Vurbal's Weblog

How Do You Interact With The World?

MyNeroUserWithNicknameVurbal@nero.com (Vurbal) — 14 May 2008 18:54:52 GMT

A couple of months ago I ran across this video. If nothing else it proves how little we really know about how the brain really works.

click here to watch the included content

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory

MyNeroUserWithNicknameVurbal@nero.com (Vurbal) — 07 May 2008 16:54:52 GMT

In January, as Toshiba's plans for HD DVD finally entered a death spiral, I pointed out that Blu-ray was still far from ready to win the hearts and minds of consumers for a number of reasons. Today I'll look at who, if anyone, actually won the so-called format war.

Sony

The obvious answer here is Sony. After all, they have the most to gain from Blu-ray's success. The only problem is that Blu-ray has yet to be a success by any commercial standard. So far Sony has spent billions to develop and market the technology, including hundreds of millions paid to movie studios to secure their backing and put the final nail in HD DVD's coffin. Blu-ray is also a key component of Sony's PS3 game console and AVCHD camcorders. For those of you not familiar with AVCHD it's the consumer counterpart to the BD-MV format used for commercial Blu-ray production.

With all this money spent and little in the way of return it's hard to find any real gains for Sony. While PS3 sales continue to rise, there's no clear indication that Blu-ray has played a major role in the console's success. The PS3 remains the most technologically advanced Blu-ray player on the market, but there are no accurate figures on the number of buyers who even care about Blu-ray. Depending on how you interpret the recent decline in non-PS3 Blu-ray players it may be a sign that the PS3 is benefitting from being the only player with support for BD-Live. Of course the surge in standard definition DVD players with up-converting capability would appear to be a sign that consumers still don't care.

Certainly Sony can't be remotely close to breaking even on Blu-ray so no winner here.

Toshiba

There's an argument to be made that Toshiba is better off after cutting their losses and abandoning HD DVD, but they never recouped the cost of development and promotion, not to mention the money they, like Sony, spent enticing studios to their side. In addition their abandonment of the technology, apparently with no word to their studio partners in the venture has no doubt left a bad taste in the mouths of many in Hollywood.

Consumers

There's no doubt in my mind that a single high definition DVD format is better for consumers than two, although with Blu-ray sales still low enough to be nearly a statistical anomoly in the home video market there's no evidence that the average person has been convinced Blu-ray is the future. The collective yawn from the general public seems deafening.

Perhaps the biggest problem for consumers is the continued disinterest among player manufacturers to sell them anything. Once they secured the backing of all the major studios many analysts expected Blu-ray supporters like Sony to switch their focus to wooing consumers. To date that hasn't happened. If anything the lack of price cuts have served to further alienate potential customers who by and large weren't particularly interested in either Blu-ray or HD DVD to begin with. Meanwhile HDTVs remain expensive enough to ensure a large percentage of those (like me) with old fashioned analog (and standard definition) TVs won't be participating in the HDTV revolution any time soon.

For people who want to take advantage of the improved audio quality available on Blu-ray titles the situation may be even worse. If you have an older home theater receiver with only S/PDIF connections for surround sound you'll have to buy a new receiver to take advantage of the lossless surround sound used on Blu-ray discs, which requires either six channel analog inputs or HDMI.

Depending on which components you need to buy, the cost (in the U.S.) starts at about $400, and could easily reach over $1000 for even a very basic configuration. No winner here either.

Electronics Retailers

As with consumers, retailers benefit from a single HD disc format, and many have thrown their support behind Blu-ray, at least publicly. As DVD sales, which had risen consistently for years, remain flat Blu-ray shows no sign of being the next big thing. Meanwhile the shelf space and inventory costs associated with the technology make it difficult to see any kind of success to date, or in the forseeable future. At the same time customer confusion and disinterest continues to fuel standar DVD player sales, particularly for up-converting models.

Panasonic

Arguably the dark horse in the race is Panasonic. Sharing the top spot among Blu-ray patent holders with Sony, they would benefit greatly if Blu-ray becomes the next major home video format. Although high player prices have relegated Panasonic to an also-ran when it comes to sales, with Sony taking the lead in promoting the format they've also managed to keep a low enough profile to be relatively untouched by the PR battles which have so far dominated Blu-ray's short history. If the format succeeds Panasonic may be in the best financial position in the short term, but until that happens the best they can hope for is to come out looking better than Sony, making them winners in the same way that having nicer weather than the North Pole makes Antarctica warm.

But wait, there's more....

I could go on and on about online video and the nearly invisible HD VMR format that uses cheaper red laser technology of DVD to reduce production costs for HD discs. Either or both of these could have a significant impact on the success or failure of Blu-ray, but to date both have had negligible impact on sales compared to the missteps of the format's own backers. Other factors, like a U.S. economy that's shaky and unpredictable at best, may also play a significant role in the coming months.

If Blu-ray's future doesn't look significantly brighter by the beginning of next year the debate may be settled once and for all by forces outside the consumer marketplace. Maybe the question we should really be asking is at what point do shareholders and corporate board members see the investment in Blu-ray as equivalent to piling up their money and burning it?

