dilemma. We want open technology to spur innovation by preventing lethargic mega-corporations from relying on old royalties. In this case, MS has created something that is better than what is offered by Open Source. Do we give up on good technolgy simply because it comes from Microsoft? Especially when our goal is to make technology more accessible? I think we should because when the hardware stabilizes OSS will eventually catch up and the industry could become too dependant on MS. I'm willing to sacrifice in the short run if my progeny don't have to pay through the nose to watch PBS in high definition.

      --
      What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
      http://houndwire.com
    5. Re:what are the licensing terms? by ratsnapple+tea · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Do we give up on good technolgy simply because it comes from Microsoft? ... I think we should because when the hardware stabilizes OSS will eventually catch up"

      Although by the time OSS catches up, Microsoft's going to have come up with something even better and patented it. Well, maybe not Microsoft, but somebody.

      You can't chase a moving target by aiming at where they were six months ago.

    6. Re:what are the licensing terms? by Kristoph · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      ]{

    7. Re:what are the licensing terms? by B2382F29 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Every modern codec requires licensing fees.

      Like this?

      --
      Move Sig. For great justice.
    8. Re:what are the licensing terms? by hummassa · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hmmm, you are talking about this...

      --
      It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
    9. Re:what are the licensing terms? by Dwonis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your comment gives the mistaken impression that OSS is somehow destined to always be behind proprietary software, as far as innovation and technical superiority is concerned. Microsoft and SCO love that notion, but unfortunately for them, it's not true. OSS is overtaking proprietary software in many areas, and it's reasonable to expect this trend to continue.

      Here are just some of many examples of innovative, open-source software:

      Python A very clean, versatile language. Will probably replace VB for custom RAD in the next decade. KNOPPIX A very well-featured bootable OS. Mozilla Firefox There are really too many improvements to list here. Vorbis Cutting-edge audio codec Freenet Decentralized global data storage system. WikiWikiWeb LaTeX Widely-used document preparation system. Spawned from TeX, an open-source typesetting system. Popular among mathematicians any cryptologists. A completely new approach to global collaborative development. Eventually led to Wikipedia.
    10. Re:what are the licensing terms? by red+floyd · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's different. DeCSS was copyright/trade secret.

      VC-9 has patents involved. You can't legally reverse engineer a patent and use it. Hell, you can't even legally use a patented item that you developed independently.

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    11. Re:what are the licensing terms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Only on Slashdot would people consider "Read the article" to be an insightful comment...

    12. Re:what are the licensing terms? by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 4, Informative

      License is ten cents per decoder, according to the MS website.

      This automatically excludes any open-source (ie FREE) implementations, as either the end-users (??) or the distributors (most likely) would be held responsible for unlicensed copies.

      Yeah it's only Ten Cents, but it's a Big Legal Stick that The Monopoly can BEAT you with.

      Score+1 for Microsoft vs OpenSource.

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    13. Re:what are the licensing terms? by takev · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, I've been a Python programmer for years and I can tell you that it like VB is not only a prototype language, altough people think when they first look at the language.

      It is also not a "pure" OO language, you can write linear script like, write procedural, even pure functional and ofource OO, or combine them all. Although the syntax is pretty strikt unlike perl, the way you can program is very open.

      I'm not a windows programmer, but I have played with Python under windows, and a large part of the windows API is exposed "as standard" in python.

      It is also very easy to add API and callbacks in Python. For example I build in a few days a coupling that alowed python to be used as a TopEnd (Transactional middleware) service/application component. (You were talking about transaction based systems)

      Now, I'm sure not everything you mentioned are already exposed to python, but the parent also told about a full decade, that is 10 years.
      And I am sure You could make everything you put in that list by yourself in a year, including learning python language and concept.

      Python is very easy to pick up, even by non-programmers. There are people teaching Python to their 6 year olds. I've noticed there is even turtle graphics (from the old LOGO language) in Python.

      Also the interactive python interpreter is very nice, you can test and learn concepts on its command prompt. even making TCP connections, opening windows, changing fields in excel, or connecting to a transaction system.

      My languages of choice are Python/C, I know many more languages, but I don't need more. (except for work, but that is not by choice). I use C mostly if things needs to be fast (such as image, video or audio processing) or if I want to expose a API to Python.

      Now, I'm certan that technicaly VB can easely be replaced by Python. There are many political reasons that this may not be the case.

    14. Re:what are the licensing terms? by DA-MAN · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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
  3. Uh oh. by shirai · · Score: 5, Funny

    "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

    1. Re:Uh oh. by El · · Score: 4, Funny

      "At the end of the day, we're going to trust the Germans. It does require us to remain vigilant to make sure that they keep their promises... Holy Shit!!! Look at all those tanks!" -- Anonymous Polish Politician, September 1, 1930.

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    2. Re:Uh oh. by El · · Score: 4, Funny

      What?!? When you think of Microsoft, don't you think of "Trusted Computing"?

