Throughout recent history, every time a new line of electronic products are released, they don't really take off and become mainstream until they find their "killer app." Usually some form of content that you can only experience through this new medium, although not always a type of entertainment. Back in the 1980s the spreadsheet was supposedly the killer app for the PC, and it was for many businesses. However, the PC did not find it's true killer app for home use until the world first experienced the world wide web. In the late 1990s the DVD format was taking off very slowly until the Matrix came out. After that, anyone and everyone had a DVD player, and you almost always found a copy of the Matrix on DVD in their collection. Now of course, once that killer app has been found and had time to thoroughly saturate the market, the technology becomes common place and then the killer app is no longer essential even though it once was. It is said that Nirvana's "Nevermind" was the killer app for the CD player. Apple's computer have been mildly popular for decades, but it doesn't seem they really started taking off till they found their killer app in the iPod. And if we want to take the concept way back, there was the Christian Bible for books made from a printing press. Yet as important as all these were, I'm more interested in games for this little rambling session.
I'm not really sure what the killer app for the Atari was, I guess it was a little before my time. That and I've still yet to hear a definitive answer. Some would try to argue Pong or the awful port of PacMan that was released for it, but I'm still not so sure from the mixed reports I've heard. When the Nintendo Entertainment System dropped in on the USA in 1985, it came preloaded with it's killer app: Super Mario Bros. Sure there were many other important titles in that generation, but Mario made the NES and the game industry what it is today. Mario 1 (as some like to call it, even though not the most accurate title nor number), was a must have game. When someone talked about wanting to get a NES, it was a safe assumption that they wanted this game. Even though many other classic NES games may not be in the same genre or anything, Mario set the tone for that generation. And not only that, but Nintendo included it with your system by default. This was pure genius. They did the same thing with the GameBoy a few years later. Tetris, did not always come with a new GB when you bought it, but it often did, and it was certainly the killer app that got that handheld system rolling.
As we go into the 16-bit generation things aren't quite as clear. I would say that Sonic the Hedgehog, along with its subsequent sequels were the killer app for the Sega Genesis. However, it could also be argued that Mortal Kombat was the killer app when it came to the Genesis with all it's gore and fatalities fully intact, as while the SNES had a bloodless, neutered version for it's home users. The Super NES would be pretty clearly marked for Super Mario World this time around (once again included by default when you purchased a new system).
As the game industry began to transition into 3D games with the so-called 32-bit era, the Sega Saturn never seemed to find it's killer app, at least not with American audiences (which of course I'm more familiar with being that I live here). The new player in the console biz at the time, Sony, with it's PlayStation would not really take off until the release of Final Fantasy 7. Sure in the scope of things, the Madden football series would easily out weight the FFs in sales numbers, but FF7 was the one for most people to make them say, "I've got to have one of these." The Nintendo64 would come out a year later than the other two with Super Mario 64 included by default as Nintendo tried to make it 3 for 3. Unfortunately as innovative as Mario64 was, it just didn't have the same fun factor as its 2D predecessors. The N64 would not find it's killer app until a couple years later with The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time was released for it. Zelda had always been an extremely popular game on prior Nintendo systems, but this time it got to take the spotlight away from the long running front runner Mario.
As the next generation came about, Sega would release their very last console, The Dreamcast. Sadly, just as with the Saturn in the prior generation, the DC would never truly find its own killer app, or at least not in time. Sonic's transition into three dimensions was even more coldly received than Mario's had been in the last gen. Innovative and quirky games like Jet Set Radio would make small dents as well, but not enough to really matter. Sega's greatest attempt would be the epic release of the Shenmue series. At the time it was the most expensive game ever made with an unheard of 5 years in development. Once again the series would surprisingly fall flat. It's sequel, Shenmue 2, would not even receive an American release as the first one had sold so poorly here. Twice in a row Sega had failed to find their killer app and it was too late to try and continue.
