Why is WMV9 AP limited to WinXP and DRM?

[benwaggoner]

hm thx for the link to your range reduction sample, zambelli, but you know that i cant encode the sample on my good ol windows 2000 ;)
We do all this engineering to make a great new codec for you - it seems like the least you could do is to update to our new operating system a couple of times a decade :).

[Sharktooth]

@benwaggoner: IIRC bond has an old PC and i dont think he can just install winxp without upgrading his hardware.

[benwaggoner]

@benwaggoner: IIRC bond has an old PC and i dont think he can just install winxp without upgrading his hardware.
I was just giving him a hard time.

It's our job to make such great products that people just can't stand not updating. I hope we'll get him with Vista :).

[Sharktooth]

well, i think Vista is a great OS but infested with DRM and other anti fair use stuff.
Im sorry but i and many others wont install it unless MS releases an "Express" version for free coz it's just stupid to pay for something that forces us to buy new hardware and limits our freedom of choice.
however this is getting off-topic so... better get back on track.

[CruNcher]

Sharktooth you forgot about the MS Os add sponsered edition the crazy idea that might become reallity someday (seeing how Microsoft expands in that area @ the moment) so you would have to see daily Advertising from those who forced DRM upon you and get the OS for free by that, how ironic is that :P

[Sharktooth]

yeah, that would be a real pain in the ass... like the ads sponsorized cellphones from certain companies here in italy...

[bond]

bleh its strange i need to update (!) my os for using a specific codec. noone except m$ requires this (surely not for technical reasons)

[Sharktooth]

yes, for technical reasons... DRM.

[benwaggoner]

yes, for technical reasons... DRM.
What is it you think you'll be able to do on Windows 2000 that you won't be able to with XP or Vista with DRM?

Really, all that not having DRM does on an OS is keep it from playing DRM'ed content. All the non-DRM stuff works fine on Vista and XP.

[akupenguin]

No, there is one very important benefit of not having DRM support in your OS: it discourages people from making DRMed content.

[zambelli]

No, there is one very important benefit of not having DRM support in your OS: it discourages people from making DRMed content.
Does not having matches in your house discourage the tobacco industry from making cigarettes?

I find this line of reasoning completely irrational. Yes, Microsoft makes DRM technology. So does Apple, Adobe, eBooks and every other company that creates content management technology. Why? For the simple reason that there is a demand for it from the content owners and authors. It's the A-B-C of business: if you see a business need, you fill it.
Anyway... My point is not to try to make anybody love DRM. I don't like it myself, I don't use it, and I certainly am not going to urge anybody else to use it if they don't want to. However, this idea that something is bad just because it supports DRM is just completely irrational, and IMHO, quite often is nothing short of FUD. Once you start going down that road, then you might as well stop using DVD players because they support CSS, display devices because they support HDCP, any software product that has online product activation, etc.

Just because it's on your system, it doesn't mean you have to use it.

That's all I have to say on that subject - because clearly we're way off topic now.

[bond]

guys, plz lets cool down

i pretty well understand it that microsoft employees try to defend their company's products, but i also very well understand everyone who doesnt like DRM (and i realise its not just fud when people talk about wma/wmv9 being one with drm)

still we wont convince each other. i heavily doubt anyone not liking DRM will rethink his/her opinion, so this discussion kinda leads to nothing

therefore we should focus on what we are interested on doom9, and that is video encoding and vc-1!

[benwaggoner]

bleh its strange i need to update (!) my os for using a specific codec. noone except m$ requires this (surely not for technical reasons)
Apple sure does - The last version of QuickTime that ran on Mac OS 9 (same era as Windows 2000) was 6.0.2, and they're on 7.1.1 now. So, no multichannel AAC, no H.264...

There are lots of technical reasons why both companies do this - we introduce new core OS features that media technologies can take advantage of. Also, there's substantial test and support costs for every additional config you officilaly support, which takes dollars away from development.

[bond]

can you name the reason why the Windows Media Format SDK 9.5 doesnt work on windows 2000?

