WMP 9: Open and on Mac this Fall

[MacRumors]

A Reuters article (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=technologyNews&storyID=3408925) reports that Microsoft will be opening the specifications for its Windows Media video format, allowing other companies to implement the technology. The video format was submitted for review by the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers on Monday. This review process is reported to take 6-12 months.

By opening the specification, Microsoft could increase the adoption of Windows Media 9.

As previously reported (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/09/20030905122603.shtml), Microsoft is already working on bringing Windows Media Player 9 to Mac OS X. Beta News (http://www.betanews.com/article.php3?sid=1063103594) managed to get some commentary from a Microsoft representative who narrowed the target date for the OS X release to "sometime this fall".

[DanUk2003]

since when has anything Microsoft made become a universally-accepted "standard"...!!! :D

[Matthé]

movietrailers in windows media anyone?

[encro]

Well that is great news. Microsoft looks like they are changing for the better.

We will have options with plugins for .wmv and .wma.

We may even be able to play them with the QuickTime frameworks :)

[encro]

Is Fall = spring or autumn?

[AppleMatt]

fall = autumn

Please Microsoft, performance. Please please please.

AppleMatt

[nagromme]

All well and good, I approve of wider compatibility and I approve of MS porting things to Mac... but don't expect me to accept DRM based on anything from Microsoft! No thank you.

This is the kind of thing you have to be suspicious of with MS: a play for control. But at least it's a legal play for control this time!

[encro]

Originally posted by AppleMatt
fall = autumn

Please Microsoft, performance. Please please please.

AppleMatt

Thanks for the helper.

While we are speeding up MS apps: Entourage also needs a massive performance increase. Its so incredibly sluggish but have to use it because of a much better feature set than Mail/iCal/Address Book Combination.

[Lord Bodak]

From the article:
With open standards, other software companies could create applications that use Microsoft's video-encoding technology, although they would have to pay a license fee, which Usher said would be "low-cost and straightforward."

So it's an "open standard" but there will be license fees?

[arn]

Originally posted by Lord Bodak
From the article:


So it's an "open standard" but there will be license fees?

That's how MPEG4 is.

arn

[dricci]

Originally posted by Lord Bodak
So it's an "open standard" but there will be license fees?

Sorta like MPEG-4 and AAC ;)

Edit: Arn beat me to it!

[Powerbook G5]

This is great and all...but I have never liked WMP/WMA formatted media, anyway. Does this mean this will be popping up more often? *shudders* I much rather keep my QT movie trailers, thank you very much!

[Lord Bodak]

Originally posted by dricci
Sorta like MPEG-4 and AAC ;)

Edit: Arn beat me to it!

Aren't there open implementations of MPEG-4 though? Even if it's through reverse engineering. I can't imagine Microsoft allowing the VideoLAN people or anyone developing a WMV client without paying the fee.

Or I may be totally off base :D

[Photorun]

As someone mentioned, by "open standard" I hope this means Quicktime can now be made to play WMP files. That way I don't need their crappy media player on my machine.

[bikertwin]

Originally posted by dricci
Sorta like MPEG-4 and AAC ;)

Edit: Arn beat me to it!

Sure, but those are by consortia--so the standards are contributed to by a multitude of companies, and a multitude of companies benefit from the fees.

Same thing with Compact Disc, DVD Video, DVD-R, DVD+RW, Compact Cassette, PCI, SCSI, etc.

But I guess if you have a monopoly, you are the consortium. :rolleyes:

If the studios are smart, they'll point to the new Asian governments' Linux project and tell MS that they need to provide a free Linux player for it to be considered a standard. Of course, that still doesn't help Apple.

[luiss]

This is obviously a play against MPEG4 technologies. Bring them in with cheap license fees, and then.....

[dho]

As far as WMP and its "standards" I could not care less. I use VLC as my primary player, which plays just about everything already.

IMHO...

VLC: Best for playing and broadcasting

Quicktime:Nothing exciting

Quicktime Pro: Best(cheap) way to convert video

WMP: nothing exciting

[SiliconAddict]

Originally posted by encro
Well that is great news. Microsoft looks like they are changing for the better.



