Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: DivX??

Expand Messages
  • Rupert
    Thanks for thrashing this out publicly, guys. Sometimes these kind of discussions fizzle out unsatisfyingly here. A week ago I knew nothing about DivX and
    Message 1 of 31 , Mar 2, 2007
      Thanks for thrashing this out publicly, guys. Sometimes these kind
      of discussions fizzle out unsatisfyingly here. A week ago I knew
      nothing about DivX and was struggling to find out more - now I am a
      lot clearer. Ben and JV, if you can condense this information into
      digestible form on web pages or FAQs somewhere easily findable, it
      would be great. You mentioned a few videobloggers who are using DivX
      - it would be good to have some comments from them here, but I guess
      they're not reading at the moment or not interested in all this
      detail :-)

      Rupert


      On 2 Mar 2007, at 00:03, Cote289 wrote:

      you certainly are thorough

      ;-)

      I think we are definitely on the same page with DRM and I hope to see
      it fade out of the picture and lead to better experiences to both the
      content creator on the creation side and to the audience on the
      playback side.

      Ben…

      --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <steve@...> wrote:
      >
      > Thanks, that explains the bit I wasnt getting, I was dumb and wasnt
      > sure that DivX had a DRM system at all.
      >
      > OK so I now understand where the use of 'open' comes from. Your
      DRM is
      > more open than Apple's, in 2 key ways. You want as many devices
      etc as
      > possible to use it, wheras apple mostly keep their FairPlay system to
      > themselves. And you do not tie the DRM media to a particular set of
      > devices (unlike Apples limitation on how many ipods & PCs can play
      > content from a single itunes account).
      >
      > So at the end of the day as far as the consumer is concerned, DivX
      DRM
      > is potentially less painful than Apple & others because there are a
      > potentially greater greater range of devices out there that will work
      > with such content. Its still not quite an idyllic picture as it might
      > sound, because of course there are also plenty of devices that arent
      > DivX certified and so wont work with such DRM content, and of course
      > the content we buy is also not always available in every possible
      > flavour of DRM.
      >
      > For the consumer to win either DRM must die, or one DRM system
      becomes
      > prevalent in the vast majority of devices of all types, or most
      > devices end up supporting multiple diffeerent DRM systems. I suppose
      > its not so crazy considering its happening in a world where
      > corporations couldnt quite co-operate enough to produce one new
      > standard for HD DVD, so the consumers get 2 competing formats and
      > relive the joys of VHS vs Betamax. Ive never looked to see how much
      > industry gains by people having to buy the same thing multiple times
      > as their original format of choice dies, are outstripped by the
      number
      > of potential consumers who sit and wait till the picture is clearer.
      >
      > So I guess potentially DivX could be a great help if they manage to
      > get widespread adoption of their system & DRM into many devices,
      > whilst Apple and Microsoft's vested interests in hardware and other
      > factors hamper their ability to do likewise. In general Microsoft
      seem
      > to be trying to open things up a bit, weheras Apple are avoiding
      > opening up DRM and suggested theyd rather no DRM at all than that,
      > which also suits me, but clearly will alienate some content owners.
      >
      > Anyway thats more than enough from me on this, thanks for bearing
      with
      > me whilst I explored these things in unhealthy detail.
      >
      > Cheers
      >
      > Steve Elbows
      >
      > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Cote289" <cote289@> wrote:
      > >
      > > In the DRM landscape it works like this. Apple media => iPod or
      > > AppleTV, MS media => Zune or Xbox, DivXmedia => Sony, Philiphs,
      JVC,
      > > LG, Pioneer, etc. pick one. And yes we are in the same space as the
      > > others. We've been selling content with independent content
      producers
      > > for 6 years now (http://www.divx.com/company/partner/content.php).
      > > The difference is that we are not courting the studios as we don't
      > > think the change of media begins with them. We've worked with
      them in
      > > the past and are open to working with them whenever they are
      ready to
      > > use DivX to distribute all their content, but we would much
      champion
      > > the little guy and work with them to distribute their content and
      > > you'll start to see this come out in a big way this year. I know
      that
      > > DRM will be in the picture as some want it others hate it etc,
      but I
      > > hope the conversation can focus on the bigger picture of what
      > > experience the content creator wants to have around their
      content. Do
      > > they want the content stuck on a PC, or a limited reach of
      devices or
      > > do they want the rich experience of high quality video with
      advanced
      > > features such as menu-ing, subtitles, multiple audio tracks etc and
      > > being able to take this high quality content to where they want to
      > > enjoy it.
      > >
      > > Hope that enlightens
      > >
      > > Ben…
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <steve@>
      wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Thanks, that makes sense. I certainly agree that there are
      numerous
      > > > differnt profiles of mpeg4 and h264 which are confusing to
      people. If
      > > > someone came along and wrapped up a series of mpeg4/h264 profile,
      > > > resolution, bitrate etc specs, and gave them nice straightforward
      > > > names and logos to go with them, then this would be similar to
