Vaj wrote:
>
> On Dec 18, 2006, at 12:31 PM, Bhairitu wrote:
>
>>>
>>> It sounds like I read the same press releases you did, as what you are
>>> saying is my recollection and understanding as well.
>> Bingo, "press releases" are the operative words. And who does those?
>> Marketing. I just went through a product release where marketing put a
>> bunch of hype on the technology making it sound like it was much more
>> than it actually was.
>>
>> I'm not saying that Apple products are bad or that their technology is
>> bad. But to most of us in the industry they're just "another
>> machine." :)
>
>
> Well if I recall correctly what they said was that as a member of the
> JPEG group they got the nod, that's all. At the time everyone was
> worried MS would get it. Of course that hasn't stopped others from
> having their own spec for MPEG-4. Personally I wish it was all Open
> Source, seems to make much more sense for everybody.
>
> There's nothing more annoying than finding a website (for ex. VH1's
> video section) that runs on only one OS and one browser.
Indeed. H.263 is open source and there are other open source video
projects. There is also an open source version of MPEG-4 (or h.264).
Unfortunately the "big boys" like to play with the other "big boys" so
they can carve up the world (isn't capitalism wonderful). I still
can't play WMV's with DRM on my Linkplayer2 even though Windows Media
Center sees it and says it is okay for playing DRM stuff. Whereas
Divx's DRM works fine but the studios won't work with them though they
started to a couple year's back.