Fool me once shame on you, Fool me 9,836 times shame on me. Its nice the MP9 will be on the Mac, more options is always a good thing, and that they are opening up the spec but at this point I no longer take anything Microsoft says or does at face value. 9 times out of 10 there is a hidden motive or agenda that will rear its ugly head at some point.
When dealing with MS walk softly and carry a googleplex of lawyers and open source code.
I want to beleve this is the real deal but there is this little voice in me saying You’ll be sooooooorrrrrry

[Powerbook G5]

I am also very cautious. Microsoft hates open standards so the one reason they could be doing this is to possibly find a legal way to be the only player in town with once it becomes more widespread and "accepted". I personally never liked WMP, the files are usually slow, crash or lock up, skip, or just aren't the same quality as any other option when given the option to choose the format to download. Not only that, but with the DRM being used and Microsoft's ever unforgiving EULA, it just doesn't sound good.

[gopy]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
When dealing with MS walk softly and carry a googleplex of lawyers and open source code.


Not to be picky or anything, but "Google" is the search engine, while "googol" is the number. (I think I remember the guy who named the number saying something to the effect that he was annoyed by the misspelling, but not terribly...)
Related note:
According to Webster's Dictionary, the name was coined in 1938 by Milton Sirotta, the nine-year-old nephew of American mathematician, Edward Kasner.

tom

[e-coli]

WMP is complete junk.

But MS opening their formats can't be at all bad.

[mstecker]

I get no end of amusement from seeing the knee-jerk microsoft bashing around here. A story in which

- Microsoft announces opening of its format
- Microsoft announces support of WMP9 for the Mac

gets more negative than positive ratings? Sure, you might like to see them make the standard more open, but how is this bad news? I just don't get it.

[SiliconAddict]

Originally posted by gopy
Not to be picky or anything, but "Google" is the search engine, while "googol" is the number. (I think I remember the guy who named the number saying something to the effect that he was annoyed by the misspelling, but not terribly...)
tom

*shrugs* I was being lazy. I figured it wasn't spelled like the website :D

[montecristo]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
Fool me once shame on you, Fool me 9,836 times shame on me. Its nice the MP9 will be on the Mac, more options is always a good thing, and that they are opening up the spec but at this point I no longer take anything Microsoft says or does at face value. 9 times out of 10 there is a hidden motive or agenda that will rear its ugly head at some point.


I don't know if I am missing something, but it seems to me that the hidden motive (not so hidden) is to become more of, or as much of, as standard as Quicktime is. Don't the two products have pretty much completely overlapping uses? (Sure Quicktime might be better now, but that's precisely the problem in the eyes of M$). They also want to target Real, I'm sure. If they really want to be "open", loosen up on Office and Windows....

[gopy]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
*shrugs* I was being lazy. I figured it wasn't spelled like the website :D

Well, give it a year, they'll probably both be the same....

[Fukui]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
Fool me once shame on you, Fool me 9,836 times shame on me.

........

I want to beleve this is the real deal but there is this little voice in me saying You’ll be sooooooorrrrrry
This is how they do things.
They "open" their specification to gain wide industry support (.NET, COM, Java, and now WMV) then once everyone follows they extend it beyond what the original spec called for and "forget" to release the enhanced/changed windows-only version, and since everyone is "hooked" on their formats, they just migrate towards MS' version because they have no choice, of course windows only....
...the sad thing is, it won't end after 9,836 times...

I just wish these slow MPEG slugs would just accelerate their work on MPEG-10 and apple would get off their @SSES and produce an awesome MP4 encoder..one better then FFMPEG or Mencoder...for FREE!

Thats how MS plays their game, and others will have to do the same if they want to survive.

[SiliconAddict]

Originally posted by mstecker
I get no end of amusement from seeing the knee-jerk microsoft bashing around here.

[scratch]

I just don't get it.


Its not knee-jerked. Its experience with the whole "If it sounds to good to be true..." thing. I work with Windows day in and out. I watch the discussion boards on Microsoft.com I talk with MS employees 6 floors above where I work all the time. (I see them in the little cafeteria downstairs.) I'm a MS watcher. I want to know what MS is up to because it concerns the entire computer industry when they take a 90* turn.
Its practical experience with this company. They use any tactic, slime ball or legit, necessary to gain the advantage so it usually is a very prudent thing to think before jumping onto anything Microsoft releases to the masses.
Always ask the basic question "What is their angle?" Because Microsoft doesn't do anything out of the goodness of their heart. This isn’t bashing. This isn’t being a zealot. This is real world experience talking. And honestly Microsoft own behavior is the root cause of any lack of trust. They have a documented history of screwing over the completion and, as bizarre as it sounds, even their friends using dirtball methods as long as it makes them money.
Again fool me once......

