I suppose I could have let this thread die, but I have to add... looks like I was careless and misread the OP (I thought you were responding to a post above it) when I replied to yours. The *actual* OP you were responding to was in fact the OPPOSITE of my point (which completely agrees with yours). My bad:)
Those who pretend the technical mechanism behind streaming a brain dead sitcom or yet another Hollywood bomb to their laptop is somehow comparable to liberty and human rights deserve to be tied down and forced to watch every Tyler Perry and Michael Bay movie back-to-back.
If you consider 15Khz stereo a touch above 3500Hz mono with lower S/N, sure. Though I agree it's a joke to claim you can hear MP3 compression artifacts though that 15Khz and relatively poor FM S/N.
You don't have to do a personal ABX test when there are many others who have done them and confirmed his statement. In fact, it's a much more powerful statement citing many others than just yourself. One is a statistic and the other is an anecdote.
And for a MUCH more exhaustive and scientific discussion than any post on this article will ever make (anther post in this thread already linked it, but you must have missed it, and it's a great article): http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
Not quite - most of the use of Silverlight is PlayReady DRM-based streaming, and I guarantee you Microsoft charges plenty for that (both one time licensing and per device/stream/etc). Further, if you use their Smooth Streaming implementation, that's another license fee, and tons of server software as well.
There is a reason Microsoft is still making billions of dollars a quarter... they aren't completely stupid. The Silverlight runtime may be free, but it's really just a platform to enable them to sell many other products and services...
Yep, it's a horrible example on his part given that almost every networked TV, BD player, and set-top box sold today runs Linux, not to mention (as you said) Android devices.
I agree it won't enable "all" of your software to be open source, but I don't agree that it won't help free software at all. There are plenty of proprietary binary drivers for Linux - both for workstations, servers, and most notably devices - and the willingness of Linus and Linux devs to allow that is why Linux is completely dominating the embedded market right now.
Maybe some compensation for all that personal data and advertising revenue they got from his use of Gmail? It's not like Gmail is provided at no value to Google (same with Reader, actually).
Yeah, but that's the whole point of free web services. His compensation was free email, through a completely voluntary service with both other free and paid competition, where everyone going into it understands why it's free and it's clearly documented in the terms of service...
There is plenty of price competition for DRM - lots of companies offer it - some give it away, some charge.
Any specific examples of that? And if it's not studio approved, it's useless in this context.
And second - DRM is also useless without integration into an application platform. Which goes back the entire point of this discussion about implentation-agnostic DRM integration with HTML5...
Of course DRM makes money for the DRM provider. Never said it made money for the content provider.
And forcing content providers to be DRM-free is going to be about as effective as forcing gasoline providers to lower their prices by boycotting a gas station one day a week. Actually, even less effective since the vast majority of consumers just really don't even want to boycott video streaming solutions using DRM. They really just don't CARE as long as they can watch a metric crapload of TV and old movies for ~$9 a month, or new movies for ~$4 PPV (which compared to $10+ per ticket in the theater is practically nothing).
Finally, DRM is not a service differentiator, so it has little to no effect on technology investment. Quality is a differentiator, which is why all of the major streaming providers are now offering 1080p. And that's basically limited only by ISP bandwidth; if that wasn't the bottleneck everything could already be 7.1 audio and BD quality video...
If everyone starts using DRM, a site will pop up that doesn't use it if there is a want of it from the consumers.
Except that's not how it works.... Netflix uses DRM because that's what the studios require. No site can pop up that doesn't use because they will never be allowed to license the content.
An also, DRM provider revenue is also not something you can base on the number of sites. These proprietary DRMs like Adobe Access and MS PlayReady charge per license issued (basically per stream), so Netflix alone could be enough business to make MS PlayReady profitable.
the only reason that Netflix would choose to adopt a new technology is if it made it cheaper for them.
Yes - and that is exactly MY point. If they could standardize on HTML5 for the UI and video player and pick any of a number of competing DRMs, they WILL be able to consolidate their various application platforms, WILL be able to choose the cheapest DRM, and there WILL finally be price competition on DRM technologies!
No, it absolutely won't. DRM is everywhere now. Not only totally ubiquitous for Netflix and other streaming providers, but used by every cable and satellite provider as well (yes, those are DRM, too). As long as there is enough of a market for any particular DRM to make money, it will survive. And come on - this is software - as long as it's installable on PC and MacOS "compatibility" is irrelevant and it will continue to exist.
And speaking of that - if you don't agree look up CFF. It's going to be the standard downloadable video file format used by almost every movie studio within the year. It was designed to support any DRM, and currently supports 5 different ones with the same file. So there goes your argument...
Come on, I KNOW you are smarter than to use the "I don't use it, so no one else does" argument. Yes, almost 30 million Netflix subscribers in the US alone are using Silverlight/MS PlayReady to stream video. And many many millions more using various forms of Flash/AIR etc to do the same.
For every one of you there are thousands of people who just don't care, and just want to stream a movie, and are happy to pay a monthly fee for it rather than pirate it. Those numbers just aren't going to change anyone's minds...
Yeah, but counting "the number of sites" using Silverlight or Flash is silly. Netflix is one of those sites, and it's the single largest streaming video, DRM, and bandwidth user on the planet by a huge margin.
If HTML5 adopted a studio-approved DRM solution Netflix (and most other streaming providers) would drop Silverlight and Flash in a heartbeat. There is definitely something to be said for that...
The problem is that the standard DOESN'T do it in a standard fashion. It only opens a standardized CONNECTION to DRM implementations.
Wait, so it's an open standard allowing any pluggable DRM implementation, and people are claiming to be against it in the name of open standards?
Honestly, do you know what preventing DRM in HTML5 is going to do? It's going to keep the existing PC DRM solutions (Flash and Silverlight) alive and competing with HTML5 for a long time. Put proper DRM in HTML5 and both of those technologies are effectively done (and good riddance!)
Well, considering the same general thing has been accomplished by antisocial 16 year olds, it probably didn't require an army of formally trained computer scientists to pull this off...
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose I could have let this thread die, but I have to add... looks like I was careless and misread the OP (I thought you were responding to a post above it) when I replied to yours. The *actual* OP you were responding to was in fact the OPPOSITE of my point (which completely agrees with yours). My bad :)
Oh come on, are you f-ing kidding me?
Those who pretend the technical mechanism behind streaming a brain dead sitcom or yet another Hollywood bomb to their laptop is somehow comparable to liberty and human rights deserve to be tied down and forced to watch every Tyler Perry and Michael Bay movie back-to-back.
If you consider 15Khz stereo a touch above 3500Hz mono with lower S/N, sure. Though I agree it's a joke to claim you can hear MP3 compression artifacts though that 15Khz and relatively poor FM S/N.
You don't have to do a personal ABX test when there are many others who have done them and confirmed his statement. In fact, it's a much more powerful statement citing many others than just yourself. One is a statistic and the other is an anecdote.
And for a MUCH more exhaustive and scientific discussion than any post on this article will ever make (anther post in this thread already linked it, but you must have missed it, and it's a great article): http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
No, not at all like 640K.
Intent does not make a difference.
Intent makes ALL the difference in humor and satire. Without intent, there would be no such thing as irony.
Just. Wow. So very insightful... I think we should call that "Steubenville's Law". Like "you've been Steubenvilled!"
Not quite - most of the use of Silverlight is PlayReady DRM-based streaming, and I guarantee you Microsoft charges plenty for that (both one time licensing and per device/stream/etc). Further, if you use their Smooth Streaming implementation, that's another license fee, and tons of server software as well.
There is a reason Microsoft is still making billions of dollars a quarter... they aren't completely stupid. The Silverlight runtime may be free, but it's really just a platform to enable them to sell many other products and services...
Yep, it's a horrible example on his part given that almost every networked TV, BD player, and set-top box sold today runs Linux, not to mention (as you said) Android devices.
In the end the one dealing with the majority of Silverlight/Flash headaches is not Netflix, it's the *end user*.
I agree it won't enable "all" of your software to be open source, but I don't agree that it won't help free software at all. There are plenty of proprietary binary drivers for Linux - both for workstations, servers, and most notably devices - and the willingness of Linus and Linux devs to allow that is why Linux is completely dominating the embedded market right now.
Maybe some compensation for all that personal data and advertising revenue they got from his use of Gmail? It's not like Gmail is provided at no value to Google (same with Reader, actually).
Yeah, but that's the whole point of free web services. His compensation was free email, through a completely voluntary service with both other free and paid competition, where everyone going into it understands why it's free and it's clearly documented in the terms of service...
There is plenty of price competition for DRM - lots of companies offer it - some give it away, some charge.
Any specific examples of that? And if it's not studio approved, it's useless in this context.
And second - DRM is also useless without integration into an application platform. Which goes back the entire point of this discussion about implentation-agnostic DRM integration with HTML5...
Of course DRM makes money for the DRM provider. Never said it made money for the content provider.
And forcing content providers to be DRM-free is going to be about as effective as forcing gasoline providers to lower their prices by boycotting a gas station one day a week. Actually, even less effective since the vast majority of consumers just really don't even want to boycott video streaming solutions using DRM. They really just don't CARE as long as they can watch a metric crapload of TV and old movies for ~$9 a month, or new movies for ~$4 PPV (which compared to $10+ per ticket in the theater is practically nothing).
Finally, DRM is not a service differentiator, so it has little to no effect on technology investment. Quality is a differentiator, which is why all of the major streaming providers are now offering 1080p. And that's basically limited only by ISP bandwidth; if that wasn't the bottleneck everything could already be 7.1 audio and BD quality video...
No, Hastings LEFT the MS board 6 months ago without explanation. Which makes the example even MORE interesting...
If everyone starts using DRM, a site will pop up that doesn't use it if there is a want of it from the consumers.
Except that's not how it works.... Netflix uses DRM because that's what the studios require. No site can pop up that doesn't use because they will never be allowed to license the content.
An also, DRM provider revenue is also not something you can base on the number of sites. These proprietary DRMs like Adobe Access and MS PlayReady charge per license issued (basically per stream), so Netflix alone could be enough business to make MS PlayReady profitable.
the only reason that Netflix would choose to adopt a new technology is if it made it cheaper for them.
Yes - and that is exactly MY point. If they could standardize on HTML5 for the UI and video player and pick any of a number of competing DRMs, they WILL be able to consolidate their various application platforms, WILL be able to choose the cheapest DRM, and there WILL finally be price competition on DRM technologies!
No, it absolutely won't. DRM is everywhere now. Not only totally ubiquitous for Netflix and other streaming providers, but used by every cable and satellite provider as well (yes, those are DRM, too). As long as there is enough of a market for any particular DRM to make money, it will survive. And come on - this is software - as long as it's installable on PC and MacOS "compatibility" is irrelevant and it will continue to exist.
And speaking of that - if you don't agree look up CFF. It's going to be the standard downloadable video file format used by almost every movie studio within the year. It was designed to support any DRM, and currently supports 5 different ones with the same file. So there goes your argument...
Come on, I KNOW you are smarter than to use the "I don't use it, so no one else does" argument. Yes, almost 30 million Netflix subscribers in the US alone are using Silverlight/MS PlayReady to stream video. And many many millions more using various forms of Flash/AIR etc to do the same.
For every one of you there are thousands of people who just don't care, and just want to stream a movie, and are happy to pay a monthly fee for it rather than pirate it. Those numbers just aren't going to change anyone's minds...
Yeah, but counting "the number of sites" using Silverlight or Flash is silly. Netflix is one of those sites, and it's the single largest streaming video, DRM, and bandwidth user on the planet by a huge margin.
If HTML5 adopted a studio-approved DRM solution Netflix (and most other streaming providers) would drop Silverlight and Flash in a heartbeat. There is definitely something to be said for that...
The problem is that the standard DOESN'T do it in a standard fashion. It only opens a standardized CONNECTION to DRM implementations.
Wait, so it's an open standard allowing any pluggable DRM implementation, and people are claiming to be against it in the name of open standards?
Honestly, do you know what preventing DRM in HTML5 is going to do? It's going to keep the existing PC DRM solutions (Flash and Silverlight) alive and competing with HTML5 for a long time. Put proper DRM in HTML5 and both of those technologies are effectively done (and good riddance!)
Well, considering the same general thing has been accomplished by antisocial 16 year olds, it probably didn't require an army of formally trained computer scientists to pull this off...
Kim Jong Un probably plays Starcraft, too.
If I cared the *tiniest* amount about "saving face" on slashdot I'd probably just post AC like you.
Kind of a loud, droning noise...
Heh, not sure the NBA is the best place to go looking for non-pussified athletes.