Hi Daniel,
You raise some good points about MS in the mobile market.
Besides the general server stability/robustness issues, such as
a "carrier-class" designation, of the MS video pump I've seen some
information from Genista (that specializes in perceptual quality metrics
for digital media in the mobile space) that states that WM8 is very
vulnerable to packet loss to such an extent that even low levels of
losses destroyed the video quality (versus Real which was deemed
more robust).
With the availability of WM9, though, these issues may have been
solved or better mitigated. With that said, MS has a well-deserved reputation
of getting stuff out to new markets where it is then found that their early
versions don't cut the mustard. They then slowly get a viable product out
in later generations while the innovators/early adopters of their products
take a beating (not sure why the innovators/early adopters keep lining up
for MS products though -- we see/saw the same thing with MS in the
iTV/STB space).
So, as MS is new to the mobile/low-bit rate space, should WM9 which has
focused on the desktop to date, be considered WM1 for the mobile space?
By the way, has anyone worked with Genista before? They say they specialize
in measuring the perceptual quality of video using a variety of methods
such as inducing packet loss to simulate video artifacts although on the
measurement side I wonder if it's psycho-visual quality and what metrics
are employed.
At 01:07 PM 10/1/02 +0200, you wrote:
>Just wanted to add a bullet in your last statement about PV and MS.
>
>4) Is it because MS have some problems to enter the mobile market with
>their products under the Microsoft brand? They don't have a good
>reputation in the fixed PC world regarding stability and realibility,
>two words that are important in the telco world. By using PV as a front
>this problem gets less noticable to the end users. Or in other words,
>they are trying to get their technology on the market with another
>brand.=20
>
>MS might also encounter regulatory problems if they try to get in to the
>mobile market. (they will simply become to big, and EU and other
>regulatory instances maybe have something to say about it). By using PV
>they will still be able to get their technology supported in the mobile
>world, and eventually who knows... Maybe one day PV changes name to
>MS... Or maybe one day, PV stops developing servers and content
>productions systems, this is done by MS, PV only develops the player for
>the mobile termnals...
>
>//Daniel
A U D I E N C E T R A X
Monetize your Media (tm)
http://www.audiencetrax.com
Received on Tue Oct 1 21:02:36 2002