      what
      > > > you offer with your easier to understand, certifiable DivX stuff?
      > > >
      > > > Where I consistently remain confused is exactly how DivX fits
      into the
      > > > mpeg4 picture. All the good work that DivX does by creating a
      set of
      > > > standards, is spoilt for me if these arent cross-compatible with
      what
      > > > everyone else is doing with mpeg4. It irks me that suggestions
      are
      > > > repeatedly made that Apple and others are using mpeg4 in some
      twisted
      > > > way, when its actually their DRM systems that are the problem. In
      > > > areas like file format wrapper, it is they who stick to the mpeg
      > > > standard, for example Apple deserve some praise for not trying
      to be
      > > > overprotective and keep ipod & itunes mpeg4 in a .mov container
      rather
      > > > than embracing the .mp4 standard (alhough they loose brownie
      points
      > > > for the silly .m4v extension).
      > > >
      > > > And its the DRM issue that makes people have to buy an apple
      product
      > > > to play the content they buy from itunes. If DRM dies then a
      device
      > > > manufacturer will have no problems making hardware that can play
      > > > ipod/itunes videos, the consumer may not be able to navigate the
      > > > minefile dof peg profile complexities but the device
      manufacturers
      > > > could, if only the DRM issue did not stand in the way.
      > > >
      > > > So, are there many places on the net I can buy stuff in DivX
      format?
      > > > If not then I find comparisons on this front between
      yourselves and
      > > > Apple to be disingenuous, as you arent burdened witht he DRM
      issues,
      > > > and its easy to be an open system when you dont have to worry
      about
      > > > that. I repeat that itunes and microsoft and other
      equivalents, are
      > > > closed systems only in terms of the DRM, and that other
      aspects such
      > > > as the actual video codec are quite open enough for 3rd
      parties to
      > > > work with. So for independent content creators who are not
      worried
      > > > about DRM, and for consumers wanting to watch such stuff, how is
      DivX
      > > > more open than wmv or mp4 or flash?
      > > >
      > > > Cheers
      > > >
      > > > Steve Elbows
      > > >
      > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Cote289" <cote289@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > Open platform means you don’t have to buy an apple
      product to
      > > play the
      > > > > content you purchased. We aren’t a closed system. You
      can buy
      > > a Sony
      > > > > DVD player, a Philips portable player, a Pioneer in car
      > receiver, an
      > > > > HP TV, a Samsung phone. We want to open up the choices that the
      > user
      > > > > has as to where they can enjoy their media. The DivX history of
      > > > > hardware devices has always been across the board in all
      sorts of
      > > > > devices, but as you assumed with a large bulk of that in the
      DVD
      > > > > market. And also as you guessed, but may not have known, we
      have
      > > > > future products and technologies
      > > > > (http://www.divx.com/company/partner/connected.php) that
      allows for
      > > > > your content to seamlessly move from the computer to the
      television
      > > > > without having to have a computer in the living room. Notice
      when I
      > > > > said I watched all this great new content with a couple of
      button
      > > > > presses on my remote I never mentioned transferring any content
      > to any
      > > > > CD or DVD.
      > > > >
      > > > > As to the DRM question I am firmly with you in your hopes of
      DRM
      > dying
      > > > > in the future. But again its about providing tools to those
      that
      > > > > create the content. There are still those content creators
      that want
      > > > > their content protected with DRM and thus the tools are
      available to
      > > > > them. I’d like to see the independent content creators
      begin to
      > > buck
      > > > > the trend and sell their content without DRM and show the
      > marketplace
      > > > > what their options really are.
      > > > >
      > > > > For the licensing side of things its very straight forward.
      DivX is
      > > > > MPEG4 so the same process of licensing through the patent pool
      is in
      > > > > place. But again I’m trying to stress this. Don’t
      overlook the
      > > > > forest for the trees. Your quote of “everyone thatâ
      €™s using
      > > > mpeg4 or
      > > > > h264 in a standard
      > > > > way” is the problem. No one is using it in a standard
      way and
      > thus
      > > > > the reason for the DivX Certified program. If you see MPEG4
      on a
      > > > > device is it simple profile? Advanced simple profile? Are
      feature
      > > > > XYZ supported? It’s about the experience. We want the
      > process and
      > > > > experience of creating and distributing and playing media to be
      > > > > better; better than it is today. Questions like those mentioned
      > > don’t
      > > > > make it better for the end user and don’t make it
      better for the
      > > > > content creator. I understand your cynicism. Its hard to see
      where
      > > > > the future is going and what motivations are leading it.
      > > > >
      > > > > Hope that answers your questions a little further
      > > > >
      > > > > Ben…
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <steve@>
      > wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Thanks for your post.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > What does 'open platform' actually mean?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > You talk about people watching content from the web on their
      > TV, and
      > > > > > this is indeed an important development. But theres a lot of
      > > > > > competition in this young area, and much variation in what
