[vorbis] RE: [advanced] Response to Ogg Vorbis comments

[Frank Heckenbach]

Greg Hogan wrote:

> > There is a big difference between having a codec available for some
> > player and having the same "included" with it.  I will let Real and
> > Apple speak for themselves but I would be very surprised if either one
> > will ship your code.  If this is wrong, please give us some specifics.
> 
> As pointed out before, if someone has a song they want to listen to, they
> will download the plug-in.  And once Vorbis is popular, it will be included
> with the various players.

ISTR someone mentioned that m$ is crippling mp3 in their players.
Not that I want to defend mp3 in any way, but there's no reason to
assume they'll be any nicer to Ogg/Vorbis.

Since Amir works for m$, you must not read his comment as "I fear
Ogg/Vorbis won't get wide distribution", but rather as "When
necessary, we'll use our near-monopoly to crush it". Or they'll try ...

> > Over dial-up modems with fixed data rate? I can't imagine you are doing
> > this with a VBR codec.  But if you are doing it, I am sure I and the
> > rest of the list like to understand how it works.  If by streaming you
> > mean that you need a channel that is faster than the stream, then I
> > suggest that it is not streaming in the sense that the rest of industry
> > understands it.  When we stay streaming, it means that the data is
> > metered and is transmitted at a precise rate so that it can be received
> > on fixed-rate channels (e.g. modems).
> 
> I can't believe you're actually trying to argue this.  First, all internet
> connections are variable, meaning you can't play a 56k file on a 56k
> connection.  You always play a stream slower than the channel (or you need
> "a channel that is faster than the stream", as you put it).  Second, streams
> are buffered, so VBR will fill and empty the buffer accordingly.  VBR is
> actually superior in this sense, since the encoder can reduce the bitrate
> drastically (such as the beginning/end of the file and other periods of
> silence) while CBR must waste unnecessary data.

Third, users may want to do other network activities while listening
to a stream (maybe even windoze users now that m$ has finally
discovered multitasking ;-).

> VBR is better, so we only do CBR.  Did you learn this at Microsoft, or
> before?

:-)))

Gregory Maxwell wrote:

> You seem to have a big problem separating the format (Vorbis) from it's
> implementation (libvorbis).

Come on now, give him a break. He works for m$; you can't really
expect him to imagine different implementations for a format ...

Frank


-- 
Frank Heckenbach, frank at g-n-u.de
http://fjf.gnu.de/
PGP and GPG keys: http://fjf.gnu.de/plan

--- >8 ----
List archives:  http://www.xiph.org/archives/
Ogg project homepage: http://www.xiph.org/ogg/
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to 'vorbis-request at xiph.org'
containing only the word 'unsubscribe' in the body.  No subject is needed.
Unsubscribe messages sent to the list will be ignored/filtered.