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

  4. I wonder how long it will be by thammoud · · Score: 5, Funny

    before this thread degenerates into Java vs .NET

  5. Re:Hopefully... by Neophytus · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.
    Unlike some submitters, I RTFA :-)
  6. Not surprisising by October_30th · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Not really surprising.

    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
  7. Here we go again by mao+che+minh · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The only clear reason for an operating system and productivity company to make a video codec is as a means to tie consumers into their technology.

    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.....

    1. Re:Here we go again by minus_273 · · Score: 5, Informative

      funny, media player certainly works fine on OSX new update is quite nice..

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
  8. Mixed feelings by SixDimensionalArray · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. It's a truly funny article by Helpadingoatemybaby · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Microsoft has long been feared by members of Hollywood and consumer electronics companies for its competitive practices. The thinking has been that if Microsoft were to gain a foothold in their business that it would eventually seize control by charging outlandish licensing fees for its technology.

    "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.

  10. Re:Linux DVD players... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Buy yourself a clue.

    MPEG2/4 requires payment of royalties as well.

  11. Re:Yeah by jelle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "No facts, no reasons, no nothing."

    Yes that is the description of your posting. To the rest of us the /. story says really clearly 'proprietary codec in international standard'.

    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.
  12. This will be a big push for EVD by pacc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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)

    1. Re:This will be a big push for EVD by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 4, Informative

      Last I checked, EVD is using VP6, which has a $2/copy license fee. Microsoft's VC-9 is 10 cents/copy.

  13. Sceptical.. by zaunuz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  14. embrace and distend by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

  15. Three manditory playback modes means by doormat · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:Three manditory playback modes means by Trelane · · Score: 4, Insightful
      No one is forced to used WMV 9, they can still use MPEG-2.


      Concentrating only on users (i.e. neglecting HD-DVD player producers), if every man were an island unto himself, then yes.

      Vendors, of course, will have to pay royalties to MSFT if they want to be able to claim to support the standard (which will be important).

      Unfortunately, we're not islands. We don't produce all of the movies we watch ourselves, so we're not free to choose the format. If MSFT's format doesn't see widespread use, then it's not a big deal. If the format becomes the major format for future DVD movies, then there's no way of going around it short of not watching HD-DVD. And while one can vote with one's wallet, that only has a certain scope. I.e. if the general masses don't care enough, there's not much you can do about it, aside from throwing your gnat's weight into it.

      Personally, given how the current Western corporations are all about screwing the end user (Palladium/NGSCB, DRM at every turn, LaGrande, DVD-CSS, and its followup), I see a huge market for Asia to snag. And I, for one, will cheer them on if they let me do what I want with the movies I purchase. I bought the music/movies; I'm not stealing them or helping others steal them; they have no right to abridge my use of it.
      --

      --
      Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
  16. Since it's media player based... by Vaakku · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... We will see blue screens on TV too!

  17. Um an idea by tomstdenis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Um an idea by October_30th · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Where would the profit and - most important of all - control be there?

      You are clearly viewing this from the techie's point of view. All that is secondary for those who get to decide.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    2. Re:Um an idea by Junta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not quite so feasible... When it comes to mass-production of decoding chips, very low power (in both the wattage and processing power area), highly customized decoders are far far more economical than general purpose processors. Even the Crusoe is high power by the standards of these processors. Additionally, it is hard to predict the processing capacity of the player unless you enforce a standard hardware set anyway. You say today a Crusoe can handle any codec, but what if some break through occurs that can be implemented handily in a specialized hardware, but no software implementation can work with the Crusoe used in the mass market at the time? Additionally, the extra few megs of storage required to be that flexible is a lot more expensive than the current requirements.

      Just take some time to think about the cheapest general processor based system you have ever seen that is capable of decoding MPEG-2 without dropping frames, and then compare it to the sub-50 dollar DVD players out there. It is a nice dream, but the price is a lot higher overall, and customers would be resistant to such a market change.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  18. Being in DVD doesn't help Cable/DBS... by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...

  19. Re:Yeah by ceejayoz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  20. Ease the translation by astonish · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  21. Hedging their bets.... by Kjella · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  22. It's called r-e-p-u-t-a-t-i-o-n by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  23. Bad idea... by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  24. Another brick in the wall by El · · Score: 4, Funny

    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

  25. Obligatory Clippy ;-) by macgyvr64 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "It looks like you're trying to watch a DVD..."

  26. Excuse me, but royalties are paid on DVDs TODAY by StandardCell · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  27. Re:Hmm...Linux by frovingslosh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  28. Newest Versions of XVID by Nazmun · · Score: 4, Informative

    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...
  29. Re:Yeah by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  30. A format without a purpose.... by CarrionBird · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Why are we even bothering with a new format when 97% of the people out there don't use the full capabilities of the existing format.

    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
  31. One thin dime by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Informative

    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