6 ms·

1) It's 2012 and we still need third party software to watch videos? I understand VLC does other stuff, but the reason most people use and install it is just to

by aes256 14y ago

1) It's 2012 and we still need third party software to watch videos? I understand VLC does other stuff, but the reason most people use and install it is just to watch videos; 2) This seems like an awful lot of money, not to mention the precedent it sets, just to craft an interface for what is, ultimately, a transient 'design language'. Metro is ugly and a UX nightmare. It will be replaced with something completely new come the next Windows release, with inevitably mediocre backwards compatibility.

Nikaido 14y ago
1/ It's 2012 and Windows 8 has decided it can't play DVD movies. Yes, that's right. You now NEED to install third party software just to play a legitimately bought DVD movie ! VLC is even more necessary than ever.
NathanKP 14y ago
With regard to point #1 I generally find VLC to be much more forgiving than the generic video players built into Windows or Mac OS X. VLC will often play damaged video files and all sorts of random, slightly corrupted files found on file sharing sites, etc. With regard to point #2 it is more than just a new interface look for VLC. It will require extensive rewriting to work within the Windows sandbox using appropriate security sandboxed API's to allow distribution through the Windows Store. There is also the subsequent project to get it to work on ARM architecture, which will be a challenging project due to the reliance on low level C and assembler code.
- zmonkeyz 14y ago
  The best description of VLC was that the icon is a traffic cone because it will actually play one. :)
- aes256 14y ago
  1) Oh absolutely, I don't dispute VLC remains useful. I just think it's a shame that we still need VLC. To most of its users, VLC is "that thing that my friend told me I'd need to install to play these videos because for some reason Windows can't play them on its own" 2) I'm more worried about the precedent this sets. Is VLC going to need new cash injections every time Microsoft change the rules of the Windows Store, or release updates to Windows 8 that break the app? As I say, the next major release of Windows will undoubtedly break everything all over again. It just strikes me as an awful lot of time, money and effort to build a solution to a problem that really oughtn't to exist in this day and age...
  - TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
    >the next major release of Windows will undoubtedly break everything all over again. Not really. Windows 8 hasn't broken anything (although there have been UI changes and some apps have a few bugs that have cropped up). Rather, they have introduced, for the first time in two decades (literally), a completely new foundation on which to build apps. That foundation won't be swept away in Windows 9, and I expect it will mean less things break, not more.
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    >I'm more worried about the precedent this sets. Is VLC going to need new cash injections every time Microsoft change the rules of the Windows Store, or release updates to Windows 8 that break the app? As I say, the next major release of Windows will undoubtedly break everything all over again. The FUD is so strong I don't even know where to begin. It doesn't jive with common sense, history or the rumors regarding the future of Windows.
  - wmf 14y ago
    it's a shame that we still need VLC. I agree, but the various "scenes" resolutely refuse to adopt industry standards.
    - voltagex_ 14y ago
      x264 isn't a standard?
      - wmf 14y ago
        Nope, H.264 in Matroska is not a standard.
        voltagex_ 14y ago
        The TV scene people now use H.264 in MP4.
        14y ago
megaman821 14y ago
1) Since there are a multitude of codecs, profiles, and containers to encode and deliver videos in, yes. 2) That is all your opinion with no facts to back it up. It is extremely unlikely that Metro is going anywhere at this point.
- aes256 14y ago
  If a non-profit can keep on top of all the different codecs, profiles and containers, why can't Microsoft? By all means leave the bleeding edge professional codecs to third party software, but most people only use VLC to play rudimentary formats (MPEG-2, MPEG-4, WMV, FLV, etc.) This functionality really ought to be built into the OS these days.
  - etix 14y ago
    Did you see that Microsoft is doing exactly the opposite these days by removing the DVD capabilities from Windows 8?
  - illuminate 14y ago
    "If a non-profit can keep on top of all the different codecs, profiles and containers, why can't Microsoft?" Because Microsoft would actually be required to license every one of them that are possible to license legally. The capability is certainly there, but the users will likely not pay for their availability. It'll be interesting to see how many users of Windows 8 do upgrade, in the case of DVD playback and the Media Center features. http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-8/feature-packs http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-8/feature-packs
  - sukuriant 14y ago
    Legally being able to play those formats requires paying money to decode the patented formats. mpeg-4 and mp3, among others, are patented.
Osmium 14y ago
You can blame the patent situation for this. There's too much risk for a big player (Microsoft, Apple) to bundle support for fringe codecs and container formats. VLC can get away with this because they're not a big enough target to be worth suing; they don't have enough money. Sadly, it's also the patent situation that's responsible for the proliferation of codecs in the first place. Companies wouldn't feel the need to make their own (or their own custom containers) if they didn't have to worry about patent issues.

by aes256 14y ago

Nikaido 14y ago

1/ It's 2012 and Windows 8 has decided it can't play DVD movies. Yes, that's right. You now NEED to install third party software just to play a legitimately bought DVD movie ! VLC is even more necessary than ever.

