Not yet, but it looks like it'll be passed by the DVD Forum, which means that all hardware manufacturers who want to promote HD-DVD will have to pay licensing fees to Microsoft:

http://www.videobusiness.com/article...D=7104&catID=0

Could this be the straw that breaks the DVD Forum? Will hardware manufacturers start to go Blu-Ray only (since the Blu-Ray Group told MS to go pound sand)?

The format wars may have taken their first casualty!

Great, so I can look forward to my future DVD player Blue Screening (Maybe they will call it Blu-Screen)

Guess there are going to be 3 new buttons on the new remotes: Alt, Ctrl, and Delete

why oh why? I do not want a stupid sony marketing crap called blu-ray forced on me because the dvd-forum was stupid and forced AOD (HD-DVD) manufacturers to use wmv9.
btw, can you post the whole article as I don't like site that force you to register for their free content

The codec seems nice enough. Why are people throwing a fuss over a codec. It is not as if the dvd player will be running a windows embedded os.

Better to support WM9 and Microsoft than to stay with an inferior codec (MPEG2) and support a company like Sony.

One issue here is that anyone who wants to manufacture a DVD player will have to pay money to MS because the codec is required. This is unlike MP3 support, for instance, where one manufacturer can decide whether or not to include it as an added feature.

Manufacturers will possibly balk at this, deciding to build Blu-Ray players because they don't have to support the codec and pay money to MS. This sets off a chain reaction, much like VHS vs. Beta: if I'm a studio and there are 10 Blu-Ray players on the market, I'm going to create media for the Blu-Ray, and eventually the other formats will die.

All speculation.

all this blue screen talk is ridiculous. you guys think you are funny or something?

The DVD manufacturers currently pay licensing fees to MPEG, I don't see how this is any different.

As a network administrator with more than 70 servers, I can't remember the last time a server running Win2K "blue screened"

If Microsoft found the cure for AIDS the nerds would still find something to bitch about.

I really wonder if MS paid someone off to get the vote their way.

The HD-DVD market does not need to be in the hands of MS, look at all the companies they have put out of business through shadey deals, and if they get caught all they have to do is offer discounts for their products or give their products to schools - boths ways become a win win for MS.

All I can say really is "intresting" I want to wait and see how it all turns out :P

I hadn't intended for my initial post to seem like Microsoft bashing - I mean, they want to get into the DVD business - and who can blame them?

I'm just speculating that the DVD Forum may be shooting themselves in the foot - first they choose an inferiour format for HD-DVD - now they're getting into bed with a THIRD format, WMV, which will what, compete with HD-DVD? Be an alternate encoding format for official "HD-DVD" discs? Something else entirely?

If hardware manufacturers balk, that'll severely undercut the DVD Forum's authority - their future decisions will be meaningless.

If it's accepted, then it just cements their ownership of DVD for another decade or so.

It's just interesting to follow the emerging format wars.

I think part of the point is that HD-DVD is supposed to use a mpeg4 codec (has it been finally decided which one?) and I think wmv9 is just in addition (probably for the few wmv-hd dvd's out there) - hence they will have to pay licencing fees for 2 codecs instead of just 1 (blu-crap-ray). This is at least the way I understand this and the reason why I don't like it

and seriously the MS bashing is really getting not funny these days

Doesn't Sony get a cut out of each DVD pressed out there? I myself could do without contributing to the Sony empire, but I do it anyways. That is life.

Which shady deals are those?

In the end, most people probably won't even notice/care. No big deal to me.

They didn't have to. WM9 is a superior codec, and the technology won out.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...m/HDVideo.aspx

If you haven't checked out a WM9 Hi-Def video, I urge you to try. WM9 can produces higher quality video at lower bitrates than MPEG2. I am glad it will be included- allowing the software producers to pick their own codecs is a good thing.

Yes, they do.

And they will bend over backwards to remind us all of it at every turn of a thread.

If Microsoft found the cure for AIDS it would cause cancer and impotence and only work "most" of the time

P.S. AIDS is easily avoided by behavioral changes.

Yeah, like not getting a blood transfusion when you are dying on an operating table.

Sheesh.

