131 replies to this topic 5 votes

[GP007]

remixedcat, on 04 May 2012 - 21:56, said:

Nope... TONS of people use it for media center stuff. why do you think the HTPC market is pretty huge and is growing right now?

If it's Media Center and HTPC you want you can still get that, it's just something you'll have to install after the fact now instead of everyone having it installed by default even if they don't use it and having to pay for it regardless. I thought people around this forum hated bloatware? In that case them making something like Media Center optional for the niche that use it is best. Also I think they're probably going to slowly get off of Windows Media Player in favor of the new metro apps and whatever the new "zune" client software turns out to be for the rebranded service later this year.

[+Vice]

HawkMan, on 04 May 2012 - 21:51, said:

Yes, let's increase the cost of windows for something less than 1% uses, that makes perfect sense... You know instead of making it an optional addon for those few that want it.

Windows will cost the same regardless. If you think removing this DVD Codec will affect the cost of the OS when it hits store shelves you're deluded. They'll pocket the difference as extra profit.

[HawkMan]

remixedcat, on 04 May 2012 - 21:56, said:

Nope... TONS of people use it for media center stuff. why do you think the HTPC market is pretty huge and is growing right now?

No they don't, there are a lot of people using it, but it's, an extremely small sub percentage. Remember MS has telemetry from tens of millions of users.

Just because you use it does not mean tons use it or that it's the most super I portent thing in the world.

And the HTPC market isn't growing. Heck I use a HTPC and love it, but even as good and stable as it is I wouldn't recommend it to a regular user. Not with the good set top boxes out today, I'm still not sure if I'll replace the DVB-c card in mine with a DVB-s or just get the new awesome set top box from my provider, both options have their pluses. For anyone else though, it would be no doubt that I would recccomend the set top pvr box.

HTPCs are a enthusiast niche market, and not suitable for the average users, and it's a small and stable niche. The only growth in that market matches the growth, of the computer market as a whole, and is far less than the growth of the PVR market, which is really taking off.

And over here it doesn't matter anyway since WMC doesn't support most European cable networks and you can't manually configure them, I do believe they support canal digital satellite though. So I could use it for that, but I don't think I could switch away from MP and webepg anymore.

[Dot Matrix]

TCLN Ryster, on 04 May 2012 - 21:21, said:

I'd say cue the trolls, but what exactly is the past tense version of the word cue?

Lol...

[HawkMan]

Vice, on 04 May 2012 - 22:05, said:

Windows will cost the same regardless. If you think removing this DVD Codec will affect the cost of the OS when it hits store shelves you're deluded. They'll pocket the difference as extra profit.

Maybe maybe not, but MS is in it to make money. For the, and oem's the important thing is to reduce costs for oem's though, which this will do. After all the large majority of sold windows licenses are OEM copies, not full retail or upgrade licenses.

[HawkMan]

Dot Matrix, on 04 May 2012 - 22:09, said:

Lol...

I was gonna correct you that that's probably what he meant with past tense, but then you edited, sneaky little...

[+imachip]

Fair enough, I suppose. I've never used Windows Media Player... I would've thought they'd buy out a company that does it right rather than abandon it completely though.

[jakem1]

Vice, on 04 May 2012 - 21:40, said:

In my opinion they should be adding a Bluray codec not removing a DVD codec. But whatever.

I agree. They should include it in WMC and only charge the users who want that functionality. I don't have a bluray drive, don't want a bluray drive and don't see why I should have to pay for the necessary codecs.

I don't have a problem with the decision MS have made. Everyone's always complaining about bloat and the price of Windows and this seems to be a sensible way of reducing one and lowering the other without causing anyone any pain.

[PGHammer]

KillTheIrishman, on 04 May 2012 - 21:35, said:

VLC is always a good option .

And VLC works just fine in the Consumer Preview - it's what I myself use.

The codec problem is *not* Microsoft's fault. If anything, Microsoft is as big a victim as the customers.

[GP007]

Really though, WMC was MS's play for the living room through HTPCs, that's just not the case anymore. Now their living room play is clear and it's a bigger success to them than the whole WMC and MCE stuff has ever been, it's the Xbox. Though the Xbox doesn't have cable card and all that stuff what they're adding to it covers, IMO, the majority of consumers needs now and who knows what the next one will bring to the table?

[KillTheIrishman]

I realize (like anyone should) that the codecs are a licensing problem. This thread is BS as there are so many FREE alternatives out there. Just my 2 cents.

[DevilsNotDead]

Bad news for 8 is not this! its w7.. since w7 is popular w8 will not sell well just like vista.
8 is doomed for sure.

[briango]

The cost of the DVD player licensing fee is probably under $5. IMO the license fee isn't the issue for microsoft, it's the cost of tech support to cover it.

They're probably tired of having to deal with problems that aren't their fault. Bad DVD drives, defective discs, and video drivers.

[LogicalApex]

The whole debate doesn't make sense. I'm sure the licensing fees are minimal and definitely not rising for DVD playback and it would have been good to see Windows 8 expand on that and add BluRay support. But that isn't the issue. The debate seems to hinge on the idea that the exclusion of these licenses are going to have a meaningful impact on the price of the software. For starters, we have no idea how much the licensing fees are, but there is no evidence to support them lowering the cost of Windows due to this.

After all, it was Windows Vista that gained DVD codec support, among others, and they lowered the price between Vista and 7 while still including the codec...

There are large parts of Windows that are used by niche segments of the market, but aren't removed from the OS. For instance, disk quota support has been in Windows since at least Windows 95 and is so seldom used that the dialog in Windows 7 still carries the look of Windows 95! Put more cleanly, why isn't Microsoft removing MP3 support from Windows? I'm sure the majority of users use iTunes or something other than Windows Media Player... There is a cost to removing the feature compared to leaving it in place.

That being said, this isn't being done as a cost cutting measure. This is being done as a market segmentation measure. My inclination is that Microsoft wants to push the XBOX 360 (and its successor) as the living room box and cut out the competition from Windows itself in that regard.

[farmeunit]

KillTheIrishman, on 04 May 2012 - 22:44, said:

I realize (like anyone should) that the codecs are a licensing problem. This thread is BS as there are so many FREE alternatives out there. Just my 2 cents.

I think the purpose of the thread was to say they're removing something that was added, and the majority of REGULAR people don't know about MPC, VLC, or any other player.

And it won't make the OS any cheaper. REGULAR people will just have to spend more to get that functionality.