But Desler confirmed that Microsoft did provide evidence of multiple format support by content owners. "We provided evidence of some companies in Europe to underscore that content owners offer content in multiple formats. Take Disney, for example. It provides content in all four formats; MP3/MPEG, QuickTime, Real, and Windows. Or look at the BBC, which supports both Real and Windows," said Desler. "We were making the point that content owners and providers offer content in multiple formats and if they do, one can conclude that the cost is not prohibitive."
Indeed Disney and the BBC do offer multiple formats. But to imply that all companies have the resources of Disney and the BBC or that their provisioning of multiple formats must therefore mean that the cost is not prohibitive are suppositions that the EU is obligated to examine further. Just a day's worth of investigation would easily call Microsoft's assertions into question.
To get inside the head of a leading multimedia content developer, I didn't have to go far. Within my own company, we have to support two formats -- Real and Microsoft. In addition, we would like to support a third format: Apple's QuickTime. The cost of supporting multiple formats is one we could live without. In the name of technology neutrality, we support both Real and Windows even though the overwhelming majority selects the Windows format.
The costs involve more than just supporting media player formats. You have to support each version of each player in each browser on each operating system, where multiple operating systems are supported, according to Brooke Furey, CNET Network's broadband producer. In addition, you have to test interactivity (which includes dynamically changing, contextual links) and advertisements running in each of those permutations.
The cost to support all those permutations and to test for incompatibilities can more than double what it would cost to develop for just one format, Furey estimated. The main reason for this is that the HTML and JavaScript-based scripting for the RealPlayer and WMP are incompatible with each other.
Multiple format support also raises costs for hosting the streaming media -- each supported format requires its own storage.
Granted, when Microsoft's Desler responded, he didn't mention CNET as an example of a provider that supports multiple formats, but I also contacted the BBC and Disney. While my request must still floating around the BBC's Ethernet somewhere (I haven't heard back yet), I talked to Disney Interactive Group (DIG) CTO Doug Parrish. DIG's jurisdiction covers a plethora of recognisable Web destinations including Disney itself, ESPN, ABC, and Movies.com. Parrish confirmed that DIG supports multiple formats. But not in the way you might think, and certainly not in the way that Microsoft's using of Disney as an example would lead you to believe.
With few exceptions, says Parrish, "The way we support multiple formats is not the same way that others do. For example, we don't have a button for selecting a preferred player. When someone says we support multiple formats, it means that, independently within each of our properties, we are supporting a single format, but that the format may vary from one offering to the next. For example, ESPN Motion is in Windows Media and is not available in Real or QuickTime. ABC on Demand is done in partnership with Real. You don't get to pick as a user."
Parrish says the rationale for which technology is picked varies from site to site, and is all based on business value. "I don't see any key differences between the two. But, the decisions are internal to the business unit. While I can't say emphatically that there isn't a place where we provide three options, [I can say that if we do it somewhere, then] it's in a low trafficked area."
Based on Parrish's answers, Microsoft's claims that Disney supports multiple formats is technically accurate but fall apart when you look at the individual Disney properties.
If the EU is taking seriously Microsoft's position that the additional costs for supporting multiple formats is not prohibitive (based on the fact that content providers are doing it), then it should closely examine the arguments and, at the very least, the examples provided by the Microsoft.
Talkback
The reason REAL cannot compete with MS Media Player isn't because MS Media player comes on the system - it's because REAL has an ages-old history of hijacking media file associations, sucking up CPU cycles with their tool-tray widget (that they do not allow you to disable in setup and hide from the user every way they can in the preferences) and (worse of all) delivering SPYWARE with their installer and sticking ADVERTISEMENTS all over the user's desktop.
I rarely use Media Player, and it's been that way for years. For a long time it was Sasami, and the last year or more it's been Zoom Player - both EXCELLENT products that interface with the underlying media player structure (just as REAL does when it plays Windows Media files) and have gorgeous user interfaces.
You want to see Windows without all those media gadgets? Look at the state of Linux desktops in regards to multimedia content; with no underlying OS support for ANY standards at all you end up with a needlessly complicated cabal of media stream widgets, none of which can speak with one another. Stripping Media Player from windows would leave the EU with essentially ONE platform upon which common users would be able to fend for themselves when it comes to installing and using a variety of media applications: APPLE.
Do you really think the "solution" lies in switching from one proprietary "monopoly" to another?
Real has no market share because Real sucks. In spite of their grand talk about "embracing the open community" their codecs remain firmly patented and their "openness" amounts to nothing more than window dressing. If REAL would walk the walk like they talk the talk there'd be no stopping them. let them lie in the grave they dug themselves - and if they awaken, let them dig their way out without dragging the rest of us into that trench with them.
Another reason REAL is dead in the water is that their audio codecs don't sound as good as others do at this point in time. Sure they were one of the "first on the block" with streaming; but they haven't kept up with the audio quality. MP3, AAC, and Ogg Vorbis all sound better than REAL, for a given data bandwidth. What's more, their "surestream" technology has terribly insufficient buffer sizes, so that the system is constantly "upshifting" and "downshifting" with resulting terrible bings, pops, and dead air. If REAL had a competitive product (and if they made it reasonably easy to use, as another poster pointed out) then I would feel sorry for them. But REAL has blown it (and I believed in them strongly enough to buy their stock "way back when") and they have nothing competitive to offer now. Sic transit gloria mundi.