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 <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