| 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 |
 |
MPEG-4 backers protest Microsoft license | |
|
||
| Time: 00:00 EST/05:00 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Thanks Greg "Proponents of MPEG-4 are decrying Microsoft's new licensing fees for rival technology, saying that the pricing poses unfair competition and threatens consumer choice. In a first-ever move for Microsoft, it set pricing this week for licensing of its audio and video compression technology, or codecs, for use on non-Windows operating systems. The company says it will charge 10 cents per decoder, 20 cents per encoder, and 25 cents for both. " | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 172 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:52:58 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 1/9/2003 11:13:20 PM |
|
the pricing poses unfair competition and threatens consumer choice.
This is the funniest crap I've ever seen. |
| #2 By 2138 (62.201.74.162) at 1/10/2003 12:01:20 AM |
|
seems kind of funny to me also.
belto... |
| #3 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 1/10/2003 12:07:37 AM |
|
#2 mentioned DivX... Just for the record:
DivX = Microsoft's MPEG-4 codec with all the licensing stuff hacked out. That's all it is, there's nothing special about DivX besides copyright infringement. And my guess DivX is certainly not licensed from MPEGLA, so there is patent infringement as well. This post was edited by sodablue on Friday, January 10, 2003 at 00:12. |
| #4 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 1/10/2003 12:15:28 AM |
|
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHA...... *breath.... BWAHAHAHHAHhAHAhaHAHhahahaa.... *cough*... *hack... *cough*.... BWHAHAHAHAHAAH.
OK.... hehehheh...... uh hum... haheh.... eh... he.....ok. So, let me get this straight. Windows Media is now unfair because it is both better and cheaper than the rival MPEG-4, which happens to be a standard? Huh? Ok, you heard them guys... we should abandon cheaper, better technology for standards simply because they are standards. Not only that, but the company that creates that cheaper, better technology should be punished for even THINKING about making a better product. How DARE THEY. In other news, all developers should only use C#/CLR/.NET because it is an ECMA and ISO standard, and languages like Java should be immediatly abandoned because they are not... in addition, people should hate Sun because they created Java, displacing much of the existing development based on standards like C and C++. Wow... people have gone completely insane. |
| #5 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 1/10/2003 1:00:48 AM |
|
True for the original DivX codec AKA Divx3 AKA Div3x or something like that.
The DivX codec from divx.com is a rewritten codec based on MP4. That said, WM is still better than this. Who needs good vid Quality with MP3 audio when you can have Comparable/Better video quality with 5.1 surround for the same/less space/bandwidth costs. Not to mention the relation in name to that crappy DVD wannabe. This post was edited by n4cer on Friday, January 10, 2003 at 01:02. |
| #6 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 1/10/2003 1:06:49 AM |
|
#9: In Soviet Russia, no one make better product. Everyone equal, no reason to "innovate" as you capitalist pig-dogs say.
Soviet Russia is a worker's paradise just like Comrade Lenin said. |
| #7 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 1/10/2003 1:39:01 AM |
| Censorship? You used profanity in your post, which violates the terms of use. Posts that use profanity get deleted (when the admins are awake anyway). It isn't the bias that's the issue. |
| #8 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 1/10/2003 1:48:24 AM |
| They, not me. I'm just a user. I notice in your profile, though, that you haven't left your email address making it impossible for ActiveWin to notify you. I agree that the current moderation system needs help, and I hope future versions of this site work differently. I know this much, the system currently is not automated. Everything is manual, so if they don't get complaints via email or don't see it personally, an offending post won't be touched. I think that the filter should work when you're posting - you submit your post, the filter scans and refuses to post the comment until it passes the filter. That seems the more logical way of doing it to me. |
| #9 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/10/2003 10:05:35 AM |
|
"Pretty much XviD is where the original people from the Project Mayo/MPEG4 DivX creators went when the original DivX went proprietary."
DivX is a standard, and not proprietary because they took a proprietary Microsoft codec and hacked out the enforcement? God, you gotta love that logic! I wonder how MPEGLA feels about this new "standard" that Microsoft created inadvertently? Nobody is paying fees on this one. |
| #10 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/10/2003 12:15:42 PM |
|
"I wonder how MPEGLA feels about this new "standard" that Microsoft created inadvertently?"
Didn't anyone notice that the President and Spokesperson for the mpeg group don't care and actually support competitive licensing and technology? As far as I can tell, "Proponents" is one guy from tiny little iVast... The people who's opinions matter don't see a problem. You suckers will jump all over CNET in a heartbeat if its Microsoft they are talking about, but here you are like: "pathetic losers!" Who? The dude from iVast? Okay. MPEGLA disagrees with the whole premise of the story though. |
| #11 By 37 (66.82.20.150) at 1/10/2003 12:43:49 PM |
|
Most corporations or business entities support competitive licensing and technology ideas. "Competition"
But when a competitor undercuts one another, that is a whole new whine. Awwwwwww....poor mpeg-4 backers getting beat up by the 800 pound gorilla. Now it's time to cry foul. Give me a darn break. |
| #12 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/10/2003 1:18:02 PM |
|
JErky Boy - Hmm, what's the title of the article again, oh yeah... "MPEG-4 backers protest Microsoft license"
We jump over C|Net because they show clear bias. You don't agree, because the bias supports your anti-Microsoft viewpoint. |
| #13 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 1/10/2003 1:52:51 PM |
|
I wonder how MPEGLA feels about this new "standard" that Microsoft created inadvertently?
Didn't anyone notice that the President and Spokesperson for the mpeg group don't care and actually support competitive licensing and technology? Sodajerk, sodablue wasn't referring to the WM9 codec. He was talking about the original DivX codec which is a hacked MS MP4 codec combined with a pirated MP3 codec. There are no licenses for this codec. It is illegal and free. I don't think the MPEG President supports illegal technology, especially one that could also hinder the adoption of his legal technology. BTW, this story has reached /. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/01/10/1352209&mode=thread&tid=98&threshold=-1 Along with the SPOT story http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/01/10/1311210&mode=thread&tid=100&threshold=-1 |
| #14 By 7760 (12.107.12.130) at 1/10/2003 3:17:30 PM |
| I don't get it. How is MPEG-4 a "standard" and how is it "open" when there are licensing fees? Heh... how ridiculous. |
| #15 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/10/2003 4:21:35 PM |
|
enforcer, my comment wasn't aimed at the other DivX formats just the general article and who is actually pissed. No one of significance. I used soda's quote to lead into that point.
"Hmm, what's the title of the article again, oh yeah... "MPEG-4 backers protest Microsoft license"" Wait, wait, because the title suggests there are more people, even though the article doesn't back this up, in fact, it even provides quotes from the President and Spokesperson from MPEGLA expressing a completely contradictory view, many people here are saying hypocritical mpeg bastards, blah, blah, blah... I guess that's acceptable from softies who can only read a headline... I'd be happy to change my mind if you can point out two, just two, people in the story who are unhappy... What you didn't bother to read the story? Well, guess what? This article provides no proof that anyone behind MPEGLA, except iVast, gives a sh1t. So you are giving CNET the benefit of the doubt to attack mpeg without any substantiation. "We jump over C|Net because they show clear bias. You don't agree, because the bias supports your anti-Microsoft viewpoint." Actually, no. I just said they are biased. I look for the facts in a story and make up my own mind what the story says. Meanwhile, everyone is jumping over mpeg, not CNET. So far, I have been the only person critical of CNET in this story. I see this story as much more anti-MPEGLA (without substantiation) than anti-MS, but who wants to be rational when that's too easy. |
| #16 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 1/10/2003 5:29:24 PM |
|
MPEG LA spokesman, Larry Horn doesn't seem too happy. He's using FUD tactics.
"There are choices that go with using a proprietary technology--those that do, do it at their own peril." In short, to choose MS is a perilous risk. Please. There's less risk going with MS now more than ever, because their licensing practices are regulated. And the company certainly isn't going out of business anytime soon. Plus, this isn't the first time the WM format has been licensed. It already exists in many devices and software applications. MPEG's only defense is, "Hey, we're open." THe format is inferior, the license is more, and for large entities, there are streaming costs. MS is better all around -- in quality, cost, and consumer benefit. Despite CNET/ZDNet's track record for FUD headlines, this one is basically ok. "Protest" may be a bit strong, but "MPEG-4 backers" is basically correct. It doesn't imply only the MPEG LA, but any number of companies/individuals with a vested interest in MPEG4. |
| #17 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/10/2003 5:39:06 PM |
| No, actually it is inaccurate. The title says that MPEG backers protest the license. Horn specifically says he has no problem with the license. Come on. A reporter asks you, "I found this iVast guy who's all pissed off--how do you feel?" And you reply: "I have no problems with the license. It is cheaper, but there are always other factors to consider." (paraphrasing of course.) That equates to MPEG-BACKERS PROTEST MS LICENSE? I don't think so. |
| #18 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 1/10/2003 5:44:12 PM |
|
As I siad, "MPEG-4 Backers" != MPEG President and only the MPEG President.
I will say that the headline, as usual, is sensationalistic. |
| #19 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/10/2003 5:51:24 PM |
|
And MPEG-4 Backers != one guy from iVast either.
However, we can say the President and Spokesperson are the official message out of MPEGLA, can't we? So we could rephrase the title as: "One Guy Protests MS Licenses" or "MPEGLA Officially Doesn't Protest MS Licenses" Or you could try to show me one other person who says, "we think MS is doing something wrong with these licenses," and get back to your whining. Until then, there is little reason for you or anyone else to be b1tching about a position not held by anyone but some shmoe. This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, January 10, 2003 at 17:57. |
| #20 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/10/2003 5:52:39 PM |
|
"It doesn't imply only the MPEG LA, but any number of companies/individuals with a vested interest in MPEG4."
Name one of them? Cite anything in this article that points to more than one company. Hell, more than ONE guy. By your own definition this is inaccurate. |
| #21 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 1/10/2003 6:00:21 PM |
|
The phrase alone implies that.
I already named the spokesman. He didn't take it the same way as the Pres. |
| #22 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 1/10/2003 6:02:08 PM |
| I admitted the title could be better. |
| #23 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/10/2003 6:04:27 PM |
|
"The phrase alone implies that." Implies what? Other backers? That's my question, who are they? If the article could cite them, it would--first rule of journalism. And it can't.
The spokesman? He never says that he has a problem with the licensing. He talks about his own reasons for not liking it, he tries to talk up mpeg. He never says that the licensing is unfair or wrong. Try again. |
| #24 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 1/10/2003 6:20:49 PM |
|
Ok, I yield. But I still say the spokesman is on the FUD patrol.
The rest, other than iVast, is PR damage control. I guess CNET just needs better journalists. They should have gotten quotes from more of the MS "critics" and MP4 "proponents" :-) Now you can see why CNET/ZDNet is attacked so much. This post was edited by n4cer on Friday, January 10, 2003 at 18:22. |
| #25 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 1/11/2003 9:44:53 PM |
|
Taken from Zach Robinson's Windows Media Player Mini-FAQ
Zach is the Development Lead on the Windows Media Team, and can often be found in the Windows Media newsgroups. Windows Media Player Mini-FAQ http://www.nwlink.com/~zachd/pss/pss.html ------------------------------------------- Q: I installed DivX 3.x / Nimo / Krystal Studios / nAVI / SmR / AngelPotion and now I'm experiencing problems. A: Generally the above software packages as of this writing do not represent independent work, but rather represent hacked Microsoft software. As the packages are installing fairly randomly hacked bits on to your system, you should not expect things to work properly once any of the above packages are installed. You would need to contact the codec 'vendor' in order to figure out what happened to your system and how to fix it. Bear in mind that any file requiring any of the above packages to be installed is going to necessitate every other user trying to play the file to install the above packages. As such, it may be more time effective to get the content vendor to reencode the file from the content source using more legitimate codecs that will not negatively impact users' systems. I also personally will not respond to any post by any user that has installed DivX 3.x, Krystal Studios, AngelPotion, Nimo, Tsunami, and/or sMr. These pirate software collections are comprised of hacked software and not only don't work properly, but cause other problems with your system. I'm really sorry you installed it too, but you'd need to contact that "vendor" for support - they're doing bad things, and I've got enough to worry about without cleaning up the mess of software pirates. ------------------------------------------------- This post was edited by n4cer on Saturday, January 11, 2003 at 21:46. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 172 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:52:58 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
