Microsoft Codec Required For Blu-Ray Players

dmayle writes "According to ExtremeTech, the Blu-Ray Disc Association (which consists of many big names, like Sony, Philips, and Pioneer) has decided to mandate Microsoft's VC-1 video codec. With HD-DVD incorporating Microsoft's patented video codecs as well, what will happen to the state of media players on Open Source? (Here's an additional source for Blu-Ray info)."

Comments

MSFT media domination begins?

[garcia]

Ahem, it seems that they are making their inroads to Media domination...

Microsoft will maintain its neutral position in supporting the emerging high definition video formats, said Amir Majidimehr, corporate vice president of Microsoft's Windows Media division, in a statement.

MSFT will remain "neutral" as long as they are getting paid royalties to use the codec in the design. This will likely mean that Open Source alternatives will be shutout although with other technologies OSS has been able to make its way around those roadblocks.

How long until the MPAA gives in or will yet ANOTHER media format be created that won't include MSFT or OSS?

Re:MSFT media domination begins?

[John Harrison]

Other than being faster, why would a hardware encoder have intrinsically better output than a software encoder? You can implement the same algorithms in either one.

They're doing what now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Could someone please explain this to me is words that actually made sence to a person that has no idea what codec and all that stuff is?

Re:They're doing what now?

[pyros]

If the recorders only use one owned by MS, then how are open source media players supposed to use the damn thing since they can't pay royaltys to MS?

Some third company could pay the license and write a closed source plugin for that open source media player, and sell the plugin. Although the third company would probably be run out of business by the screaming masses shouting "your plugin is a derivative work therefor it must be made open source!" So maybe they would write an open source interface to the closed source codec. But people would still whine and bitch because they can't have it for free.

What about Dolby Digital?

[gpinzone]

How is this different than mandating all current DVD player support Dolby Digital? This doesn't preclude the standard from accepting other open source codecs. Market forces have pretty much made DTS decoding standard in all current players.

Incrediably Short sighted

[kiljoy001]

I can't help to think that this is incredably short sighted by said companies. They go through all that trouble to create a new format, and then dictate that the compression method used is propriatary, and currently non-standard. It's not about Microsoft(!?), this is about clear and common sence: If you use a propiertary format, don't you think that the owner will charge some kind of royality fee for the useage ? This could only make this more costly, and less attractive to future users of this. Clearly this is akin to shooting one's self in the foot, let's not even get started with OSS trying to keep up on this format too...

Prediction: blu-ray for movies will die

[denis-The-menace]

1- Remember that Hollywood is supposedly afraid of Microsoft
2- Royalties jack up the price of things
3- There is still plenty of time for bickering and delay to kill this a-la-Digital-Audio-Tape.

Re:What will happen?

[mukund]

You forget DVD Jon has not retired yet unlike an MPAA official.

Chinese manufacturers

[doofusclam]

Does anyone know what a ballpark cost would be for licensing the IP for a blu-ray player, including the MS and other patented bits?

With all these codecs on board i'd imagine it's a lot more than for regular DVD, and seeing the Chinese manufacturers attitude towards this they'll just go right ahead with their own patent-free platform. Hollywood will ignore them, at first, then they'll panic like mad knowing that a couple of billion users can only buy pirated copies of their films. Brilliant, way to go.

Re:Chinese manufacturers

[swb]

In fact, the linked article in the original post shows the Achilles heel of such a strategy: "For one thing, a homegrown format like EVD would become useless if few movies are released for it."

I don't see this as an issue at all. EVD devices would likely be cheap, since they'd be oriented towards the Chinese market, and would therefore likely be popular in the entire Asian rim of the Pacific.

Which in turn means a huge market, either legitimate, or otherwise. Movies in format xx would be dubbed or transcoded to EVD by the pirate market.

I always wonder if the Chinese stanards are an attempt not at market control/freedom from royalties, but actually a form of information control. If EVD is cheapest, it can win in the market, and the government can control what gets released internally on EVD.

I've always thought that DVD regions were a form of that as well -- what's the deal with countries as proximate as Japan, China and Viet Nam being in *three* different regions? Why is China in its own region? Why have different regions for Western Europe *and* Russia/Eastern Europe, despite EU membership spanning that divide?

I'm sure the standard was in development during the cold war and those regional codings reflected political wills -- no worries to Soviet or Chinese censors about evil outside influences, since supposedly their players wouldn't even play outside content.

I know we're told its about release timing and regional marketing, but it smells like politics to me.

not exclusive, but lucrative

[Doc Ruby]

The Microsoft video codec will be required for inclusion in Blu-Ray players, but others won't be excluded. That means M$ getting a royalty for every player sold in the world, which is a great business for them. It's certainly been a great business for Sony and Phillips, with their codec required in every CD player. It also guarantees their own media products will be compatible with the new players, without any extra R&D, to say nothing of putting their logo on all those consumer devices.

