RealNetworks goes open source.
-
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,56078,00.html[^] My take, Real sees that they are loosing to Microsoft so they are trying to get the Linux group to hop on board. ‘Hey all you Linux web admins, you can add streaming media to your site. Fight the closed sourced demons. You may praise us now.’ Here’s the plan. First, we scrap Real’s compression codec and rewrite the whole thing based off of Ogg Vorbis[^]. Then, we will rewrite the player’s interface so that it does not induce vomiting.
I'm not terribly surprised. I think Real is a decent media player, but Microsoft (because of it's ownership of the OS) can easily railroad them. Unless Microsoft really screws up, there's simply no way Real can compete. Microsoft has a superior strategic position (and this certainly isn't the only time they've used it). I began to get the feeling that Real was desperate when I upgraded to the new Real Player. It was free, and they give you a 30-day trial of Real Pass when you get it (this is not optional - as far as I could tell). But, you can cancel it within 30 days without paying anything. So, before the 30 days way up, I decided to cancel it. The software told me I had to call via telephone to cancel the 30-day trial. So, I did. After sitting on hold a while, I got a person on the other end who asked me thing like, "Why do I want to cancel the 30-day Real Pass?" Jeez, they could've allowed me to cancel it through their software, but they made me jump through a bunch of hoops. (Ugh!) (Maybe there was a way to avoid the 30-day trial altogether. I don't know.) ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,56078,00.html[^] My take, Real sees that they are loosing to Microsoft so they are trying to get the Linux group to hop on board. ‘Hey all you Linux web admins, you can add streaming media to your site. Fight the closed sourced demons. You may praise us now.’ Here’s the plan. First, we scrap Real’s compression codec and rewrite the whole thing based off of Ogg Vorbis[^]. Then, we will rewrite the player’s interface so that it does not induce vomiting.
-
I'm not terribly surprised. I think Real is a decent media player, but Microsoft (because of it's ownership of the OS) can easily railroad them. Unless Microsoft really screws up, there's simply no way Real can compete. Microsoft has a superior strategic position (and this certainly isn't the only time they've used it). I began to get the feeling that Real was desperate when I upgraded to the new Real Player. It was free, and they give you a 30-day trial of Real Pass when you get it (this is not optional - as far as I could tell). But, you can cancel it within 30 days without paying anything. So, before the 30 days way up, I decided to cancel it. The software told me I had to call via telephone to cancel the 30-day trial. So, I did. After sitting on hold a while, I got a person on the other end who asked me thing like, "Why do I want to cancel the 30-day Real Pass?" Jeez, they could've allowed me to cancel it through their software, but they made me jump through a bunch of hoops. (Ugh!) (Maybe there was a way to avoid the 30-day trial altogether. I don't know.) ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
MS didn't need the OS. They have been providing better stream support for a while now. About a year ago Gibson Research Corporation did some tests and found that the MS stream was the best. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
-
MS didn't need the OS. They have been providing better stream support for a while now. About a year ago Gibson Research Corporation did some tests and found that the MS stream was the best. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
Tim Smith wrote: Gibson Research Corporation Oh, look like you have some good reference, hacker boy.
How low can you go ?
