[M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article - Codecs and Players potential end user perspective

[Martin Jacklin]

Hi Shawn
Argh sorry. You asked so now I'm starting to get into my individual user
preferences and a whole other area than licensing
I like and enjoy Real One. The video control is better than my integrated XP
WM8 player (whose media management abilities are nicer) and of course it's
for ram and rm files. I have as many players as I can find. Can you send me
yours? I volunteer for beta testing it with Zone Alarm.
Just personally, I trust QT, I have 5.0 not pro, but maybe I wanted QT 6 Pro
with MPEG-4. I have not yet heard of any spyware capabilities in QT (yet),
like the stories you find at www.gibsonresearch.com and elsewhere, nor do I
think Apple has such motives. I may be wrong, also maybe I'm the only one
who cares about my video privacy. I don't look forward to bathing in
advertising and cookies.
Times I guess I just feel MS has too many customers either to want to spy or
to sell information on them. But I am often and easily wrong. I look forward
to dissecting my discuss.lists.mpeg.org corpse tomorrow. (It's now 3.00 am)
Good night.
/\/\
In independent consultant, research mode...
-----Original Message-----
From: Shawn AMBWANI [mailto:shawn   email.envivio.com]
Sent: 09 March 2024 03:44
To: mjacklin   geneva-link.ch
Cc: discuss   lists.m4if.org; 'Kevin Marks'
Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article
Martin,
Why wait for Apple's QT 6 to be released when RealOne and Real 8 for the
PC now has full ISMA MPEG-4 support as well as several advanced video
and systems features not available in QT6.
Regards,
Shawn
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-admin   lists.m4if.org
> [mailto:discuss-admin   lists.m4if.org] On Behalf Of Martin Jacklin
> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2024 6:32 PM
> To: Kevin Marks
> Cc: discuss   lists.m4if.org
> Subject: RE: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article
>
>
> Jeez I wish I could download QT6. I hear there's a little
> problem with availability. I was thinking of available
> codecs, that don't explicitly conform.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kevin Marks [mailto:kmarks   apple.com]
> > Sent: 09 March 2024 02:49
> > To: mjacklin   geneva-link.ch
> > Cc: discuss   lists.m4if.org
> > Subject: Re: [M4IF Discuss] Slashdot discussion of Salon article
> >
> >
> >
> > On Friday, March 8, 2002, at 03:35 PM, Martin Jacklin wrote:
> >
> > > I might add:
> > >
> > > I heard the news that the Advanced Video Coding (AVC)
> group in DVB
> > > are talking about integrating JVT, which they call
> "MPEG-4 v3" into
> > > "ETSI TR 101 154" - their main MPEG implementation guidelines
> > > document. This was said by
> > > Ken McCann of Zetacast (who is the chairman of that
> group) in Dublin on
> > > the
> > > 7th March.
> > >
> > > MPEG-4 offers more stable periodic and more massive codec
> upgrades,
> > > and stays open and doesn't bundle stuff you don't need,
> like DRM and
> > > proprietary codec revision cycles which you will later need to
> > > follow closely for it to
> > > work. With MPEG-4 you can take what you want.
> >
> > More than what? You didn't say what you are comparing too.
> >
> > QT fits your description above better than MPEG4 does at
> the moment.
> > QT movies from 10 years ago still play in current QT, but
> newer codecs
> > can be added and selectively downloaded. This is all shipping today.
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss   lists.m4if.org http://lists.m4if.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>