Topic: Windows Media license fees (Read 3992 times)

JimH · « **on:** January 07, 2003, 04:55:30 am »

The free ride is over for Windows Media Audio and Video. It looks like there will be new charges associated with WMP 9.

[from Infoworld article:
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/03/01/07/030107hnmediaplayer.xml?s=IDGNS ]

"The revised licensing terms enable licensees to use WMA 9, which improves audio compression by up to 20 percent, and WMV 9 in a wider range of applications, including stand-alone hardware devices and computers running operating systems other than Windows. The Redmond, Wash., software maker has set licensing costs for WMA 9 and WMV 9 that make them cheaper to license than rival technologies, such as MPEG-4 and MPEG-2, it claimed."

"For example, unit pricing for WMV 9 on devices and non-Windows computers is 10 cents per decoder, 20 cents per encoder and 25 cents for both encoder/decoder, Microsoft said. By comparison, licensing costs for each MPEG-4 video decoder, encoder and encoder/decoder licensing are 25 cents, 25 cents, and 50 cents, respectively, it said."

KingSparta · « **Reply #1 on:** January 07, 2003, 05:42:52 am »

JimH

Not that i use it you can charge me that 25 cents, it will not brake me.

I Alreay got new tires for my car so I should be good for 3 years.

25 Cents = 3 Eggs
25 Cents = 4 Oz Of Beer (Budwiser)

So what are your plans?

WolfWalker · « **Reply #2 on:** January 07, 2003, 05:50:36 am »

I too will pay more for it.

Mastiff · « **Reply #3 on:** January 07, 2003, 05:54:03 am »

I say dump the entire codec! They are moving towards stricter digital rights management and payment, so I'll stick to mp3 by Lame.

KingSparta · « **Reply #4 on:** January 07, 2003, 05:56:47 am »

>> so I'll stick to mp3 by Lame.
yea, but there are things you may need this for (Streaming Media) as we continue to improve the internet and computers.

And since MS wants to rule the world it maybe needed to turn on the Oven in the future.

equalizer · « **Reply #5 on:** January 07, 2003, 08:22:01 am »

UH, first and for most, M$ is only looking to add more $$$$$$$$ signs to there products. Second, the windows media format, is very crisp, and fast to encode, MP3(LAME) encoding truelly doesn't contain the quality that is expected for that compression, ex: the file size is much larger then wma, but yet it's not as clear, and professional sounding.

Also, JRiver has increased the price of the software (Media Center 9) and for $.25 per product is nothing. the product has more features then i have ever seen, next i'll expect to see human puppet, and mind control features in MC9.

I think i'll stay with the WMA format, and go the extra mile.

Though this is just another reason to point a finger and shout, monoplist monoplist...

Gotta give them credit, they do it with style though LOL.

-equalizer

Mastiff · « **Reply #6 on:** January 07, 2003, 08:52:03 am »

I disagree. I think WMA files sound dull compared to correctly encoded mp3 (with the "audiophile advances settings).

equalizer · « **Reply #7 on:** January 07, 2003, 08:56:32 am »

Question, what kind of speakers do you have hooked up to your PC. I have record studio mixers, and a 13 speaker surround sound system with blah blah blah.

and teh mp3 encoding is very crappy compared to a 192K WMA, or the new 1000K+/- WMAPro encodings...

I have done many of tests on ALL encodings, MP3Pro, LAME, Blade, etc. and found that WMA's pack the better punch then the rest.

and WMA9 encoding has even a greater quailty.

so opinions are ok, but the facts stay the same. Plus it's all about what the user hears.. not everyone can hear it the way everyone else does.

JimH · « **Reply #8 on:** January 07, 2003, 09:20:50 am »

I agree with Mastiff and many other users. Microsoft marketing has made the claim that their code makes files that are smaller and sound better. It isn't true, but people tend to repeat it.

Here's another example of Microsoft's deceptive marketing. Reuters reports that Microsoft's new licensing is cheaper:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nf/20030107/bs_nf/20395

A Microsoft quote from the article: "The unmatched audio and video quality of Windows Media 9 Series is now available under the most flexible and attractive license terms in the industry," said Will Poole, corporate vice president of the Windows New Media Platforms Division at Microsoft."

WMA was free. It's not now. Ogg is free. MPC is free. So is APE. But the press reports the new Microsoft pricing as a consumer benefit. Well done, Microsoft Marketing.

And Microsoft positions this as friendlier because it includes Linux. Friendlier would have been releasing the SDK in time for JRiver to provide WM9 support at the same time they released their player. The SDK was only released today, the same day as their player was released.

Microsoft, the new kinder, gentler monopoly.

[/rant]

equalizer · « **Reply #9 on:** January 07, 2003, 09:25:19 am »

Wonderful, someone who knows what they are talkin about.

now time to counterdick myself and say i use mp3 as well, and it's a much better sound file then wma.

I only said that to get some rants, and after what JimH has pointed out, thats enough, and I agree with Jim on his rant.

If you read what I said, doesn't it sound like i'm just ranting anyway, LOL.

[wow i've had some free time today, so i'm just lurking around here having fun don't mind me to much

]

RhinoBanga · « **Reply #10 on:** January 07, 2003, 09:34:43 am »

I hate wma format ... it sounds dull and "tinny".

Also the fact that it would have locked me into MS was another deciding factor when I recut all my CD's.