[yoshi1013]

I mean, as much as I think Windows Media video is a really sucky format that looks terrible and takes forever to load, it is at times a necessary evil that we must deal with.

I'm also tired of all the crap I have to go through to watch DivX files which use Windows media audio encoding. WMP 7.1 (Still on OS 9 here :( ) sucks as an application too, what is it with crappy streaming media apps that take forever to quit?

[cubist]

Originally posted by Fukui
This is how they do things.
They "open" their specification to gain wide industry support (.NET, COM, Java, and now WMV) then once everyone follows they extend it beyond what the original spec called for ...
Thats how MS plays their game, and others will have to do the same if they want to survive.

Microsoft refers to this strategy as "Embrace and Extend".

[Photorun]

I refer to this M$ policy as "cluster and ***k"

[MacEyeDoc]

Originally posted by mstecker
I get no end of amusement from seeing the knee-jerk microsoft bashing around here. A story in which

- Microsoft announces opening of its format
- Microsoft announces support of WMP9 for the Mac

gets more negative than positive ratings? Sure, you might like to see them make the standard more open, but how is this bad news? I just don't get it.

Let's see:

- Microsoft announces it is buying Virtual PC
- Many people knee-jerk bash them for this
- Others say we shouldn't be so quick to criticize Microsoft
- G5's ship!
- Virtual PC doesn't run on the G5's!!
- Microsoft has no immediate plans to upgrade Virtual PC!!!
- Suddenly, if you buy a G5, you have to also buy a WinTel box if you want Windows access (and the current VPC you paid for is no good to you) #%@*!!

I'm sure glad I didn't knee jerk bash M$ until I found out just how bad they were going to screw us.

BASH!!!

As other posters have said, you can never trust Microsoft.

[Fukui]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
They use any tactic, slime ball or legit, necessary to gain the advantage so it usually is a very prudent thing to think before jumping onto anything Microsoft releases to the masses.
Always ask the basic question "What is their angle?" ....
This is real world experience talking. And honestly Microsoft own behavior is the root cause of any lack of trust.
Exactly, and this is how they lost me as a customer....not that I was ever satisfied anyways...

Suing and stealing from their own partners is not what I would call trustworthy computing.

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by MacEyeDoc
- Virtual PC doesn't run on the G5's!!


And why's that?

It's because Connectix coded Virtual PC to conform to the PowerPC "Book E" implementation, and then Apple adopts an IBM chip which is a partial implementation of "Book E".

The G5 fiasco rests solely on the shoulders of Apple and IBM, not on Connectix and certainly not on Microsoft (which purchased Virtual PC about 2 weeks before the G5 was announced).

Paranoia will destroy ya'

[sedarby]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
And why's that?

It's because Connectix coded Virtual PC to conform to the PowerPC "Book E" implementation, and then Apple adopts an IBM chip which is a partial implementation of "Book E".

The G5 fiasco rests solely on the shoulders of Apple and IBM, not on Connectix and certainly not on Microsoft (which purchased Virtual PC about 2 weeks before the G5 was announced).

Paranoia will destroy ya'

Not paranoia just history. Microsoft bought Connectix for a server product. Virtual PC just happened to be included. A G5 version is supposed to be available within a year, IIRC. Microsoft has a terrible PR problem now and this does not help matters. The solution of "buy a cheap wintel box" is not viable for laptop users who need to use a single application or two. So now they get to carry 2 laptops. Not paranoid just concerned for the future.
Microsoft has earned the right to be bashed.

[MacEyeDoc]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
And why's that?

It's because Connectix coded Virtual PC to conform to the PowerPC "Book E" implementation, and then Apple adopts an IBM chip which is a partial implementation of "Book E".

The G5 fiasco rests solely on the shoulders of Apple and IBM, not on Connectix and certainly not on Microsoft (which purchased Virtual PC about 2 weeks before the G5 was announced).



And how concerned was Microsoft about this ? From what I could tell, there was nearly zero concern. Apple undoubtedly had to make some concessions to use the IBM chip, and with Motorola being the worst supplier of chips any computer company could imagine, I don't blame them. Still, the lack of enthusiam by MS to support VPC on the G5's helps illustrate the point that they do things when it is to their advantage, even if, and perhaps especially if, it is disadvantageous to someone else.