Other codecs can also run. There might be pricing pressure on manufacturers to exclude the other, non-mandated codecs. Just like the PC "bundling" coup that drove Microsoft to their monopoly position. Blu-Ray needs at least one required codec to be a stable target for media delivery. By requiring Microsoft's codec, they've pushed Microsoft's monopoly-perpetuation strategy into the wider world of consumer TV.

Re:How is this news?

[IGnatius T Foobar]

Blu-Ray Disc (BD) already supported MPEG-2 and H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, and now just added Microsoft VC-9. So what?

It's important because if you want to build an HD-DVD (and now Blu-Ray DVD) player, you have to support all the codecs specified by the format. You only have a choice when you're a content producer deciding which codec to use. You can't just build a player and decide "Well, I like MPEG but I don't like Microsoft, so I'll omit the VC-9 codec." If you do that, your player won't get certified. And of course, users will complain when their VC-9 encoded discs won't play on your player.

So now what do you do if you're building, say, a Linux player? Now you have to acquire IP rights from not only the MPEG people, but also from Microsoft. Think that'll be easy?

Yes, this will be reverse-engineered in some part of the world which is not dominated by the Corporate/Government oligarchy that exists in the US. In fact, the xine/mplayer stuff can probably handle it today. But you can be sure that both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray will carry a brand new scrambling system as well. Perhaps DVD Jon will crack it, but don't count on it happening quickly.

What will happen to Open Source players?

[Phantasmo]

The same thing that will happen to all serious Free software development: it will eventually migrate out of the United States where it can continue unhindered by insane patent and export laws. The finished product will find its way back into the US via FreeNet/WASTE/etc.

Re:Mandated for hardware, not software

[iainl]

Oh, I know there's a problem, all right. Its just that most of the /. crowd don't seem to overly care as long as mplayer works using a codec that is legally questionable in the US, but easily available.

Bad: MPEG2 is MUCH better

[alexhmit01]

MPEG2 may be lacking in certain efficiencies, but MPEG2 with enough bandwidth (and the point of Blu-ray was to GET enough bandwidth) looks AWESOME.

The draw-back to new CODECs? HDTV was SUPPOSED to standardize on MPEG2, not because it was the best, but because it was pretty good when it came out and would be cheap to implement by the changeover in a few years.

Remember, televisions are going to start having to ship with HDTV decoders (err, did have to start shipping as of a few months ago, a certain percentage of sets), and they don't want to include OTA without CableCard...

This means that within a few years, all new sets will ship with HDTV decoders, which includes, an MPEG2 decoder. Therefore, the manufacturers should start including Firewire.

A wonderful day was nearly upon us, Firewire for EVERYTHING but videogame systems. We were going to be able to use a basic remote instead of $200-$800 programmable remotes that depend upon screwy macros.

Instead, we're going to lose the Firewire stereo, and instead suffer with messes of cables and macros...

Sure HDMI offers some ease of use, but not the beauty of Firewire.

The AV-HD or whatever it was called was brilliant... it was a harddrive in a box that supported the decryption/encryption of HD from OTA sources... Your television could manage it.

Instead, before the HDTV mainstream adoption (those of us with sets are still 5%), we're already abandonning MPEG2...

It would have been nice if the FIRST round of HD gear could all be MPEG2... We could have gone with fancier codecs with the NEXT replacement, but oh no, we're getting trashed before it began.

I have over 100+ wires behind my entertainment center, I dreamed of cutting down to 8...

Alex

Re:What is NOT trivial...

[Rashkae]

New movies are still coming out on VHS. What makes you think producers are going to kill DVD's??? A technology like VHS and DVD that manages to become the standard for untold "joe blow" consumers is where the money is at, and is where producers will target prducts.

Another note: VHS is still popular because it is the only medium people can record on. Now that DVD player prices have dropped to obscene lows in price, where manufacturers are only making a few dollars proffit on a player, a DVD recorder (for regular people to use to record HDTV broadcasts), will be the next thing to hit the mass market.

I know there are tons of legal hassels, and no doubt lawyers on both sides of the debate will make off with huge sums of cash. But in the end, this is the only avenue left open for profit and exploitation by hardware makers, and therefore, eventually, is where the market is going to go. This will, of course, ensure that DVD becomes the entrenched standard for even longer.

All of this will piss off movie execs, who will whine and moan about piracy, at the same time as sales for cheaply produced discs will continue to boost profits year after year. Really, I just can't understand some people. I can only imagine how much profits on DVD's will increase once studios realize they can publish DVD's without paying licenses to MacroVision. After all, it will have no effect on Piracy (anyone who wants can get around it anyhow), so why pay for it?

Note: The above post contains forward looking statements that reflect the personal opinion of the author only. Any resemblance to what will happen in the future is purely coincidental.

Re:Why not MPEG-2? Compression efficiency!

[benwaggoner]

Blu-ray needs the cartridge because it uses a much thinner plastic layer, making it more vulnerable to scratches, grease, etcetera. I'd expect DVD Forum blue laser to have durability not much worse than DVD. In my experience, I have plenty of 8 year old discs that play just fine, as long as the kids haven't been at them.