      > > > > > technologies are used. You are up against things like
      Apple TV,
      > > games
      > > > > > consoles like Xbox360 and PS3, mutations of older tech
      such as
      > > Tivo to
      > > > > > bring it into the net distribution age, on-demand
      offerings from
      > > cable
      > > > > > TV providers, various peer2peer video distribution
      services if
      > > they go
      > > > > > looking for hardware to plug the gap between TV and computer,
      > mobile
      > > > > > devices that can hookup to the TV.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Now I assume much of DivX's history with device certification
      > > was for
      > > > > > DVD players, and hopefuly now includes some mobile
      devices. As
      > > burning
      > > > > > to pysical media doesnt sound like the best way to watch
      episodic
      > > > > > video content thats downloaded automatically via RSS of
      > whatever, I
      > > > > > would hope/imagine that the future will include some
      companies
      > > > > > creating alternatives to the Apple TV, and some of those
      > > companies get
      > > > > > their device DivX certified.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > DRM issues certainly confuse the wider picture. Most of the
      > > complaints
      > > > > > about Apple stuff isnt that the video or audio formats are
      > > > > > non-standard and closed, after all they are using Mpeg4 and
      > > H264, its
      > > > > > the content that is DRM controlld that creates compatibility
      > > woes. Im
      > > > > > one of those people that hopes DRM dies over time, and
      > assuming that
      > > > > > DivX currently has no DRM system, this will be good for DivX
      as it
      > > > > > removes one thing the competing formats offer that DivX
      doesnt
      > > > seem to?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Excuse my highly cynical nature but I see a lot of comapnies
      > > desperate
      > > > > > to prove they are something far more than their core
      business.
      > > In this
      > > > > > day and age the word 'community' is connected to the
      perceived
      > > > > > expectations of investors - so of course you dont want to
      be a
      > codec
      > > > > > company with the limited potential for growth that this
      > implies, but
      > > > > > rather a huge chunk of the unfolding future web media thang.
      > And at
      > > > > > the moment when few have worked out how to make large
      returns on
      > > their
      > > > > > web 2.,0 stuff, site viewing figures, how large the
      > 'community' is,
      > > > > > become important benchmarks. Unfortunately for Divx your
      > historical
      > > > > > community of users were using it for grey purposes which you
      > couldnt
      > > > > > shout about, its no secret where DivX brand recognition came
      > > from, and
      > > > > > you've done an amazing job to create a business from those
      > > beginnings.
      > > > > > If useage of DivX on the web for legitimate purposes
      equalled its
      > > > > > dominance of the early video sharing scene, this conversation
      > would
      > > > > > not need to happen at all, you would undisputedly have a huge
      > amount
      > > > > > of territory in the new race. But as things stand, I feel you
      > > need to
      > > > > > find a way to somehow leapfrog ahead to the next stage, get a
      > > jump on
      > > > > > your competitiors. Because in a straight battle between DivX,
      > > > > > Microsoft, Apple, and everyone thats using mpeg4 or h264 in a
      > > standard
      > > > > > way, its unclear to me how DivX will fare.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > I was out of date and only just discovered that microsoft
      have
      > > gotten
      > > > > > some standard for their VC-1 video part of .wmv, so other
      > people can
      > > > > > use it in their products more easily. It will be interesting
      > to see
      > > > > > how many 3rd parties decide to take up this opportunity.
      So this
      > > > > > brings me back to your comment about open platform, and my
      > question
      > > > > > about what it actuall means. If I am doing hardware of
      software or
      > > > > > content and want to use mpeg4 or h264 or wmv in some way,
      I can
      > > go get
      > > > > > a license from whoever is looking after the patent pool (eg
      > MPEG LA,
      > > > > > LLC). How does it work with DivX, also bearing in mind you
      > make most
      > > > > > of your revenue through the certification of devices?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Cheers
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Steve Elbows
      > > > > >
      > > > > > wrote:
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Not to dig up this old thread, but I've been pondering
      it the
      > > > past few
      > > > > > > days and wanted to add my thoughts
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > First, I'm sorry that you couldn't find any pertinent
      > > information on
      > > > > > > DivX on DivX.com. That's terrible and something we struggle
      > > > with and
      > > > > > > aim to fix. DivX.com has become a hub of many things and
      > > often gets
      > > > > > > overcrowded with too many things and the signal gets lost
      in the
      > > > > noise.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > And that kid of also is a good way to explain a lot of the
      > > confusion
      > > > > > > around DivX in general. People get caught up in some of the
      > > smaller
      > > > > > > subsets of what we do and spend hours debating features and
      > > formats
      > > > > > > and miss the bigger picture. And the bigger picture is
      this;
      > > > DivX is
      > > > > > > not a codec company. We never have been. Since day one our
      > > vision
      > > > > > > was to build a platform and tools to empower content
      creators to
      > > > > > > distribute their content and deliver a high quality