[midiman]

tell me exactly why allowing VPC to remain unusable on G5's helps microsoft? Not only do they lose the revenue from the app, but the licensing from whatever version of windows. Remember, MS does not make cpu's, just the operating system(for now, anyway), so a mac user running windows on their mac is just as good as a pc user doing the same. Not that I'm any particular fan of M$, but come on, have a little common sense!

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by MacEyeDoc
And how concerned was Microsoft about this ? From what I could tell, there was nearly zero concern.

Where are these reports of "zero concern" ?

Think about what would have happened here. Was MS one of the first partners to get a prototype G5 for testing? I'd guess not.

How many engineers do you suppose work in the MacBU on Virtual PC for Mac? Probably not enough that they could drop everything and do a quick rewrite of some core components of VPC/Mac to support the G5, and still meet other plans and commitments.

Don't you suspect that the VPC/Mac team was blind-sided by the G5 issue, and "next major release" was the only reasonable timeframe for support? If you don't believe that, you probably have no experience in a good-sized software development environment.

[Mudbug]

well, in my opinion, it's probably going to take these motion picture folks 6-12 months to realize the speed and quality of WM9 sucks.

It only took me about 2 seconds, but I don't have martinis at lunch.

well, not usually. :)

[bluedalmatian]

Is this the unexpected software announcement that was supossed to occur today? ;)

[montecristo]

While Microsoft may not have intentionally made VPC incompatible with G5's, withholding VPC from the G5's helps Microsoft in (at least) two ways:
1. G5's are a superior computer. You can imagine that there are many Wintel users who are deciding to buy a new computer and a G5 is a very good option. But as a switcher, you would have to make sure you can run everything you need for home or for business. VPC is supposed to help make switching easier. But if VPC doesn't work on a G5, people would be a little less likely to switch. Sure, a Windows PC and a Mac using VPC is still one Windows license for M$, but ultimately, it is just a little less control they have, in the long run, of the operating system market. Microsoft knows that once people see that they have other options for OS, they will see that they have other options for a lot of other markets in which Microsoft competes.

2. They save money on having to develop software that won't work smoothly.;)

I agree that in the long run, they will have to develop a VPC that will work on G5s, but they are not going to make it any easier for people to switch. People will have to decide to swtich to Macs despite the VPC incompatiability, and then when Microsoft sees that more and more people are switching, then they release VPC for G5s, in which case they look like a savior, and rake in all the money from licensing Windows on VPC.....They win now, and they win later.

[legion]

Actually WMP9 on Windows is pretty good (easy, straight forward, great lookup features and auto indexing of your music files.) Of course, I don't use WMA or any such microsoft format, but the player itself is really quite good.

WMP on Mac though is horrible. It's a piece o' crap with no real functionality. When Mac users see WMP9 running on my laptop, they're always wondering what it is, etc. When I tell 'em it's WMP, they always leave a little confused because of the crap MS puts out to the Mac users.

The other nice thing (and I'm not advocating breaking "the law" here) is that there is a very simple registry hack (2 key changes, if you're familiar with Windows) to use the Fraunhofer MP3 encoder without paying the licensing fee and it also sets it as the default ripper in WMP9 so you don't have to deal with Microsoft formats anywhere (otherwise the WMP always will try to use WMA format) It seems that WMP9 already has the F. encoder, but it isn't activated until you get a key from Fraunhofer.


On the otherhand, be very cautious of MS... they have never conducted any business moves for the "good of mankind."

[Fukui]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
How many engineers do you suppose work in the MacBU on Virtual PC for Mac? Probably not enough that they could drop everything and do a quick rewrite of some core components of VPC/Mac to support the G5, and still meet other plans and commitments.
If those VPC engineers only worked on VPC, what would it have been they need to "drop everything" to fix VPC ??

They hired the entire mac VPC team.
I guess 200+ engineers aren't enough....
Come to think of it, why does MS need 200+ engineers to work on 4 buggy, slow and hardly updated applications???

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by Fukui
If those VPC engineers only worked on VPC, what would it have been they need to "drop everything" to fix VPC ??

Do you suppose that maybe they were already working on the "next major version", as well as support and bugfix issues?

Do you think that the "next major version" already had a work item to "rip up the guts of the emulator to support a new partial implementation of the PowerPC"?

