other content fees?
Stillanonymous points out in a discussion thread that many of the mpeg standards - mpeg-4 part 2, AVC/h.264, etc... ALSO have content distribution fees. He's right. I suspect that's a big part of why almost nobody is using those codecs for internet streaming even though they're admirably suited for it. Instead, almost everyone that has shifted from RealVideo has gone to WMV or (increasingly) Flash video. There are some counterexamples, but Flash especially is taking the world by storm right now.
9 Comments:
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
@stillanonymous.
I give up.
You are impossible to please and keep ratholing on tertiary points. It's a shame, because you've got a lot of good perspectives but offset that value with rudeness and nitpicking.
Just
Yes... Adobe/Macromedia Flash, basically the modern king of streaming web video delivery, uses On2's (TrueMotion) VP6 codec technology.
On2, the "duck codec" company. ;)
I hope that most of the people that read this blog feel that stillanonymous is way over the line in his... I guess you could call it...codec evangelizing or as I call it browbeating. The whole reason big companies can make great products for a reasonable price is because of synergy. As a stock holder I would be upset if MSFT didn't utilize WMA (something I'm sure wasn't cheap to develop) every chance it got.
David thanks for blogging. I really enjoy your site.
Seconding Stefan's thoughts. In fact, StillAnonymous was the reason I signed up to add a comment in the first place, to try to clarify without flaming.
I have no vested interests for MSFT (Neither employee nor stockholder). Quite to the contrary, I am naturally leery of their business practices; they have burned through a lot of karma. I can cite examples that have tarnished MSFT in my eyes, but they would distract and lead to yet another heated debate. I have a vested interest in Apple. But I'd like to see MSFT remain competitive if for no other reason than to keep Apple from resting on its laurels.
I agree that it's good to eat one's own dogfood, but I wish MSFT would learn when to drop the protectionism and Not Invented Here syndrome. It nearly killed Apple in the 90s, and most of their resurgence is because of opening to others' standards. (Compare the custom-made chips, Quickdraw GX, and MPW/MrC vs. Intel chipsets, onscreen PDF and OpenGL, and GCC.)
Back to the original thread, the content distribution fees play a big role, agreed. I still remember the great standoff of 2002 where Apple refused to ship Quicktime 6 until MPEG-LA dropped the distribution fee on Mpeg-4.
Agreed, we (Microsoft) need to learn to be more strategic about using and participating in standards, and hopefully we are.
MSFT is in a very unenviable position. OneCare is a perfect example of 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' of either not addressing the issue, or being anticompetitive. And I don't know how to solve that.
Regarding standards, the catch 22 is that were MS to go alone with WMA, it could be seen as Not Invented Here-ism and trying to shut out others. Were MS to license WMA, heck, even give it away for free, there would be complaints of price dumping, and possibly jacking up rates after it becomes a standard. Were MS to switch to some other format, MS would be derided for failing the battle.
There is a cloud, a perception from outside, of Microsoft's corporate culture being one of hubris. A lack of apologizing for missteps, that they know best. The problem isn't technical at all, it's social. Even Mini-MSFT has this air about Microsoft being the best, despite the problems.
Putting random pink Zunes (Admittedly, from an anti-microsoft eye) in packages could be misconstrued as arrogance. WE know what's best for you in terms of color. The squirting* thing is another example. There's so many things that could have made wifi in the Zune be a killer app for people using them, but they sadly don't. In terms of connecting, that has no immediate advantage (I get to hear the music later?) and a sour aftertaste after the song dissappears, leaving only a shill advert behind.
Imagine, instead, the Zunes listed "What I'm listening to right now" over wifi, and if someone chose, the zune would stream the music over wifi like any internet radio station. Now, instead of 'Hey, squirt me your song', people could start listening to the music at the same time, singing along together with their new friend.**
But no, it's three times to play this pre-approved packaged music, and then feel the fool. It makes me feel like the intended customer isn't the one who bought the device. Instead, it gives the impression that the Zune caters to the music companies and MSFT's own store. That's an unhappy feeling.
The technology isn't what will decide success. Licensing minutia isn't what will decide success. Bit-rates, content fees, codecs, all this matters only in so far as they affect how easily the user can do what he wants to do. No more, or no less. What makes an iPod an iPod? A Mac a Mac? Software and hardware have changed drastically on both the iPod (Pixo's OS to something homegrown, hard drives to flash memory, and about 4 different designs for the clickwheel) and the Mac (68K to PPC to x86, SCSI to IDE, System 1.0-based MacOS 9 to BSD-based Mac OS X). It's the fit and finish, the feel, what it allows me to do that is the deciding factor.
Superior codecs and bitrates aren't why flash-based players have won the streaming wars. I didn't even know who came up with the codec until today. But what flash meant is that I could easily take a video, and ensure that 99% of those tuning in could watch it, without any setup, hassle, or guesswork. That is why.
* I don't know if this meme is outside of Mac circles, but it's a derisive reference to Zune, best summarized by this.
**This is the tip of the iceberg, too. In a completely unrelated note, I am looking for employment, and am not loathe to relocating. ;D
Post a Comment
<< Home