      > experience to
      > > > > > > their audience. To achieve this goal we started with
      creating a
      > > > high
      > > > > > > quality experience with the video, hence the codec. We then
      > > > worked to
      > > > > > > leverage that high quality experience on the PC and move it
      > > into the
      > > > > > > living room where users want to watch their content. I
      > think the
      > > > > > > question of why to use DivX comes down to experience. What
      > is the
      > > > > > > focus of your vlog or content? Is it a quick lean forward
      short
      > > > form
      > > > > > > content where a small 320x240 pixilated window will
      suffice?
      > > Or do
      > > > > > > you want a lean back experience where the user is immersed
      > in the
      > > > > > > content and they watch a much larger format if not full
      screen
      > > > version
      > > > > > > of your content. When DivX was started we saw the shifts in
      > > > > > > technology that would allow for a complete shift in
      media and
      > > > the way
      > > > > > > it was used. First you saw, and continue to see, the cost
      > > lower of
      > > > > > > tools to create the content. You can now get an HD
      camera for
      > > less
      > > > > > > than $1,000, something unheard of 10 years ago. Then the
      > software
      > > > > > > side of things started to take off, with Avid, Final Cut
      etc
      > > > becoming
      > > > > > > available to help create this content. Now you are
      seeing the
      > > > > > > distribution side of things starting to come in. Broadband
      > access
      > > > > > > reaching more homes in the US and catching up with other
      > > countries.
      > > > > > > It's the culmination of these shifts in technology and the
      > > > changing of
      > > > > > > media that is our vision. Shifting the power from the few
      > to the
      > > > > > > masses. Creating a common media language that spans
      computer,
      > > > > > > networks, the living room and beyond. Creating a high
      quality
      > > open
      > > > > > > platform that carries with it the vision of changing media
      > for the
      > > > > > > better is what DivX does. We can discuss the finer
      details of
      > > > > > > compression and the webplayer, but don't miss it for the
      bigger
      > > > > > > picture. Watching this new content in the living room is an
      > > amazing
      > > > > > > shift in power. Being able with a few clicks of my
      remote to
      > > > bring up
      > > > > > > the latest episode of Galacticast or JetSetShow on my TV
      changes
      > > > > > > everything about how I consume media and share it with my
      > > friends.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > If you are passionate about creating content, about your
      > content,
      > > > > > > about changing the media for the better, then you are with
      > us and
      > > > > > > should be talking with us. We want to hear your ideas and
      > > input to
      > > > > > > help realize this vision. We've done well thus far (caution
      > > > > > > gratuitous stats to follow) with our 250 Million downloads
      > of our
      > > > > > > software and over 70 Million hardware units shipped, but
      we have
      > > > even
      > > > > > > bigger things coming.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Sorry for the long post, I hope I didn't lose to many.
      If you
      > > have
      > > > > > > any questions please ask them, or feel free to contact me
      > > directly.
      > > > > > > bcote@
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > And if you are looking for a few Vloggers and content
      creators
      > > using
      > > > > > > DivX here is a quick list of names you may or may not
      recognize:
      > > > > > > http://commandn.typepad.com/
      > > > > > > http://stage6.divx.com/GALACTICAST
      > > > > > > http://www.jetsetshow.com/
      > > > > > > http://stage6.divx.com/Geek_Entertainment_TV
      > > > > > > http://hak5.org/
      > > > > > > http://stage6.divx.com/Tiki_Bar_TV
      > > > > > > http://labrats.tv/
      > > > > > > http://stage6.divx.com/AskANinja
      > > > > > > http://www.purepwnage.com/
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <rupert@>
      wrote:
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > I feel a bit of a fool. I was talking to somebody about
      > > > vlogging
      > > > > > > > and they were raving to me about the quality and
      > compression of
      > > > > DivX.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > I don't know anything about DivX. I don't feel that much
      > wiser
      > > > > > after
      > > > > > > > reading up about it on Wikipedia, DivX.com etc
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > I don't know any vloggers who use it, and can't remember
      > > > seeing a
      > > > > > > > DivX labelled feed, the way many people list QT, WMV and
      iPod
      > > > > > feeds.
      > > > > > > > Why do so few people use it, when it would appear to
      be very
      > > > > popular
      > > > > > > > among P2P video sharers?
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > Every conversation about which formats to use, always
      > discusses
      > > > > QT,
      > > > > > > > MP4, Windows Media and Flash? When people talk about
      using
      > > > > Windows
      > > > > > > > Media files, are they also assuming that DivX is under
      this
      > > > > banner,
      > > > > > > > because Windows Media Player comes preinstalled with the
      DivX
      > > > codec?
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > And if so, why do people provide wmv files and feeds
      > instead of
      > > > > > divx,
      > > > > > > > if DivX is so much better? Or is it not?
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > Yours confused
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > Rupert
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >






      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Rupert
      Thanks for thrashing this out publicly, guys. Sometimes these kind of discussions fizzle out unsatisfyingly here. A week ago I knew nothing about DivX and
      Message 31 of 31 , Mar 2, 2007
        Thanks for thrashing this out publicly, guys. Sometimes these kind
        of discussions fizzle out unsatisfyingly here. A week ago I knew
        nothing about DivX and was struggling to find out more - now I am a
        lot clearer. Ben and JV, if you can condense this information into
        digestible form on web pages or FAQs somewhere easily findable, it
        would be great. You mentioned a few videobloggers who are using DivX
        - it would be good to have some comments from them here, but I guess
        they're not reading at the moment or not interested in all this
        detail :-)

        Rupert


        On 2 Mar 2007, at 00:03, Cote289 wrote:

        you certainly are thorough

        ;-)

        I think we are definitely on the same page with DRM and I hope to see
        it fade out of the picture and lead to better experiences to both the
        content creator on the creation side and to the audience on the
        playback side.

        Ben…

        --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <steve@...> wrote:
        >
        > Thanks, that explains the bit I wasnt getting, I was dumb and wasnt
        > sure that DivX had a DRM system at all.
        >
        > OK so I now understand where the use of 'open' comes from. Your
        DRM is
        > more open than Apple's, in 2 key ways. You want as many devices
        etc as
        > possible to use it, wheras apple mostly keep their FairPlay system to
        > themselves. And you do not tie the DRM media to a particular set of
        > devices (unlike Apples limitation on how many ipods & PCs can play
        > content from a single itunes account).
        >
        > So at the end of the day as far as the consumer is concerned, DivX
        DRM
        > is potentially less painful than Apple & others because there are a
        > potentially greater greater range of devices out there that will work
        > with such content. Its still not quite an idyllic picture as it might
        > sound, because of course there are also plenty of devices that arent
        > DivX certified and so wont work with such DRM content, and of course
        > the content we buy is also not always available in every possible
        > flavour of DRM.
        >
        > For the consumer to win either DRM must die, or one DRM system
        becomes
        > prevalent in the vast majority of devices of all types, or most
        > devices end up supporting multiple diffeerent DRM systems. I suppose
        > its not so crazy considering its happening in a world where
        > corporations couldnt quite co-operate enough to produce one new
        > standard for HD DVD, so the consumers get 2 competing formats and
        > relive the joys of VHS vs Betamax. Ive never looked to see how much
        > industry gains by people having to buy the same thing multiple times
        > as their original format of choice dies, are outstripped by the
        number
        > of potential consumers who sit and wait till the picture is clearer.
        >
        > So I guess potentially DivX could be a great help if they manage to
        > get widespread adoption of their system & DRM into many devices,
        > whilst Apple and Microsoft's vested interests in hardware and other
        > factors hamper their ability to do likewise. In general Microsoft
        seem
        > to be trying to open things up a bit, weheras Apple are avoiding
        > opening up DRM and suggested theyd rather no DRM at all than that,
        > which also suits me, but clearly will alienate some content owners.
        >
        > Anyway thats more than enough from me on this, thanks for bearing
        with
        > me whilst I explored these things in unhealthy detail.
        >
        > Cheers
        >
        > Steve Elbows
        >
        > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Cote289" <cote289@> wrote:
        > >
        > > In the DRM landscape it works like this. Apple media => iPod or
        > > AppleTV, MS media => Zune or Xbox, DivXmedia => Sony, Philiphs,
        JVC,
        > > LG, Pioneer, etc. pick one. And yes we are in the same space as the
        > > others. We've been selling content with independent content
        producers
        > > for 6 years now (http://www.divx.com/company/partner/content.php).
        > > The difference is that we are not courting the studios as we don't
        > > think the change of media begins with them. We've worked with
        them in
        > > the past and are open to working with them whenever they are
        ready to
        > > use DivX to distribute all their content, but we would much
        champion
        > > the little guy and work with them to distribute their content and
        > > you'll start to see this come out in a big way this year. I know
        that
        > > DRM will be in the picture as some want it others hate it etc,
        but I
        > > hope the conversation can focus on the bigger picture of what
        > > experience the content creator wants to have around their
        content. Do
        > > they want the content stuck on a PC, or a limited reach of
        devices or
        > > do they want the rich experience of high quality video with
        advanced
        > > features such as menu-ing, subtitles, multiple audio tracks etc and
        > > being able to take this high quality content to where they want to
        > > enjoy it.
        > >
        > > Hope that enlightens
        > >
        > > Ben…
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <steve@>
        wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Thanks, that makes sense. I certainly agree that there are
        numerous
        > > > differnt profiles of mpeg4 and h264 which are confusing to
        people. If
        > > > someone came along and wrapped up a series of mpeg4/h264 profile,
        > > > resolution, bitrate etc specs, and gave them nice straightforward
        > > > names and logos to go with them, then this would be similar to
        what