Time For Apple To Play Fair

MyNeroUserWithNicknameVurbal@nero.com (Vurbal) — 28 Jan 2008 08:41:54 GMT

As a number of bloggers have correctly pointed out in recent months, the basic purpose of DRM is to create artificial scarcity for what's essentially an unlimited resource. In other words, the cost for anyone to copy a CD, DVD, or other media, is so trivial as to be considered free. Since anyone can do it as many times as they want for this same price, in market terms it means there's an unlimited free supply of whatever is being copied. The problem the labels have right now is they're trying to equate the value of these infinite free plastic discs with the cost of creating new works. In fact the two are unrelated, and consumers don't really care how much it cost you to make. They see free discs so that's what they're worth. In order to put their house in order financially the labels need to find a new business model for making money, rather than relying on the artificial scarcity created through DRM.

With all the sound and fury over various DRM issues, from the CSS and ACSS encryption used for DVD, HD DVD, and Blu-ray to Microsoft's PlaysForSure, one place the finger is almost never pointed is at Apple. Why should it you ask? Simply put, Apple's FairPlay DRM is arguably the biggest stumbling block to sorting out the music industry shakeup created by the internet. While it's fashionable (and not inaccurate I might add) to point the finger at music labels for refusing to do their share to build a new business model for a product available in infinite quantities for free, it's important not to let Apple off the hook for their role in the music industry - and yes they are part of the music industry in the same way that the dominant brick and mortar music chains were when I was a kid.

Apple Is Not Your Friend

Perhaps the biggest reason for Apple's lack of accountability for DRM is the perception that any company playing David to some industry's Goliath is a good guy. From AMD to Apple, people root for the underdog. Especially since that underdog often has to give you more for less to establish themselves as serious competitors. And I'm including myself here. I like to see a small company "stickin' it to the man" as much as almost anyone.

But that doesn't make them your friends. Regardless of whether you consider Apple to be a "better" company (whatever that might mean) than Microsoft or Universal Music Group, they're all in business for the same thing. They want your money. If you go on a drunken buying spree and spend every nickel you have at the iTunes store, Steve Jobs will not call you up to make sure that's not going to stop you from making a house payment this month. Like any other company, Apple wants as much of your money as they can convince you to part with. Period. You forget that fact at your own peril.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing Apple for being in business to make money. I just say you need to always remember it as a difference between what's best for Apple and what's best for consumers, or even the markets Apple competes in. While capitalist markets thrive on competition, market leaders generally benefit more (at least in the short term) from eliminating competitors rather than trying to make money while dealing with innovative competition.

FairPlay Isn't

When I was first studying European geography as a kid, we learned that the easiest way to distinguish a Soviet-style communist dictatorship was to look at the name. The more references a country's name contained to democracy, a republic, or the people, the less likely it was to be the least bit democratic. With the demise of the Soviet Union, this practice all but disappeared until resourceful DRM developers discovered it in the first part of this millennium and got right to work putting it to good use. Instead of the relatively straight forward and honest Content Scrambling System (CSS on DVDs) we got Microsoft's PlaysForSure and Apple's FairPlay.

Although PlaysForSure, now moved into the Vista Certified program, has had some big problems, to their credit Microsoft has made some attempt to make the system work for as many vendors of hardware and online services as possible. By using two different certifications with nearly the same name (one for subscription services and another for purchased sons) they've tried their best to shoot themselves in the foot, but their technology is used in places like the free SpiralFrog MP3 download service and Netflix's Watch Instantly streaming video service.

Unlike Microsoft, Apple isn't interested in being a DRM vendor. Instead they began using their FairPlay DRM as the carrot to bring music labels to the negotiating table when they wanted to build a serious music download business in iTunes. Ironically it's since changed to a stick, forcing content providers to deal with iTunes if they want to distribute DRM-protected content to play on iPods. It's also become a point of contention among some iPod owners, who feel Apple is illegally denying them the ability to move content off of iPods. There's perhaps even more irony in the resulting backlash from Universal Music Group, who have been testing DRM-free downloads (which are compatible with iPods) through several online music outlets, but not iTunes.

When approached about licensing FairPlay by a number of different organizations, Apple has repeatedly said no. They've even been sued over it in France, but were able to successfully argue that the small size of the downloaded music market was small enough as to be inconsequential, and therefore not an essential service for the music business. For that reason alone they were allowed to refuse any company that wished to license their DRM. I suspect the result would be different were the trial to take place today, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it come up again in the not too distant future. But for now we're stuck with Apple's decision.

Last year, a new online music service called SpiralFrog appeared. They offered free (ad-supported) music with PlaysForSure DRM, making it compatible with not only computers running Windows, but also an assortment of portable players. Of course since iPods don't support the DRM, you can't load SpiralFrog's songs on one.

Another service using the Microsoft DRM, called Qtrax, was supposed to be launching a few hours ago. They've claimed to be working on a hack for the iPod to use the DRM, however since they don't even appear to have managed to make it to their own launch on time I'm skeptical that there's going to be any progress made there. And of course Apple could just upgrade the firmware to "fix" whatever their hack relied on, so most iPod owners are still at Apple's mercy.

