Broadcasts in Windows Media only?

Discuss ideas and suggestions around the Church website.
User avatar
mkmurray
Senior Member
Posts: 3266
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:56 pm
Location: Utah
Contact:

#31

Post by mkmurray »

lajackson wrote:I would be very disappointed if the Church were to say, for example, that they will feed video that only could be viewed in a Mozilla browser, when I had to use IE, through no fault of my own, and then could not view the video.
And this is understandably how folks with Linux must feel, frustrated that their only reasonable solution might be to buy a Windows OS or an Apple computer. However, it all may just come down to the fact that the Church is trying to hit the largest target platform and set of browser(s). Windows with IE or Firefox must make up the lion share's of use cases.
Valden-p40
New Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:57 am
Location: USA

Clarification of point

#32

Post by Valden-p40 »

RussellHltn: Thank you for the honest feedback. Maybe I failed to make my point clear because I focused too much on Firefox. Understand that with OGG you don't have to even use a browser to view and/or listen.

With the way it is done now, the users have limited choices of what options they can use. If OGG format is streamed/archived, then the user's choices are greatly multiplied as to what they can use. Yes, as you say, let them use the familiar software they want to use, whether that is
1) Internet Explorer + Windows Media Player + Adobe Flash Player + Move Media Player + Codec
2) Firefox only
3) Safari + mplayer + Codec
4) Opera + Dragon Player + Codec
5) Google Chrome + Kaffeine + Codec
6) Avant + VLC
7) etc., etc., etc.

Currently, the user's options are very limited.

I hope this allows you to see the point better. The discussion is not over the user's personal browser preference but the *format* the audio/video content is streamed/stored in.

lajackson: You bring up valid points. End users can continue to use Internet Explorer with Windows media player with the OGG audio/video format. If the Church decided to stream in OGG, then a user could use any of the options in the list above, whether that is Internet Explorer + Windows Media player, or Mozilla only, or . . . etc.

mkmurray: Very possible indeed--especially considering tomw's comment in this thread on September 24th, 2007. If the Church is trying to hit the largest target platform and set of browser(s), then the OGG suggestion would accomplish that goal. The current decision to exclude services to the Windows and Mac users only would widen to include users of Windows, Mac, Solaris, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Linux, BeOS, OS/2, and other platforms!!! This discussion is not only about the Linux users. :)

However, if I am to believe http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp or http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php then Internet Explorer is either no longer the dominate browser being used or declining quickly. However, I begin to digress, as the discussion head topic is "Broadcaasts in Windows Media only."
rmrichesjr
Community Moderators
Posts: 3827
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:32 am
Location: Dundee, Oregon, USA

#33

Post by rmrichesjr »

Valden, I like your very good points. I, too, plan to keep my fingers crossed for increased content availability in more open formats. I hope there are more than a few of us who would be willing to contribute to a community development project if such an opportunity comes up. That, and/or that Move Networks might some day allow/enable use of their player with other operating systems.

Fortunately, most of the time, the "Additional Video Streams" have worked for me with my Linux systems at home--except for the most recent Christmas Devotional when the servers were very unstable.
russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 34418
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

#34

Post by russellhltn »

We don't know for sure how the church chooses how it does things. I'm sure some of the major principles is to reach the largest audience, while making it the simplest experience for the largest group of computer-illiterate users. Then there's the whole issue of performance and bandwidth requirements for a smooth user experience.

I believe the church also uses a vendor to do the actual streaming. Finding a good vendor, and the demands that that vendor's other customers place on them may be the deciding factor.
Have you searched the Help Center? Try doing a Google search and adding "site:churchofjesuschrist.org/help" to the search criteria.

So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
Valden-p40
New Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:57 am
Location: USA

Contacting those who can make a difference

#35

Post by Valden-p40 »

As rmrichesjr suggested, I would encourage the person(s) in the official position to consider the above points. . . . maybe a community development project.

I know their are others outside this forum with this same desire. I also know one does not need to be a technical person to receive an OGG stream on their computer.