NathanKP 14y ago

With regard to point #1 I generally find VLC to be much more forgiving than the generic video players built into Windows or Mac OS X. VLC will often play damaged video files and all sorts of random, slightly corrupted files found on file sharing sites, etc. With regard to point #2 it is more than just a new interface look for VLC. It will require extensive rewriting to work within the Windows sandbox using appropriate security sandboxed API's to allow distribution through the Windows Store. There is also the subsequent project to get it to work on ARM architecture, which will be a challenging project due to the reliance on low level C and assembler code.

zmonkeyz 14y ago
The best description of VLC was that the icon is a traffic cone because it will actually play one. :)
aes256 14y ago
1) Oh absolutely, I don't dispute VLC remains useful. I just think it's a shame that we still need VLC. To most of its users, VLC is "that thing that my friend told me I'd need to install to play these videos because for some reason Windows can't play them on its own" 2) I'm more worried about the precedent this sets. Is VLC going to need new cash injections every time Microsoft change the rules of the Windows Store, or release updates to Windows 8 that break the app? As I say, the next major release of Windows will undoubtedly break everything all over again. It just strikes me as an awful lot of time, money and effort to build a solution to a problem that really oughtn't to exist in this day and age...
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
  >the next major release of Windows will undoubtedly break everything all over again. Not really. Windows 8 hasn't broken anything (although there have been UI changes and some apps have a few bugs that have cropped up). Rather, they have introduced, for the first time in two decades (literally), a completely new foundation on which to build apps. That foundation won't be swept away in Windows 9, and I expect it will mean less things break, not more.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  >I'm more worried about the precedent this sets. Is VLC going to need new cash injections every time Microsoft change the rules of the Windows Store, or release updates to Windows 8 that break the app? As I say, the next major release of Windows will undoubtedly break everything all over again. The FUD is so strong I don't even know where to begin. It doesn't jive with common sense, history or the rumors regarding the future of Windows.
- wmf 14y ago
  it's a shame that we still need VLC. I agree, but the various "scenes" resolutely refuse to adopt industry standards.
  - voltagex_ 14y ago
    x264 isn't a standard?
    - wmf 14y ago
      Nope, H.264 in Matroska is not a standard.
      - voltagex_ 14y ago
        The TV scene people now use H.264 in MP4.
        14y ago

megaman821 14y ago

1) Since there are a multitude of codecs, profiles, and containers to encode and deliver videos in, yes. 2) That is all your opinion with no facts to back it up. It is extremely unlikely that Metro is going anywhere at this point.

aes256 14y ago
If a non-profit can keep on top of all the different codecs, profiles and containers, why can't Microsoft? By all means leave the bleeding edge professional codecs to third party software, but most people only use VLC to play rudimentary formats (MPEG-2, MPEG-4, WMV, FLV, etc.) This functionality really ought to be built into the OS these days.
- etix 14y ago
  Did you see that Microsoft is doing exactly the opposite these days by removing the DVD capabilities from Windows 8?
- illuminate 14y ago
  "If a non-profit can keep on top of all the different codecs, profiles and containers, why can't Microsoft?" Because Microsoft would actually be required to license every one of them that are possible to license legally. The capability is certainly there, but the users will likely not pay for their availability. It'll be interesting to see how many users of Windows 8 do upgrade, in the case of DVD playback and the Media Center features. http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-8/feature-packs http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-8/feature-packs
- sukuriant 14y ago
  Legally being able to play those formats requires paying money to decode the patented formats. mpeg-4 and mp3, among others, are patented.

Osmium 14y ago

You can blame the patent situation for this. There's too much risk for a big player (Microsoft, Apple) to bundle support for fringe codecs and container formats. VLC can get away with this because they're not a big enough target to be worth suing; they don't have enough money. Sadly, it's also the patent situation that's responsible for the proliferation of codecs in the first place. Companies wouldn't feel the need to make their own (or their own custom containers) if they didn't have to worry about patent issues.