Why Apple Wants DRM

Despite Steve Jobs' impassioned pleas in the past for labels to drop DRM, it's really Apple that benefits the most from keeping it. By keeping a monopoly on iPod DRM they effectively force any company wishing to distribute content with DRM to iPod owners to go through them (and iTunes). It also forces consumers to replace their current iPod with a new iPod, rather than picking something from a competitor and losing the ability to play a good deal of their iTunes music library.

By basing so much of their business model on using DRM to control the market, Apple has succeeded themselves into a corner. Either content owners will ditch DRM and they'll end up with legions of iPod owners who can play their files purchased from iTunes on any player they want - including the competition's, or some judge will decide they have to make it possible to move FairPlay protected media to other devices. Many people would have laughed at either idea a couple of years ago, but the labels want to teach Apple a lesson and many consumers are unhappy enough to have filed lawsuits already.

Ironically, both groups (labels and consumers) include individuals who feel Apple's iPod success is due to them, and don't feel Apple is treating them fairly. The labels feel Apple succeeded on the merit of their songs, while consumers feel it's their support of the hardware. In both cases they're demanding that Apple relinquish their iron grip over their own technology, something the company isn't very good at.

The Music Industry Misses The Point Again

MyNeroUserWithNicknameVurbal@nero.com (Vurbal) — 25 Jan 2008 08:38:03 GMT

This week the international trade organization for the recording industry, the IFPI, released their annual digital music report summarizing the previous year and making some comments about the next few months. It's basically 50% PR material, an industry "message" of sorts, and part cheerleading material for music executives to pat themselves on the back for.

As someone who is paid partly to keep tabs on what's going on with record labels, I'm fairly opinionated on the subject. I've gone on the record at my day job saying that the problem with labels is they think finding them a new way to make money is everybody's problem but their own. But just as it's cheap for the labels to spend so much time criticizing the companies and individuals who have been willing to gamble their own money to find a new revenue model for recordings, it's not fair for me to criticize them without suggesting an alternate course.

If you look around there are many to consider, from label involvement with tour promotion to a label sponsored subscription service. The first thing they all have in common is that they're more than what the industry has shown itself willing to do. Whether it's an online store like iTunes, a free service like SpiralFrog or Pandora, or individual artists like Radiohead or Saul Williams giving away music, they've been doing what should have been done 5 years ago or more by the labels. They're trying to figure out a new approach to making money on their music.

The problem all the major labels have is that they feel they're somehow entitled to continue making money. A capitalist society requires constant change though. Occasionally that means change at the top, and sometimes that means somebody, or a lot of somebodies, go from the top to the bottom. If the labels can't find a way to generate enough money to survive it's time for them to go the way of all companies without a viable product.

In other words, it's the music industry's responsibility to find their own revenue streams. Find ways to generate ad revenue. Give people the option to get free low quality (MP3 or AAC) songs or pay a little for higher quality. Offer digital recordings of each performance with the purchase of tickets. Find something you have that can't be distributed for free because your music can.

And labels aren't alone here. Some people have complained that such a model hurts musicians and that it will be impossible, or nearly impossible, for an artist to become the next Rolling Stones with free music. I say so what? I don't begrudge the Rolling Stones their success or wealth, but I don't owe it to them either. If Keith Richards lost all his money and came by my house going door to door collecting for the Make Keith Richards A Multimillionaire Again fund I wouldn't contribute. But I will pay (or donate or however you want to word it) to support artists I like. I prefer to do that by paying to see them live, but I'm wiling to fork out a little cash for high quality downloads.

I got an iPod for Christmas and was immediately struck by 2 things - the quality of the iPod and the complete lack of high quality downloads of the songs I wanted in the format I wanted. Provide a product worth paying for, such as cheap, high quality downloads and I'm ready to pay. Otherwise get out of the way because somebody else will - and they'll probably be buying your company in the not too distant future.

And you wondered why people are so confused about HD

MyNeroUserWithNicknameVurbal@nero.com (Vurbal) — 19 Jan 2008 06:20:21 GMT

This morning I was doing my usual daily reading, which largely consists of looking through a bunch of RSS feeds and occasionally reading an article all the way through. One of the articles that looked promising enough to actually read was by a CNet blogger named George Ou who was ranting that HD from internet video providers isn't "Real HD" because it uses a low bitrate.

Forgetting for the moment that he makes claims about what bitrates are used for DVD encoding or required for AVC/VC-1 encoding that simply have no basis in the real world, he's correct that the bitrates typically used by online video providers simply aren't good enough for high quality HD. But that doesn't mean its not HD. HD means high definition, and refers to the resolution of the screen. To say that 720p video isn't HD simply because it's encoded at a low bitrate is preposterous.

When pressed on the issue later, his response was simply that it looks like SD video to him. He declined to elaborate on how his opinion means 720p isn't HD. Later in the day he even posted an update to his blog attempting to illustrate his point about the quality, but still insisted on calling it "Fake HD." After I once again called him out on the issue he responded that it's "low fidelity."