Oddly enough, when the PlayStation 2 was released, it became an instant hit even with no killer app. In this generation, the PlayStation brand name would be all the killer app Sony needed to crush it's competition a second time around. However, even with such a strong fan base, the PS2 would eventually need a real game to hold the crown and almost two years later it would find it with Grand Theft Auto 3. GTA3 would be the system seller, even though oddly once again, the PS2's sales numbers had already marked it as a success with no really worthwhile games to show for it. For Japanese consumers, many of it's initial purchasers bought it for its cheap DVD player functionality and would not buy an actual game for it for some time.
Microsoft would now make it's first attempt into the console gaming realm with the Xbox, and quickly found its killer app in Halo. Halo and it's sequel, Halo 2 would become the best selling games to that time, but still would not be enough to take the PS2's crown. In fact even with record breaking sales numbers for the Halo series, the Xbox would barely sell any systems at all in Japan.
Lastly Nintendo would try to regain the supremacy it once had with the GameCube. However, this would mark the first time that Nintendo did not include a Mario game with it's system at launch. Sure, there was Mario Sunshine available at launch, but it was not actually included with the system as were its predecessors. Not only that, but the sales of Mario Sunshine would be almost as abysmal as the Xbox's sales in Japan. Mario had lost his magic touch and was no longer even remotely considerable as a killer app. Next Nintendo would attempt to bring their last gen champion in, but The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker would have fairly mediocre sales as well. In the end, Super Smash Bros: Melee would be the closest thing to a killer app for the GameCube, but it would be hard to call it a system seller.
Now with the history behind us, let's look at the new generation of systems. First up is the Xbox 360. Released in the fall of 2005, almost a year and a half later there is still no killer app. Yes, Gears of War was immensely successful and has already out sold both Halo and Halo 2, numbers wise. Yet, it still does not seem to be strong enough a title to be the system selling killer app MS needs. In Japan, MS was hoping that the recently released Blue Dragon would become the killer app there. However, even though the title drove Xbox 360 sales well over the combined sales of the first system, it still has a pretty weak market share there.
The PlayStation3, although just released about 4 months ago, does not seem to be doing so well. Sony had hoped its built-in BluRay player capabilities would be its killer app, but unlike with DVD in the prior generation, BluRay has yet to become a proven format. As it appears its brand name will not be enough to drive the system's sales this go 'round, Sony needs a killer app and soon if it doesn't want to go the way of Sega. Sadly for them, there do not seem to be any upcoming games that appear like they will be able to do the trick any time soon.
And finally there is Nintendo's Wii. It seems after two generations of failure, Nintendo may be poised to take back their old spot at the top. However, the Wii is in an odd situation itself. The Wii is already immensely popular even with those who do not traditionally play videogames, yet it like the PS2 before it, does not seem to have any one game ready to become its killer app. Nintendo's latest iteration in the Zelda series seems popular enough, but it's still no killer app. And its tacked on Wii-mote functionality is not enough to push it to system seller status since you can have almost the same gaming experience from the GameCube version. No, what's selling the systems is the revolutionary Wii-mote itself. There are lots of games that show off its potential, but it still appears it might be a while before any developers actually realize its full potential. Yet that potential, along with the simple yet fun WiiSports package that comes with ever Wii sold seem to be enough to keep gamers guzzling down the machines just as quickly as Nintendo can produce them. Yet just like the PS2 again, it will eventually need an actual game to take over as its killer app. If and when that happens is still unknown, and some fear that if it doesn't happen before this Christmas Nintendo may find them with a few million disappointed and angry Wii owners.
Now, of course it's no secret I have my own console aspirations for this generation and potentially the next, but I realize that no matter how novel the open console format may be, it'll take an exclusive killer app to make it really happen.
