Re: [TCLUG:12994] Local Media and DVD Stuff..

[Mike Hicks <hick0088@tc.umn.edu>]

Philip C Mendelsohn wrote:
> 
> > Also, the 'inertia' argument is one I don't like, as it is the same
> > argument used for not bothering Microsoft.
> 
> Well, first off, I don't like it either!  Secondly, it's not an
> argument.  It is a fact that large corporations with billions more
> available to them than Microsoft (really -- if you think MS is a big deal,
> try and look at the size of someone like Sony or Philips, who sells things
> that are commodities not just in first-world countries, but in the
> *entire* world!) want to play the game this way.

Heh, thanks.  I forget sometimes that Microsoft isn't as huge as their
stock value would have you believe.

I must admit that I'm not sure how important this issue really is.  My
gut feeling tells me that it is very important and that it will greatly
affect me (probably since I'm a Linux user), but how much impact it
would have on the average Joe is something I don't have a clue about.

> It is the 'unwashed masses' who buy a $200 DVD player that support this,
> and kill any reason they might have for opening things up, and provide the
> incentive for a restrictive intellectual property paradigm.

I'm trying to figure out exactly how DivX got killed..  I remember
people talking about it, how the 'pay-per-view' aspect just seemed silly
to a lot of people.  I'm sure people over in the UK and the other
markets that aren't in Region Code 1 think that DVDs are equally silly..

> The difference is that DVD actually is a development -- a piece of
> hardware.  Further, it is a consortium (or cartel if you prefer!<G>) which
> is not a monopoly.  Microsoft has simply done the marketing thing of
> differentiating their product so that it is *believed* to be the best, and
> become the king of the bottled air market.  The size of the DVD thing is
> so huge, that they can force feed the market into buying the product, need
> it or not, and there can never be a critical mass of "no" voting consumers
> to kill it in the marketplace.   That's what's so scary!

I guess the reason I'm comparing the DVD consortia to Microsoft is that
you kind of end up getting it whether you wanted it or not.  DVD drives
come in almost all PCs (well, at least most of the ones at Best Buy). 
So you're right, it's essentially impossible to get people to vote 'no'
with their dollars.  But I have a nagging feeling we're all getting
snookered, and I don't like that.

There are several ways of playing back a DVD.  In some cases, everything
is done in hardware (i.e. the set-top box).  Other cases are ~90%
hardware (if you have a hardware decoder card).  Lastly, there are the
SoftDVD players.  Therefore, I have to take issue with the statement
that DVD is a hardware development..  At risk of sounding like
Transmeta, playing a DVD movie requires the right hardware along with
enabling software.  

> > I agree that the FCC was premature.  They should have produced specs
> > _first_, then made sure that the TVs would be inexpensive, _then_ run
> > their mandate (IMO).
> 
> I don't think they should be telling me (or anyone else) what
> "better" is.  Period, end of paragraph.  Besides, how good a picture do
> you need when you can only get Jerry Springer, Pro-Wrestling, and Barney?

Heh, potayto, potahto.  I've been looking forward to HDTV for a long
time.  The flickering of straight lines in interlaced TV really bothers
me ;-)  Besides, are you sure you don't want to hear "Let's Get Ready To
Rumble!" in full Dolby 5.1 Surround Sound? ;-)

> > > Whatever... Pardon the bandwidth...
> >
> > Heh.  Ditto.
> 
> And again.

One more time!

-- 
 _  _  _  _ _  ___    _ _  _  ___ _ _  __   Diode: What happens to 
/ \/ \(_)| ' // ._\  / - \(_)/ ./| ' /(__   people who don't die  
\_||_/|_||_|_\\___/  \_-_/|_|\__\|_|_\ __)  young. 
 [ Mike Hicks | http://umn.edu/~hick0088/ | mailto:hick0088@umn.edu ]