Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 108

Thread: UVD/hw acceleration If, when?

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    432

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    ** so for a desktop, you're looking at $150 (significantly more than the price of a sufficient video card). For a laptop, $50, which is about the lower limit for a video card that *might* be enough (or might not be).
    The Broadcom card is overpriced by retailers. It normally costs much less than 10 USD. Some people even indicated that it might be under 5 USD. I think Broadcom has a variant that directly applies to PCI-E 1x. Some time ago, I came accrosss a Quartics card that would do the same. However, I nowadays believe it's vaporware. For sure, for 50 USD, you'd better get an NVIDIA card. There might even be some ION-NG that fits PCI-E 1x.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    185

    Default

    An add-in PCI-E card might be a usable solution for a laptop, but why should I have to pay more for an additional peripheral when I already bought a laptop with an HD-capable GPU inside?

    Once upon a time when you bought a PC (think Apple II or IBM PC) it came with a technical reference manual that not only described how everything worked, but even gave the assembly source code for the operating firmware. (OK, the IBM PC Tech Ref Manual didn't come with source code, but it still gave you full docs on how to program all of the hardware.)

    We've come a long way since then, but when did it become acceptable to pay hundreds to thousands of dollars for hardware and not receive full specs for how to use it? Digital rights be damned, consumer rights have been totally trampled.

    AMD, Intel and Nvidia need to step up and tell Hollywood to f#ck off and quit trying to dictate what kind of hardware they can or cannot build. With all the reliance on digital effects these days, Hollywood needs to watch its step. The computer industry can survive without the movie industry, but not the other way round.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    104

    Default

    The fact is, if the hardware was documented in a way that allowed circumvention of the DRM, OS vendors like Microsoft would likely revoke the "protected media" certification for that hardware (because doing so is a condition of the deals signed with the movie studios to be allowed to play content on that OS/hardware in the first place).

    This would lead to those who want to play protected content (and more to the point, those OEMs building computers where the target market may want to play protected content) needing to go with a competitor who hasn't been blacklisted by the OS vendors.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    185

    Default

    So let them blacklist everyone. So what? Consumers want their media the way they want it. Do you think, just because the media industry decides not to provide media on PCs the way consumers want it, that consumers will suddenly start flocking back to movie theaters and start buying DVDs again? Not bloody likely.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,434

    Default

    Blacklisting everyone wouldn't be so bad for each individual company, but that's not a particularly likely scenario. The major risk is being the *only* company whose hardware gets blacklisted.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    Blacklisting everyone wouldn't be so bad for each individual company, but that's not a particularly likely scenario. The major risk is being the *only* company whose hardware gets blacklisted.
    Yes, which is why I said "AMD, Intel, and Nvidia". They may be bitter rivals but it makes sense to me for them to stand together and tell the entertainment industry to butt out of their designs.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,434

    Default

    I guess the obvious question is why the HW vendors would do that, ie what potential benefit could outweigh the huge cost and risk. We would basically be telling all of our customers and partners "sorry, we know you insist on having these features but we're not going to provide them any more because... (why ?) ".

    All that would do is hold the door wide open for a smaller company to come in and take over the high volume PC graphics market. They may not be able to compete in the high end but if all they had to do was implement display and basic video functionality it wouldn't be hard to do an end run around the "big three", particularly since all of the main PC manufacturers *and* ISVs would be encouraging them.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    Blacklisting everyone wouldn't be so bad for each individual company, but that's not a particularly likely scenario. The major risk is being the *only* company whose hardware gets blacklisted.
    in my point of view the 'games' kill "Hollywood" because if i spend 30 dollars to HON i can get tausend hours of fun!

    and kino only gives 2 hours of fun for 10€

    so the "Linux" users only need to build/orpay to build good games..

    games for girls and games for old ladys and games for the 'dad' games for the familie and games for the frends and games for the Dogs and cats..

    thats easy! ... :-) WOW kills Hollywood!

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    I guess the obvious question is why the HW vendors would do that, ie what potential benefit could outweigh the huge cost and risk. We would basically be telling all of our customers and partners "sorry, we know you insist on having these features but we're not going to provide them any more because... (why ?) ".
    Because end-users don't want to pay for them. The R&D involved in adding DRM to the hardware doesn't benefit end-users, it just drives up costs.

    All that would do is hold the door wide open for a smaller company to come in and take over the high volume PC graphics market. They may not be able to compete in the high end but if all they had to do was implement display and basic video functionality it wouldn't be hard to do an end run around the "big three", particularly since all of the main PC manufacturers *and* ISVs would be encouraging them.
    If there were any such smaller company in existence capable of taking up the slack, they would be doing so already.

    http://www.tcmagazine.com/tcm/news/m...arket-share-q1

    Intel 43.5%
    AMD 24%
    Nvidia 31.5%

    Total 99%

    Matrox, SiS, VIA combined are less than 1% market share. If any of these companies put out a PC video card with full specs, full hardware video codec, good power efficiency, and no DRM, I would buy it today. The fact is, whatever any of these 3 companies decide to do, it would have zero impact on the overall market. Or, it would take years for any real impact to materialize, and in that time the Big 3 would have plenty of time to react and correct their course.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,434

    Default

    Sorry, we're talking about different things. I said that if the big three banded together and refused to implement DRM then any smaller company who *did* still offer DRM would get a *lot* of business from the PC manufacturers so that they could maintain the feature set they offer today, including "legal in all juristictions" DVD and BluRay playback.

    The reason there are no DRM-free HW vendors today is that no DRM = no sales into the majority of the PC/Mac market.

    I know you can find other ways to play your video content but most users rely on receiving a ready-to-go solution from the PC manufacturer.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •