Joseph, That's an excellent analysis, and I'm whole-heartedly behind the use of open formats. Not that I mind using a proprietary viewer, as long as I can get one, and it's free. :-) But I suppose if Macromedia went under, _somebody_ would get the rights to Flash and Shockwave, as ubiquitous as these formats are. The alternative would be a general consumer uproar. :-) (Or at least I hope that most consumers still have the backbone to make an uproar.) Vaughn On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 18:05, Joseph Sinclair wrote: > Didn't mean to start a format war, I don't claim any given format is > technically superior, only that there are great advantages to open > formats and open software. As such, here is my response to your > arguments: > > If you want to know what's wrong with closed formats, take a look at a > .MSP image file (if you can find a system running Windows 2.1, the > last that had a viewer), or try to watch an Autodesk movie (you'll > have to find an old Windows 3.0 system, and try to find a licensed > player, since the right-to-use of the "free" player went away over 10 > years ago). The fact is that another company CANNOT take the place of > a defunct multimedia company, the defunct company still holds > patents/copyrights, may not have ever published the format, and > there's no way to obtain a license from a non-existent entity. > Furthermore, the company may not go out of business, they may just > decide they don't like the format anymore (like the MSP format). If > the company that owns the format decides to de-support it, you're > completely out of luck, since nobody else can write applications using > that format. The other problem that arises is patents on the format, > this happened to MP3 a few years ago when the company that developed > the algorithms (and GAVE them to the MPEG-1 committee) asserted patent > rights to all MP3 audio, and began charging licensing fees to > developers of software that plays MP3. Any format owner could do the > same, or even use their patent rights to force all competing players > to stop playing "their" format. There's nothing that could stop them, > and that's part of why media players on Linux often don't play some > formats, Microsoft formats, in particular, are both patented, and > owned by a company that's shown they are more than willing to use > those patents to eliminate all players on non-Microsoft platforms (or > better yet, eliminate the competing platform entirely). > > Closed multimedia formats are not available to free/open-source > developers. We cannot pay for a patent license, cannot purchase the > format documentation (if it's available), and choose not to make > ourselves subject to the whims of another entity. This means that if > a site is built using closed formats, chances are that there are not > any F/OSS solutions available to support the site, so the site-builder > is beholden to whichever proprietary company owns the format they > choose. Choosing Flash means putting considerable control over your > site's future in the hands of Macromedia, many people find that > unsettling. > > We don't have a different format from each media creator because the > market already declined that model, the companies tried that around > 1992-93 and again in 1996-97, and it flopped completely. Sony, in > particular, tries to create a new Sony-owned "standard" every few > years (MemoryStick, BetaMax, SDRM, SVBS, Blu-Ray, etc...), > fortunately, they generally fail, and in other cases, the other market > giants eventually force the "standard" open, so they can compete on > even ground. There's nothing wrong with having a wide variety of > media players, that's called competition, and it's a good thing. The > problem is if every player uses a different format, and that's when > things get bad. Committing to open formats helps to prevent every > player from having their own format, since once an open format is > widespread, all competing formats tend to die out. > > I don't know what businesses you deal with, but most of the businesses > I deal with are looking for global market expansion, and hearing that > 30% of the world cannot view their "cool new site" has an impact; it > may not make the final decision, but it does have an impact. > > If you want an alternative to Flash, it DOES exist, it's called SVG, > it's a W3C standard, and it's completely open. The tools to work with > SVG are rapidly approaching parity with Macromedia's development tool, > and there are a number of processing pipelines available to SVG that > Flash could never use (ever try to apply an XSL stylesheet to Flash, > for country-specific translations, for instance). Sure, the F/OSS > software to create SVG still needs work, but solutions do exist, and > there are a couple of proprietary solutions that can create SVG > equivalent to about 90% of the flash sites on the web. > > IE plays SVG out of the box too, you just have to