Interestingly enough, I'd like to finish up by discussing HD-DVD, BluRay and HDTV in general. HDTV and HD formats are inevitable and have slowly filtered into US homes. However, they don't seem to be just exploding, nor is there any clear victor in the HD disc wars. This, once again is because there's still yet to be any HD killer app. There is no movie, TV show or videogame that's making consumers say "I've got to have one." What will it be? Who knows.... but it's bound to be only a matter of time, and I don't know about you but I can't wait to experience it ;)
2007-03-11
2006-11-22
Internet Video (youtube and beyond)
So I just read an interesting article over at Wired about YouTube/Google trying to figure out just how to adapt their current systems to allow for advertising, how to handle it, and what to do with the profits.
It's a very interesting topic. I've also questioned just how sites like YouTube were able to make any money off their service...I don't think I've ever noticed a single add on their site, and certainly not on embedded YouTube videos found on other sites... Looking at YouTube now, I notice there are banner ads above the videos now, though I could swear those haven't always been there. Double checking with GoogleVideo (youTube's new owner for those who've been living under rocks), there are still no ads to be see that I can find.
Even though the vast majority content found on these, and similar sites are given to them at zero charge, bandwidth and server space isn't cheap. Neither is your IT, development and maintenance crews. In the case of Google, they've obviously got plenty of money, but up until their recent purchase, was YouTube really capable of supporting the millions upon millions of hits they recieved each day off of simple banner ads?
The major advertising industry wants in. They know that traditional TV is a sinking ship and it's only a matter of time before it all but completely dies. The question on everyone's minds, apparently, is how to ad advertisements to services like YouTube without ruining the user experience that's made it so popular. I've got a couple ideas...as per usual ;)
One idea discussed in the article is either putting ads at the beginning or end of the videos. Apparently it's widely accepted that pre-ads are a bad idea and no one likes them. The problem with post-ads is that there's a very likely chance the user will just stop the video after it's complete and not watch the ad following. Sites such as iFilm and GameSpot have been putting pre-ads before their free videos, and personally, I've never really minded them so much. The only time they really were ever annoying was when I would go to watch 10 different videos and all of them had the exact same ad, or sometimes sites will have poorly written playlists that play the pre-ad, but then stop and never play the actual video....now that's annoying! However as most of the new video sites are all flash powered, I don't think the latter problem will come up too often any more.
As YouTube thrives on having their videos embedded into numerous other sites, the ads that surround their video rarely get seen...although they do have kind of a tricky system where if you want to full screen the video you have to click the embedded video which takes you to the main youTube site, and then there's a couple seconds where you ...might... accidentally glance at an add before you can hit that full screen button. Along with those industrious few of us who take the time to view the pages' source and just put the direct *.swf in our address bar, Adobe is apparently planning on adding a built in, real, fullscreen feature in the next release of Flash... so there goes that...and really, that was kind of under handed I think, to begin with....if it was intentional.
Google Video has attempted many other things, such as having a pay-only digital distribution service for certain videos...and potentially that could make a little money, if anyone ever actually used it. Another feature, many of the major videogame sites use is to allow free, low bandwidth/quality streaming and then require a paid subscription to see the high quality videos. All of this brings up many questions of owner ship, especially when subjects such as DRM get brought into the equation. Is the customer merely renting these videos, or are they actually buying a copy of them. Sure Google's proprietary, DRM-ified version of VLC they ship will let you want purchased videos any time you want, but will those videos transfer to your other machines? Can you watch it under Linux? On your video iPod? no... Sure, they could strictly offer download only services, but high quality standard definition video can take quite a while to download even with a decent broadband connection....just imagine how long it would take to have to redownload/stream every HD video you bought from them... It's not feasable.
This also brings up another issue... I've never posted anything to YouTube myself, so I don't know the specifics, but it would appear they have a limit on resolution and bitrate your video can be posted in, who knows they may do all the transcoding for you automagically. Would a site like YouTube benefit from offering higher quality videos to paid subscribers like the gaming site do? Would it perhaps be considered kosher for them to offer ad-less low quality videos, but have high quality version that have both pre and post ads tacked on? I personally would be fine with that last option. As long as the ads are 30 seconds or less, I could really care less myself. And I think most would probably agree.