And of course, of the "200+ engineers" in the MacBU (whether or not that number is accurate) - only a handful have experience and knowledge of VPC/Mac.

So, I think that the term "drop everything" is pretty accurate.

[areyouwishing]

MS is opening up WM so they don't have to develop the player anymore, they can just release another "codec" and make others develop for it. They get the best of both worlds, they are looking like a good guy "opening" their software and they don't have to develop the app anymore to support it.

[SiliconAddict]

*smack forehead* Silly me. I remember the parallels now.
Everyone remember that little company called Netscape right? How it was doing quite well and making a rather good browser. Along comes Microsoft and basically says me to. They release IE1 that was the biggest software POS ever created by Microsoft which is saying a lot. IE 2 wasn’t a whole heck of a lot better. Then IE 3 came on the scene. What was different with IE 3? Two things. First they shipped it with everything. Literally. I mean you bought MS office it was there. You bought a game from Microsoft it was on the CD. You bought a freaking mouse for god sake it was on the CD. You bought a PC magazine guess what came with it? Yep IE. And the real kick in the shorts to Netscape was that they charged for their product. How was Netscape expected to challenge a free product when their bread and butter was based off of Navigator? Answer: They weren’t.
Many a word has been typed on the net discussing Microsoft vs. Netscape. One of the most common arguments is that if MS wants to give away software for free that’s their business. But guess what is happening now that MS owns 90%+/- of the browser market? No new versions of IE for Apple. No new versions of IE for Windows. If you want IE you are going to have to buy a new version of Windows. Amazing what happens when there is no competent left.
As someone else pointed out there are massive parallels between the browser wars and this. Microsoft has been trying to push into the streaming media business for years with little success again Real Media and Apple. So how can MS make headway? Eat the costs and put it out for free or really cheap until they crush the competition and then reel everyone back in. So yes. Short run this is good for everyone. Long run you are selling your soul to Microsoft once again. But of course no one will realize this until its too late.
:rolleyes:

[Fukui]

Originally posted by AidenShaw

And of course, of the "200+ engineers" in the MacBU (whether or not that number is accurate) - only a handful have experience and knowledge of VPC/Mac.

Like I wrote above, MS inherited the entire VPC mac team. VPC for mac and windows have SEPARATE teams. And if they for some reason neglected to check wether or not 970 was little/big endian compatible then its their fault for negligence. You can't tell me that for 6+ months they've been doing nothing but bug fixes? The update MS put out only fixed 4 bugs...4 BUGS after 6 months.

[daveL]

Originally posted by sedarby
The solution of "buy a cheap wintel box" is not viable for laptop users who need to use a single application or two. So now they get to carry 2 laptops. Not paranoid just concerned for the future.
Microsoft has earned the right to be bashed.
But, but, but ... there are no G5 laptops, yet.

In any case, I sure hope MS doesn't take a year to provide G5 VPC support. I'd like to think G5 support will be one of the first things they do with VPC, but who knows?

[dmbream]

Did anyone get their hands on the WMP9 beta from the WWDC in May? One was not publicly released, though I recall reading about a demonstration of the software during one of the sessions. Anyone else remember that?

Fill us in.

[rotorblade]

This is just a ploy by Microsoft to get the EU off their back while attempting to get up close and personal with the entertainment industry so we can all get molested by their DRM strategy.

[midifarm]

Who cares?

[Stella]

You should care, if you want open standards.

Once Microsoft dominate music and video formats, they'll bleed consumers dry and todays abuse of being market leader will look tame compared to what is coming.

... People and Businesses never learn, follow MS blindly and in the end, they are the ones who get screwed over. Many, Many examples of this...

Microsoft are happy to crush competition, and cry when things go against them - case in point - East Asian Countries planning to develop their own OS.




Originally posted by midifarm
Who cares?

[midifarm]

Open standards are fine and I detest MS. I don't personally care if MS creates versions of their software for the Mac or not with the exception of Office. When there's a viable competing product for Office, I'll drop MS completely. The fact that the sheople buy MS products and follow blindly is not my fault. I think different! I have a huge quandry in my life in that I have to buy a Windows machine to run any of the available software for my industry and they don't work with an emulator. I evangelize Apple products to everyone I can and do what I can to thwart MS's efforts. With the coup of Va Tech choosing Apple as it's supplier for their latest supercomputer and the US government approving OSX, Apple may indeed be on their way to more acceptance. I truly wish I will see the day when there are more Apples than wintel boxes.

