Slashdot Mirror
SMPTE Adoption Of WMV9 Hits Some Snags
SysKoll writes "EETimes is running an
interesting story about the future of the video codecs for HD DVDs. The Redmond Beast convinced both the Blu-ray Disc Association and the DVD Forum to adopt its WMV9 video codec over MPEG4 for the upcoming VC-1 standard that is mandated for high-definition video devices. That was a huge coup for MS. Now it turns out that Microsoft cheated and lied: its code is not as good as MPEG 4, the WMV9 reference implementation is not available, and the WMV9 test suite does not exercise all the features. The SMPTE might drop WMV9 after all. Apparently, a highly technical standard body is harder to snowjob than the usual clueless consumers."
Is MPEG 4 an open standard? Are there any open standards (Dirac maybe?) that are at an advanced enough stage of development to be used as an alternative?
A company the size of MS that cannot write a decent test suite. Incompetence or the need to keep the proposed standard as obscure as possible to stifle competition... or both?
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
We were going to do a streaming media demo over a wireless data link. They said it would be no problem. (Codec choice was out of my hands, but I had to write the client) I wanted to know how we were going to get data from our custom wireless data decoder into Windows Media Player. Their answer? Wireless client -> Windows Media Codec -> Windows Media Server -> Windows Media Player. All on seperate computers, all running Server 2000. Our final solution? Wireless client -> File. Open file in Media Player. Same computer. Done. From my perspective marketing drives Windows Media, not good technology.
No this would be implemented in hardware in the players.
A side effect might be that Linux couldn't legally play the discs, but I don't know how that stacks up against people being able to play WMP files on mplayer with the Windows codecs...?
If WM9 can't even compete with MPEG4 LC, which is relatively established now, it will get eaten alive by AVC/H.264, not that MPEG-LA help themselves by encumbering a promising technology with patent and royalty complexities, by the time they get a satisfactory resolution they hand people like MS time to bribe and cajole a less worthy codec onto hapless consumers, and eventually studios of course.
MS is like my dog, who I've nick-named monopoly, he was promisng to start with then he jumps up to bite me in the ass given any excuse. He eats all the food out there and demands more resources, not to mention his lack of standards cause bad conflictions with other four legged beasts (such as the beast).
Legally, doing this is a grey area (it breaks the EULA). If mplayer ever become popular enough to threaten WMP, maybe Microsoft would take action, but until then, they can always resort to making their codec API so incredibly complex, DirectX, kernel and x86-tethered it would be impossible to reimplement or reverse engineer.
How about Xvid?
From the FAQ:
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
Probably they were thinking that, for their standard to be adopted, they needed the approval of an industry giant that has been known to create its own "standards" if the real standards don't suit it.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
This shouldn't surprise anyone. This is how Microsoft Bill Gates built his business. He told IBM that he had his BASIC implementation all ready (in reality he had barely started). He told IBM that he had his operating system all ready (in reality, he ended up buying it from someone else and modifying it to fit IBM's specifications).
Bill Gates seemed quite proud of those feats when he later bragged about them. Microsoft has made similar promises regarding Windows 95, Longhorn, etc.. This is the way Microsoft does business.
The only surprise here is that Microsoft may face some pitiful little ramifications for their actions.
There's a reason my entire movie library (ripped from owned DVD's which are stored away -- just like my CD collection now :) ... has the .MP4 extension at this time. There's also a reason that the entire library resides on Linux partitions and was created using a Mac. Microsoft has enough money. They get $0 now.
Last month I saw WMV9 covered in the only 2 microsoft booths at the IBC conference(amsterdam).
Microsoft really made me believe that wmv9 was mature enough to be an industry standard.
Was I assimilated by microsoft or is wmv9 not that bad at all?
I'm constantly amazed at the hypocrisy on this site. If Apple, Sun, or any Linux based company tries to exert influence it's valid business practice. As soon as MS does anything up to andincluding donating hardware and software they are the spawn of Satan. So many around here assume that the world would be so much better without MS and fail to see that if a company like Apple was the market leader they would do the same things. Anyway, keep modding down posts that question the bias around here and then bitch as to why everyone thinks /. readers are fanatics.
In answer to your question, the answer is Yes and it is already the case. We don't have to wait for a new Microsoft codec to be released in order to be slandered by both media conglomerates and, well, the media. Honest to God, every time I hear the phrases "rampant piracy" and "sinking profits" I want to go copy a CD or something. Sink this!
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Why not lossless compression?
You can save about 40-50% of the space you're wasting on WAV, and it's exactly the same bit-for-bit as the original.
(I'm just saying...)
MPEG 4 was based in part on some of Apple's "native Quicktime" codecs/formats IIRC.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
A friend of mine with many, many years of Microsoft experience with development and a broad range of their server tools and other high-end stuff was in a meeting with the Microsoft rep for his client.
It quickly became apparent that the Microsoft rep wasn't doing too well, since he wasn't giving acceptable answers to a lot of tough questions. Eventually my friend was asked to leave the meeting. Even though everyone felt the same way, it wasn't too politic to refer to MS as "$^%#ing idiots".
That's the thing about MS. Thet are just barely good enough to avoid serious repercussions from their incompetence... so far anyway. They seem to have a knack for screwing up the absolute maximum that allows them to maintain their monopoly... or another way, having just enough monopoly to get away with the huge amount of screw-ups they make.
Oh, well, VS6 is a good product and that's what my world is about.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
"More specifically it's a codec which implements certain parts (up to and including the AS 'Advanced Simple' profile) of the ISO MPEG-4 specification."
More accurately: "implements certain parts *ON PLAYBACK* of the MPEG-4 Specification". XviD encoded material does not play nicely with ISO standard MPEG-4 codecs; the same is true for DivX and 3ivx. These codecs are based on MPEG-4, and will play back MPEG-4, but do not create true MPEG-4 files when encoding.
It'd be nice if they gave Theora a shot. It looks like a lot of work has to go into preparing Microsoft's codec -- why not work on one that has no licensing problems at all, if you have to do that? The code is available now, which is more than you can say for this alternative.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
And the only person who's actually cited badmouthing the VC-1 codec is the head of Vbrick. Let's see what Vbrick is financially inolved with. Why, it's H.264. (scroll down toward the bottom)
I'm not saying that he's wrong or right, but *everyone* involved in this "who's better" fight has heavy financial incentive to say the other is bad.