We actually worked tightly with xvid
specifically so that xvid stream would work in all DivX decoders also. Xvid
obviously can’t license to CE manufacturers because of mpeg-la niceties
(mpeg-la is entitled to fees for just compiling the code). Competeing
development towards commons goals with xvid has helped us both. We are forced
to keep strong development and they are insured of hardware support. (If you
look in the code you will see they include DivX certified profiles inside xvid).
So for general purposes, there really isn’t a functional distinction between
xvid and divx.
There is a good chance the browser side
will come out in a few weeks (I am guessing right after everyone gets back from
new years).
Another arena is the online distribution.
That is still very early in the game. Who is to say that there won’t be a
lot of paid content in avi? In fact, in italt, there is already a good market
of DivX discs sold at retail establishments of current Hollywood
releases. In brazil,
they are included with new DVD players (sometimes three feature films per
disc). And these aren’t obscure titles. These are new release top tier
movies. I know that itunes has sold millions of music videos, but on a sheer
number of minutes scale, they are still tens if not hundreds of billions of
minutes behind existing (grey or not) avi content.
We have already announced lower level
content deals (Image Entertainment, very long tail), but don’t be
surprised if you see some DivX online stores in the next year.
I’m certainly not saying that we are
trailblazers leading the pack, but don’t write us off. And please, keep
up the dialog. One truly unique position you have with DivX is that we are here
and listening.
From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com [mailto:videoblogging@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve Watkins
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005
10:12 AM
To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [videoblogging] Re: DivX
- Shameless Plug
Cheers :)
My impression of things is probably a bit wrong,
Im probably
underestimating the number of DivX certified
players etc that exist.
And yes when thinking of videoblogging, Im not
thinking of the
billions of legacy files that consumers want to
play, indeed Im
avoiding talking about that stuff at all because
its 'grey' to say the
least. Still it is similar to how mp3 become the
established standard
for audio. DivX doesnt dominate to quite the
extent mp3 does though, I
see a lot of xvid stuff floating around, but maybe
they are pretty
compatible.
Regarding mp4 support from the likes of Apple and
Sony, it will be
interesting to see what happens. Apple have
actually been good about
this so far, they could have limited ipod support
to .mov containers
only, if they wanted to keep tighter control of
ipod video creation
tools. They havent, theyve allowed normal m4 to
work. The fact that
only baseline h264 works is likely due to the
choice of decoder chip,
rather than a deliberate imcompatibility with PSP
h264. Sony on the
otherhand have either due to sloppyness or
deliberate policy, messed
with the PSP mp4 container, but it still hasnt
stopped people creating
3rd party PSP video encoders.
Did you say in the pst that DivX are working on
playback in browsers?
Compared to Apple's stuff thats where you are
lacking most, and also
lacking something like itunes and content deals.
Im not so sure all
those billions of legacy divx avi's will mean all
that much to
hardware manufacturers in the longterm. When
people are buying more
video online, it wont be in avi format. Couple
that with phones &
other devices creating mp4's of one kind of
another, and next-gen DVD
using h264, and I am not so sure DivX
compatibility will continue to
be such a selling point for DVD hardware players
etc in the future.
Steve of Elbows
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com,
"Jim Vinson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Steve,
> Not to butter you up or anything, but you are
very insightful. I
> honestly appreciate these threads.
>
> There are published specs for avi and many
other codecs and encoding
> applications create avi's. For the longterm
CE manufacturers will
> support this format since there are billions
of legacy files that the
> consumers want to play. Supporting our
'certified' profile gives them a
> competitive advantage, therefore they put it
in the box.
> From my side of the playground, the apple mp4
support is more of a
> problem than a help. If anyone is going to
make a vertically integrated
> closed system it will be apple. I would be
surprised if apple and sony
> came together with a compatible format out of
the kindness of their
> hearts. The slight differences are not an
accident. Recent content deals
> on both sides drive an even deeper wedge between
the psp and ipod. That
> is where we are trying to be part of the
solution. We do have the
> leverage to make CE manufacturers implement a
documented standard that
> is verifiably interoperable by someone
outside of the production
> process. Also, due to required legacy
support, even if we were evil,
> hand wringing, control freaks, we couldn't
lock out the existing,
> non-DivX (r) encoding schemes.
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