[benwaggoner]

can you name the reason why the Windows Media Format SDK 9.5 doesnt work on windows 2000?
I can't speak to that detail - I only joined Microsoft late 2005. But I've been involved in product development for 15 years now, so can share some general insights.

I do know that most of the apps that used the Format SDK around when 9.5 was released were already XP only. I was consulting with the major compression and media tool vendors at the time, and I didn't hear any complaints from them about it being XP only.

Really, don't underestimate the costs of testing and supporting additional operating systems - supporting 2000 for any vendor means either a higher test budget, or split testing budget. And generally people running old OS aren't big spenders on new software anyway. Most big developers have test teams roughly of the size of the codecs, and at least at Microsoft we have test intimitely involved very early in product planning, and we aboslutely defer features because they're hard to test as much as they're hard to build. As a program manager, I'm constantly under pressure to redefine features and requirements in ways that can reduce the breadth of testing, to enable greater depth of testing.

This is getting way off topic, but the simplest way to think about platform choices for any vendor is whether or not they think the additional revenue from the additional platform justifies the additional budget for development, test, and support. E.g., Adobe Premiere Pro 1.0 was XP only, even though competing products generally were 2000 or XP at that point. It was a major rewrite with a whole lot to build and test, and reducing the test matrix let them get to market a lot faster, and with deeper test coverage.

It's much more important to have backwards compatibility for decode than for encode.

[Wilbert]

I can't speak to that detail - I only joined Microsoft late 2005. But I've been involved in product development for 15 years now, so can share some general insights.
You said, I quote "There are lots of technical reasons why both companies do this - we introduce new core OS features that media technologies can take advantage of.".

Bond asked for the main technical reason, and all you do is give an economic reason. We all know that Microsoft doesn't care that half of its customers (including many of the people on this forum) are still using W2K. We are just disappointed, that's all. I hope you can understand that.

I still hope you can answer Bond's question though.

[zambelli]

Bond asked for the main technical reason, and all you do is give an economic reason. We all know that Microsoft doesn't care that half of its customers (including many of the people on this forum) are still using W2K. We are just disappointed, that's all. I hope you can understand that.
Technical reasons may not even be a factor because the bottom line is that at some point somebody on the WM SDK team had to make a call about the number of platforms they would support. They did the math and realized they didn't have enough resources (aka people and time) to test on Win2K, WinXP, Win2003 and Vista. It makes perfect sense that the oldest platform and the one that's no longer officially supported by Microsoft would get cut. It's unfortunate, but that's the reality of product development in a big company. Now, if Microsoft were a smaller company, perhaps we could've released WM SDK 9.5 with no OS restrictions and said "hey, it's untested on Win2K, but feel free to install it and be our guinnea pig." However, when you've got millions of users, you simply can't do that. It'd be irresponsible and unprofessional.

Whether or not SDK 9.5 truly needs XP to operate becomes irrelevant if there's nobody at Microsoft who has the resources to test it and guarantee that it will indeed work on Win2000. I know, I know, I'm making excuses, but that's just the reality of software development. You have to keep moving forward because you simply can't afford to constantly keep testing legacy platforms. Every big company does that. It sucks from a customer perspective if you're among the remaining few using the legacy product, I agree. I used Win2K at home until last year. When I finally upgraded my hardware, I decided it was time to upgrade to XP, too. Just like I didn't expect Asus to support my 7 year old 440BX P2B motherboard anymore, I didn't expect Microsoft to continue supporting a 5 year old OS for much longer either. Feel free to say I've been drinking the company Kool-Aid, but I just think that's how the entire computer industry works: once your product is older than 5 years, you simply can't count on support for much longer.

[Sharktooth]

so, lets clear up the confusion. are those technical reasons (they have yet to be explained - ppl and time is not a tech reason when the user pay tons of $$$ for a product!) the same tech reasons that will limit the HD-DVD (maybe even Blueray?) playback to Vista only, forcing the user to spend more money on new OS, new Hardware (incluind monitor!) and will limit the fair use rights?
So the user is basically buying something that will limit his freedom just to have the "advantage" to buy (again $$$ talks) and watch movies in hi-res...
Dont you think that's a bit of an OVERKILL?!? It's like having to buy a new house just to get a new TV...