There's one more option out there, and that's basically virtual channels. Basically a never ending playlist that would more closely represent traditional TV channels. Basically what you would do is have users or some algorithm group similar videos in a channel. A use could either watch a specific video or just hit random video for that channel, then you would automatically go on to watch another video from that channel after that one finished, and then another and so on. Then random ads could be placed between every so many videos. The closest thing to this idea I've ever seen was the old Yahoo Music Video service (aka Launch)...but I haven't watched that in years since there's still no Linux support. You tube kind of does something like this too I suppose by offereing up suggestions of similar videos afterward, but it requires user interaction, which some may not want to bother with.
If I were Google, I'd probably do a combination of the above. I'd leave regular YouTube usage the exact same way it is now, with the same quality videos. All embedded videos stay as they are, however, if you goto the main site you have the option to watch high quality videos. There you can either opt to have ads tacked on them, or pay a subscription fee to go ad-less. In addition to this offer the virtual TV channel service and you're good to go.
So, now that we have a good source of profit coming in, there comes the need to discuss who gets a cut of that. Google has already started offereing profit sharing with their highest watched videos, which is certainly a step in the right direction. The other problem is that almost every YouTube video out there infringes upon someone's copyright somehow. Just about every video is either going to be a straight rip from a TV show, or a home video with multiple copywritten pieces of music thrown in the mix. And as per usual, everyone wants their royalities. There are a few different ways to go about this. Either Google can sign a massive contract with the big record labels and TV/movie studios that does blanket coverage for any of their content that ends up on the site, or Google can get strict and delete any videos that the author did not get proper concent ahead of time for. The blanket coverage would probably be the easiest...but Google's still reluctant. Why? Well, even though copyright is fairly clear cut in the law books, it's not in the mind of the people. Once a piece of content become wide spread enough, many would argue it partially belongs to everyone. The fans take personal stake in franchises. Combine that with how the average person feels the various industries charge too much for their products, and the situation is no longer so simple.
In this situation, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to say it's better for Google to do the blanket contracts. There are so many videos posted, that it's near impossible to moderate them all, and good luck getting your users to rat out their fellow posters. Really, since Google is just a business, it's not really their place to worry with if copyright laws need to be changed, that's up to the people. And if they're all too lazy and/or apathetic, then they'll just have to deal with the consequences.
However, in light of that it seems that sites like DeviantArt and the ever popular mySpace have an easier time dealing with the issue. On DeviantArt, users are much more likely to report copywritten material, as most of the users take the art they post very seriously. MySpace, now owned by one of the large content producing conglomerations around, News Corp, is very thorough about making sure no one is posting music and videos that they don't have the proper copyright for. I think the number one reason they've been successful here is because so many bands have their own accounts and post their music already. If there wasn't such great support from the bands and their labels to begin with, I'm sure it would be much more rampant.
It's all very interesting to consider. If Google doesn't make the right choices now, they're 1.6 billion dollar purchase may become a major mistake, and someone who gets it right will even surpass the seemingly unstoppable YouTube.
It's a very interesting topic. I've also questioned just how sites like YouTube were able to make any money off their service...I don't think I've ever noticed a single add on their site, and certainly not on embedded YouTube videos found on other sites... Looking at YouTube now, I notice there are banner ads above the videos now, though I could swear those haven't always been there. Double checking with GoogleVideo (youTube's new owner for those who've been living under rocks), there are still no ads to be see that I can find.
Even though the vast majority content found on these, and similar sites are given to them at zero charge, bandwidth and server space isn't cheap. Neither is your IT, development and maintenance crews. In the case of Google, they've obviously got plenty of money, but up until their recent purchase, was YouTube really capable of supporting the millions upon millions of hits they recieved each day off of simple banner ads?
The major advertising industry wants in. They know that traditional TV is a sinking ship and it's only a matter of time before it all but completely dies. The question on everyone's minds, apparently, is how to ad advertisements to services like YouTube without ruining the user experience that's made it so popular. I've got a couple ideas...as per usual ;)
One idea discussed in the article is either putting ads at the beginning or end of the videos. Apparently it's widely accepted that pre-ads are a bad idea and no one likes them. The problem with post-ads is that there's a very likely chance the user will just stop the video after it's complete and not watch the ad following. Sites such as iFilm and GameSpot have been putting pre-ads before their free videos, and personally, I've never really minded them so much. The only time they really were ever annoying was when I would go to watch 10 different videos and all of them had the exact same ad, or sometimes sites will have poorly written playlists that play the pre-ad, but then stop and never play the actual video....now that's annoying! However as most of the new video sites are all flash powered, I don't think the latter problem will come up too often any more.
As YouTube thrives on having their videos embedded into numerous other sites, the ads that surround their video rarely get seen...although they do have kind of a tricky system where if you want to full screen the video you have to click the embedded video which takes you to the main youTube site, and then there's a couple seconds where you ...might... accidentally glance at an add before you can hit that full screen button. Along with those industrious few of us who take the time to view the pages' source and just put the direct *.swf in our address bar, Adobe is apparently planning on adding a built in, real, fullscreen feature in the next release of Flash... so there goes that...and really, that was kind of under handed I think, to begin with....if it was intentional.
Google Video has attempted many other things, such as having a pay-only digital distribution service for certain videos...and potentially that could make a little money, if anyone ever actually used it. Another feature, many of the major videogame sites use is to allow free, low bandwidth/quality streaming and then require a paid subscription to see the high quality videos. All of this brings up many questions of owner ship, especially when subjects such as DRM get brought into the equation. Is the customer merely renting these videos, or are they actually buying a copy of them. Sure Google's proprietary, DRM-ified version of VLC they ship will let you want purchased videos any time you want, but will those videos transfer to your other machines? Can you watch it under Linux? On your video iPod? no... Sure, they could strictly offer download only services, but high quality standard definition video can take quite a while to download even with a decent broadband connection....just imagine how long it would take to have to redownload/stream every HD video you bought from them... It's not feasable.
This also brings up another issue... I've never posted anything to YouTube myself, so I don't know the specifics, but it would appear they have a limit on resolution and bitrate your video can be posted in, who knows they may do all the transcoding for you automagically. Would a site like YouTube benefit from offering higher quality videos to paid subscribers like the gaming site do? Would it perhaps be considered kosher for them to offer ad-less low quality videos, but have high quality version that have both pre and post ads tacked on? I personally would be fine with that last option. As long as the ads are 30 seconds or less, I could really care less myself. And I think most would probably agree.
There's one more option out there, and that's basically virtual channels. Basically a never ending playlist that would more closely represent traditional TV channels. Basically what you would do is have users or some algorithm group similar videos in a channel. A use could either watch a specific video or just hit random video for that channel, then you would automatically go on to watch another video from that channel after that one finished, and then another and so on. Then random ads could be placed between every so many videos. The closest thing to this idea I've ever seen was the old Yahoo Music Video service (aka Launch)...but I haven't watched that in years since there's still no Linux support. You tube kind of does something like this too I suppose by offereing up suggestions of similar videos afterward, but it requires user interaction, which some may not want to bother with.
If I were Google, I'd probably do a combination of the above. I'd leave regular YouTube usage the exact same way it is now, with the same quality videos. All embedded videos stay as they are, however, if you goto the main site you have the option to watch high quality videos. There you can either opt to have ads tacked on them, or pay a subscription fee to go ad-less. In addition to this offer the virtual TV channel service and you're good to go.
