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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 donât have to buy an apple product to play the > > content you purchased. We arenât 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. Iâd 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 Iâm trying to stress this. Donât overlook the > > forest for the trees. Your quote of âeveryone thatâs using > mpeg4 or > > h264 in a standard > > wayâ 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? Itâs 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 donât > > make it better for the end user and donât 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