Now I don't personally care if Mr. Ou is misinformed, but it bothers me greatly to see people making public declarations about video related topics when they can't even manage to use basic terminology correctly. One of the biggest reasons so many people don't understand basic HDTV and digital video technology is because this kind of "expert" analysis is so prevalent. Based on his CNet bio, which lists a bunch of IT experience, he should understand the importance of accurately using technical terms.

I need some new HTPC software

MyNeroUserWithNicknameVurbal@nero.com (Vurbal) — 14 Jan 2008 17:07:09 GMT

In October I was unpleasantly surprised to find out that Windows Media Player 11 isn't supported on any version of Microsoft's own HTPC platform, Windows Media Center Edition, prior to the 2005 version. That means if you own a Windows MCE 2002, 2003, or 2004 edition computer you can't watch video from sites that use it for DRM purposes. Until recently that hasn't been a problem for me as most sites only require WMP 10. As of last week, however, it's a big problem since Netflix now requires it for their Watch Instantly service.

For anyone not familiar with the Netflix service, it allows subscribers to their DVD rental plans to stream video from their website, and even offers very good (standard definition) quality with a fast enough internet connection. When I upgraded from 1.5Mbps to 3 Mbps I was able to watch Heroes (a day after it aired) in better quality than I would get from satellite TV.

However, in October I had my first run-in with MCE 2004's lack of WMP 11 support when Netflix temporarily required it for streaming. Although I've never received a reply to the customer support email I sent them about the problem, it went away within a week and I started using the service again. Unfortunately it appears they were just testing for future deployment as they have apparently made a permanent change now. When I spoke to someone at customer service today I found that they knew nothing of the potential issue, so apparently Netflix isn't concerned. They also haven't responded to a request for information I made nearly a week ago.

I could easily solve the problem by spending $200 to upgrade to MCE 2005, but why should I pay Microsoft to fix a problem they created? That sounds a lot like a protection racket to me. Especially since WMP is the backbone of the Media Center application and WMP 11 came out less than 2 years after MCE 2004 and less than a year after vendors switched to MCE 2005.

I'm relatively fortunate because I have a copy of Windows XP Pro I can load on the computer, meaning I could switch to a program like BeyondTV for less than it would cost me to upgrade MCE. I'm just glad I bought the computer second hand. If I had paid what it cost new at the end of 2004 I'd be a lot unhappier than I am now.

If you're affected by this issue make sure to let Microsoft and Netflix know how you feel.

Portable Video Workstation

MyNeroUserWithNicknameVurbal@nero.com (Vurbal) — 12 Jan 2008 08:03:46 GMT

Tomorrow I start experimenting with Nero for DV capture. I've only recently gotten my DV camcorder running again and my oldest daughter wants to make movies so there should be plenty of opportunity to give it a workout. It will also be my first chance to see how easy Nero is for a novice video editor to pick up. As she learns and we experiment with how to best utililze my underpowered laptop as a portable video workstation I'll try to recount my experiences for others who may find the information useful.

Tell them what they've won Johnny...

MyNeroUserWithNicknameVurbal@nero.com (Vurbal) — 08 Jan 2008 20:09:52 GMT

So it looks like Blu-ray may be on its way to "winning" the format war. If rumors that Paramount will be exercising a clause in their HD DVD contract allowing them to switch sides in the event Warner does first (which of course they have) are true it means that some of the most valuable home entertainment properties around (Star Trek and CSI) will be going with them. It's not a stretch to say HD DVD is done, so let's look at what Blu-ray is winning.

For starters they'll be the proud owners of less than a 4% share of the movie/TV release market. Of course the studios and consumer electronics manufacturers will tell you that this is merely a product of the two competing formats, and to an extent there's merit to this, but not in the way they mean. The problem with the so-called format war is that both sides have spent all their time competing against each other rather than competing for customer interest. The amount of FUD and just plain BS spewing from both sides is what's turned off those who have decided to put off picking sides.

So if we assume a winner to the war, what do they have to do to win over consumers? to begin with they need to convince current HDTV owners that DVD and HD Video on Demand aren't high enough quality for them. If those sources are good enough there's no reason to buy into a new format and the discussion is over. They also need to focus on getting HDTV prices under control.

For many people it's not even realistic to buy a new TV. In order to replace my 27" analog TV with something comparable I'd need a 30" - 32" HDTV, which would cost a minimum of $500 - $600. Call me old fashioned, but a $500 TV is still a luxury item to me. Especially when the reaons it's $500 is to pay for the R&D required to keep developing bigger and better screens for people who can afford to pay thousands of dollars. And I'm not alone. Many people either can't or won't pay that kind of money for a TV.

Let's also not forget the Blu-ray and HD DVD aren't the only new HD players. Besides the longshot HD VMD format from Asia, Video on Demand across the internet from Vudu and Microsoft's Xbox Live Marketplace are able to deliver both standard and high definition video to either a dedicated set-top box or game console. Amazon offers downloads directly to newer TiVos, although so far no HD content is available. While these services probably don't compete for disc sales, they certainly threaten the rental market, being more immediate and accessible without leaving your living room.