I'm sure on this official lds.org site their is someone who knows the correct person(s) to contact regarding this issue. Who is in the "official position" that can assist with this issue?
robartsd
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 9:07 pm
Location: United States, California

#36

Post by robartsd »

It seems to me that the main reason that content providers choose proprietary formats for streaming is to make it more difficult for streaming to become downloading. Since the church also supports downloading General Conference videos this "advantage" of proprietary formats is not important in this format decision; however, the choices of other content providers may be involved in the church decision as to which formats to use.

A legitimate disadvantage of the open codecs suggested in this thread is that they require more processing power to decode and hardware acceleration is not available (Apple's primary argument against them in the HTML 5 codec debate). Of course most PC's in current use could handle the load and the current solution does not work for mobile devices so switching codecs would not be likely to negatively impact any current users (except having to install the same things that new users have to install).
Valden-p40
New Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:57 am
Location: USA

Thank you

#37

Post by Valden-p40 »

robartsd: Thank you for your comments.

Your second comment regarding OGG requiring more processing power to decode I did not know about. Again, thank you.

Providers can stream in multiple formats*. Providers try to satisfy the client's (in this case the Church) requests. I'm curious if the Church has looked into any other streaming format other than the Windows/Macintosh-only solution.

* An example is the the radio station http://www.dradio.de/wir/ogg which streams in Flash, WMP, WMP, OGG, and MP3 formats.
russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 34418
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

OGG format

#38

Post by russellhltn »

An interesting artical on ZDNet: Microsoft fires back at critics of its HTML5 strategy

The gist of it is that the new video standard appears to be H.264.

iPhone, iPad and others already use it. It's endorced by both Microsoft and Apple. YouTube will stream a H.264 version as needed.

On the third page, you'll find
The Free Software Foundation insists that the Ogg formats are “designed to be completely free of patents.” But as my UK-based colleague Mary Branscombe pointed out in a comment on that post, “If only confident claims that patents don’t apply were enough to ensure that patents don’t apply…”
FUD? Yes. But viewpoint appears quite accurate IMO, and may be enough to keep those with large net worth away from such a format.
Have you searched the Help Center? Try doing a Google search and adding "site:churchofjesuschrist.org/help" to the search criteria.

So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
Valden-p40
New Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:57 am
Location: USA

Viewpoint appears quite accurate => More reason to consider the OGG format

#39

Post by Valden-p40 »

<Sigh>

Realize that the ZDNet article is talking about H.264 and not OGG. It mentions the concerns of patents within the H.264 standard. It also provides the specific example of what can happen by intentionally or unintentionally using other's patents as Microsoft found out when it lost its appeal of an August district court decision that awarded i4i Inc. $200 million and slapped Microsoft with an injunction on selling Word in its current form ( http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/188986.asp ).

It can be truly stated that patent wars in many areas (not just multimedia) are going to be a messy part of our future. Recent court filings and prominent trends can already attest to this. I believe Mary Branscombe's statement referred to submarine patents. Submarine patents could stay "under water" for long periods until they "emerged" and surprised the relevant market ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent ) and then charge BIG money for their use.

As was clearly identified in the same ZDNet article, "The fear among those who don’t trust Apple, Microsoft, or MPEG LA is that after five years of low royalty payments, the consortium will spring a trap in 2016, jacking rates sky-high and forcing licensees to pay or stop playing." Recent examples of this ACTUALLY happening are GIF ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_I ... nge_Format and http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.html ), FAT32 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAT32#FAT32 and http://www.zdnet.com/blog/perlow/micros ... nisys/9594 ), and others.

However, by the Church providing the OGG format as another alternative to their current situation, it is my opinion that this will move the Church from one area that seems to be a liability with less options over to another area that is less-likely to be a liability with more options. By the Church including the OGG format, it will also allow BOTH the Church and their listeners to have more leeway to consider alternatives solutions in codecs/media formats/media players if or when their is a need. The need for alternatives might be legal, it might be more cost-effective, it might be time saving, and it might be personal preference.

The premise of Mary Branscombe's statement was to identify the meaning of the word "free" to mean freedom (as in speech) from those that would like to take away our freedoms. Like Mary Branscombe's comment, I hope you realize the "free" I am speaking about is freedom (as in free agency or as in free will or as in "liberating").
Post Reply

Return to “Main Church Website”