@mods: can you split the thread, please?
Thanx

[benwaggoner]

You said, I quote "There are lots of technical reasons why both companies do this - we introduce new core OS features that media technologies can take advantage of.".

Bond asked for the main technical reason, and all you do is give an economic reason. We all know that Microsoft doesn't care that half of its customers (including many of the people on this forum) are still using W2K. We are just disappointed, that's all. I hope you can understand that.

I still hope you can answer Bond's question though.
The Format SDK 9.5 was released years before I joined Microsoft, so I can't speak to specifics of that particular question, so I'd just be speculating.

Certainly, there were some relevant new core media functions in XP, like multichannel audio and GPU decode support.

[benwaggoner]

so, lets clear up the confusion. are those technical reasons (they have yet to be explained - ppl and time is not a tech reason when the user pay tons of $$$ for a product!) the same tech reasons that will limit the HD-DVD (maybe even Blueray?) playback to Vista only, forcing the user to spend more money on new OS, new Hardware (incluind monitor!) and will limit the fair use rights?
Actually, there are shipping XP solutions for HD DVD playback, like with the Toshiba laptop. HD DVD uses a lot of MIPS, and of course needs a new optical drive, so users will require at least some upgrades. But folks with a machine that's already HD capable probably won't need a whole new display.

As for the monitor, why? No titles are using ICT. DVI and VGA will be just fine for the time being, and if and when they're not, capable gear will be a lot cheaper than it is today.

So the user is basically buying something that will limit his freedom just to have the "advantage" to buy (again $$$ talks) and watch movies in hi-res...
Dont you think that's a bit of an OVERKILL?!? It's like having to buy a new house just to get a new TV...
If consumres don't feel that HD is worth it, they won't buy it. Over time, the value will get better (more titles, cheaper hardware), so more consumers will buy in.

Folks who are morally opposed to DRM will have fewer choices, but they'll certainly exist. For most consumers, the problem isn't DRM v. non-DRM, it's well implemented DRM versus DRM that prevents users from doing reasonable stuff.

I'd say I much prefer AACS to Macrovision :).

[bond]

actually i dont want to get this topic evolve into a flamewar (and i am happy to have you microsoft guys around :) ) so i think its maybe the best to simply post my "whishes" on wmv9 ap:
1) dont limit your codec to specific operation systems
2) dont bundle your codec with drm

i think 1 and 2 are not related to video encoding/decoding and also not caused by technical reasons, so i dont think those things are impossible to do for microsoft.
i also realise microsoft doesnt give a damn about my opinion ;)

all in all i have to say that my opinion on microsoft didnt get better because of all this (and i think i am probably not alone)

thread split

[check]

Sorry if this has been canvassed, I couldn't see it anywhere, but will there be DRM included to protect the codecs from piracy, or as an option to be enabled when encoding videos with it? What exactly will the DRM cover and what is it designed to prevent?

[bond]

Sorry if this has been canvassed, I couldn't see it anywhere, but will there be DRM included to protect the codecs from piracy, or as an option to be enabled when encoding videos with it? What exactly will the DRM cover and what is it designed to prevent?the drm is about content protection (not codec protection)

[check]

So if the DRM is only included as an option to restrict use of video files that are encoded with the codec, it's completely possible to disable it and never use it?

[bond]

So if the DRM is only included as an option to restrict use of video files that are encoded with the codec, it's completely possible to disable it and never use it?no, drm is not something you dis/enable, after installing it its always there ready to kick in when needed

[check]

I'm not sure I understand then? I was thinking that it was an option you could use when encoding to make a movie DRM protected, but it sounds like something else.
Could you explain the purpose behind it?

[bond]

I'm not sure I understand then? I was thinking that it was an option you could use when encoding to make a movie DRM protected, but it sounds like something else.its exactly that
obviously drm does not only need be set when creating the file, but also needs to be supported on the playback side

[check]

Well, now I understand (I hope!) I'd like to offer some opinions.

Allowing the codec to be used with older operating systems is probably not a bad idea. Enterprise / commercial companies will probably not want to use older software if they have a choice and can upgrade for a reasonable price, I think the majority of people using the new codec with windows 2000 and older systems will be home / non commercial users, who are financially worth almost nothing. Of course, I wouldn't say that doing this would get MS more money, just that there would be a very small loss.

Whether DRM should exist or not is a discussion for another thread, we can assume for this thread that it exists and it will continue to exist (or can we? ¬_¬), simply because this is what seems to be happening in the real world and we need to find some common ground.

Because of this, if MS were to provide a copy of the encoder without the ability to encrypt streams, it would also have to provide a copy of the encoder that *did* have the ability to encrypt streams. Now when a company has two products where the only difference is one feature/addition (depends what side you are on :P), they will promote the version with more functionality as the default product. In other words, the end result will be that DRM encryption will still be available and nothing will change, except some people will have a 500kb smaller file to download.

[zambelli]

Thank you Check, I'm glad you're seeing the business side of things here too.

Just to clarify what Bond means when he says "dont bundle your codec with drm"... Windows Media codecs and WM DRM are completely idependent components. There is nothing in WMV *codec* that requires or imposes DRM. When Bond implies that MS codecs are bundled with DRM, he's referring to our practice of shipping codecs as parts of WMF SDK runtime distributions (which include DRM components). When you install WMP, you also get the latest WMF SDK runtime installed - and the latest codecs. Hence Bond's allusion to them being bundled.

Is there a technical reason behind that? Not really, although it's possible some codecs might have requirements on other updated WMF SDK components (not likely DRM related). Just like DirectShow is a platform, WMF SDK is a platform of its own. Yes, Microsoft could go and offer updates for each codec individually, but it's cheaper (in resources, not hard $$$) to release one update instead of five updates - I hope that makes sense. It's just one of those things that Microsoft does acrosss the company to save on resources associated with shipping products. Even if Ben and I protested against it - it's not likely to change.

[GodofaGap]

I still don't understand the argument people are making...

So you 'installed' DRM, and then what? What does it actually cause to happen that is not wanted? It doesn't prevent one from doing anything. I know software packages that are far more intrusive than that (hello Nero Showtime).

[bond]

Just to clarify what Bond means when he says "dont bundle your codec with drm"... Windows Media codecs and WM DRM are completely idependent components. There is nothing in WMV *codec* that requires or imposes DRM. When Bond implies that MS codecs are bundled with DRM, he's referring to our practice of shipping codecs as parts of WMF SDK runtime distributions (which include DRM components). When you install WMP, you also get the latest WMF SDK runtime installed - and the latest codecs. Hence Bond's allusion to them being bundled.well thats nitpicking. as i understand you there is no way to install wmv9 ap without also installing your drm components. for me that means your codec is bundled with your drm, easy as that...

if that isnt the case provide me a way to install your wmv9 ap codec without needing your drm

[check]

Does not having matches in your house discourage the tobacco industry from making cigarettes?

<snip for size>

Just because it's on your system, it doesn't mean you have to use it.


This line of reasoning is, sorry to say - nonsense. A better analogy would be:
"Just because we have created Windows video V9AP doesnt mean people aren't allowed to use Windows Video V7"

And this is true. Obviously you cannot *force* people to use something; as you said, the choice is ultimately in the hands of the end user. However, the fact remains that when you present users with something for which the percieved gain is greater than the percieved cost, they will use it.
To illustrate the point, consider DRM. If content providers think that by using DRM will make them more money, they will use it. If they think the licencing fees are too high / people will boycott them / they will go to hell (which is what happens to DRM users right? :P) they won't. The current world view at the moment is that DRM is good for companies, so obviously it will be used. Saying that it isn't 100% super certain that this will be the case and furthermore nobody is being held to ransom over it misses the point, which is that the real world exists and in this real world, companies use DRM.