So, now that we have a good source of profit coming in, there comes the need to discuss who gets a cut of that. Google has already started offereing profit sharing with their highest watched videos, which is certainly a step in the right direction. The other problem is that almost every YouTube video out there infringes upon someone's copyright somehow. Just about every video is either going to be a straight rip from a TV show, or a home video with multiple copywritten pieces of music thrown in the mix. And as per usual, everyone wants their royalities. There are a few different ways to go about this. Either Google can sign a massive contract with the big record labels and TV/movie studios that does blanket coverage for any of their content that ends up on the site, or Google can get strict and delete any videos that the author did not get proper concent ahead of time for. The blanket coverage would probably be the easiest...but Google's still reluctant. Why? Well, even though copyright is fairly clear cut in the law books, it's not in the mind of the people. Once a piece of content become wide spread enough, many would argue it partially belongs to everyone. The fans take personal stake in franchises. Combine that with how the average person feels the various industries charge too much for their products, and the situation is no longer so simple.
In this situation, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to say it's better for Google to do the blanket contracts. There are so many videos posted, that it's near impossible to moderate them all, and good luck getting your users to rat out their fellow posters. Really, since Google is just a business, it's not really their place to worry with if copyright laws need to be changed, that's up to the people. And if they're all too lazy and/or apathetic, then they'll just have to deal with the consequences.
However, in light of that it seems that sites like DeviantArt and the ever popular mySpace have an easier time dealing with the issue. On DeviantArt, users are much more likely to report copywritten material, as most of the users take the art they post very seriously. MySpace, now owned by one of the large content producing conglomerations around, News Corp, is very thorough about making sure no one is posting music and videos that they don't have the proper copyright for. I think the number one reason they've been successful here is because so many bands have their own accounts and post their music already. If there wasn't such great support from the bands and their labels to begin with, I'm sure it would be much more rampant.
It's all very interesting to consider. If Google doesn't make the right choices now, they're 1.6 billion dollar purchase may become a major mistake, and someone who gets it right will even surpass the seemingly unstoppable YouTube.
2006-10-30
Open Source vs. Proprietary Software, and ESR
It's funny, about a year ago, I wrote a rather lengthy article about how annoyed I was that Eric Raymond, didn't think GPL-style licensing was necessary anymore in favor of more BSD-style, public domain type licensing... and now I find myself seeing his latest statements to be some of the few reasonable opinions out there. Don't get me wrong, I still stand by the fact that GPL and LGPL type licensing is still very much necessary, however now there are new topics to discuss.
His statements lately are that the Linux world needs to wake up and realize that as great as open source development is, we can't pretend like proprietary software doesn't exist. Unfortunately, at the moment, we still need quite a few components in our Linux distros, that have no viable open alternatives currently.
This is the logical middle ground that many Linux users agree with, but few mention because as in all things, it's the extremists who always talk the loudest.
Let me just first say that I love open source and everything it stands for. I wish all the software out there was open source, however that's just not the way it is. One thing to remember is that one of the biggest advantages in the open source world is the concept of choice. However, many forget that choice also entails that people can choose to release proprietary software too. For now, a mixture is the way to go. Now, most of this going to be geared towards GNU/Linux based operating systems, but it can apply in other areas as well.
The Linux community says it wants the common computer user to start using it and other open source software, but their not willing to make the compromises necessary to make it happen. Groups like the Free Software Foundation and Debian have the mindset that you should refuse to use anything that's not based off open source/free software, but that's just not feasable at the moment. Linux can be a very easy to use, friendly, yet very powerful operating system. But, a large portion of the content that people want to use their computers for are based off of closed/proprietary components. There are thousands of audio and video files out there that are only available in a proprietary codec such as Mp3, WindowsMedia or Quicktime. And if you're running Linux you have two options. Either A. use a reverse-engineered codec that might work sometimes, might not others, and almost never at the same quality as the original proprietary one, or B. use the proprietary codecs. For most, the choice is simple... either stay absolutist and for go most of the multimedia content available to you, or enjoy your content and get over it. As the people willing to boycott this content is an extremely small minority, this mindset accomplishes nothing. If there were a considerable number of users willing to do without; say about 15% or more of the entire desktop PC user market, then it might inspire change but right now, it's hurting our cause overall more than it is helping.