I'll just stick to MP3.

phelt · « **Reply #11 on:** January 07, 2003, 01:10:04 pm »

<rambling>
I'm not impressed with WMA. I have been impressed by some Windows Media-encoded video clips, though. The issue for me is DRM. Not the fact of DRM (content producers being able to set copy-protection parameters) but the implementation of DRM (software bugginess and Orwellian tactics). I won't be installing WMP 9 or using Windows Media primarily because of the license agreement - the same reason that I won't be using Win2K SP3 or WinXP SP1 until some privacy issues have been resolved.
</rambling>

urlybird · « **Reply #12 on:** January 07, 2003, 02:17:21 pm »

There is talk about Hollywood turning on the copyright bits for Satellite and cable broadcasts in the near future. Maybe Microsoft is getting onboard and will do the same type of thing with all media used by Media Player.

Hollywood has this fear about their media getting on the Internet. They want to start charging for everything.
I think they will fail by being to expensive and making the controlling and registering of media a nightmare.

We are going to have to put a coin insert on our computers so we can play music - just like the old jukeboxes .........

AsparaGus · « **Reply #13 on:** January 07, 2003, 02:51:21 pm »

Am I dumb or are we talking about license fee per device?

As in my PC, my CD player, my DVD player, my TV, my PDA...

Not on a per use basis.

As in each file, I encode or decode.

The first instance would jump the price of a new piece of hardware -- what a buck? after everybody in the food chain marks it up a percentage. Not unreasonable, even if I never used it.

The second would create a technological royalty of questionable scope. And dubious enforceability -- who would use Windows anything if the cost escalated with each use? It would contradict the main feature which made Windows popular -- compatibility.

Maybe I'm wrong and the sky is falling.

JHC · « **Reply #14 on:** January 07, 2003, 02:57:44 pm »

Sorry, I don't understand the fuss.

WMP was free and continues to be FREE when used on Windows desktops.

A new licensing scheme was announced for encoders used on other types of platforms. Microsoft claims that their fees are cheaper than MPEG2 and MPEG4 -- by all accounts it sounds true... and has nothing to do with OGG, APE etc.

Last time I checked, Microsoft and many others were in this business to make money, not to make the world a better place.

More power to 'em.

Also, I'm one of those people that believes the WM encoder is better than MP3, and that the WM video encoder is better than MPEG2 or MPEG4... Maybe a lot of that judgement is subjective. Until I see a truly objective way of proving one way or the other, it seems as little harsh to say that Microsoft insn't telling the truth.

Jonathan

JimH · « **Reply #15 on:** January 07, 2003, 03:02:34 pm »

Quote

A new licensing scheme was announced for encoders used on other types of platforms.

It's our understanding that this also applies to Windows.

JHC · « **Reply #16 on:** January 07, 2003, 03:24:00 pm »

Here are some quotes from the analysis on ZDNet:

Quote

By adding a license for the audio and video compression software, or codecs, of Windows Media 9, Microsoft is extending the technology beyond its Windows operating system, where the software is available for free. Microsoft hopes that cell phone makers or Web publishers running Linux operating systems, for example, will be more willing to license Microsoft’s proprietary media technology, since they will no longer be required to also adopt the Windows operating system.

In the process, the company is positioning itself to capture a growing market in consumer electronics that is migrating to new digital media standards like MPEG-4, a standard for compressing large digital files into a smaller format that can be more easily transmitted over networks.

For use of the its video compression technology on non-Windows operating systems, Microsoft will charge 10 cents per decoder, 20 cents per encoder, or 25 cents for both. In comparison, MPEG-LA--a consortium of companies holding patents attached to MPEG-4--charges 25 cents per encoder and decoder, or 50 cents for both.

The full text is here.
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-979398.html

Jonathan

JimH · « **Reply #17 on:** January 07, 2003, 05:05:27 pm »

Jonathan,
It appears you are correct. There is a footnote at the bottom of the pricing table we received. It says:

** No royalties are due on distributions of "PC Software" versions designed to operate on versions of Windows operating systems.

Jim

JHC · « **Reply #18 on:** January 07, 2003, 08:18:56 pm »

Jim,

That's great news.

Now if anyone wants to actually read the license agreement that one must agree to before installing the final release of WMP9... that's a whole other story! :-)

Jon

KingSparta · « **Reply #19 on:** January 08, 2003, 03:38:24 am »

JimH I will still send my 25 cents...

Pennies Ok?

By the way Import Stoped Working 3 Weeks After i stoped Drinking, so i don't think they are related...

Just a guess.

DougHamm · « **Reply #20 on:** January 08, 2003, 07:23:27 pm »

WMP9 is indeed free of royalties on Windows platforms; this may present an issue for Mac and Linux folks...but I have doubts that Microsoft gives a rat's ass.

From a JR standpoint, do keep in mind that a lot of streaming content will migrate to WM9-Series now that there's consistency across different Windows platforms for the first time since XP was released. And whether it sounds better or not, WMA9's multichannel capability will appeal to different segments too (such as for movie trailers).

WMV9 supports very high resolutions, a top-notch encoder, and again lots of potential buy-in.

So, whether we think the rest of the world is nuts, or brainwashed, a jukebox that purports to have the widest format compatibility will have to embrace the new version.

I'll add this plug for the product too: the WMP9 engine does one hell of a better job with aspect ratios than the 6.4 engine, along with other significant improvements. I'm all for MC9 taking advantage of it.

-Doug

INTERACT FORUM

Author Topic: Windows Media license fees (Read 3992 times)

phelt