[eric_n_dfw]

I'm no IE or MS fan, but the note from SilliconAddict above about how great Netscape was compared to IE 3 is not how I remember it. At least not on Windows. (IE vs. Netscape on Mac may have been different if that's what you are talking about)

I've been "on the net" since long before the WWW was around and I remember very well the various incarnations when it was in it's infancy.

I think the first web browser I tried was Cello (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cello/cellotop.html) followed by good old NCSA Mosaic (http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/SDG/Software/Mosaic/NCSAMosaicHome.html). When Netscape came around it was awesome, the ability to click on a link before the page was done loading was "revolutionary" ! :eek:

IE 1 and 2 sucked so bad, I don't know anyone who took them seriously, but when IE 3 came out, it had not only a superior fit and feel to it, it also had the Win95 marketting jugernought (sp?) behind it to give it market share. At the same time, Netscape was pissing developers off by going outside of the W3 convention and HTML standards with their proprietary frames and some other things. (IE actually was more close to the W3 standards then than Netscape and it stayed that way untill the open source community put Mozilla/NS 7 together.

I only use Netscape 7 on windows (unless a brain dead site requires me to fire up IE) and I use Safari almost exclusively on Mac now. But, like I said, I remember the time period you mentioned a lot differently than you do.

PS: I don't thing Netscape ever made that much money on the browser, they were trying to make it selling their web server software --- now there's a subject to talk about with IIS server being free. But then again, Apache ate everyone's lunch didn't it! :)

edit: Oh and hell yes, IE 2 -> IE 3 was worlds of difference.

[SiliconAddict]

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
I'm no IE or MS fan, but the note from SilliconAddict above about how great Netscape was compared to IE 3 is not how I remember it. At least not on Windows. (IE vs. Netscape on Mac may have been different if that's what you are talking about)

I've been "on the net" since long before the WWW was around and I remember very well the various incarnations when it was in it's infancy.

I think the first web browser I tried was Cello (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cello/cellotop.html) followed by good old NCSA Mosaic (http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/SDG/Software/Mosaic/NCSAMosaicHome.html). When Netscape came around it was awesome, the ability to click on a link before the page was done loading was "revolutionary" ! :eek:

IE 1 and 2 sucked so bad, I don't know anyone who took them seriously, but when IE 3 came out, it had not only a superior fit and feel to it, it also had the Win95 marketting jugernought (sp?) behind it to give it market share. At the same time, Netscape was pissing developers off by going outside of the W3 convention and HTML standards with their proprietary frames and some other things. (IE actually was more close to the W3 standards then than Netscape and it stayed that way untill the open source community put Mozilla/NS 7 together.

I only use Netscape 7 on windows (unless a brain dead site requires me to fire up IE) and I use Safari almost exclusively on Mac now. But, like I said, I remember the time period you mentioned a lot differently than you do.

PS:
edit: Oh and hell yes, IE 2 -> IE 3 was worlds of difference.


You are right. Navigator sucked in later versions. That was them trying to keep up to MS. Initially when it was version 1,2, and even 3 of IE Navigator was on equal footing. After that they slide downhill fast. I can't remember the rev numbers anymore but the stability slide downhill fast. I do remember having Navigator, that eventually was rebranded into Communicator, crash on me every other hour. Honestly I don't know where to place the blame for that. I do know the resources of Netscape was nothing in comparison to MS. So the question is how do you compete against a company that floods its product onto the market for free and can roll out new versions once every 6 months. It didn't take long for MS to leave Netscape eating its dust.
Interesting side note. You spoke of Mosaic. If you ever get a chance on IE go into HELP -> ABOUT and check out what it says. Righ there in black and white: Based on NCSA Mosaic.
Gotta love it.

[CamelCase]

Originally posted by montecristo
I don't know if I am missing something, but it seems to me that the hidden motive (not so hidden) is to become more of, or as much of, as standard as Quicktime is. Don't the two products have pretty much completely overlapping uses? (Sure Quicktime might be better now, but that's precisely the problem in the eyes of M$). They also want to target Real, I'm sure. If they really want to be "open", loosen up on Office and Windows....

I don't want to be cynical, but past history makes it hard to see MS's motive in a positive light.

What happens, assuming there aren't egregious NDAs and unmentioned license fees attached to this "opening" and MS is successful in getting their codec in widespread use?