When we try to convince current Windows or MacOS users to switch to Linux or any other open source operating system...they're going to want to know that they can continue to watch all their videos and listen to all of their music they currently enjoy. When we have to stop and explain the current complex situations our stubbornness is causing, it makes them question the possibility of switching even more than they would have before.
The same thing goes for certain hardware drivers. If someone has an nVidia or ATI video card, and they want any decent 3D hardware support, then their only current feasible option is to use the proprietary codecs. However, once again, many distributions do not install them by default, thus making a new user feel like Linux is incapable of the same 3D graphical performance they've experienced on their machine in Windows.
These codecs are interesting though in that the manufacturers have gone out of their way to make sure they work on Linux systems and integrate with the kernel properly. These codecs may be proprietary, but they are freely redistributable, so there's nothing holding distros from releasing them with their systems by default. In the case of video codecs it is not so simple. Most of the solutions available to play proprietary multimedia codecs under Linux are in questionable grey areas as far as legality go, so of course no one would want to get into legal troubles just for these codecs. However, there is still another option, the companies that make these codecs are all willing to make them legally available if the distro developers were willing to make the proper arrangements.
A company named Fluendo recently licensed the rights to release a free, legal codec for Mpeg/Mp3 multimedia files for any Linux distro. Any distro that wants to include Mp3 support out of the box now can, yet there are still some who won't because it's a proprietary codec. A few distros like Linspire/Freespire are taking a proactive route on this issue though. They have gone the extra mile to make sure they can legally include support for things like Quicktime, WindowsMedia files and encrypted DVDs. They also include all the proprietary drivers, as well as Java and Flash. Flash, once again...while proprietary is freely distributable, but many distros still choose not to.
Java is a very interesting case as Sun has announced that they plan to make it open source within the course of the next year. This is good because there is a large number of programs developed in it, and things like GCJ just don't cut it when it comes to speed and quality.
It's not surprising to me that E.S.R. is an advisor for Freespire now with their pragmatic middle ground stance. I for one fully intend on giving it a shot in the near future. I've always heard nothing but negative comments from people about Linspire (once called Lindows) from all of the other Linux users I know, but I think it's time to find out for myself. With this realization and the fact they now have a community driven, free edition I think it's time. However, since they've only released an initial offering that doesn't vary much from prior versions of Linspire, I think I will wait for their upcoming 2.0 release this spring.
For now I'll stick with Ubuntu, and continue to jump through hoops just so I can use my computer the way I want to... If only they would take a similar approach maybe they'd be able to make greater strides against their so called "Bug #1".
Update: I just found an Ubuntu derivative called "Linux Mint", which is basically just Ubuntu plus Flash, Sun Java, and all the proprietary codecs (including DVD) built-in by default. This seems great, but most likely it's still in that questionable legal grey area and just being hosted from a country that doesn't care about things as much as places like the US do...
His statements lately are that the Linux world needs to wake up and realize that as great as open source development is, we can't pretend like proprietary software doesn't exist. Unfortunately, at the moment, we still need quite a few components in our Linux distros, that have no viable open alternatives currently.
This is the logical middle ground that many Linux users agree with, but few mention because as in all things, it's the extremists who always talk the loudest.
Let me just first say that I love open source and everything it stands for. I wish all the software out there was open source, however that's just not the way it is. One thing to remember is that one of the biggest advantages in the open source world is the concept of choice. However, many forget that choice also entails that people can choose to release proprietary software too. For now, a mixture is the way to go. Now, most of this going to be geared towards GNU/Linux based operating systems, but it can apply in other areas as well.