This leads the the rather boring moral minefield that is the question, "who does a company serve: its investors or society in general?" (which is rather boring because in the history of all time and space neither side has successfully convinced a member of the opposing side that they are correct, and it's a minefield because people arguing about it tend to shoot themselves in the foot by their second post with alarming alacrity.). Should a company like microsoft bundle DRM because more people will use their product as opposed to some other DRM capable video codec and they will makes pots of money; or should they accept the losses and DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOT SMART. I think I know what any business would do.

[zambelli]

well thats nitpicking. as i understand you there is no way to install wmv9 ap without also installing your drm components. for me that means your codec is bundled with your drm, easy as that...
if that isnt the case provide me a way to install your wmv9 ap codec without needing your drm
It's not the codec that can't be installed without the DRM components. It's the WMF SDK that can't be installed without the DRM components. Like I explained earlier, WMF SDK is perceived as a multimedia platform, just like DirectShow or QuickTime. DRM is seen as added value for both the consumer and the content provider. If you don't use DRM protected media, you don't see the added value. If you do use services like Napster and Urge, than clearly the added value is there (because without DRM you couldn't use the service).

[zambelli]

Should a company like microsoft bundle DRM because more people will use their product as opposed to some other DRM capable video codec and they will makes pots of money; or should they accept the losses and DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOT SMART. I think I know what any business would do.
I certainly hope that nobody is naive enough to believe that if Microsoft didn't have WM DRM, somebody else wouldn't step in with another DRM solution. Apple FairPlay? RealNetworks Helix? Even if those 2 big players didn't exist, there'd still be a line of candidates going around the block. DRM has traditionally been distributed with player applications, so distribution is not a difficult task if you're already in the business of making media players.

Let's not forget that Microsoft is still fighting an uphill battle against Apple in the online music store arena. Looking at sheer sales numbers, Apple is more guilty of "promoting DRM" than Microsoft is. And unlike Apple who is both designing the technology AND setting the DRM rules, Microsoft is only making the technology. It's up to the individual stores to define their own DRM rules.
(I don't mean this as an anti-Apple rant. I just want to point out that MS picks up a lot of bad press for something that they're not even #1 at.)

I see DRM akin to facilitating a legal contract. If the terms of the contract bother you, don't sign up. But why shoot the guy who provided the pen and paper?

[Sharktooth]

Infact Apple is on the 1st entry of my black list... guess who's in second place?:p

P.S.: i got Vista B2 and it "works" only on 1 of my 4 PCs.

[Wilbert]

Infact Apple is on the 1st entry of my black list... guess who's in second place?
Sony? :)

[check]

Infact Apple is on the 1st entry of my black list... guess who's in second place?

allofmp3.com? XD

[bond]

nero? :D

[obieobieobie]

Unisys or SCO? :p

[Sharktooth]

Wilbert got it 8)
However here's how Europe welcomes Apple's DRM: http://www.tcmagazine.info/comments.php?shownews=12165&catid=3

[gameplaya15143]

Just because it's on your system, it doesn't mean you have to use it.
If I don't use it, it has no business being on my system.

Myself, I would consider the ability to playback DRMd content a good thing (cause then it can be converted/un-DRMd ;) )

Is it really so much to ask for better support for MS codecs? From a business perspective, the more supported Windows versions, the more potential users, the more popular the codec will become, the more consumers will demand hardware support, the more hardware manufacturers liscense the technology. ..I don't know about you, but it makes sense to me.

I would love to see directshow encoders for vc-1 and wma10+, where setting the options involves a config GUI and not editing the registry. Or better yet, commandline encoders :)

DRM is worthless to consumers, it's only of interest to media distributers. DRM is nothing more than an illusion of content protection (is there any DRM that hasn't been bypassed?). Unfortunately, the content industry buys into that illusion (good job on the marketing all of you DRM makers out there). Find just one example of where DRM has done what it was intended to do (stop piracy), instead of just agrivating consumers.