download the Adobe > SVG plugin (you have to download the Flash plugin on new systems too, > because the one shipping with Windows is outdated, and most sites > require the newer plugin, since content creators are *required* to > continually "upgrade" to the latest Macromedia version or lose > support). The support for viewing SVG on Linux/Mac,etc... is similar > to the support for playing Flash, so the current state of SVG support > is equivalent to the current state of Flash support. The near-term > prospects for SVG support on various platforms is very good, since the > code being worked on for Firefox 1.1 will work everywhere Firefox > works. > > People pick WMV because they think it's free-as-in-beer, since it > comes with their 2003 license (although there are a bunch of recurring > charges they don't find out about until later). In my experience, > "savvy" owners ask a technology expert, and a lot of us are > recommending OGG with Vorbis and Theora, since those formats cannot be > taken away from you, de-supported, or abandoned, and the creator has > complete control over usage, including the *option* to apply use > restrictions, if they want, not because the format owner requires it > of them. The majority of sites that do not use the open streaming > media formats do so because they're run by corporate types who don't > care about the media format, they just want everything on their > systems to come from a single vendor (hence the increasing rate of > adoption for Microsoft formats). Most of the Flash sites, however, > are created by small web-design firms, and those of us in the > technology industry have the ability to influence those firms. > > By the way, Flash is NOT an alternative to Quicktime, WMV, or Real. > Flash files are vector images drawn (as by a cartoonist) using a > Macromedia tool. When you see "real" movies in a Flash site, it's the > Flash player calling-out to the Windows Media Player DLL's (Quicktime > libraries on Mac) to play an embedded WMV, MPEG, or AVI file. The > open option for streaming media is OGG, Vorbis, and Theora. The open > option for rich-multimedia websites is SVG. Note also, OGG (which is > a container, not a codec), Vorbis, and Theora are supported in most > media players in Windows, Mac, and Linux, so site creators lose > nothing by using them, and gain quite a bit in terms of the freedom to > run their site according to their own preferences. There are other > open codecs available for streaming media, and many sites actually do > use these, but the only ones, AFAIK, guaranteed to be free of patent > are Vorbis and Theora. > > ==Joseph++ > > P.S. There aren't any free (beer or speech) tools for Flash work, > Macromedia won't license that, but there are free(beer and speech) > tools for SVG, they just need a bit more work to meet the full set of > market requirements, and in the meantime, the proprietary tools for > SVG work are a LOT cheaper than Macromedia's Flash tools. > > Don Calfa wrote: > > What's wrong with a closed format for multimedia? If the company > > goes out of business, someone else will take it's place. At least > > we have a few de-facto players and not a player from each multimedia > > house. Imagine what a mess that would be! A WB player, a Paramount > > player, a Dreamworks player, a Sony Player, a Fox player, Lions Gate > > player, etc... > > > > People want 'pretty' sites and flash accomplishes that. Deveopers > > like flash because it's write once, and placement is exact on all > > platforms. People with money pay for 'pretty' sites because people > > like pretty sites and that's over 80% of the web population. There > > is no solution available for a devopler to write a pretty multimedia > > site in an open format because none exist. I wish it did. So for > > now, we're stuck for wishing for proprietary players for Linux. > > > > As harsh as this sounds, business owners who want a multimedia site > > really don't care about the 30% global population they're missing. > > They see a computer purchase as an appliance so everybody must have > > a computer just like them because Fry's has 2 aisles of the same > > type of computer, Best Buy has 3 aisles, Circuit City has a corner > > of the store dedicated to 'computer' purchases, Dell has a ton of > > commercials so there must be something there. IE is just a web > > browser (to them, not a doorway for exploits as it is to us) and it > > plays flash out of the box so if they pay for a site to be > > developed, it really only has to work on their system and it work > > for everyone else. It's up to the developer to convince the owner > > of better formats. > > > > Your next savvy owner who wants streaming media will be aware of > > Quicktime, Real, and WMV. The owner with the Home Theatre system > > will most likely go with quality and choose Quicktime over WMV. > > Really from waht I've seen, the only reason people pick WMV is that > > the server admin is a MS