        > > > you offer with your easier to understand, certifiable DivX stuff?
        > > >
        > > > Where I consistently remain confused is exactly how DivX fits
        into the
        > > > mpeg4 picture. All the good work that DivX does by creating a
        set of
        > > > standards, is spoilt for me if these arent cross-compatible with
        what
        > > > everyone else is doing with mpeg4. It irks me that suggestions
        are
        > > > repeatedly made that Apple and others are using mpeg4 in some
        twisted
        > > > way, when its actually their DRM systems that are the problem. In
        > > > areas like file format wrapper, it is they who stick to the mpeg
        > > > standard, for example Apple deserve some praise for not trying
        to be
        > > > overprotective and keep ipod & itunes mpeg4 in a .mov container
        rather
        > > > than embracing the .mp4 standard (alhough they loose brownie
        points
        > > > for the silly .m4v extension).
        > > >
        > > > And its the DRM issue that makes people have to buy an apple
        product
        > > > to play the content they buy from itunes. If DRM dies then a
        device
        > > > manufacturer will have no problems making hardware that can play
        > > > ipod/itunes videos, the consumer may not be able to navigate the
        > > > minefile dof peg profile complexities but the device
        manufacturers
        > > > could, if only the DRM issue did not stand in the way.
        > > >
        > > > So, are there many places on the net I can buy stuff in DivX
        format?
        > > > If not then I find comparisons on this front between
        yourselves and
        > > > Apple to be disingenuous, as you arent burdened witht he DRM
        issues,
        > > > and its easy to be an open system when you dont have to worry
        about
        > > > that. I repeat that itunes and microsoft and other
        equivalents, are
        > > > closed systems only in terms of the DRM, and that other
        aspects such
        > > > as the actual video codec are quite open enough for 3rd
        parties to
        > > > work with. So for independent content creators who are not
        worried
        > > > about DRM, and for consumers wanting to watch such stuff, how is
        DivX
        > > > more open than wmv or mp4 or flash?
        > > >
        > > > Cheers
        > > >
        > > > Steve Elbows
        > > >
        > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Cote289" <cote289@> wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > Open platform means you don’t have to buy an apple
        product to
        > > play the
        > > > > content you purchased. We aren’t a closed system. You
        can buy
        > > a Sony
        > > > > DVD player, a Philips portable player, a Pioneer in car
        > receiver, an
        > > > > HP TV, a Samsung phone. We want to open up the choices that the
        > user
        > > > > has as to where they can enjoy their media. The DivX history of
        > > > > hardware devices has always been across the board in all
        sorts of
        > > > > devices, but as you assumed with a large bulk of that in the
        DVD
        > > > > market. And also as you guessed, but may not have known, we
        have
        > > > > future products and technologies
        > > > > (http://www.divx.com/company/partner/connected.php) that
        allows for
        > > > > your content to seamlessly move from the computer to the
        television
        > > > > without having to have a computer in the living room. Notice
        when I
        > > > > said I watched all this great new content with a couple of
        button
        > > > > presses on my remote I never mentioned transferring any content
        > to any
        > > > > CD or DVD.
        > > > >
        > > > > As to the DRM question I am firmly with you in your hopes of
        DRM
        > dying
        > > > > in the future. But again its about providing tools to those
        that
        > > > > create the content. There are still those content creators
        that want
        > > > > their content protected with DRM and thus the tools are
        available to
        > > > > them. I’d like to see the independent content creators
        begin to
        > > buck
        > > > > the trend and sell their content without DRM and show the
        > marketplace
        > > > > what their options really are.
        > > > >
        > > > > For the licensing side of things its very straight forward.
        DivX is
        > > > > MPEG4 so the same process of licensing through the patent pool
        is in
        > > > > place. But again I’m trying to stress this. Don’t
        overlook the
        > > > > forest for the trees. Your quote of “everyone thatâ
        €™s using
        > > > mpeg4 or
        > > > > h264 in a standard
        > > > > way” is the problem. No one is using it in a standard
        way and
        > thus
        > > > > the reason for the DivX Certified program. If you see MPEG4
        on a
        > > > > device is it simple profile? Advanced simple profile? Are
        feature
        > > > > XYZ supported? It’s about the experience. We want the
        > process and
        > > > > experience of creating and distributing and playing media to be
        > > > > better; better than it is today. Questions like those mentioned
        > > don’t
        > > > > make it better for the end user and don’t make it
        better for the
        > > > > content creator. I understand your cynicism. Its hard to see
        where
        > > > > the future is going and what motivations are leading it.
        > > > >
        > > > > Hope that answers your questions a little further
        > > > >
        > > > > Ben…
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <steve@>
        > wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Thanks for your post.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > What does 'open platform' actually mean?
        > > > > >
        > > > > > You talk about people watching content from the web on their
        > TV, and
        > > > > > this is indeed an important development. But theres a lot of
        > > > > > competition in this young area, and much variation in what
        > > > > > technologies are used. You are up against things like