So perhaps Blu-ray has beaten HD DVD, but don't mistake that for victory. Right now DVD is still on the winning side, with sales revenue that dwarfs any HD medium and rental numbers with rounding errors greater than the number of HD videos downloaded. It's glory days may be behind it, but so are the circumstances that made it the king of the hill. Rather than selling a format that amounts to DVD Plus, the home entertainment industry needs to assess what consumers are asking for that DVD doesn't give them and find new (and varied) ways to supply it.

Rich Fiscus

Nero Digital Encoder Time Prediction

MyNeroUserWithNicknameVurbal@nero.com (Vurbal) — 05 Dec 2007 07:18:23 GMT

Before becoming a Nero MVP my main interest in the software's video encoding capabilities was limited to AVC encoding. While working with both Nero and TMPGEnc Xpress more and more in preparation for a comparison of encoders designed to work with standalone players (DivX and AVCHD for TMPGEnc or Nero Digital, Nero Digital AVC, and AVCHD for Nero) I decided to start my comparison with SD DivX and Nero Digital encodes. I had read good things in Doom9's last MPEG-4 ASP codec comparison about the first pass speed the Ateme encoder achieves on the first pass of a 2 pass encode. Still it's one thing to read about it, and another to watch the first pass run at nearly 4x realtime on an old P4 2.4GHz computer!

So now that I've got the praise out of the way, I have some criticism to go along with it. When I'm encoding I usually have a lot of it to do at once. When it's for work, like what I'm working on now, it really helps me plan my day if I know how long a given encode is going to take. Unfortunately the turbocharged first pass has left the encoder interface clueless about how long the second pass will take. Once it switches gears to run at slightly less than realtime for the second pass (remember - 2.4GHz P4) it never seems to completely adjust for the reduced speed, and as a result time estimates are completely inaccurate until nearly the end of the 2nd pass.

Obviously there's no way for the first pass to predict the speed of the second since they're apparently significantly different. However, it seems like it would be fairly trivial to add some logic that tells the interface to discard the first pass information and recalculate from scratch for the second pass. I'm not going to send a request to support over the issue at this time because it's really just an inconvenience. I wouldn't mind seeing it in a future release though.

Rich Fiscus

Tech Support - The Aftermath

MyNeroUserWithNicknameVurbal@nero.com (Vurbal) — 30 Nov 2007 15:27:08 GMT

In reality I haven't gotten to test the fix for the bug I reported, but for the purposes of discussing my thoughts on support I'll assume it is. I was asked by UncleDave what conclusions I would draw from the experience. Since I'm supposed to represent Nero customers that's a fair question.

As to my overall support experience, I'll have to find a reason to contact support once Nero 8's release issues are worked out. I don't expect to wait 7 days to get the first human response from support. 24-48 hours should be ample time to at least take a quick look at my support request and send out a pretty much cut and paste message directing me to their support info tool with instructions for using it and getting the results back to them. I've spent years in tech support, and I've been in some bad support situations. The one thing I can guarantee will drive away customers is giving them the impression you've forgotten about them.

Ultimately the role of tech support comes down to customer service. Just fixing a problem isn't enough. When you're done interacting with a customer they should be happy with their experience. They should feel like you did them a service, rather than like you finally got around to answering them. Since the problem I was waiting to get support for was only an inconvenience, and didn't keep my from any of my day to day activities the time wasn't an issue for me. However, I don't know that I would feel the same way if I were Joe 6 Pack and this was my first experience with Nero support.

Once I got support it was top notch. The tech was able to reproduce the problem and get it in the hands of the developers quickly. I'm sure the fix was something simple, so I'm not surprised that they've apparently gotten it coded and scheduled for the next update. If I had been contacted by support within 24-48 hours of submitting the web request I would rate this as excellent support. Considering the wait I can't rate it better than fair. If this were something time sensitive (say within a week) it wouldn't have been good enough. You'll never get better than a fair rating from me with a 1 week turnaround time. Not if you had Charles Babbage himself answering emails.

I was left with one issue that I haven't even been able to reproduce since reporting it, so I don't expect support to be able to find it either. I'll have to see if I can find a combination of conditions that reliably reproduces my Nero Digital AVC playback problem (player crash) and submit a new support request. At least I'll have another chance to check out Nero's support response time.

Back to the original question. I suppose if I were giving Nero a grade for my support experience it would be a C. As I said, you can't do any better than fair with a 1 week response time.

Rich Fiscus

Tech Support Day 9

MyNeroUserWithNicknameVurbal@nero.com (Vurbal) — 30 Nov 2007 05:04:16 GMT

Once again I had an email from Nero Support in my Inbox this morning. I was informed that the AviSynth problem will be fixed with the next update, and that the resolution problem I reported with NTSC resolution in the VfW interface is being looked at. Since I still can't reproduce the problems I had a couple of days ago with Showtime and Nero Digital AVC files, I'll have to keep an eye on that to see if I can find a way to consistently reproduce the problem.

Progress To Date

Day 1 - Submitted Support Request via Web form and received autoresponse email from support. Searched Nero support for answer to problem.

