Ahar in regards to TV I see theres a television that can stream DivX content from a computer, which is an interesting start:
http://www.divx.com/products/hw/detail.php?p=363 Random and possibly rubbish thoughts on how DivX can increase its territory in the new online video scene... Obviously flash has become quite dominant for short video in the browser stuff. DivX has a browser plugin to compete in this space now, need to get more sites/services using DivX as their technology of choice. 4 reasons I can think of why Flash is used: So many people already have it installed Plenty of flash developers & long history of the technolgy, easy to add custom features to flash player etc Existence of software that can run on linux and windows servers and convert other formats to flash files Ability of flash to let users record from webcam straight to service, without leaving browser. (may be more important in future, time will tell) So anything DivX can do to offer similar abilities, increases chances that others will use DivX on their websites. It will always be hard to match flashs install base, but you could make the divx browser less annoying to install, and in the future maybe try to see if theres alternative ways to install it through the browser. Dont know if theres any scope for trying to get Firefox to help the cause somehow. Dont know if you or anybody else already offer conversion tools that can re-encode footage on linux servers. And its still quite hard to tell which browser video player feature innovations will catch on with the masses. I really like things like http://crowdabout.us/ where people can leave comments at any point in the videos timeline, and supports audio and video comments. In a future where such things could be commonplace on very many websites, does DivX want a slice of this pie or is the prospect of fighting flash in this space too daunting? Obviously Ive just focussed on the browser side of things with this particular rant, the downloading, and watching on TV or other devices side of things is more like a continuation of strategies you've already been employing in recent years, certification etc. and as I said before this arena is a bit stuck waiting for DRM issues, and just how many non-DRM independent media producers will exist in future and what percentage of peoples viewing will be of that content. How long will the big players continue to cling to DRM, how soon will enough average consumers want to really use this stuff and start shouting about interoperability issues when they see how messy things are? That stuff has just begun, with ipod DRM an early test case. And I havent even started waffling about what impact h264 and Microsoft VC-1 being part of the HD-DVD and Blueray formats will have. Anyway Im off to download some 720p DivX stuff to see what it looks like on my telly, from what I remember you guys are certainly competitive on the quality front. But at this stage of the game, as flash showed, quality is not necessarily the most important factor. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In [email protected], "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks for your post. > > What does 'open platform' actually mean? > > You talk about people watching content from the web on their TV, and > this is indeed an important development. But theres a lot of > competition in this young area, and much variation in what > technologies are used. You are up against things like Apple TV, games > consoles like Xbox360 and PS3, mutations of older tech such as Tivo to > bring it into the net distribution age, on-demand offerings from cable > TV providers, various peer2peer video distribution services if they go > looking for hardware to plug the gap between TV and computer, mobile > devices that can hookup to the TV. > > Now I assume much of DivX's history with device certification was for > DVD players, and hopefuly now includes some mobile devices. As burning > to pysical media doesnt sound like the best way to watch episodic > video content thats downloaded automatically via RSS of whatever, I > would hope/imagine that the future will include some companies > creating alternatives to the Apple TV, and some of those companies get > their device DivX certified. > > DRM issues certainly confuse the wider picture. Most of the complaints > about Apple stuff isnt that the video or audio formats are > non-standard and closed, after all they are using Mpeg4 and H264, its > the content that is DRM controlld that creates compatibility woes. Im > one of those people that hopes DRM dies over time, and assuming that > DivX currently has no DRM system, this will be good for DivX as it > removes one thing the competing formats offer that DivX doesnt seem to? > > Excuse my highly cynical nature but I see a lot of comapnies desperate > to prove they are something far more than their core business. In this > day and age the word 'community' is connected to the perceived > expectations of investors - so of course you dont want to be a codec > company with the limited potential for growth that this implies, but > rather a huge chunk of the unfolding future web media thang. And at > the moment when few have worked out how to make large returns on their > web 2.,0 stuff, site viewing figures, how large the 'community' is, > become important benchmarks. Unfortunately for Divx your historical > community of users were using it for grey purposes which you couldnt > shout about, its no secret where DivX brand recognition came from, and > you've done an amazing job to create a business from those beginnings. > If useage of DivX on the web for legitimate purposes equalled its > dominance of the early video sharing scene, this conversation would > not need to happen at all, you would undisputedly have a huge amount > of territory in the new race. But as things stand, I feel you need to > find a way to somehow leapfrog ahead to the next stage, get a jump on > your competitiors. Because in a straight battle between DivX, > Microsoft, Apple, and everyone thats using mpeg4 or h264 in a standard > way, its unclear to me how DivX will fare. > > I was out of date and only just discovered that microsoft have gotten > some standard for their VC-1 video part of .wmv, so other people can > use it in their products more easily. It will be interesting to see > how many 3rd parties decide to take up this opportunity. So this > brings me back to your comment about open platform, and my question > about what it actuall means. If I am doing hardware of software or > content and want to use mpeg4 or h264 or wmv in some way, I can go get > a license from whoever is looking after the patent pool (eg MPEG LA, > LLC). How does it work with DivX, also bearing in mind you make most > of your revenue through the certification of devices? > > Cheers > > Steve Elbows > > wrote: > > > > Not to dig up this old thread, but I've been pondering it the past few > > days and wanted to add my thoughts > > > > First, I'm sorry that you couldn't find any pertinent information on > > DivX on DivX.com. That's terrible and something we struggle with and > > aim to fix. DivX.com has become a hub of many things and often gets > > overcrowded with too many things and the signal gets lost in the noise. > > > > And that kid of also is a good way to explain a lot of the confusion > > around DivX in general. People get caught up in some of the smaller > > subsets of what we do and spend hours debating features and formats > > and miss the bigger picture. And the bigger picture is this; DivX is > > not a codec company. We never have been. Since day one our vision > > was to build a platform and tools to empower content creators to > > distribute their content and deliver a high quality experience to > > their audience. To achieve this goal we started with creating a high > > quality experience with the video, hence the codec. We then worked to > > leverage that high quality experience on the PC and move it into the > > living room where users want to watch their content. I think the > > question of why to use DivX comes down to experience. What is the > > focus of your vlog or content? Is it a quick lean forward short form > > content where a small 320x240 pixilated window will suffice? Or do > > you want a lean back experience where the user is immersed in the > > content and they watch a much larger format if not full screen version > > of your content. When DivX was started we saw the shifts in > > technology that would allow for a complete shift in media and the way > > it was used. First you saw, and continue to see, the cost lower of > > tools to create the content. You can now get an HD camera for less > > than $1,000, something unheard of 10 years ago. Then the software > > side of things started to take off, with Avid, Final Cut etc becoming > > available to help create this content. Now you are seeing the > > distribution side of things starting to come in. Broadband access > > reaching more homes in the US and catching up with other countries. > > It's the culmination of these shifts in technology and the changing of > > media that is our vision. Shifting the power from the few to the > > masses. Creating a common media language that spans computer, > > networks, the living room and beyond. Creating a high quality open > > platform that carries with it the vision of changing media for the > > better is what DivX does. We can discuss the finer details of > > compression and the webplayer, but don't miss it for the bigger > > picture. Watching this new content in the living room is an amazing > > shift in power. Being able with a few clicks of my remote to bring up > > the latest episode of Galacticast or JetSetShow on my TV changes > > everything about how I consume media and share it with my friends. > > > > If you are passionate about creating content, about your content, > > about changing the media for the better, then you are with us and > > should be talking with us. We want to hear your ideas and input to > > help realize this vision. We've done well thus far (caution > > gratuitous stats to follow) with our 250 Million downloads of our > > software and over 70 Million hardware units shipped, but we have even > > bigger things coming. > > > > Sorry for the long post, I hope I didn't lose to many. If you have > > any questions please ask them, or feel free to contact me directly. > > bcote@ > > > > > > And if you are looking for a few Vloggers and content creators using > > DivX here is a quick list of names you may or may not recognize: > > http://commandn.typepad.com/ > > http://stage6.divx.com/GALACTICAST > > http://www.jetsetshow.com/ > > http://stage6.divx.com/Geek_Entertainment_TV > > http://hak5.org/ > > http://stage6.divx.com/Tiki_Bar_TV > > http://labrats.tv/ > > http://stage6.divx.com/AskANinja > > http://www.purepwnage.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Rupert <rupert@> wrote: > > > > > > I feel a bit of a fool. I was talking to somebody about vlogging > > > and they were raving to me about the quality and compression of DivX. > > > > > > I don't know anything about DivX. I don't feel that much wiser > after > > > reading up about it on Wikipedia, DivX.com etc > > > > > > I don't know any vloggers who use it, and can't remember seeing a > > > DivX labelled feed, the way many people list QT, WMV and iPod > feeds. > > > Why do so few people use it, when it would appear to be very popular > > > among P2P video sharers? > > > > > > Every conversation about which formats to use, always discusses QT, > > > MP4, Windows Media and Flash? When people talk about using Windows > > > Media files, are they also assuming that DivX is under this banner, > > > because Windows Media Player comes preinstalled with the DivX codec? > > > > > > And if so, why do people provide wmv files and feeds instead of > divx, > > > if DivX is so much better? Or is it not? > > > > > > Yours confused > > > > > > Rupert > > > > > >