Also,
software that has online activation, is a piece of software I have no use for.

[zambelli]

Is it really so much to ask for better support for MS codecs? From a business perspective, the more supported Windows versions, the more potential users, the more popular the codec will become, the more consumers will demand hardware support, the more hardware manufacturers liscense the technology. ..I don't know about you, but it makes sense to me.
Sense and practicality are often 2 completely different things. Along those lines, it'd probably be best if Microsoft made codecs for Win98, Win95 and Win3.1 too (VfW 1.0 anyone?), MacOS 9, MacOS X, Linux, and every other OS and platform known to man. World domination, right? :) Wrong. It doesn't work that way. At some point you have to cut the cord and let legacy platforms retire into history books because they require resources which most often companies don't have - even big ones like Microsoft. I can tell you that many employees at MS are already feeling the pain of being split between developing products that work on both XP and Vista, x86 and x64, and other variations. If you added Win2K support to the mix, that just becomes too much to handle. It's one thing to provide bug fixes and security patches for legacy platforms, but it's a whole new ballgame if you want to develop new products for old platforms.

I would love to see directshow encoders for vc-1 and wma10+, where setting the options involves a config GUI and not editing the registry. Or better yet, commandline encoders :)
As far as Microsoft is concerned, the DirectShow requirement is fullfilled by delivering the technology to wrap DMOs in DirectShow using WMF SDK bridging components. If you have WMF SDK installed (which you do if you're using XP or newer), DMOs already work as DirectShow filters. There'd be little point in re-building them as strictly DShow filters since we don't really develop for anything older than XP anymore.

As for command-line encoders... Microsoft generally prefers to make codecs extensible and re-usable. A DMO or DShow encoder is far more extensible than a command-line encoder because you can call it directly via its APIs.
If somebody really prefers the command-line interface, they can always develop a command-line encoder that talks directly to the DMO - much like Nic's WM Encoder GUI talks directly to the WMV encoder DMO.

[bond]

the point of releasing a dshow version is to make the codec work on systems that dont support the new wm sdk. obviously your dmo wrapping doesnt help anything here

it also helps people not wanting to install your drm system (which you propably dont want to support)

[communist]

Microsoft is only making the technology.
MSN Music is a Microsoft store or not?
http://music.msn.com/

Where is the added value to DRM'encumbered content if I'm forced to use players I dont like (WMP10/iTunes/whatever), have to buy a new mp3-player (whateverPod that sucksforsure) though I like my current one which works just fine and lot more restrictions - this all so that listening to music can again be safe for everyone involved? :)

I guess I'm either too backwards or just plain incompatible with rich media :o

[zambelli]

MSN Music is a Microsoft store or not?
http://music.msn.com/
It is, true, but that's one of the many stores using WM DRM and the rules for each store are set by the store itself. Apple's FairPlay is only used by Apple, so they have the power to set the only set of rules for their technology.

My point was that Microsoft doesn't have the authority or right to tell Napster or CinemaNow what rules to set on their protected content. Yes, it can do it with MSN Music, but MSN is just one of the many fish in the sea.

Where is the added value to DRM'encumbered content if I'm forced to use players I dont like (WMP10/iTunes/whatever), have to buy a new mp3-player (whateverPod that sucksforsure) though I like my current one which works just fine and lot more restrictions - this all so that listening to music can again be safe for everyone involved? :)
You're probably asking the wrong guy (if the question was indeed directed at me). I don't use online stores, I don't buy DRM'ed content, so I'm not going to try to sell anyone the idea that everyone has to love it because I certainly don't. I don't think I ever have. The major point I'm arguing though is that a player or format runtime that supports playback of DRM'ed content is added value - if you are planning on purchasing and consuming DRM'ed content. If you're not, then obviously DRM support is zero value to you. But I can't agree with people who try to imply that DRM support is somehow negative value to a product and try to demonize it for merely existing.

[tantraman]

my nero doesn't work on windows vista is there any dvd burning that works with it?

[acidsex]

nero 6.6 works with vista. Nice way to hijack a thread