The Linux community says it wants the common computer user to start using it and other open source software, but their not willing to make the compromises necessary to make it happen. Groups like the Free Software Foundation and Debian have the mindset that you should refuse to use anything that's not based off open source/free software, but that's just not feasable at the moment. Linux can be a very easy to use, friendly, yet very powerful operating system. But, a large portion of the content that people want to use their computers for are based off of closed/proprietary components. There are thousands of audio and video files out there that are only available in a proprietary codec such as Mp3, WindowsMedia or Quicktime. And if you're running Linux you have two options. Either A. use a reverse-engineered codec that might work sometimes, might not others, and almost never at the same quality as the original proprietary one, or B. use the proprietary codecs. For most, the choice is simple... either stay absolutist and for go most of the multimedia content available to you, or enjoy your content and get over it. As the people willing to boycott this content is an extremely small minority, this mindset accomplishes nothing. If there were a considerable number of users willing to do without; say about 15% or more of the entire desktop PC user market, then it might inspire change but right now, it's hurting our cause overall more than it is helping.
When we try to convince current Windows or MacOS users to switch to Linux or any other open source operating system...they're going to want to know that they can continue to watch all their videos and listen to all of their music they currently enjoy. When we have to stop and explain the current complex situations our stubbornness is causing, it makes them question the possibility of switching even more than they would have before.
The same thing goes for certain hardware drivers. If someone has an nVidia or ATI video card, and they want any decent 3D hardware support, then their only current feasible option is to use the proprietary codecs. However, once again, many distributions do not install them by default, thus making a new user feel like Linux is incapable of the same 3D graphical performance they've experienced on their machine in Windows.
These codecs are interesting though in that the manufacturers have gone out of their way to make sure they work on Linux systems and integrate with the kernel properly. These codecs may be proprietary, but they are freely redistributable, so there's nothing holding distros from releasing them with their systems by default. In the case of video codecs it is not so simple. Most of the solutions available to play proprietary multimedia codecs under Linux are in questionable grey areas as far as legality go, so of course no one would want to get into legal troubles just for these codecs. However, there is still another option, the companies that make these codecs are all willing to make them legally available if the distro developers were willing to make the proper arrangements.
A company named Fluendo recently licensed the rights to release a free, legal codec for Mpeg/Mp3 multimedia files for any Linux distro. Any distro that wants to include Mp3 support out of the box now can, yet there are still some who won't because it's a proprietary codec. A few distros like Linspire/Freespire are taking a proactive route on this issue though. They have gone the extra mile to make sure they can legally include support for things like Quicktime, WindowsMedia files and encrypted DVDs. They also include all the proprietary drivers, as well as Java and Flash. Flash, once again...while proprietary is freely distributable, but many distros still choose not to.
Java is a very interesting case as Sun has announced that they plan to make it open source within the course of the next year. This is good because there is a large number of programs developed in it, and things like GCJ just don't cut it when it comes to speed and quality.
It's not surprising to me that E.S.R. is an advisor for Freespire now with their pragmatic middle ground stance. I for one fully intend on giving it a shot in the near future. I've always heard nothing but negative comments from people about Linspire (once called Lindows) from all of the other Linux users I know, but I think it's time to find out for myself. With this realization and the fact they now have a community driven, free edition I think it's time. However, since they've only released an initial offering that doesn't vary much from prior versions of Linspire, I think I will wait for their upcoming 2.0 release this spring.
For now I'll stick with Ubuntu, and continue to jump through hoops just so I can use my computer the way I want to... If only they would take a similar approach maybe they'd be able to make greater strides against their so called "Bug #1".
Update: I just found an Ubuntu derivative called "Linux Mint", which is basically just Ubuntu plus Flash, Sun Java, and all the proprietary codecs (including DVD) built-in by default. This seems great, but most likely it's still in that questionable legal grey area and just being hosted from a country that doesn't care about things as much as places like the US do...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)