Day 7 - Got email from support tech. Sent information he asked for.

Day 8 - Received another reply from support verifying the problem using AviSynth files as sources. Also received responses for 2 additional issues I asked about in my email yesterday. One, an occasional playback problem, they couldn't confirm. The other, an NTSC resolution problem with Nerovision's VfW interface, he didn't seem to be familiar with NTSC resolution. I sent a clarification back on the resolution issue.

Day 9 - Received another response from support indicating AviSynth fix will be in next update. Also notified that the tech is looking into the NTSC resolution issue with the VfW interface.

Tech Support Day 8

MyNeroUserWithNicknameVurbal@nero.com (Vurbal) — 29 Nov 2007 06:46:52 GMT

Once again this morning there was an email from Nero support in my inbox. The support tech was able to reproduce my AviSynth problems and has forwarded the issue to the developer team. We'll see where it goes from here.

Meanwhile 2 other problems I mentioned in my reply to support yesterday still remain outstanding. The first is a playback problem I've had intermittently with Nero 8. When I encode AVC files with Recode they don't always play in Showtime, although I haven't had a problem playing them with other applications like VLC or Media Player Classic. Actually even WMP does fine with them as long as I have the Haali Media Splitter and an appropriate DirectShow decoder installed. For some reason though, I sometimes have playback problems in Showtime. Unfortunately I can't even reproduce it regularly with any particular file. The same AVC files that give me problems in the morning usually play fine in the evening (or whenever I try them again). The tech I'm corresponding with hasn't been able to reproduce the issue, and in the last couple of days neither have I. If anyone else who is experiencing the problem can reproduce it consistently, please let me know so I can try to pass the appropriate information on to the company.

The last issue I'm working with support on right now is a bug with the resolution selection dropdown for Nerovision's VfW interface. When I use a VfW codec Nero starts with a dialog where I have to select a resolution and framerate. Unfortunately, no matter what setting I use (NTSC/PAL/Custom) there's no way to set vertical resolution to 480 if the horizontal resolution is 640. The Nero tech didn't seem particularly familiar with NTSC video, and was under the impression that 720x576 should be fine. I responded with an explanation of standard NTSC resolutions (720x480, 704x480, 640x480, 480x480, 352x480, and 352x240). Hopefully this will clear up the confusion.

Progress To Date

Day 1 - Submitted Support Request via Web form received autoresponse email from support. Searched Nero support for answer to problem.

Day 7 - Got email from support tech. Sent information he asked for.

Tech Support Day 7

MyNeroUserWithNicknameVurbal@nero.com (Vurbal) — 28 Nov 2007 01:44:45 GMT

When I logged into my email this morning I found a response from a Nero support tech. He wanted some additional information on my problem (loadng AviSynth files in Nerovision) and also wanted me to run a support tool to gather information on my system. I sent the requested information. Hopefully I'll hear back soon.

Progress To Date

Day 1 - Submitted Support Request via Web form received autoresponse email from support. Searched Nero support for answer to problem.

Day 7 - Got email from support tech. Sent information he asked for.

Blu-ray's Quest For Ultimate DRM

MyNeroUserWithNicknameVurbal@nero.com (Vurbal) — 22 Nov 2007 22:09:29 GMT

So now that Slysoft has a product that can copy BD+ protected Blu-ray discs and Macrovision has bought the technology behind it, the DRM challenge seems to have escalated. My understanding of how Slysoft's workaround for BD+ works is that it doesn't actually remove the protection so much as ignore it. I don't want to get into any real details here as we quickly start getting into legal gray areas, but I also read somewhere that there's BD+ information that isn't protected (encrypted?) as well as it should be if they want it to be effective, and a future update could be produced that would fix this.

That would, however, create something of a dilemma for the Blu-ray Disc Association because it would mean all existing players would need to be upgraded. When they had a similar upgrade for the initial BD+ implementation there was a little bit of a controversy because one title (Fantastic Four Rise of the Silver Surfer) wouldn't play in just a couple of players because of the protection. As you would expect, the manufacturers quickly responded with firmware updates, but the number of affected players was far smaller than even the number of new units that will be sold in the next month. It's also possible that the reason for the flaw Slysoft is exploiting is a limitation of one or more first generation players.

Hardware compatibility problems for early adopters isn't new, but these aren't your father's early adopters. When DVD first appeared the early adopters belonged to an almost microscopic market segment, consisting of people who generally already had laserdisc players and big screen projection TVs. Today's crowd includes a much broader segment of the population, most of whom bought into hi-def technology after it was fairly well established, and the technology was relatively stable. It's anyone's guess how they'll respond to repeated technical problems and updates.

One of Blu-ray's most important selling points for studios was its adaptive security model that allows the addition of new DRM measures, but does that really make it more secure. ACSS encryption, touted as the final word in DRM by some, proved to be merely a roadblock to bypass, and not even that hard to get around. BD+ seems to be proving just as ineffective. Meanwhile, more and more players that would need upgrades.