        Apple TV,
        > > games
        > > > > > consoles like Xbox360 and PS3, mutations of older tech
        such as
        > > Tivo to
        > > > > > bring it into the net distribution age, on-demand
        offerings from
        > > cable
        > > > > > TV providers, various peer2peer video distribution
        services if
        > > they go
        > > > > > looking for hardware to plug the gap between TV and computer,
        > mobile
        > > > > > devices that can hookup to the TV.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Now I assume much of DivX's history with device certification
        > > was for
        > > > > > DVD players, and hopefuly now includes some mobile
        devices. As
        > > burning
        > > > > > to pysical media doesnt sound like the best way to watch
        episodic
        > > > > > video content thats downloaded automatically via RSS of
        > whatever, I
        > > > > > would hope/imagine that the future will include some
        companies
        > > > > > creating alternatives to the Apple TV, and some of those
        > > companies get
        > > > > > their device DivX certified.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > DRM issues certainly confuse the wider picture. Most of the
        > > complaints
        > > > > > about Apple stuff isnt that the video or audio formats are
        > > > > > non-standard and closed, after all they are using Mpeg4 and
        > > H264, its
        > > > > > the content that is DRM controlld that creates compatibility
        > > woes. Im
        > > > > > one of those people that hopes DRM dies over time, and
        > assuming that
        > > > > > DivX currently has no DRM system, this will be good for DivX
        as it
        > > > > > removes one thing the competing formats offer that DivX
        doesnt
        > > > seem to?
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Excuse my highly cynical nature but I see a lot of comapnies
        > > desperate
        > > > > > to prove they are something far more than their core
        business.
        > > In this
        > > > > > day and age the word 'community' is connected to the
        perceived
        > > > > > expectations of investors - so of course you dont want to
        be a
        > codec
        > > > > > company with the limited potential for growth that this
        > implies, but
        > > > > > rather a huge chunk of the unfolding future web media thang.
        > And at
        > > > > > the moment when few have worked out how to make large
        returns on
        > > their
        > > > > > web 2.,0 stuff, site viewing figures, how large the
        > 'community' is,
        > > > > > become important benchmarks. Unfortunately for Divx your
        > historical
        > > > > > community of users were using it for grey purposes which you
        > couldnt
        > > > > > shout about, its no secret where DivX brand recognition came
        > > from, and
        > > > > > you've done an amazing job to create a business from those
        > > beginnings.
        > > > > > If useage of DivX on the web for legitimate purposes
        equalled its
        > > > > > dominance of the early video sharing scene, this conversation
        > would
        > > > > > not need to happen at all, you would undisputedly have a huge
        > amount
        > > > > > of territory in the new race. But as things stand, I feel you
        > > need to
        > > > > > find a way to somehow leapfrog ahead to the next stage, get a
        > > jump on
        > > > > > your competitiors. Because in a straight battle between DivX,
        > > > > > Microsoft, Apple, and everyone thats using mpeg4 or h264 in a
        > > standard
        > > > > > way, its unclear to me how DivX will fare.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > I was out of date and only just discovered that microsoft
        have
        > > gotten
        > > > > > some standard for their VC-1 video part of .wmv, so other
        > people can
        > > > > > use it in their products more easily. It will be interesting
        > to see
        > > > > > how many 3rd parties decide to take up this opportunity.
        So this
        > > > > > brings me back to your comment about open platform, and my
        > question
        > > > > > about what it actuall means. If I am doing hardware of
        software or
        > > > > > content and want to use mpeg4 or h264 or wmv in some way,
        I can
        > > go get
        > > > > > a license from whoever is looking after the patent pool (eg
        > MPEG LA,
        > > > > > LLC). How does it work with DivX, also bearing in mind you
        > make most
        > > > > > of your revenue through the certification of devices?
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Cheers
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Steve Elbows
        > > > > >
        > > > > > wrote:
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Not to dig up this old thread, but I've been pondering
        it the
        > > > past few
        > > > > > > days and wanted to add my thoughts
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > First, I'm sorry that you couldn't find any pertinent
        > > information on
        > > > > > > DivX on DivX.com. That's terrible and something we struggle
        > > > with and
        > > > > > > aim to fix. DivX.com has become a hub of many things and
        > > often gets
        > > > > > > overcrowded with too many things and the signal gets lost
        in the
        > > > > noise.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > And that kid of also is a good way to explain a lot of the
        > > confusion
        > > > > > > around DivX in general. People get caught up in some of the
        > > smaller
        > > > > > > subsets of what we do and spend hours debating features and
        > > formats
        > > > > > > and miss the bigger picture. And the bigger picture is
        this;
        > > > DivX is
        > > > > > > not a codec company. We never have been. Since day one our
        > > vision
        > > > > > > was to build a platform and tools to empower content
        creators to
        > > > > > > distribute their content and deliver a high quality
        > experience to
