Home > Microsoft > Microsoft Takes Digital Media Beyond WindowsMicrosoft Takes Digital Media Beyond Windows Guest post by Kevin Adams 2003-01-07 Microsoft 26 Comments“Microsoft announced Tuesday its first-ever licensing fees for use of its media delivery software on non-Windows technology, a move designed to expand its reach in the market for digital media players.” Read more at ZDnet. 26 Comments 2003-01-07 10:40 pm The ability of web publisher’s using Linux to liscense Microsoft’s proprietary media technology!!!! I’m not a likely candidate to use proprietary software, but the fact that Redmond is potentially looking at working with Linux is amazing. 2003-01-07 10:52 pm I don’t think so … Linux lovers will never go for it. It’s against their religion 2003-01-07 10:53 pm There have been numerous linux-based mp3 jukeboxes that are capable of playing wma’s. It’s nothing new, you just have to pay for it. 2003-01-07 11:02 pm Re: WOW!> but the fact that Redmond is potentially looking at working with Linux is amazing.It’s not _potential_ at all, it’s been ready for more than a year. and it’s been more than a year that this same thing has been licenced (didn’t say it has been used though) (don’t ask me how I know this :p)Re: DariusLinux users != Linux loversmore and more ppl using Linux don’t care about the Values of Free Software and the ideology and philosophy behind it (specially the big companies which are more interested by the TCO).They will certainly not choke at all when they see their known “Windows Media Technology” (“technology”… I hate this word more and more… everyone uses it for nothing).Re: samThere is even a FreeSoftware WMA decoder (part of ffmpeg, http://ffmpeg.sf.net/ ).that’s not a reason to use this crappy proprietary format. 2003-01-07 11:52 pm No one uses wma on windows and no one will use it on Linux. Simple as that. 2003-01-08 12:43 am linux lovers should proudly wear a band with this“Not available – Married to Linux!” 😎 2003-01-08 2:02 am bull! Those are everyone’s fonts now. Just look at the licence. 2003-01-08 2:05 am Oh and to prove my point here is an easy download for those of you w/ rpm.http://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/distributions/contrib/texstar/linu… 2003-01-08 2:06 am http://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/distributions/contrib/texstar/linu… 2003-01-08 2:08 am damn! stupid osnews!http://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/distributions/contrib/texstar/linu…distributions/mandrake/9.0/rpms/msttcorefonts-bootstrap-0.1-3mdk.noarch.rpm 2003-01-08 2:28 am Actually, I didn’t think so either, but then a bunch of internet radio shows came up with wma only, and in order to listen to them, I had to get codeweaver’s crossover…it would be nice to have a free alternative (that works seemlessly) 2003-01-08 3:22 am The Register had an article on this that walked around Microsoft’s motives. They aren’t giving anyting away. They aren’t offering any Open Source code.There are too many Linux and BSD-based digital players out there that if a hardware manufacturer tries to sell a device, the Digital Rights Management (DRM) of the particular file needs some sort of ownership/rental management.By embracing ALL platforms with this, Microsoft positions itself as the leading DRM vendor.Linux in your car stereo. Okay. Microsoft gets a licensing fee. Red Hat includes the player in their distribution, Microsoft gets the license fee.Vendors of distributed music/video/etc. see Microsoft as the leading DRM candidate and the games over.They are not idiots.Vic 2003-01-08 4:02 am At first I was upset about finding audio content encoded in wma format, but mplayer is a free alternative that works perfectly. The format is actually not bad, I would say the quality is just as good as ogg vorbis. 2003-01-08 4:24 am Why when we have an article on M$ that is remotely connected to Linux the zealots have to start foaming at the mouth and lose all control of their brains?This is about M$ undercutting MPEG4-LA at a better price with a better codec (h.263). 1Mbit video at broadcast quality. Not MPEG4’s 2+Mbit at near-broadcast. This goes hand in hand with licensing to content suppliers who will provide content services for embedded devices, settopboxes, standalone audio components, etc.Only a complete goof would fail to see the benefit of WM9 being about to broadcast 720p video in a few Mbits. 2003-01-08 4:46 am > Only a complete goof would fail to see the benefit of WM9 being about to >> broadcast 720p video in a few Mbits.When you don’t agree with a company’s business practices, then it’s very hard to see any benefits from their products being widely distributed. WM9 *may* be great software, but that’s not what people have a problem with.BTW, let us know how you feel when you’re running an OS that deletes e-mails, scans your disks for “pirated” or illegal documents, and is controlled by a company that charges you through the nose for every movie your watch. … I used to think that when we bought computers, they were under our control. hmmm, I must have missed the memo 🙂 2003-01-08 5:12 am When you don’t agree with a company’s business practices, then it’s very hard to see any benefits from their products being widely distributed. WM9 *may* be great software, but that’s not what people have a problem with. Well, I do understand where you’re coming from, but why does MS get most of the heat for Corporate America? Hell, if you were to ‘blacklist’ every corporation involved in shady business practices, you probably wouldn’t own a car or a telephone. It also seems ironic that people don’t mind pirating music because of the RIAA’s business practices but instead of doing the same thing to MS, they switch to something else, even if the alternative is inferior. 2003-01-08 5:39 am [Oh and to prove my point here is an easy download for those of you w/ rpm.distributions/mandrake/9.0/rpms/msttcorefonts-bootstrap-0.1-3mdk.noarch.rpm]^^Hehe, it is not my fonts, I don’t careHowever, your funny reply does indicate that something else just looks ugly or you wouldn’t insist on posting the link or arguing they were not M$’ 2003-01-08 6:12 am Hey nimrod! True Type is an Apple technology, not MS. 2003-01-08 7:47 am “Hey nimrod! True Type is an Apple technology, not MS.”It is the substance and availability to generic public that matters.Apple had a TrueType GX, and nobody was interested, so they dropped it. M$ and Adobe did a similar thing called OpenType, and now it is everywhere win2k/winxp got installed.AT&T invented the transistor back in 1948, however it was Japanese manufactures that put them into consumer radios and TV sets in large quantities, and made this tech wonder available at an affordable price to civilians – before that, transistors were mostly used in US military two-way radios. 2003-01-08 8:55 am “Well, I do understand where you’re coming from, but why does MS get most of the heat for Corporate America?”Probably because these guys developed these shady tactics in the first place… 2003-01-08 11:04 am This article is talking about the costs of using Microsoft’s codec over MPEG-4 in hardware devices…And it would be a shame if hardware manufacturers chose to support Windows Media over MPEG-4 solely due to cost reasons, so it’s nice to hear that many of them are wary of choosing Microsoft’s offering 2003-01-08 2:40 pm Seriously why would I want to use something that phones home everytime I get on the net. That’s why I left windows for Linux. I much rather use MPlayer and have access to every codec format known to man. 2003-01-08 3:46 pm //Seriously why would I want to use something that phones home everytime I get on the net//And you have evidence of this, I’m sure?Post it. 2003-01-08 9:55 pm Yes, all the other corporate bad actors (hollywood, riaa, etc) would be ready to jump into bed with MS’s DRM, except one little problem: no self-respecting CEO can possibly trust MS given their history. God knows these people are not in a rush – my bet is Apple is cooking up DRM for MPEG-4 and telling hollywood and riaa to wait for a standard not owned by one company with a bad history of domination and eliminating competitors. Or Real.One question – how much cheaper are the new wmedia rates? Is it a real difference? 2003-01-09 1:46 pm no self-respecting CEO can possibly trust MS given their history.Actually, history shows that Microsoft is very good and loyal to partners that are larger and can’t be removed from the picture easily. Like IBM (to a certain extend, in the PC market, it was IBM that severe ties), Intel, AMD, Apple (again, in this case, it is Apple that is the one provoking), etc.Unless Microsoft seriously thinks that it can beat RIAA and MPAA single-handedly, I really really really really don’t think Microsoft is all that crazy.telling hollywood and riaa to wait for a standard not owned by one company with a bad history of domination and eliminating competitors.Trust me, RIAA and MPAA have no reason not to trust Microsoft. For one simple tiny weeny reason: THEY ARE NOT MICROSOFT’S COMPETITORS! Tell me as soon Microsoft releases a movie or a album. Then we would talk.As for the competitors Microsoft “killed”, well, you already know my opinion on how they died… they killed themselves.The RIAA and MPAA couldn’t care less if WMV and WMA is owned and controled by one company. Because that one company happens to be a very big company with a large amount of market share.besides, while Real haven’t decided on it yet, Apple has decided against DRM. So dream on with Apple sleeping with the RIAA and the MPAA. Unless RIAA and MPAA companies get a clue and change their business model rather to sticking to a traditional old one, I guess it is Microsoft then.One question – how much cheaper are the new wmedia rates? Is it a real difference?Besides, even if there isn’t a difference, Microsoft is the biggest player with DRM. In other words, they are first, and for the near future, the only big player.It doesn’t matter about the cost difference.Of all the posts you made here, appleforever, this has got to be the worst. 2003-01-09 2:48 pm Real just announce it’s own DRM standard.