(MS rant) -
Henry Jacobs wrote: Then, we will rewrite the player’s interface so that it does not induce vomiting. LOL! Amen to that; I can't stand RealPlayer. Jeremy Falcon Imputek Excrement escapes everyone - even elders.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: LOL! Amen to that; I can't stand RealPlayer. Kinder words than I would have used. Real has the most unbelievably intrusive installation I've ever seen, putting tons of crap on your system when all you wanted was a player. And uninstall doesn't. Gee, and I said all that with only one bad word. I must be getting soft. :-) Chistopher Duncan Author - The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World (Apress)
-
MS didn't need the OS. They have been providing better stream support for a while now. About a year ago Gibson Research Corporation did some tests and found that the MS stream was the best. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
I agree that WMP streams look and sound better than equivalent Real streams, but I have to say that from my experience with Steve Gibson, I'm inclined to disbelieve anything GRC posits... Tim Lesher http://www.lesher.ws
-
I agree that WMP streams look and sound better than equivalent Real streams, but I have to say that from my experience with Steve Gibson, I'm inclined to disbelieve anything GRC posits... Tim Lesher http://www.lesher.ws
-
MS didn't need the OS. They have been providing better stream support for a while now. About a year ago Gibson Research Corporation did some tests and found that the MS stream was the best. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
It may be true that WMP does better than Real when it comes to quality. Personally, I haven't noticed much difference between the two (despite the vigourous assertions in other people's postings about how bad Real Player's quality is). I remember seeing a benchmark somewhere else that showed a third player which was better than both WMP and Real. About a year ago Gibson Research Corporation did some tests and found that the MS stream was the best. Since the quality difference was negligible (in my opinion), this wasn't really an issue. And the fact that it took a research corporation to determine which was "best" underscores how minor the differences in quality really are. If WMP really was visibly better than Real, you wouldn't need a research corporation to tell you what everyone already knows. The fact of the matter is that it is normally difficult to displace the major player in any market. Did Microsoft displace Real because it was better? We've already shown that the quality differences were minor. Further, if this really was about quality, why didn't the third party win-out over Real and MS? Most companies have to have a visibly superior product to beat the dominant player in any market. That isn't the case here. The obvious fact is that if Real had been shipped with Windows and WMP had to be downloaded from a third party, WMP would already be out-of-business. Not because WMP is bad, but, because there's little incentive to go out of your way to get it and Real was the dominant player to begin with. To say that Microsoft won simply because WMP is better is completely wrong. Microsoft almost always plays on a skewed playing field. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
It may be true that WMP does better than Real when it comes to quality. Personally, I haven't noticed much difference between the two (despite the vigourous assertions in other people's postings about how bad Real Player's quality is). I remember seeing a benchmark somewhere else that showed a third player which was better than both WMP and Real. About a year ago Gibson Research Corporation did some tests and found that the MS stream was the best. Since the quality difference was negligible (in my opinion), this wasn't really an issue. And the fact that it took a research corporation to determine which was "best" underscores how minor the differences in quality really are. If WMP really was visibly better than Real, you wouldn't need a research corporation to tell you what everyone already knows. The fact of the matter is that it is normally difficult to displace the major player in any market. Did Microsoft displace Real because it was better? We've already shown that the quality differences were minor. Further, if this really was about quality, why didn't the third party win-out over Real and MS? Most companies have to have a visibly superior product to beat the dominant player in any market. That isn't the case here. The obvious fact is that if Real had been shipped with Windows and WMP had to be downloaded from a third party, WMP would already be out-of-business. Not because WMP is bad, but, because there's little incentive to go out of your way to get it and Real was the dominant player to begin with. To say that Microsoft won simply because WMP is better is completely wrong. Microsoft almost always plays on a skewed playing field. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
Um, lets see... 1. Users seem to hate the interface 2. They hate the spyware 3. Server admins say that MS streaming takes less computer resources. Yeah, I have to admit it. RP and MSP tie. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
-
MS didn't need the OS. They have been providing better stream support for a while now. About a year ago Gibson Research Corporation did some tests and found that the MS stream was the best. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
Tim Smith wrote: About a year ago Gibson Research Corporation did some tests and found that the MS stream was the best. grc.com? Hmmm, I don't believe a word he say anymore. - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
-