Do they just "extend" it later to trap us yet again?

Apple and Real have made significant strides by moving towards open standards. I remain unconvinced that MS is doing anything other than business as usual. If I'm wrong, we might all be bettered by the open competition. However, that seems unlikely at this point.

[X-Baz]

Originally posted by midifarm
Open standards are fine and I detest MS. I don't personally care if MS creates versions of their software for the Mac or not with the exception of Office. When there's a viable competing product for Office, I'll drop MS completely.

This is a good example of how Microsoft "opening" their file formats is totally disingenious - the Office file formats have been "opened" for ages (well, word, excel and powerpoint have been) but there is still no apps that are a 100% replacement for those three (although some do come close). I would be very surprised if the situation was different with WMP.

[748s]

Originally posted by cubist
Microsoft refers to this strategy as "Embrace and Extend".

dude.....it's the 3 E's policy.
Embrace.
Extend.
Extinguish.

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
You spoke of Mosaic. If you ever get a chance on IE go into HELP -> ABOUT and check out what it says. Righ there in black and white: Based on NCSA Mosaic.
Gotta love it. Yep - they licensed it from SpyGlass and that put all other companies that SpyGlass licensed to pretty much out of business.

I did a Google search on Spyglass Mosaic and found this interesting, insider's article on that time in history: http://www.netvalley.com/archives/mirrors/eric/Eric_Weblog.htm

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Microsoft (which purchased Virtual PC about 2 weeks before the G5 was announced).

The purchase was in mid-August - a few days before the G5s started shipping, and about 2 weeks before the dual 2.0GHz G5s showed up....

[Fukui]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
You are right. Navigator sucked in later versions. That was them trying to keep up to MS. Initially when it was version 1,2, and even 3 of IE Navigator was on equal footing. After that they slide downhill fast. I can't remember the rev numbers anymore but the stability slide downhill fast. I do remember having Navigator, that eventually was rebranded into Communicator, crash on me every other hour. Honestly I don't know where to place the blame for that. I do know the resources of Netscape was nothing in comparison to MS. So the question is how do you compete against a company that floods its product onto the market for free and can roll out new versions once every 6 months. It didn't take long for MS to leave Netscape eating its dust.
Interesting side note. You spoke of Mosaic. If you ever get a chance on IE go into HELP -> ABOUT and check out what it says. Righ there in black and white: Based on NCSA Mosaic.
Gotta love it.
You have to also remember, MS has been known to make changes to the OS so that competing applications either don't run correctly or don't run at all. Remember DRDOS, Real Player, etc. I am sure that netscape was probably the target of that as well...

Though I did hear that their code was so messy they had to junk NS5 and start fresh with Mozilla/NS6. So who knows for sure...
Also, it becomes hard to compete when your "air supply (emphasis to billG)" has been cut.

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by Fukui
MS has been known to make changes to the OS so that competing applications either don't run correctly or don't run at all

Right, and no Mac application has ever had to have been updated to run on 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.2.x, 10.3 ....

My favorite Netscape version is simple Navigator 3.08 - and it runs fine (at least as well as it ever did) on Windows 2003 ...

[Stella]

You are correct.

They nearly finished Netscape 5.0, but they realized that, as you say, the code was a pile of steaming turd. Gecko, the rendering engine was born.

The Gecko rendering engine is supposed to be quite small - in the beginning...


Originally posted by Fukui
Though I did hear that their code was so messy they had to junk NS5 and start fresh with Mozilla/NS6. So who knows for sure...
Also, it becomes hard to compete when your "air supply (emphasis to billG)" has been cut. [/B]

[Fukui]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Right, and no Mac application has ever had to have been updated to run on 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.2.x, 10.3 ....
...
Actually, not many that I know of...
Photoshop runs just fine on 10.1 and 10.2 10.3 no updates necessary. MS office runs just fine with no updates from 10.1 to 10.3... Internet Explorer, same thing....the list goes on and on.

Why would an app need to be updated if it doesn't take advantage of APIs that don't exist on its original release? The only time apps broke was between 10.0 and 10.1 which was understandable because 10.0 was a piece of beautiful-looking but Beta-Quality OS.

Think about this, apple has no vested interest in making anyone's applications look bad, because it reflects bad on themselves; they can't afford to piss off developers anymore than they have. But MS can get away with it because it makes the application vendor look bad, at least until the truth comes out in the end...

