• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

AWSOME AWSOME NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOT!

they have also made deals with dvd player manufacturers so dvd players will come ready with built in decoding capabilities!
 
Microsoft is going to be open with this codec, right?

RIGHT?

No? Oh, move along then -- nothing to see here. I won't touch it with a 10 foot codec-pole.
 


<< Microsoft is going to be open with this codec, right?

RIGHT?

No? Oh, move along then -- nothing to see here. I won't touch it with a 10 foot codec-pole. >>



most companies in the US actually like to make a profit on products they produce.
 


<< Sweet! I definatly cannot wait to see this.. Damn I wish I was some sort of beta tester :frown: >>



I'll let you know how ridicoulously awsome it is 😉
 


<< Microsoft is going to be open with this codec, right?

RIGHT?

No? Oh, move along then -- nothing to see here. I won't touch it with a 10 foot codec-pole. >>

Divx is open source?
 


<<

<< Microsoft is going to be open with this codec, right?

RIGHT?

No? Oh, move along then -- nothing to see here. I won't touch it with a 10 foot codec-pole. >>

Divx is open source? >>



i believe they have something called OpenDivx
 


<< most companies in the US actually like to make a profit on products they produce. >>

Thank you for this obvious statement, which does NOTHING to detract my original sentiment.

Take a minute to think about the standards/protocols that have really benefited us. TCP/IP, DNS, HTTP, etc. Overwhelmingly people would agree we have benefited greatly from these being open standards (one could argue it's what made the Internet so successful even). Evil still, companies have made money utilizing these open standards.

Simply put, MS wants to create another tightly proprietary format to LOCK more people into their existing monopoly. Say what you want about me, but that is pretty evil.

Edit:Some of you may read my comment, and think "oh great, another Microsoft hater/basher -- bleh". But seriously, wake up people -- there are very sound reasons everywhere you look to fault them in their behavior. They're making it way too easy with their actions..
 


<<

<<

<< Microsoft is going to be open with this codec, right?

RIGHT?

No? Oh, move along then -- nothing to see here. I won't touch it with a 10 foot codec-pole. >>

Divx is open source? >>



i believe they have something called OpenDivx >>

How many people use open divx? How many use regular divx? At some point the open source zealots are going to have to realize that not everything can be open source. There's places for both kinds of code, but open source is not the end-all be-all of programming.
rolleye.gif
 


<<

<< most companies in the US actually like to make a profit on products they produce. >>

Thank you for this obvious statement, which does NOTHING to detract my original sentiment.

Take a minute to think about the standards/protocols that have really benefited us. TCP/IP, DNS, HTTP, etc. Overwhelmingly people would agree we have benefited greatly from these being open standards (one could argue it's what made the Internet so successful even). Evil still, companies have made money utilizing these open standards.

Simply put, MS wants to create another tightly proprietary format to LOCK more people into their existing monopoly. Say what you want about me, but that is pretty evil.

Edit:Some of you may read my comment, and think "oh great, another Microsoft hater/basher -- bleh". But seriously, wake up people -- there are very sound reasons everywhere you look to fault them in their behavior. They're making it way too easy with their actions.. >>




standards and protocols are not the same thing as codecs, what a ridiculous statement.
 


<< standards and protocols are not the same thing as codecs, what a ridiculous statement. >>

Please point out where I said they were the same thing.

If you can't see the similarity between protocols and codecs as open standards, then I'll assume you're not familiar with the inner workings of software. You are forgiven for your ignorance. And for the record, codecs can most certainly be open standards.
 


<<

<< standards and protocols are not the same thing as codecs, what a ridiculous statement. >>

Please point out where I said they were the same thing.

If you can't see the similarity between protocols and codecs as open standards, then I'll assume you're not familiar with the inner workings of software. You are forgiven for your ignorance. And for the record, codecs can most certainly be open standards. >>



you drew the example that codecs are just like RFCs not me.


and once again some people like to make money for their hard work, obviously you dont, so lets leave it at that.
 


<<

<< Microsoft is going to be open with this codec, right?

RIGHT?

No? Oh, move along then -- nothing to see here. I won't touch it with a 10 foot codec-pole. >>



most companies in the US actually like to make a profit on products they produce. >>




and after they do that and realize that cannot sustain their growth, they start breaking the law in order to be in a better position to control the whole industry and to gouge people to the maximum 🙂


Let's face it ameesh, MS is no benevolent giant. Open source is the largest threat and that is why MS has been explicitly exluding them from everything they do, trying to desperately stop them. Its smart, but as unethical as it gets. Then there's the whole overcharging for OSs, collection user info, hiding APIs etc etc etc.