It may be true that WMP does better than Real when it comes to quality. Personally, I haven't noticed much difference between the two (despite the vigourous assertions in other people's postings about how bad Real Player's quality is). I remember seeing a benchmark somewhere else that showed a third player which was better than both WMP and Real. About a year ago Gibson Research Corporation did some tests and found that the MS stream was the best. Since the quality difference was negligible (in my opinion), this wasn't really an issue. And the fact that it took a research corporation to determine which was "best" underscores how minor the differences in quality really are. If WMP really was visibly better than Real, you wouldn't need a research corporation to tell you what everyone already knows. The fact of the matter is that it is normally difficult to displace the major player in any market. Did Microsoft displace Real because it was better? We've already shown that the quality differences were minor. Further, if this really was about quality, why didn't the third party win-out over Real and MS? Most companies have to have a visibly superior product to beat the dominant player in any market. That isn't the case here. The obvious fact is that if Real had been shipped with Windows and WMP had to be downloaded from a third party, WMP would already be out-of-business. Not because WMP is bad, but, because there's little incentive to go out of your way to get it and Real was the dominant player to begin with. To say that Microsoft won simply because WMP is better is completely wrong. Microsoft almost always plays on a skewed playing field. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
The difference between real and MS is obvious. You just need your eyes. I wonder what a computer benchmark could do about it. - image quality : pixel blur for Real ; clearer for MS - rebuffering : horrible with Real ; MS nicely coded - start time : fast with real; fast with MS6.4, very very slow with more recent releases - media types supported : real mime only ; MS mp3/mpeg4/divx/... - dev licensing : year fee (real partner program) + per stream cost ; MS free - bugs : real not even a decent KB ; MS escalated support - cookies : real is full of spy, cookies, phone home ; MS (unknown at the moment) I think it's enough. It's a KO.
How low can you go ?
(MS rant) -
MS didn't need the OS. They have been providing better stream support for a while now. About a year ago Gibson Research Corporation did some tests and found that the MS stream was the best. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
Ok, I did a quick search and found two comparisons, one being your standard mag comparison. Another was research paid for by MS. The Mag: Real Networks streaming is better in almost every way followed by MS with QuickTime a very distant 3rd. MS research: They are both perfectly fine for any business. However, for NT servers, people might like the tighter integration available with MS. But for more diverse servers, Real Networks is the way to go. (sarcasm) But I wouldn't trust this since MS paid for it. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
-
Um, lets see... 1. Users seem to hate the interface 2. They hate the spyware 3. Server admins say that MS streaming takes less computer resources. Yeah, I have to admit it. RP and MSP tie. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
1. Users seem to hate the interface Well, I don't hate the interface. 2. They hate the spyware What percentage of users know about spyware? I'd say less than 5%. (I'm certain that my parents and my relatives don't know a thing about it. This accounts for *at best* 5% of WMP marketshare. You might argue that lots of people know about it, but you'd be wrong. Lot's of your friends know about it != lots of people in the general population.) Further, WMP has some "spyware" of it's own. Your WMP can be uniquely identified. Over protest, MS allowed users to turn this off, but it is on by default. (Open WMP, choose View->Options->Player->Allow Internet sites to uniquely identify your player) 3. Server admins say that MS streaming takes less computer resources. Server admins go where the market is. They didn't choose MS streaming until they knew people were using it. They're not the ones making the decision. (Case in point: if I make a super-media format with great clarity and uses few computer resources, do you think server admins would use it? Not a chance if no one visiting the site have it.) ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
1. Users seem to hate the interface Well, I don't hate the interface. 2. They hate the spyware What percentage of users know about spyware? I'd say less than 5%. (I'm certain that my parents and my relatives don't know a thing about it. This accounts for *at best* 5% of WMP marketshare. You might argue that lots of people know about it, but you'd be wrong. Lot's of your friends know about it != lots of people in the general population.) Further, WMP has some "spyware" of it's own. Your WMP can be uniquely identified. Over protest, MS allowed users to turn this off, but it is on by default. (Open WMP, choose View->Options->Player->Allow Internet sites to uniquely identify your player) 3. Server admins say that MS streaming takes less computer resources. Server admins go where the market is. They didn't choose MS streaming until they knew people were using it. They're not the ones making the decision. (Case in point: if I make a super-media format with great clarity and uses few computer resources, do you think server admins would use it? Not a chance if no one visiting the site have it.) ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
But just because you say so doesn't mean that people switched to WMP just because it was shipped with the computer. It has been around for AGES and sucked REALLY bad for ages. The problem is that these are the same arguments about Word/Excel when they trashed the competition. However, when people look at the reviews of the time, they see that MS was winning the reviews. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote: LOL! Amen to that; I can't stand RealPlayer. Kinder words than I would have used. Real has the most unbelievably intrusive installation I've ever seen, putting tons of crap on your system when all you wanted was a player. And uninstall doesn't. Gee, and I said all that with only one bad word. I must be getting soft. :-) Chistopher Duncan Author - The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World (Apress)
Christopher Duncan wrote: Gee, and I said all that with only one bad word. I must be getting soft. Yeah, old age will do that to ya. ;P ** Jeremy Runs! Jeremy Falcon Imputek Excrement escapes everyone - even elders.
