Comments on: Microsoft video tech aims for prime time

Company seeks dominance in battle over video formats that could determine the future of TV and emerging applications.

[machelpdesk]

European HDTV will use H264

European HDTV will use H264

Looks like Steve made the right decision by choosing H264 (aka
MPEG-4 AVC) as the default codec in Tiger, and the next
versions of iChat and Quicktime.

Astra, the main satelite tv provider in Europe, along with 60
technical "partners" have just agreed on the format that will be
used for video data compression. Rather than using Microsoft's
proprietary formats, they chose open source codecs, including
H264.

HDTV will allow resolutions up to 1940x1080. The default
resolution will be 1280x720, instead of the 720x576 that is now
used for PAL signals. The sound will be encoded in Dolby Digital
5.1.

A nice acknowledgement of the good choice made by Apple.

[A.Sinic]

H.264 for HDTV in Europe? Hah!

Where did you get this?

The body that sets the standards for digital TV in Europe is the DVB project (http://www.dvb.org). They have so far evaluated H.264 but have not accepted it due to the current licensing terms which are seen as too costly for European broadcasters (http://www.ebu.ch) who control DVB. If this licensing isn't resolved soon, and VC-9 is finalised in SMPTE, everything could change.

Astra is a satellite company. They carry DVB-S transport signals and have no say over what the broadcasters use for video coding.

And there is currently no standard for HDTV in Europe.

Microsoft video tech aims for big time

Microsoft, as everyone knows, is a monster already. They should not be allowed to gain even more power, since they clearly abuse what they have. No brainer.

[John Kuzak]

gain even more

http://www.analogstereo.com/nissan_armada_owners_manual.htm

Why CNet is lying?

The CNet article is clearly trying to bash Microsoft here. Microsoft's standard is more open than the Mpeg4 here, and if there is a competition here it is also quite clear that Mpeg4 is not an industry standard. I think, ultimately the users has to decide on whether to use Microsoft's value proposition or the value proposition of the companies behind the Mpeg4 codec. Given how hard CNet is trying to depict Microsoft as evil and hide some important facts or try to obscure them, it is clear to me that Microsoft's solution is much better as a value proposition. Mpeg4's licensees are asked to pay a lot of money, which is customers, later on companies decided to think more about the fees. We consumers do not want to pay a lot, thus Microsoft is a good solution. This is just like Apple vs Microsoft, would you like to pay thousands of dollars to Apple for something less in value, or Microsoft for something better? 95% of the computer users say Microsoft. CNet is trying to change it, but people are not stupid.

[wrwjpn]

RE: Why CNet is lying?

This is a first. CNET is probably the most PRO MS site I know.

I guess what the industry is worried about is that MS has a
history of controlling everything it gets into. If they dominate the
codecs for broadcasting and try to control it, what will happen?
This is an unknown, but a real possibility given that past actions
by MS.

Which codec is better is still unclear. But I am for open standards
as it makes sense. If you have to rely on one supplier as we do
for the desktop OS, you can see where that will lead to. But most
likely you own a Dell and think paying less is what makes
something better.

What gives something real value is what you get back from your
investment, such as peace of mind, ease of use, or good resale
value. Do any of these relate to what MS has shown, given, sold,
and or forced us to use?

[customer service]

What about ON2 and vp6?

Your article fails to mention what appears to be the world's best (best quality at lowest bit rates) video codec, On2 Corp's vp line of codecs.

And this just a day after On2 announced a java version of the player.

A conscious omission or just journalistic oversight?

[LANjackal]

MPEG-4? VC-9 and DivX offer the best performance

Actually, a comprehensive test of several codecs (Apple's MPEG-4 implementation, Apple's Quicktime, WMV9 and DivX 5.x) done by ExtremeTech.com showed DivX 5.x to deliver the best video quality, followed extremely closely by WMV9. The results for Quicktime and MPEG-4 were atrocious, to say the least.

For some reason, DivX doesn't appear to be going any further into the mainstream beyond its dominance in P2P files, so VC-9's the winner.