I think you lack a fundamental understanding of the issue. You are confusing codecs with the underlying technology. Winamp can play MP3 files, but it can also play a ton of other formats. When I originally posted this same story last week, I said the DVD Forum granted provisional approval for 3 (count them, 3) mandatory codecs on all HD-DVD playback devices. Those codecs are Windows Media 9, MPEG-4, and MPEG-2. This means all HD-DVD players will actually play discs encoded with any of these codecs. How is that inferior to Blu-ray?

It's clear to me you are a die-hard Blu-ray person, but just like most Blu-ray supporters - you don't understand the issue enough to make an informed decision. I have no problem with you supporting Sony and Blu-ray, but I do have a problem with you posting false information on this forum. It's almost as bad as Sony allegedly impeding the technological progress of the DVD Forum and HD-DVD technology in order to get a head-start on the market.

As far as DVD Forum going with Windows Media 9, it was the obvious choice (see Eric F's post above). Kudos to Microsoft for stripping the codec of its proprietary status. As bad as Sony wants to control the market and have their hands in everything, they simply jumped the gun on this format and were stuck with the MPEG-2 codec. It's no wonder the DVD Forum passed on Blu-ray.

No, I understand the issue - but your condescending attitude is noted.

Again, I'll suggest that you actually READ my posts before you reply to them, since some of the points that you "correct" are actually just re-wordings of things that I've posted here and in other threads. If you're going to steal someone else's ideas and pass them off as your own, at least try to pass them off to someone other than from whom you stole them.

My point, which you failed to grasp yet again, is that while an HD-DVD player may be able to play multiple codecs, what does this mean for software vendors? Will some vendors make discs using one codec and others use another? Will it be a DD/DTS type of issue where one technology proves to be better than the other in some ways and not as good in others, so that discs will be released using two separate codecs but with different special features because one takes up more disc space than the other?

These are the issues at hand, here, and are a problem not for the Blu-Ray Group (who has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion - why do you keep bringing them up?) but for the DVD Forum and manufacturers who want to make HD-DVD discs.

And yes, I'm aware that hardware vendors already pay a licencing fee to the MPEG group - but now they're going to have to pay TWO of those, plus a WMV licence. How many more codecs will the HD-DVD devices be required to play? How much in the way of licencing fees will hardware vendors pay before it's not worth their while to make machines for the convoluted market - especially when there may be one or two more viable options already available to them?

Three licencing fees instead of one - three compression formats from which to choose - three different ways to fail. The DVD Forum seems to be hedging its bets - trying not to make the wrong decision so they don't make any decisions at all - just throw everything in there.

Why in the world would that be clear to you? This is a thread about WMV and the DVD Forum. Please don't bring your personal politics and threadcrap.

While Blu-Ray has more going for it than HD-DVD does, both formats are still lacking. They're planning for the future of home video using technology that is already dated and near obsolecence. When HD-DVD hits its stride (say, 5 years from now, as a conservative estimate) it'll already be yesterday's news.

The DVD Forum passed on AOD (now called "HD-DVD") at first too. They hurried it through ratification because they didn't want to lag behind the Blu-Ray Group.

Huh?It just means they will have a choice in deciding which codec to use. They won't have to pay double or triple licensing fees. If they use WM9, they pay a license fee. If not, they don't. It's simple. Is that what you're concerned about?

A quote from CNET:
"The draw for Microsoft, and likely many others, is the potential money from royalties to be made if one codec becomes ubiquitous in the industry. Companies in industries such as consumer electronics and satellite communications pay license fees to patent holders each time they use a specific compression technology."

SHEESH your self! If it is scheduled surgery you can store your own blood as well as that of family members. If it is emergency surgery the odds are still lotto low and are outweighed by more threatening issues like infections and surgical complications. Even then the blood would most likely be tainted by someone who got it through their idiotic behavior. Don't share needles, stop humping around. AIDS unlike Microsoft Media Player is not an epidemic. It could be completely eradicated by changes in mentality. If the only cases of AIDS were from transfusions it would not long be a health issue.

BTW I was only defending a MS basher, for fun. I did not mean to hijack the thread into an AIDS awareness meeting. I really dont care who controls the HDDVD format as long as it comes cheap and soon.