-
Christopher Duncan wrote: Gee, and I said all that with only one bad word. I must be getting soft. Yeah, old age will do that to ya. ;P ** Jeremy Runs! Jeremy Falcon Imputek Excrement escapes everyone - even elders.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: ** Jeremy Runs! You're gonna have to have one helluva set of sneakers to outrun the new Vette! :-D Chistopher Duncan Author - The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World (Apress)
-
But just because you say so doesn't mean that people switched to WMP just because it was shipped with the computer. It has been around for AGES and sucked REALLY bad for ages. The problem is that these are the same arguments about Word/Excel when they trashed the competition. However, when people look at the reviews of the time, they see that MS was winning the reviews. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
All I'm saying is that WMP just has to get in the same ballpark as Real, and the other MS advantages will assure victory. I never said MS won simply because WMP was shipped with the OS. MS can't win with a completely crappy product, but they can and do win in situations where other cannot - because of their strategic position as owner of the OS. Microsoft routinely wins battles because ownership of the OS gives them an advantage which is stronger than existing market dominance. That's a pretty heafty advantage, but it's not "victory assured" if MS ignores the other pertinent aspects of competition. Here's an analogy about how I see the situation: Winning in the business world is like game where you can get from 1 to 10 points. If you have market dominance, you get another 3 points. If you own the OS and are willing to give your product away for free (or, more accurately, roll the cost into the OS) then you get 4 points. Now, normally, if you have market dominance and are playing a good game, you can usually rest assured that no one else can touch you. Let's say Real is playing the game at 6 points. Now, with market dominance, they get another 3 points, for a total of 9. If an upstart company comes along and plays a 10-point game, they can actually beat Real. But, Microsoft comes along and plays a 7 point game. If any other company did that, they'd be toast. But, thanks to Microsoft's thanks to ownership of the OS and willingness to give their product away (4 points), they actually get 11 points - and they win the game. Back in the day when WMP was a "really crappy product", they were playing a 3 point game - not enough to challenge Real (even with the 4 point advantage). The scary thing is that even if you have market dominance and play a perfect game, Microsoft only needs to match your level of play to beat you in the business game. Microsoft's advantages trump market dominance. You're only chance for survival is hoping that MS makes enough mistakes. This has happened with other companies, like when IBM agreed to let MS licence its OS to them. MS would be nothing today if IBM hadn't dropped the ball. Xerox dropped the ball with Xerox Parc. Of course, Microsoft is perfectly happy to let you think they won simply because of product superiority. The fact of the matter is that MS will crush any competition even if that competition is creating a superior product. Now that MS has market dominance and ownership of the OS the only way they can be dethroned is by a collosal error on
-
The difference between real and MS is obvious. You just need your eyes. I wonder what a computer benchmark could do about it. - image quality : pixel blur for Real ; clearer for MS - rebuffering : horrible with Real ; MS nicely coded - start time : fast with real; fast with MS6.4, very very slow with more recent releases - media types supported : real mime only ; MS mp3/mpeg4/divx/... - dev licensing : year fee (real partner program) + per stream cost ; MS free - bugs : real not even a decent KB ; MS escalated support - cookies : real is full of spy, cookies, phone home ; MS (unknown at the moment) I think it's enough. It's a KO.