It has been documented in court cases how MS has altered the OS purposefully and for the sole intent of making a competitors application look bad with fake error messages etc. Why is it that MS has to be ORDER BY COURT to disclose Windows APIs that they themselves use in their own Windows apps that run faster and more efficient than what they dish to developers???

People have eyes, they should use it to read once in a while.

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by Fukui
Actually, not many that I know of...

Type any OSX version into the search bar at macfixit.com, you'll see lots of them!

[MacEyeDoc]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
The purchase was in mid-August - a few days before the G5s started shipping, and about 2 weeks before the dual 2.0GHz G5s showed up....

Talk about revisionist history! Here's an article from MacCentral:

Microsoft acquires Virtual PC from Connectix
By Jim Dalrymple
February 19, 2003 2:50 pm
Microsoft Corp. on Wednesday announced that they had acquired Connectix Corp.'s Virtual PC products, including Virtual PC for Mac, Virtual PC for Windows and Virtual Server. Microsoft also hired many of the Connectix employees that worked on the products to continue development . . .

While Microsoft has no immediate plans to change Virtual PC for Mac, they do have a development team, marketing and planning teams already in place and are evaluating the product line. Microsoft is looking at the current product roadmap from Connectix and will decide where to take the product at a later date . . .


SO, I think you may have had your facts incorrect both times. In this news article from MacCentral, dated February 19, 2003, MicroShaft had not only purchased Virtual PC, but also already had a development team, marketing and planning teams in place. And in August, they are shocked and surprised to find out that VPC doesn't run on the G5's ? What did they do for 6 months? And when asked about this, the answer from MS was:

Microsoft confirms Virtual PC not G5-compatible
By Jim Dalrymple jdalrymple@maccentral.com
August 27, 2003 1:05 pm ET

. . . said compatibility with the G5 will make it into the next release of Virtual PC, no timeframe was given for the update.


No timeframe ? Throw us a bone, M$! End of the year ? End of the decade ? With all the vapor-ware and pre-announcements that abound in the software world, couldn't they have at least said we're working on it as fast as we can ? That comment seems to show little concern to me, especially after they have had people working on it for 6 months.

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by MacEyeDoc
Talk about revisionist history!

Try the Connectix website http://www.connectix.com

As part of the Microsoft acquisition of the Virtual PC and Virtual Server technology and products, Connectix is in the final stages of transitioning the business to Microsoft, and plans to complete this transition by August 15, 2003.

Corporate acquisitions take some time - and there are certain things which cannot be undertaken until the deal is final. Final, as in August 15, as in when the first 1.6 and 1.8 G5 systems were appearing on store shelves.

MacCentral says February, Connectix says August.... Tomato, tomahto

[Fukui]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Type any OSX version into the search bar at macfixit.com, you'll see lots of them!
Perhaps, but that does not negate the fact of Microsoft's said behavior toward sabotaging their own developers.

[bcsimac]

Nice to see WMP 9 for Mac OS X finally. DRM support is old though...ick. They did demo the media player with Safari so they got the part right. MS said they are looking to make sure they are compatible with three major browsers.....Safari, IE, and Netscape(hopefully mozilla too).

[MasterMac]

Originally posted by bcsimac
Nice to see WMP 9 for Mac OS X finally. DRM support is old though...ick. They did demo the media player with Safari so they got the part right. MS said they are looking to make sure they are compatible with three major browsers.....Safari, IE, and Netscape(hopefully mozilla too).

And hopefully that would include Camino as well

[lord_flash]

Originally posted by MacEyeDoc
No timeframe ?... That comment seems to show little concern to me...

So you'd rather they just plucked a date randomly out of the air and missed it by miles like, say, Apple? Don't get me wrong - I hate MS - but has it ever occoured to anyone to take them at their word here - that, if they update VirtualPC, it'll be PC compatible.

There is all this talk of how Apple is a business and does what it needs to, yet everyone is up in arms when MS behaves like one.

If we were to abandon double standards, is it still possiblee to hate MS? Yes. So why make ourselves look like squabbling schoolkids who aren't allowed to play? "it's not fair..."

[bcsimac]

MS has indicated they are not sure about Camino and Firebird or for that matter regular Mozilla......MS basically said commercial browsers....that leaves it to Safari, IE, and Netscape.....Opera doesn't count I guess.

Originally posted by MasterMac
And hopefully that would include Camino as well