WHAT?? Another new format?? Toshiba unveils another Blu-ray 'Killer'

[bayme]

If I'd be into new hardware design, production and sales, I'd build a video/audio player that can encode and decode using the x264 codec for video, and Ogg Vorbis, mp3 and maybe AAC encode and decode options on board for audio.
Playable from some solid state drives, or a couple of 3.5" HDDs, and all internal firmware, its entire OS and codec-base should be open source and upgradeable, so you can always have the best x264 version etc.

I don't understand why those hardware-companies seem to avoid open-source software for their video/audio encoding/decoding. Would have a lot more staying power, and a much wider audience if they'd just make it entirely open-source/GNU/FSF based systems.

[DereX888]

If I'd be into new hardware design, production and sales, I'd build a video/audio player that can encode and decode using the x264 codec for video, and Ogg Vorbis, mp3 and maybe AAC encode and decode options on board for audio.
Playable from some solid state drives, or a couple of 3.5" HDDs, and all internal firmware, its entire OS and codec-base should be open source and upgradeable, so you can always have the best x264 version etc.

I don't understand why those hardware-companies seem to avoid open-source software for their video/audio encoding/decoding. Would have a lot more staying power, and a much wider audience if they'd just make it entirely open-source/GNU/FSF based systems.

Even for a dumb machine (with any simplest OS running the standalone player) it will be very difficult to design it that way (to have freely "installable" or "upgradeable" codecs, but it sure is possible).
Making them able to playback x264 certainly will require cranking up "horsepowers" of their decoder chipsets.
It might be cost-prohibitive as of now, unless it would become a mass-produced standard.
And I don't even know if there are any chipsets capable of decoding h264/x264?

But yes, I'm with you - certainly FLAC, as well as OGG should have been any players' standard feature, same as MPEG-4 and MP3 playback capability is de facto a 'standard' feature of all currently made players (with maybe very very few exceptions).

Stupid music studios only complaint for past 10 years about their CD sales drop and worldwide piracy, waste *our* public money and human resources to "protect" the old status quo, yet they still don't release i.e. any data CD or DVD discs (CD-ROMs or DVD-ROMs) containing i.e. entire discographies of at least the most popular composers or bands etc in FLAC or any other lossless codec... or even in any popular lossy formats like MP3, it still didn't occur to them that there *is* a market for such shit (as i.e. apple store's success proved long ago, or the flood of those Czech-made cheap -but high quality- SACD discs in past few years, which by itself is not even any popular nor common format)... nah, they only know CDDAs and nothing else, like it were still 1984 (pun intended )
I could bet here & now, that not even one of all the current studio execs, as of today, have any slightest clue what i.e. "FLAC" is

[PuzZLeR]

I don't understand why those hardware-companies seem to avoid open-source software for their video/audio encoding/decoding. Would have a lot more staying power, and a much wider audience if they'd just make it entirely open-source/GNU/FSF based systems.

Why oh why do people mix these? OSS is not consumer-ware. OSS is not professional-ware. Consumer-ware is not professional-ware. All are in their very own category.

Without going into details, and to keep the idea as simple as possible: if it's not an "open standard", then a company-for-profit can't use it to make profit. This is why. To "sell" something is a different science and you can't "sell" something that is "given" free. You can "sell" on an "open standard" but not a "given" or "deliverable" product. This also has effects up the supply chain as well in that what you sell to an end-user consumer is not the same as what you sell a company or a reseller.

Of course, misunderstandings like these then create protesters, like DereX888, who dislike a company for not giving out its products free due to these expectations.

[DereX888]

Of course, misunderstandings like these then create protesters, like DereX888, who dislike a company for not giving out its products free due to these expectations.

I have nothing against companies like Sony making money of off their inventions, i.e. their ATRAC compression and their MiniDiscs were IMHO really revolutionary in the middle of 90's and they should've become standard back then the way MP3 is today... but we all know it didn't and why it didn't (which is a different greed-related story).
I do have everything against companies like Sony or Apple selling their products *crippled* in any proprietary form (like Sony dvd-players that couldn't play burnt discs, portable Apple players that won't allow user to use source or format of their own choice - even when device is perfectly capable of it - and so on). Profit does drive the progress and there is nothing wrong with companies making profits (thus *we* can make money too), but cartels like Sony often go too far in their profit-seeking ways and they simply hamper the progress while becoming market bullies, which is dangerous for us the consumers - for once because cartels like Sony are international animals and they have more influence on the market than entire countries.
You call me "protester" - fine, say whatever you want, I doesn't bother me at all, I just hope people like you do understand that turning a blind eye on what is going around yous still won't spare you from troubles like price gouging, unfair market practices etc (all sort of market dictatorships) such as Sony cartel, because it cost you as much as it cost "protesters" alike.
Ignorance is a bliss, as someone smart said it

[satviewer2000]

The only device that would fit your requirements would be a HTPC. It is driven by software and has upgradeable hardware, so it would not become obsolete anytime soon. And of course it could be updated to run any new video/audio codecs (eg. x264, H.264, etc).

You can see that a retail HTPC (eg. HP) are in the $2000+ range. No company would be able to sell a media player to "Joe Average" at that price range. There are also multiple copyright issues large companies have to contend with otherwise they would open themselves up to mega-lawsuits.

BTW, there are chipsets (eg. Sigma) and devices coming to market which can decode H.264 & x264 directly (eg. TVIX, Tomacro, etc) but they also have numerous bugs & limitations. There is no perfect media player, and likely never will be, simply because codecs evolve so rapidly that it would not be economical for any company to put the manpower into keeping up with the latest codecs. The only definitive solution is a HTPC, which is essentially a souped up computer.

[SatStorm]

Players is not the problem.
The problem is the "standard". H264 need more than simply playback support
Authoring. That is what make something standard.

IMO what we discuss here is the SVCD of 2008. SVCD came after DVD and serve us well for some years. Still do occasionally (as VCD).

Now imagine something called SDVD. Something with less framesize than BD but the same vertical resolution, etc. Playable on some DVDs. New DVDs. Yeah, I see a market for something like that. I also see a boost on DVD player sales once again!

I wish to see something like that. Really.

[bayme]

Even for a dumb machine (with any simplest OS running the standalone player) it will be very difficult to design it that way (to have freely "installable" or "upgradeable" codecs, but it sure is possible).

I own, use and modify software for the iRiver iHP140 since february 2004, mine is now equipped with rockbox firmware including my own modifications to it: http://download.rockbox.org/manual/rockbox-h100/rockbox-build.html
and let me assure you; The only limits are imposed by what the processor and internal RAM can handle. If you leave your OS-code open, you'll have a hard time convincing me of the impossibility of such options. In fact, it's quite easy. Manufacturers seem to be scared to open their code, because the general misconception is that this prevents them from making money on their hardware, which to me is very strange. They would serve a different audience with such players, but definitely not sell less.

[DereX888]

Even for a dumb machine (with any simplest OS running the standalone player) it will be very difficult to design it that way (to have freely "installable" or "upgradeable" codecs, but it sure is possible).

I own, use and modify software for the iRiver iHP140 since february 2004, mine is now equipped with rockbox firmware including my own modifications to it: http://download.rockbox.org/manual/rockbox-h100/rockbox-build.html
and let me assure you; The only limits are imposed by what the processor and internal RAM can handle. If you leave your OS-code open, you'll have a hard time convincing me of the impossibility of such options. In fact, it's quite easy. Manufacturers seem to be scared to open their code, because the general misconception is that this prevents them from making money on their hardware, which to me is very strange. They would serve a different audience with such players, but definitely not sell less.

I had iRiver portable CD player once long time ago, which I modified its firmware too, but it has nothing to do with what I wrote and which you took out of the context. I bought back then *exactly* for its "upgradable feature" AFAIR (and a built-in simple game LOL).
iRiver products were (and maybe still are) one of its kind, with very few distant competitors (actually only HK/Asian older "City" brand players come to my mind ATM).
Majority of manufacturers don't even include flashable eeprom on their products, so regardless of their firmware/mini-OS that might be perfectly "upgradeable", you still can't upgrade them - short of flashing and soldering on your own cooked chip. iRiver players were (are?) exception, which you should know already. You can't change anything almost on anything, can you? Try to do it with i.e. ipods or sony players and force them to play something more than what Steve-o-Jobs permitted, then post here again

Players is not the problem.
The problem is the "standard". H264 need more than simply playback support
Authoring. That is what make something standard.

IMO what we discuss here is the SVCD of 2008. SVCD came after DVD and serve us well for some years. Still do occasionally (as VCD).

Now imagine something called SDVD. Something with less framesize than BD but the same vertical resolution, etc. Playable on some DVDs. New DVDs. Yeah, I see a market for something like that. I also see a boost on DVD player sales once again!

I wish to see something like that. Really.

Can't agree more.
DVD-9 discs with a "SDVD" video could have been tempting But once the writable BR discs and writers' prices drop-down, and some affordable and easy for home user BR authoring tools appear on the market - it'll be a different story.
DVD writables didn't caught on for few years either, not until their media and writer prices dropped down significantly, as well until sleuth of easy authoring programs appeared on the market.
Its up to Sony will BD become ubiquitus and stay here for years to come, or will it become another MD failure...

[Ai Haibara]

Huh? It's been possible to install Rockbox (see http://www.rockbox.org/ for the list of the players they support) or iPodLinux (maybe others) on an iPod for quite some time. So, you can play other formats to your heart's content on an iPod, if that's what you want.

[DereX888]

Huh? It's been possible to install Rockbox (see http://www.rockbox.org/ for the list of the players they support) or iPodLinux (maybe others) on an iPod for quite some time. So, you can play other formats to your heart's content on an iPod, if that's what you want.

OK, thanks for the tip (although I'm not an ipod user)