How low can you go ?
(MS rant)Exactly.
-
All I'm saying is that WMP just has to get in the same ballpark as Real, and the other MS advantages will assure victory. I never said MS won simply because WMP was shipped with the OS. MS can't win with a completely crappy product, but they can and do win in situations where other cannot - because of their strategic position as owner of the OS. Microsoft routinely wins battles because ownership of the OS gives them an advantage which is stronger than existing market dominance. That's a pretty heafty advantage, but it's not "victory assured" if MS ignores the other pertinent aspects of competition. Here's an analogy about how I see the situation: Winning in the business world is like game where you can get from 1 to 10 points. If you have market dominance, you get another 3 points. If you own the OS and are willing to give your product away for free (or, more accurately, roll the cost into the OS) then you get 4 points. Now, normally, if you have market dominance and are playing a good game, you can usually rest assured that no one else can touch you. Let's say Real is playing the game at 6 points. Now, with market dominance, they get another 3 points, for a total of 9. If an upstart company comes along and plays a 10-point game, they can actually beat Real. But, Microsoft comes along and plays a 7 point game. If any other company did that, they'd be toast. But, thanks to Microsoft's thanks to ownership of the OS and willingness to give their product away (4 points), they actually get 11 points - and they win the game. Back in the day when WMP was a "really crappy product", they were playing a 3 point game - not enough to challenge Real (even with the 4 point advantage). The scary thing is that even if you have market dominance and play a perfect game, Microsoft only needs to match your level of play to beat you in the business game. Microsoft's advantages trump market dominance. You're only chance for survival is hoping that MS makes enough mistakes. This has happened with other companies, like when IBM agreed to let MS licence its OS to them. MS would be nothing today if IBM hadn't dropped the ball. Xerox dropped the ball with Xerox Parc. Of course, Microsoft is perfectly happy to let you think they won simply because of product superiority. The fact of the matter is that MS will crush any competition even if that competition is creating a superior product. Now that MS has market dominance and ownership of the OS the only way they can be dethroned is by a collosal error on
Whoa! Yes, Microsoft has the OS advantage and they use it aggressively. However, that was not the point. I can see and hear the difference between RP and WMP. RP is terrible at (re-)buffering, as WMP is not. RP takes a noticeable amount of time to load, as WMP does not. Both RP’s and WMP’s interface sucks but WMP does not suck as much. (Although, I strongly prefer WMP 6.4 to 7+.) If Real would improve these points (which they have failed to do in the past three versions) maybe I would consider RP. Frankly, I prefer streaming MP3 or OGG and DIVX.
-
The difference between real and MS is obvious. You just need your eyes. I wonder what a computer benchmark could do about it. - image quality : pixel blur for Real ; clearer for MS - rebuffering : horrible with Real ; MS nicely coded - start time : fast with real; fast with MS6.4, very very slow with more recent releases - media types supported : real mime only ; MS mp3/mpeg4/divx/... - dev licensing : year fee (real partner program) + per stream cost ; MS free - bugs : real not even a decent KB ; MS escalated support - cookies : real is full of spy, cookies, phone home ; MS (unknown at the moment) I think it's enough. It's a KO.
How low can you go ?
(MS rant)- media types supported : real mime only ; MS mp3/mpeg4/divx/... Maybe you need to check your settings. I can play mp3, mpg, ... just fine in RealPlayer. cookies : real is full of spy, cookies, phone home ; MS (unknown at the moment) You mean like the ability for websites to uniquely identify your WMP? (Yes, this is in WMP) ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion