i think that ir45 is an old intel legacy codec that won't work under osx... you might try downloading the intel video 4.5 codec from the apple website, and see if it'll play inside of qt, but only in mac classic mode.

all that's left is to prove is how many computers don't have the qt player.

right now there are at least 822 million computers accessing the 'net: http://www.c-i-a.com/pr0305.htm

some stats claim 888 million internet users: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

remember when apple bragged last year about 250 million qt downloads? what did that amount to, less than a third of all 'net computers?

every winxp pc has a mandatory installation of the windows media player, and you can't uninstall it... and at least ~80% of the world's computers have winxp or win2k as the o.s.

so wmp is the clear winner in media player penetration, by a long shot... even a mac platform fanatic can read those numbers ;-)

Dan,

You're right, it is the Intel Indeo video 4.5 codec. Interesting thing is, the video plays fine in RealPlayer and Nero Showtime. Go figure.

Whoops, spoke to soon. Windows Media player plays it just fine locally on my computer. It still won't load in the browser for the survey, though.

On prior episodes, Dan wrote:
"i have become assimilated"

"every winxp pc has a mandatory installation of the windows media player, and you can't uninstall it... and at least ~80% of the world's computers have winxp or win2k as the o.s."

"i just proved that the wmp player is on 85%"

"63.1% winxp/wmp:"

"the bottom line here is that pc operating systems make up around 96% of the desktop computers on the 'net"

"so we have at least 75% of the internet that is wmp9-capable."

-----------------------

Citing the OS installs "number of the week" and its native media player as the basis for media format is like saying 90% of drivers smoke because 90% of cars have cigarette lighters (made the number up to make a point). It's flawed logic and all the name calling and ad-hominem attacks in the world won't change it. Nor will it change that WMP won't play an ISO standard MPEG-4 video because MSFT wants to own and control the internet video format with their proprietary WMV-9 format. This is what the EC convicted them of doing using illegal means and in addition to fining them ~6 million, now require MSFT by law to ship a version of XP without the media player.

So, as content producers, we each get to make a choice. A moral choice having nothing to do with fanaticism, name calling or subjective opinions of image quality. Support the convicted monopoly proprietary model or a competitive free enterprise model?

chris, i was thinking that you were on a mac, but it looks like you're on a pc... and that bogus npd "survey" still won't work with wmp inside your pc browser, even tho you have the codec installed.

the whole "survey" scene is such a racket... companies pay for bogus data that is way too small of a sample size to be representative of anything, just so that it can be used to help sell product... and platform fanatics post it all over the 'net, you should see how many flash sites are quoting that npd "data" as if it was gospel that came down from on high, lol... a malfunctioning "survey" of 2,000 pc's out of a lot size of 822 million pc's is a joke!

Ernest,

I believe there is room for both open standard and closed standard video formats. I don't see a problem with WMP not playing an MPEG-4 file. If I need to play an MPEG-4 file I can use the QuickTime player. And WMP can play an MPEG-4 file if you have the Nero suite installed. Microsoft also has a downloadable codec pack for WMP (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...cdownload.aspx) that includes an ISO MPEG-4 codec, though it didn't work on the two systems I tried it on.

Microsoft's stance on MPEG-4: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...WM7/mpeg4.aspx

And it will probably surprise you, but the Mac version of Windows Media Player supports MPEG-4 ISO files: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...x/default.aspx

Both Apple and Microsoft want to control the computer world; Microsoft just happens to be at the top of the heap right now. So in that regard I don't trust either company. MPEG-4 just happens to be one area where Apple supports open standards.

Lest you think I'm against MPEG-4, I'm not. In fact, I'm looking forward to the H.264 support in QuickTime 7. I just think that a healthy mix of video compression standards pushed by different companies will produce competition, which will result in further improvements. MPEG-4 shouldn't be the only codec supported and used, and neither should the Windows Media video codec, or the RealMedia codec.

Dan,

Yes, I'm running Windows, XP to be exact. But I think both platforms are good. I've used OS X (and 9, ugh!) when I apprenticed at an illustration/graphic design firm.

Chris,

I find the ideas you express about MSFT and this format issue naive. It's like being leary of BMW of dominating the sedan market instead of Toyota, Honda, GM, and Ford. At least there, you have healthy competitive free market. In contrast, MSFT was convicted (twice) of abusing it's monopoly position and using illegal means to thwart competitors. The EC judgement in particular was on the issue of media format. So, I disagree with the blanket statement you made.

Apple is on a standards strategy not a world domination strategy. MSFT is overtly not supporting MPEG4 because it wants the control point of owning the video format as a way of controlling competitors. You need to read up on the industry. Here's an article quoting Gartner Research and Frost & Sullivan on why they think Apple has the right strategy with QuickTime and why MSFT with WMV does not.
http://www.macworld.com/news/2004/06...=1087152097000

Playing an ISMA MPEG-4 in WMP on a Mac results in "Cannot play back the file. The file format is invalid." Nero on Windows plays it just fine.

There can be no "healthy mix" as you propose because of MSFTs control. The way to a healthy market is through standards. Implementors compete on a level playing field. We have it elsewhere and it works.

Ernest,

I think we will just have to agree to disagree. As I already said, I've used Macs and I think they are good computers. I'm not a Windows/Microsoft fanatic. If a company has behaved unethically, they should be punished. That said, I still believe there is room for all the formats, provided none of the companies behave unethically.

Is that a satisfactory position for you? ;-)

Just out of curiosity, what would your ideal computer world/video format world look like? Everyone running Macs streaming MPEG-4 video through QuickTime? :-)

Like I said, just curious.

Well that is a more reasoned position. I think you'll find opnion and evidence that one party has acted unethically. There's been many lost court cases and out of court settlements as testimony.

Standards create interoperability and the largest market. DV is an example. First, as a standard, it created a huge market that had previously been fragmented by 8mm, S-VHS, Hi-8, and others. All the equipment manufacturers built to the spec. Because of standards, DV cameras, decks, firewire cards and NLEs all became interoperable. This created a healthy competitive ecosystem. The consumer video market exploded.

Standards are the backbone of the internet. A standard video format is just as important as a standard image format. As long as the standard is adequate, standards trump marginal technical differences. When there's a standard, everyone who wants to build an internet capable device (computer, PDA, smartphone) has equal access to the technology and isn't locked out of providing a player or creation tools.

As an example, the standards body for cell phones is 3GPP. THey've chosen MPEG-4 as the standard for video. Phone manufacturers are free to use whatever HW/SW OS they want to implement a player. They aren't locked into a format owned by a single company/competitor. So, my position is that similar to DV, producers and consumers of web video should standardize on MPEG-4 part 2 now, part 10 later (aka H.264) so it doesn't matter what HW/SW platform the surfer is using. Don't like MPEG4? Go to 3GPP or ISO whatever and argue the case. Submit somthing better. Drive improvements to the standard.

Finally, there are critics of MPEG-4. It isn't perfect. Neither was 802.11, DV and IEEE 1394 but the industry worked at smoothing out the kinks and moved the standards forward. The same should happen in web video but isn't. One reason is that MSFT has a monopoly position on the install base and refuses to support the standard in favor of it's own. This links back to the ill-logic that install base should drive format decisions for producers. If you've read this thread and others, you'll see it stated numerous times by posters and pundits that there are a number of factors that should go into the decision. Adoption is one but not the only one.

Ernest,

Thanks for the reply. Your more in-depth explanation gave me a better understanding of why you take the position you do. I understand your reasons better now.

Just to clear up a bit of hooey here, WMP9 is not required for WMV9. WMP8 downloads the codec automatically. I think only WMP6.4 needed a hotfix to load the codec (I think that was a misdirection correction). WMP7 should load it automatically also, but I have not used it for about 3 years. So, it is not true that because you do not have WMP9, you cannot use WMV9. Therefore, not having XP does not exclude using WMV9.

As for Real, that has to be one of the worst players ever written. Even if their codec was the best, their player ruins the experience. The only reason they have any foothold is their inclusion and preference in the AOL bundle.

Lots of ABM here.

as content creators, it is our responsibility to educate our customers about internet codecs and platforms that deliver the best quality at the lowest bitrate, with the greatest player penetration, a platform that has a real working drm solution that is widely accepted... you should never screw your customers over because of platform bigotry.

is anyone out here using digital rights management to sell their internet video? do you want your content to be stolen and pirated all over the 'net? of course not... so you won't be able to use the apple drm "solution", because it was cracked a long time ago... on top of that, it's capabilities don't begin to compare to the microsoft drm, which is still secure.

so why would anybody want to pimp an unsecure internet video platform like qt off on their fellow forum members?

the author of that worthless piece of rhetoric is also the editor of macCentral news, and a writer for macworld publications... hardly an impartial source of unbiased information, lol.

the dv video standard is royalty-free, but you must pay licensing fees to mpegla for mpeg4, just like you would pay royalties for using the windows media format... so it's o.k. for apple to promote a standard that people have to pay for, but not microsoft? get a grip on reality.

and speaking of cellphones, apple also has patents in the mpeg21 area that they intend to make a lot of money off of, by controlling the standard... no different than what microsoft is doing.

perhaps you don't want to do business with a company because of it's business tactics? you better educate yourself about apple.

apple has a long history of screwing over it's business partners and dealers for big $$, check the links for more info... and now they are threatening free speech by suing website owners:
http://www.macobserver.com/columns/t...20050316.shtml
http://tellonapple.com/
http://www.macobserver.com/columns/t...st/990820.html

Dan wrote:
"the author of that worthless piece of rhetoric is also the editor of macCentral news, and a writer for macworld publications... hardly an impartial source of unbiased information"

The article reported on analysis from industry analysts Frost & Sullivan and Gartner. The article author and your opinion of him is not relevant.

The discussion is about standards. MSFT participated in the ISO group that created MPEG-4 so it's wierd you keep talking about Apple. MSFT is not licensing a standard. They're trying to license a proprietary format. Their track record is to do it with platform hostile licensing.

Licensing patents for implementing standards is SOP. The format is license free and all have equal access to the specs. Good examples are VoIP and your cell phone. Chock full of technology that has to be licensed. Nothing wrong with that. It's a matter of equal access and accessibility. If the internet video format or DRM is owned by a single company, you have a problem. Especially when it's a twice convicted abusive monopoly.

Standards are all about freedom because there's freedom of choice.

the author deliberately ignored all other relevant factual data in order to twist the truth to suit his mac platform fanaticism... that's what he gets paid to do.

it's really not much different than what we've already seen in this thread with that malfunctioning 2,000 pc npd "survey", pretending that it was factual info that truely represented 822 million computers.

ignoring apple's key patents in the mpeg21 area won't help your case, either... apple wants to take over, look at the scope of their ambitions:

"MPEG21
Skipping a few numbers, we get to the last of the brewing standards – the MPEG-21 Multimedia Framework. MPEG21 seeks to let content distributors have complete control over content at all parts of the delivery chain and on all kinds of networks and devices. The basic idea is that digital media content is broken down into digital items...

...Perhaps the MPEG21 feature that has received the most attention is its DRM (Digital Rights/Restrictions Management) system. To maintain control over the dissemination and use of digital content, MPEG21 aims to assert total control over usage. Every digital item has granular rights and permissions associated with it, and every user who interacts with it – consumers or content providers – are granted specific rights according to their role.

Total control over the file's behavior for any purpose on any device or network, along with extensive restrictions and role-based authorization, will result in two possibilities. One is an ubiquitous and standardized capacity to do eCommerce with digital media in any environment – be it server-based, peer-to-peer, or "sneaker net." The other is that, without proper legal and technical safeguards, you also may be granting too much power to the content owner to control the way the media is consumed.

Copyright ©2003 Streaming Media Inc. an Information Today Inc. company. All rights reserved." -http://stream.uen.org/medsol/digvid/html/2B_mediaarchmpeg1.html

The fact that MPEG21 is being done in a standards body puts it on the moral high ground. Unlike proprietary closed MSFT approaches with platform hostile licensing.

The internet and our communications infrastructure is built on patented IP, licensing and standards. Whining about legal and ethical protection of intellectual property falls on deaf ears. It's silly actually. I'm not even sure you understand the Streamin Media Inc article you cite. It's clearly describing control given to content owners which is what you said you wanted in your last post.

no, it is NOT free, here are the licensing costs for h.264, for example: http://www.vialicensing.com/products...nse.terms.html

you pay microsoft directly for wmv codec licensing, or you pay a group of companies for h.264 codec licensing... or you pay apple indirectly for mpeg21 licensing... you still must pay, it is NOT FREE!

microsoft has spent a fortune developing proprietary codecs and digital rights management, they deserve to be paid for creating the best standards in the business... crippled standards like the apple drm trash that got cracked early on are a dend end when it comes to developing internet commerce... are you foolish enuf to think that hollywood is going to risk it's assets on apple drm? how many internet movie download sites use that garbage? they all use microsoft drm.

if it wasn't for microsoft, there would be no drm/media player solution available for serious internet commerce.

VC1 has also been put to a standards body. Just because something is created by committee does not make it better or give it "moral high ground". It just means it took twice as long to approve and has everyone's pet components in it. What you really want is something that has been peer reviewed. That improves it.

Sorry for the delay. Been in LA.

Dan, you're right about the licensing fees. I never meant to say what I wrote. When I wrote "The format is license free and all have equal access to the specs." I bobbled two sentence fragments when editing. I meant to counterpose the player and format license to this affect:
"the player is license free to downloaders and all parties interested in creating products around the technology have equal access to the specs."

However, your points about MSFT deserving license fees is a strawman and a bit hippocritical. I nor anyone else implied MSFT should give anything away. You however, seem to complain about Apple getting license fees for standards they contribute their hard earned technology into and then you turn around and state MSFT has a right to charge fees.

Standards are not necessarily free to implementers. That's the ecosystem upon which the internet and other infrastructure works. The important thing is that they are available equally to enable a free market and not controlled a single player that is a competitor to most.