MS has some good products, but you'd be hard pressed to find a worse company...well, other than GATOR and BDE.
 


<< you drew the example that codecs are just like RFCs not me.


and once again some people like to make money for their hard work, obviously you dont, so lets leave it at that. >>

What exactly are you talking about? Please make some sense. Why can't you have a normal argument where you actually attempt to refute my points? I already talked about the money thing, but I'll repeat it for you since you seemed to have missed my point.

I'm not against making money for hard work. Companies have made HONEST money leveraging open standards. Finally, nobody forced MS to spend lots of money on developing this codec. They could have just as easily spent resources (fewer probably) on improving existing standards, or working together with the community (or other companies) to develop new ones. Note that MS has done things resembling this in the past (USB, C#), and has touted their willingness to be open.

Now, if you reply to this, please 1) try to understand my argument, 2) carefully consider it, 3) determine how your opinion differs (hint: it's not about companies making money), and 4) write a coherent response organizing your thoughts that takes my argument into account. If you don't do this, I will ignore you.
 


<< Let's face it ameesh, MS is no benevolent giant. >>




actually they are, stats from Microsoft's giving campaign last year: (i think 16.5 million dollars a year is quite a lot from around 25k employees)

Total dollars raised: $28.5 million (43% increase)
? Employee donations: $16,516,600 (52% increase)
? MS Match: $12,052,777 (33% increase)
2. Participation: 52% (2% increase)
3. Average Gift: $927.59 (22% increase)
4. Leadership Giving (Gifts over $1000):
Leadership givers raised 79% of total employee funds 3558 leadership givers (30% increase)
$13,280,055 leadership dollars (62% increase)
Red feather - 2610
Silver feather - 536
Gold feather - 249
163 ADT givers (26 MGC): (47% increase)
5. King County Results
? Area pledge amount in KC: $23,098,751.46 (40% increase)
? Average employee gift in KC per donor: $1058 (29% increase)
? Safety Net Giving in KC: $6,224,640 (36.6% increase)
? Designated Giving in KC: $16,874,111


and for those who like think Bill Gates is like scrooge mcduck, think again, the gates foundation has given over 4.3 billion dollars in grants, thats billion with a 'B'

they give more money to help solve World Health issues then the US Government.


now lets not get off track, Corona ownz jo0!
 
BillyG isn't greedy for money, but power. Hell, he has more money he knows what to do with, but he seeks power, ever more power.

When I said its no benevolent giant, I meant in respect to the industry, not charity.



Listen, bottom line is, I would NEVER want a single company, let alone a company like MS, to control the entire computer industry. Believe me, at the current pace, that is where they are going.
 
Ameesh,

Donating to charity would NOT undo the damage Microsoft has allegedly otherwise done to the industry. Sure, I'm glad to see them do that, but it simply doesn't make up for anything.
 


<<

<< you drew the example that codecs are just like RFCs not me.


and once again some people like to make money for their hard work, obviously you dont, so lets leave it at that. >>

What exactly are you talking about? Please make some sense. Why can't you have a normal argument where you actually attempt to refute my points? I already talked about the money thing, but I'll repeat it for you since you seemed to have missed my point.

I'm not against making money for hard work. Companies have made HONEST money leveraging open standards. Finally, nobody forced MS to spend lots of money on developing this codec. They could have just as easily spent resources (fewer probably) on improving existing standards, or working together with the community (or other companies) to develop new ones. Note that MS has done things resembling this in the past (USB, C#), and has touted their willingness to be open.

Now, if you reply to this, please 1) try to understand my argument, 2) carefully consider it, 3) determine how your opinion differs (hint: it's not about companies making money), and 4) write a coherent response organizing your thoughts that takes my argument into account. If you don't do this, I will ignore you. >>




you brought up the examples of TCP/IP, DNS, and HTTP: who makes money off of these? when was the last time you paid for a TCP/IP stack? when you make a point i can refute it. beside you are a microsoft hater, you have yet to mention companies like real and apple that do the same thing. AOL attempts to lock out the people who try to interop with their IM Client, while microsoft formed a coalition with Yahoo and other Companies that have chat clients. MS also formed an open standard called SOAP with IBM and others to enable webservices which is another good example of where microsoft works with other comapnies. They do it when its makes sound business sense. They do it when its beneficial for them and the industry and when its important to be able to work with the rest of the community. thats how good businesses work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top