| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Digital media: Will Microsoft win again? | |
|
||
| Time: 08:40 EST/13:40 GMT | News Source: News.com | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
A battle is brewing over the future of digital media that could determine whether consumers are locked into formats controlled by Microsoft or have access to more open standards championed by competitors. On the one hand, Microsoft is pushing its proprietary Windows Media technologies and its pending successor, dubbed Corona. On the other, RealNetworks, a longstanding supporter of many digital media formats, is joining Apple Computer and other companies in backing open-standard MPEG-4. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 314 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:35:29 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/25/2002 2:04:07 PM |
| gt, you seem a bit confused by what it would mean for Real to support mpeg-4. If you encoded a file in mpeg-4 format using Real software, it would be decodable by any mpeg-4 compliant codec. This is the point--Real's future success is no longer about their own proprietary formats--now, it's as much about the long term viability of mpeg-4 if they go that path.... Or at least, it will hardly be relevent whether you choose to encode in their proprietary formats or mpeg-4. |
| #2 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/25/2002 2:09:28 PM |
|
What I am curious about, and what I think would make a great poll here is: how many people have their audio files in wma and how many stayed with mp3? FOr a short stint there, it seemed like wma would overtake mp3--but I don't really believe that's the case anymore... or at least it's a rather close split--along the lines of the video format usages.
Anyway, my point being--those who are using mp3--don't you think they are more likely to convert their audio to mp4 rather than .cor (or whatever the hell corona is going to be named)? |
| #3 By 2459 (24.206.97.178) at 6/25/2002 4:35:09 PM |
|
Corona will still carry the WMA/WMV extensions (though the extension doesn't really matter).
One false statement I've seen so far in this article is that Windows Media will only be delivered to Windows PCs. This is incorrect. Microsoft has said that the codecs will be available to whomever wants a license. Windows users will automatically have a licence to the technology, however. The other thing is that, like the other MPEG standards, though MPEG4 is touted as an open standard, there are still licensing fees that must be paid (still undecided where with MP4 AFAIK) not unlike with a proprietary standard. This post was edited by n4cer on Tuesday, June 25, 2002 at 16:36. |
| #4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/25/2002 4:54:06 PM |
|
Sure, it was a joke to call it .cor, but my question is: do you believe wma is the current leader in audio? And I never assumed no one would be able to license Corona, nor do I think the article is really suggesting this.
If you think mp3 still has the lead, then aren't those files more likely to be converted to mp4s since they will not only be playable in all mp3 playable devices but all video devices as well? And because compatibility will be preserved between these two formats. n4cer, I think you and others are overblowing licensing. Licensing the format has always been the norm; the question is per use licensing... and this only applies to those who are making money off of their content, and it's only a percentage of those revenues. This looked onerous when they first floated their video licensing, but notice that audio licensing went smoothly--this is because many of the audio technologies were built for satellite streaming and incorporating DRM--in other words people (the radio stations, providers, and streamers, and artists) knew about this already and knew it needed done; in fact, is being mandated by the FCC. Anyone who is encoding/decoding/streaming mpeg-4 content for non-profit reasons will have to pay ZERO. The licensing of the tech will be done for the enduser by the tech provider -- Apple, Real, etc... The per use costs for video streams will be made smaller and only be payed for those charging for video content. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, June 25, 2002 at 16:56. |
| #5 By 2459 (24.206.97.178) at 6/25/2002 11:31:40 PM |
|
In terms of format adoption, I don't know. There are a lot of people that still use MP3 due to their ignorance about DRM. They think you can't encode anything in WMA without it being DRMed. Many don't even know how to uncheck a checkbox in Windows Media Player.
In terms of quality and efficiency, there is no doubt (as far as I'm concerned) that WMA is superior. Corona can only be better, and I wish I were in that beta (can't wait for its release). From what I've experienced over the years, MS tech has always improved at a more rapid pace than equivalent tech governed by consortiums. Windows Media and DirectX (among other things) have shown this. Its mainly a matter of being able to implement improvements at the pace time they are needed and ready, or waiting for board approval (which is usually slow). This holds true for some other companies too. Sometimes groups just move too slowly. Re: licensing, I'm just pointing out something many overlook. Some people stand up for things like mp3 over Windows Media based on the premise that the non-MS tech (in this case mp3) is a free and open technology. Some used this argument to make a big deal over MS not including an mp3 (and DVD) encoder in Windows. What they failed to see, even after many explainations, is that technologies like these aren't free, and would raise the price of Windows. Yet they think that just because you can get things like LAME for free, means that MS doesn't have to pay a license to Fraunhoffer (mp3) or whomever, depending upon the technology. Not trying to make a big deal out of it, but just saying that sometimes people will try to find any reason not to use an MS technology simply because it is from MS, even though it may offer greater benefits. |
| #6 By 3339 (64.175.41.74) at 6/26/2002 6:50:05 AM |
|
I don't think it's just DRM-fear, but who knows... It would be a good poll.
As for your licensing point, why Microsoft doesn't... I don't think people overlook the cost; I think that people see that every other company does it. In fact, they usually license two or three or more formats... I can appreciate the point in some respects because I'm tired of people whining about the cost of software or expecting it to be free... But to say that the cost is to prohibitive for Microsoft is a joke. |
| #7 By 2459 (24.206.97.178) at 6/26/2002 12:34:42 PM |
|
But it's also a matter of deminishing returns. How many people encode mp3s vs. the total Windows userbase? MS would be paying Fraunhoffer for every copy of Windows shipped as long as it had the encoder included, even though only a few see it as an absolute requirement. The cost may not be prohibitive, but is it worth it? Then there's the argument about MS taking over markets just to kill other companies. If MS didn't parcel out mp3 encoding and DVD decoding to third parties, some of whom were already in that business, isn't it conceivable they would get complaints of unfairness and abuse of monopoly power?
Frequently, they're in a "darned if you do/darned if you don't" situation. So they try to integrate things that benefit a large number of users. No one complained about mp3 until XP (no one complained about a lot of things until XP :-) ), but there was no functionality change as far as mp3 support in XP from any previos Windows version back to '95. Yet, some people still act as if MS took away a feature previously implemented. I, too, would like to see a poll regarding WMA adoption vs. DRM fear (and other formats, of course). |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 314 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:35:29 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