fan and think's it's cool or the owner is > > hoodwinked by the MS propganda. What pray tell is the alternative > > to any of those players? Flash. > > > > There isn't a developer tool that is free (beer or speech) that can > > handle the demand for today's multimedia needs. > > > > > > Joseph Sinclair wrote: > > > > > ARGHHH! > > > > > > Sorry, had to do that ;). > > > > > > Flash is a binary, proprietary, closed (mostly), non-free format > > > with > > > the only player that generally works being non-free software. > > > About > > > half the Linux world cannot (easily) install Flash (including me). > > > There are no guarantees that Flash players will be easily > > > available in > > > the future. Flash is not accessible to persons with disabilities > > > (the > > > open alternative, SVG, is). Flash is susceptible to several very > > > nasty > > > exploits, and there's no effective way to filter those out without > > > removing all Flash (SVG is readable by scanners, so exploits could > > > be > > > filtered without eliminating all content, and the code is > > > viewable, so > > > it's hard to hide what's being done). If you want "pretty" and > > > interactive sites, you'll have to deal with Flash for now, but let > > > the > > > site owners know that you would much prefer SVG content, and cheer > > > on > > > the Mozilla developers working to bring SVG to Firefox 1.1. > > > > > > I agree that Quicktime, Real, and WMV formats are problems. But > > > the > > > better solution is to demand open formats (like OGG containers and > > > Vorbis sound with Theora video), not ask for a different > > > proprietary format. > > > > > > The flash file extension is .SWF for "ShockWave Flash", Flash was > > > originally a faster, lighter, simpler ShockWave format that ended > > > up > > > replacing it's "parent" (as Don states below). > > > > > > There are several other options for multimedia on Linux besides > > > MPlayer, > > > they just don't handle proprietary formats. Again, the better > > > solution > > > is to let the website operators know that they are alienating just > > > over > > > 30% of the global population by using these formats, and they > > > should > > > look into open formats as a means to grow their base market. > > > Pointing > > > out that the open formats work better on the new Firefox browser > > > they > > > keep hearing about won't hurt either. > > > > > > Just my little rant about multimedia on the net. > > > > > > ==Joseph++ > > > > > > Don Calfa wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Flash is authored with Macromedia Flash > > > > Shockwave is authored with Macromedia Director. > > > > Director and Authorware is authored with Macromedia Director and > > > > Authorware. > > > > > > > > Director hasn't had a new player in about 4-5 years. > > > > Most of what makes Shockwave different from Flash has been > > > > incorporated into the more recent Flash releases since the flash > > > > player is so light weight. > > > > Flash 7 is more like Shockwave than Flash 5. > > > > > > > > The older shockwave files aren't backwards compatible with the > > > > newer > > > > flash players unless the original content provider does an > > > > upgrade > > > > which is highly unlikely > > > > > > > > I wish: > > > > > > > > Apple would release a 'certified' Quicktime player/plugin for > > > > Linux > > > > Flash become the de-facto standard for streaming media. > > > > > > > > Although _we_ can get mplayer to work, all it is is really a > > > > hack and > > > > it'll never make it mainstream because of licensing. > > > > Flash and Real are the only alternatives for mainstream > > > > multimedia for > > > > Linux at the moment and Flash is pretty consistent. > > > > > > > > Glitch wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well just for my two cents when I click on the file using > > > > > Firefox 1.0 > > > > > under win2k it says that it is a shockwave flash Object and > > > > > wants to > > > > > use a shockwave player to access it... But I don't know if > > > > > that makes > > > > > it a shockwave file or not. > > > > > > > > > > On 4/19/05, Bryan.ONeal@asu.edu wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, at least I was not the only one who was thinking > > > > > > shockwave > > > > > > when I saw > > > > > > .swf Though it makes me wounder more why the did not work > > > > > > on my > > > > > > FC2 box but > > > > > > some flash sites did... > > > > > > > > > > > > Sigh, it is times like this I am glad to say, what do I know > > > > > > I'm > > > > > > just an > > > > > > accountant ;) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------- > > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us > > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings: > > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > > --------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings: http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss