I agree, but, trust me, if you've ever had to set-up a streaming server (not that you haven't, but...), you'd know that one is a breeze to set-up and runs like a horny thoroughbred and the other is a bitch to set-up and runs like a three-legged dog (on any OS). Can you guess which one runs better? And this doesn't even include the business considerations. Here's another analogy regarding server viability...what if you dated someone who was very popular and they constantly said, "Oh yes, I'm going to do this for you and that for you..." and on and on and then didn't deliver on half the promises, then started dating someone else behind your back. Would you like that or someone who wasn't so popular but who said, "Here are my simple plans for us..." and then delivered what they promised. I'd take the latter. Sorry for all the sociological analogies, but I'm single so I think about that a lot, he he.
Going somewhere else won't work. Content drives webcasting. People don't tune into something just because they can (maybe they did at first but now they're more specific). Webcasting is not television -- you don't change channels if you can't get something. If a television viewer is a football fan and can't get the game would they switch over to the Animal Channel and watch it instead? Probably not. Webcasting is all about individualized content delivery based on content interest; and not just entertainment, either, there's also business, religious, technical, sociological, psychological, personal finance (etc.), content, not just entertainment, that people want to watch. And if you want something badly enough, you'll jump through hoops to get it (e.g., Star Wars trailer downloads, cable-only television channels, etc.). Otherwise, you obviously don't want it badly enough. Oh, and Quicktime sucks. He he he.
You could stream something at HDTV quality over QuickTime if you had the bandwidth You could stream any of the three formats at any quality with the proper bandwidth.
You can get rid of the Quicktime upgrade/buy me! buy me! buy me! screen (at least on a PC, anyway). Simply change the date on your computer to sometime in the future, open the Quicktime Player, decline the upgrade option, close the player, then set your date back to the correct date and you shouldn't ever get the upgrade message ever ever ever again. Anyway, that's what I heard somewhere, and I would never do this myself because it might be illegal or something.
If WMA can be cracked, and ASF's are a more open standard than Real, and WM backend is cheaper than Real, then how come you say that WMA is an "unfortunate" part of the future? (other than your ingrained prejudices)
Real's format is much more proprietary that Windows Media. Whereas I can convert a Windows Media video file from ASF to AVI, MPEG, QT, etc., I can't do that with a Real Video file. Why? Because where Windows Media uses publicly-available codecs (MPEG4, MP3, ACELP, Voxware, etc.), Real uses proprietary codecs. That's why you haven't seen a Real format converter since ra2wav...Real Video is proprietary. Real has its advantages, but I think it's squandering them by trying to be both a technology co. and a content co.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, but, trust me, if you've ever had to set-up a streaming server (not that you haven't, but...), you'd know that one is a breeze to set-up and runs like a horny thoroughbred and the other is a bitch to set-up and runs like a three-legged dog (on any OS). Can you guess which one runs better? And this doesn't even include the business considerations. Here's another analogy regarding server viability...what if you dated someone who was very popular and they constantly said, "Oh yes, I'm going to do this for you and that for you..." and on and on and then didn't deliver on half the promises, then started dating someone else behind your back. Would you like that or someone who wasn't so popular but who said, "Here are my simple plans for us..." and then delivered what they promised. I'd take the latter. Sorry for all the sociological analogies, but I'm single so I think about that a lot, he he.
Going somewhere else won't work. Content drives webcasting. People don't tune into something just because they can (maybe they did at first but now they're more specific). Webcasting is not television -- you don't change channels if you can't get something. If a television viewer is a football fan and can't get the game would they switch over to the Animal Channel and watch it instead? Probably not. Webcasting is all about individualized content delivery based on content interest; and not just entertainment, either, there's also business, religious, technical, sociological, psychological, personal finance (etc.), content, not just entertainment, that people want to watch. And if you want something badly enough, you'll jump through hoops to get it (e.g., Star Wars trailer downloads, cable-only television channels, etc.). Otherwise, you obviously don't want it badly enough. Oh, and Quicktime sucks. He he he.
You could stream something at HDTV quality over QuickTime if you had the bandwidth You could stream any of the three formats at any quality with the proper bandwidth.
You can get rid of the Quicktime upgrade/buy me! buy me! buy me! screen (at least on a PC, anyway). Simply change the date on your computer to sometime in the future, open the Quicktime Player, decline the upgrade option, close the player, then set your date back to the correct date and you shouldn't ever get the upgrade message ever ever ever again. Anyway, that's what I heard somewhere, and I would never do this myself because it might be illegal or something.
If WMA can be cracked, and ASF's are a more open standard than Real, and WM backend is cheaper than Real, then how come you say that WMA is an "unfortunate" part of the future? (other than your ingrained prejudices)
So what's the difference between Microsoft controlling your streaming server and Real Networks controlling your streaming server?
Are you going to watch video with your MP3 player as well?
Real's format is much more proprietary that Windows Media. Whereas I can convert a Windows Media video file from ASF to AVI, MPEG, QT, etc., I can't do that with a Real Video file. Why? Because where Windows Media uses publicly-available codecs (MPEG4, MP3, ACELP, Voxware, etc.), Real uses proprietary codecs. That's why you haven't seen a Real format converter since ra2wav...Real Video is proprietary. Real has its advantages, but I think it's squandering them by trying to be both a technology co. and a content co.