        > > > > > > their audience. To achieve this goal we started with
        creating a
        > > > high
        > > > > > > quality experience with the video, hence the codec. We then
        > > > worked to
        > > > > > > leverage that high quality experience on the PC and move it
        > > into the
        > > > > > > living room where users want to watch their content. I
        > think the
        > > > > > > question of why to use DivX comes down to experience. What
        > is the
        > > > > > > focus of your vlog or content? Is it a quick lean forward
        short
        > > > form
        > > > > > > content where a small 320x240 pixilated window will
        suffice?
        > > Or do
        > > > > > > you want a lean back experience where the user is immersed
        > in the
        > > > > > > content and they watch a much larger format if not full
        screen
        > > > version
        > > > > > > of your content. When DivX was started we saw the shifts in
        > > > > > > technology that would allow for a complete shift in
        media and
        > > > the way
        > > > > > > it was used. First you saw, and continue to see, the cost
        > > lower of
        > > > > > > tools to create the content. You can now get an HD
        camera for
        > > less
        > > > > > > than $1,000, something unheard of 10 years ago. Then the
        > software
        > > > > > > side of things started to take off, with Avid, Final Cut
        etc
        > > > becoming
        > > > > > > available to help create this content. Now you are
        seeing the
        > > > > > > distribution side of things starting to come in. Broadband
        > access
        > > > > > > reaching more homes in the US and catching up with other
        > > countries.
        > > > > > > It's the culmination of these shifts in technology and the
        > > > changing of
        > > > > > > media that is our vision. Shifting the power from the few
        > to the
        > > > > > > masses. Creating a common media language that spans
        computer,
        > > > > > > networks, the living room and beyond. Creating a high
        quality
        > > open
        > > > > > > platform that carries with it the vision of changing media
        > for the
        > > > > > > better is what DivX does. We can discuss the finer
        details of
        > > > > > > compression and the webplayer, but don't miss it for the
        bigger
        > > > > > > picture. Watching this new content in the living room is an
        > > amazing
        > > > > > > shift in power. Being able with a few clicks of my
        remote to
        > > > bring up
        > > > > > > the latest episode of Galacticast or JetSetShow on my TV
        changes
        > > > > > > everything about how I consume media and share it with my
        > > friends.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > If you are passionate about creating content, about your
        > content,
        > > > > > > about changing the media for the better, then you are with
        > us and
        > > > > > > should be talking with us. We want to hear your ideas and
        > > input to
        > > > > > > help realize this vision. We've done well thus far (caution
        > > > > > > gratuitous stats to follow) with our 250 Million downloads
        > of our
        > > > > > > software and over 70 Million hardware units shipped, but
        we have
        > > > even
        > > > > > > bigger things coming.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Sorry for the long post, I hope I didn't lose to many.
        If you
        > > have
        > > > > > > any questions please ask them, or feel free to contact me
        > > directly.
        > > > > > > bcote@
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > And if you are looking for a few Vloggers and content
        creators
        > > using
        > > > > > > DivX here is a quick list of names you may or may not
        recognize:
        > > > > > > http://commandn.typepad.com/
        > > > > > > http://stage6.divx.com/GALACTICAST
        > > > > > > http://www.jetsetshow.com/
        > > > > > > http://stage6.divx.com/Geek_Entertainment_TV
        > > > > > > http://hak5.org/
        > > > > > > http://stage6.divx.com/Tiki_Bar_TV
        > > > > > > http://labrats.tv/
        > > > > > > http://stage6.divx.com/AskANinja
        > > > > > > http://www.purepwnage.com/
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert <rupert@>
        wrote:
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > I feel a bit of a fool. I was talking to somebody about
        > > > vlogging
        > > > > > > > and they were raving to me about the quality and
        > compression of
        > > > > DivX.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > I don't know anything about DivX. I don't feel that much
        > wiser
        > > > > > after
        > > > > > > > reading up about it on Wikipedia, DivX.com etc
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > I don't know any vloggers who use it, and can't remember
        > > > seeing a
        > > > > > > > DivX labelled feed, the way many people list QT, WMV and
        iPod
        > > > > > feeds.
        > > > > > > > Why do so few people use it, when it would appear to
        be very
        > > > > popular
        > > > > > > > among P2P video sharers?
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Every conversation about which formats to use, always
        > discusses
        > > > > QT,
        > > > > > > > MP4, Windows Media and Flash? When people talk about
        using
        > > > > Windows
        > > > > > > > Media files, are they also assuming that DivX is under
        this
        > > > > banner,
        > > > > > > > because Windows Media Player comes preinstalled with the
        DivX
        > > > codec?
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > And if so, why do people provide wmv files and feeds
        > instead of
        > > > > > divx,
        > > > > > > > if DivX is so much better? Or is it not?
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Yours confused
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Rupert
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >






        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.