And on the subject of firmware upgrades, I'm not a fan of that business model to begin with. As anyone who's done a lot of firmware flashing knows there's always a risk involved. Flashing involves an Electrically Erasable Programmable memory chip (EEPROM) gets erased by passing an electrical current through it. Once it's erased it gets programmed with new instructions. If these instructions somehow don't get written correctly the operation may need to be performed from the beginning.

I'll assume for now that all the existing units have the necessary hardware to recover from a failed flash and perform it again. I'll also assume that they've been designed with high enough quality chips that they can withstand being flashed many times. However, the history of firmware flashing and consumer electronics tells us that a big enough market for players will almost guarantee units sold that aren't as reliable and don't react as well to them. It also tells us that even high quality hardware will have a certain percentage of units that develop problems as a result of being flashed.

We've seen some of the features that studios want in Next-Gen video formats. Now it's time to look at some things consumers want. Let's start with a discussion about managed copying. You can't have an honest discussion about piracy without also including user rights. There are already experiments underway to provide copies formatted for mobile media players and computers with the purchase of a DVD. Is it too much to ask that the new technology keep up with the old? Better yet, maybe Blu-ray (and HD DVD) should put more effort into getting the managed copy features that I believe are mandatory for both are implemented.

If the content and technology providers aren't careful they may manage to give Blu-ray the most effective DRM of all - obsolescence.

Tech Support - Day 1

MyNeroUserWithNicknameVurbal@nero.com (Vurbal) — 21 Nov 2007 04:11:36 GMT

With all the complaints about Nero tech support, I decided to try a little experiment. I've submitted a support request for a problem I have with Nero Vision. I'm reasonably sure it won't be an easy problem to find and answer for, but the purpose of this experiment isn't to get the actual problem fixed. Instead I'm going to use My Nero to keep a log of my experience with Nero support.

I started by submitting a request using the form for email support. I assume that most people are like me, and would prefer help over the phone, but will settle for email support since it's the free option.

A few minutes after submitting the form I received the following email:

Dear Valued Customer,

Thank you for your e-mail. This is an automatic message to verify that your e-mail has arrived and that it is currently waiting to be processed.

To reduce your waiting period you have the option of finding the solution to many common problems on our website:

http://support.nero.com

Thank you.
Your Nero Support Team!

*********************************************************

NERO - BECAUSE TECHNOLOGY COUNTS

*********************************************************

Nero AG

Im Stoeckmaedle 13-15

76307 Karlsbad

Germany

Vorstand: Richard Lesser (CEO)

Aufsichtsratvorsitzender/ chairman of the supervisory board: Jim Corbett

Amtsgericht Mannheim HRB 362519

*********************************************************

Although I've already checked the Nero website, as well as Google, Afterdawn, and Doom9, I made sure to follow the instructions in the support email and check the Nero site again. Now I'll wait to see what happens next. As Nero's only free support option I think most customers would expect an initial (human) response within 24 hours.

Progress To Date

Day 1 - Submitted Support Request via Web form received autoresponse email from support. Searched Nero support for answer to problem.

Day 2 - Still Waiting

Day 3 - Still Waiting

Day 4 - Still Waiting

Day 5 - Still Waiting

Day 6 - Still Waiting

What Is An MVP?

MyNeroUserWithNicknameVurbal@nero.com (Vurbal) — 13 Nov 2007 05:36:25 GMT

I think there's a lot of confusion as to exactly what it means when someone is a Nero MVP. Hopefully I can clarify our position here to some extent.

Let me start by giving a brief history of my involvement with the program. Earlier this year, shortly after I accepted my current job as a staff writer at Afterdawn.com, I saw a post on that site's Nero forum looking for Nero power users to participate in what I interpreted as an effort to connect Nero's development and marketing teams with knowledgeable users who could help improve the product and generally provide useful feedback from a customer's point of view. As part of the MVP program, I'm also asked to participate in the My Nero community regularly.

Not A Nero Employee

Let's address the biggest misconception first. MVP does not mean Nero representative. In fact it means just the opposite. MVPs are here to be advocates for the user. When we see issues crop up here (or other places) that can't be resolved satisfactorily we mention it to a contact within the company. Since he also reads the messages here this would be somewhat redundant, except that it often means we have a frank discussion about whatever the issue us, which then helps inform Nero developers about legitimate user concerns and suggestions to address them.

No Church of Nero

MVPs also aren't Nero zealots expected to "sell" the product to the public. Obviously we have to be using the program in order to be of any use to Nero. That doesn't mean we don't feel there are improvements to be made. In fact each of us has suggested changes to improve various aspects of Nero. When I applied for the program I made it clear that I didn't use the software for several years, and had started using it again fairly recently. I was honest that I thought there were improvements that could be made. Having had some conversations with pretty much all the other MVPs I feel that the entire group was selected because we have the requisite understanding of the software and what it can/should do to help the company move in the right direction. There's also a lot of expertise in software other than Nero, which I feel provides the company with relatively balanced and informed opinions. Since becoming an MVP I've never been discouraged from voicing criticism of the software. I've never been directed to discuss or avoid discussing any subject outside of the standard rules here.

Having said that, we are encouraged to use our own judgment, and we're not required to reply to anyone or make particular blog entries. Clearly a desire to help out must be an important qualification to become an MVP, but none of us is an expert in every available Nero feature. In fact, due to complications from the wide variety of hardware and software that might be involved there are some problems we can't help solve at all. And frankly, sometimes the person who could help may not see a post. If you have suggestions for improving My Nero in order to make getting help easier, speak up and you may see them implemented.

If you've had a bad experience with Nero support, and obviously more than one person here has, I can understand how you might deem the MVP program a failure, however I feel it's an honest effort on Nero's part to improve customer relations and the software at the same time. It's too early to call it a success or failure. Rather it's a work in progress, and if I weren't optimistic about its chances of enabling substantive change for the better in Nero I wouldn't be involved.

Of course these are just my observations of what it means to be an MVP. If you decide to take whatever I say as an official company statement that's your call, but I can assure you that's not a view shared by Nero. It's also not the point of view my posts are written from.

Rich Fiscus

Nero MVP

Staff Writer - Afterdawn.com

-----------------------------------------

The future's here right now if you're willing to pay the cost

-Rob Tyner

Remote Control of Windows MCE

MyNeroUserWithNicknameVurbal@nero.com (Vurbal) — 08 Nov 2007 15:48:53 GMT

Since I started using Windows MCE (2004) I've often been frustrated when troubleshooting problems with a mouse and keyboard. While I have a USB keyboard and mouse I can use, it would often be helpful if I could bring the display to my monitor, particuarly while I'm working. In addition to MCE, I also use my HTPC to listen to internet radio via Pandora, which can't be controlled with the Media Center remote.

I finally realized that I had the solution already. When I ran a small network I found a piece of help desk software that includes a VNC server which can be used to connect to whatever computers on the network have clients installed. It can also remotely deploy the client and provide an inventory of hardware and software on the target machine.

The software is called SysAid, and it's made by an Isreali company called Ilient (you should have seen the face of the guy in accounts payable when I explained he had to mail a payment to Isreal). There's also a paid version that includes project management and advanced reporting capabilities, although I obviously don't need those features for home use.

Life Imitates The Onion

MyNeroUserWithNicknameVurbal@nero.com (Vurbal) — 05 Nov 2007 03:57:57 GMT

It seems that the patent licensing firm responsible for the dumbest patent I've ever seen is suing Netflix for recommending DVDs to their customers without paying a licensing fee for "optimizing interest potential." That's right, according to their lawyers, if you categorize customer preferences based on prior activity and make recommendations to them based on that criteria you're supposed to be paying patent royalties.

The best part is the the diagram included with the patent filing which clearly shows its complete lunacy.

Yup. That's the entire patent. The only thing that would make less sense than granting this patent would be upholding it in court. Unless the Netflix legal team is senile and doesn't speak English I don't see that happening.

Great Support Microshaft!

MyNeroUserWithNicknameVurbal@nero.com (Vurbal) — 23 Oct 2007 16:05:33 GMT

At the beginning of the year I rid myself of any standalone video or audio players and started using an HTPC with Windows XP MCE 2004. My choice of media center software was the result of getting a great deal from a coworker on a computer he was replacing. I've thought about switching to other software, but since there's no support for an MCE remote without purchasing additional hardware I'm not ready to make that move until I upgrade to hi-def.

While I've been fairly happy with my experience so far, I've run into a problem that apparently has no acceptable solution. While I don't watch TV through my HTPC, I do use it to stream video from Joost and some other sites. I also have a Netflix subscription, which gives me access to a small, but growing, library of movies and television series that can be streamed through their Watch Instantly service. Last week I upgraded my internet service in order to take advantage of their highest quality streams, but when I tested it yesterday I was given a message indicating I have to upgrade from WMP 10 to WMP 11. Unfortunately, WMP 11 can't be loaded on an MCE 2004 or earlier computer without breaking the Media Center app.

I find this situation unacceptable. A computer with an original 2002 copy of Windows XP can install WMP 11 with no problems (as long as SP2 is installed), as can someone using Windows XP MCE 2005. If this is the level of support I can expect for new multimedia technology I'm certainly not going to upgrade to a newer version of the same software and hope it never happens again. And I'm not spending more than $100 to upgrade a computer I bought for $250. For the same money (or less) I could get BeyondTV plus a new remote that I can use with whatever software I want.

If I don't come up with a better solution, I may be stuck dual booting to different copies of Windows XP so I can use the streaming service I'm paying Netflix for. Meanwhile I've sent emails to Microsoft (whom I expect nothing from) and Netflix (whom I expect a polite but ultimately non-helpful response from).

Congratulations To binkie7

MyNeroUserWithNicknameVurbal@nero.com (Vurbal) — 17 Oct 2007 05:45:50 GMT

I can't believe I didn't mention this sooner. One of my fellow MVPs, binkie7, has accepted a position as an unpaid, under-appreciated, overworked, moderator for the forums at the digital video site I work for, Afterdawn.com. She was unanimously recommended by past and present moderators, and I'm sure she'll do a great job.