When Is The Real Release Date...

[juniorm33]

Also note there will be *NO* real media playing abilities built in - you will have to download mplayer for that as we can't afford to pay the licences for all the codecs. All those Chinese/Korean PMPs just get away with not paying - we would not, someone would make sure we were found out.

What's the trick of all these "illegal" PMPs not to be harmed for not paying licenses? And could we also benefit from this trick if there is one? Just in case...

The trick is, they don't care and more trouble than it's worth trying to stop them. Probably partially due to the copyright laws over there. Not the same for OP. Simpler to just let people install it themselves, won't be hard and as craig said I'm sure that there'll be an unoficial firmware that people can install
Still curious about the legit nature of vlc etc though, pretty sure that would be ok

 

[PoisonedV]

Also note there will be *NO* real media playing abilities built in - you will have to download mplayer for that as we can't afford to pay the licences for all the codecs.

Not even open formats?

I think that would cause even more trouble. If theres no media player at all, people may be likely to just search the file archive. If there is one and it only plays 3 formats, the first place they would probably come is the forums to complain about how it doesn't work.

 

[craigix]

That's exactly it. Imagine the clueless mainstream reviews saying it does not play any formats.

If they have to install their own then it will play everything.

Problem solved.

 

[dflemstr]

That's exactly it. Imagine the clueless mainstream reviews saying it does not play any formats.

If they have to install their own then it will play everything.

Problem solved.

I'm sure hoping that you'll make the experience smooth, though. As in, a big fat icon on the desktop with the text "Install additional codecs" with, of course, the obligatory "Check if you've got the rights to download blabla..." showing up as a popup when you click it, followed by an instant download of all the needed packages (You are using IPKG for that, right? Right?)

 

[juniorm33]

That's exactly it. Imagine the clueless mainstream reviews saying it does not play any formats.

If they have to install their own then it will play everything.

Problem solved.

Imagine the clueless mainstream reviews saying it does not play any formats. You make it sound like that's a good thing.
If their clueless they'll just write it can't even play a simple xvid, mp4 file, mp3's, etc. Not exactly a glowing review!
Although it maybe simpler to not put any on. Don't kid yourself to think it makes it somehow a better review.

@dflemstr - sure that will help but for a mainstream reviewer they'll not see it as a good thing and may not even do it, or say how limited it is without all the additional setup that's required.

 

[Username]

Imagine the clueless mainstream reviews saying it does not play any formats. You make it sound like that's a good thing.
If their clueless they'll just write it can't even play a simple xvid, mp4 file, mp3's, etc. Not exactly a glowing review!
Although it maybe simpler to not put any on. Don't kid yourself to think it makes it somehow a better review.

Not a mainstream product, etc.

 

[Aninhumer]

If it's given to reviewers as a games console, rather than as a PMP, you can just say that media playing is an extra feature that can be downloaded.

No doubt clueless reviewers will complain, but given the nature of the device, they're likely to complain anyway, seeing as it is unlikely to do even half of what it is capable of out of the box.

 

[j6cubic]

Imagine the clueless mainstream reviews saying it does not play any formats. You make it sound like that's a good thing.
If their clueless they'll just write it can't even play a simple xvid, mp4 file, mp3's, etc. Not exactly a glowing review!
Although it maybe simpler to not put any on. Don't kid yourself to think it makes it somehow a better review.

@dflemstr - sure that will help but for a mainstream reviewer they'll not see it as a good thing and may not even do it, or say how limited it is without all the additional setup that's required.

Unfortunately the only alternative is to license all the codecs, which would make the Pandora a good bit more expensive.

I just checked how much it would cost them to just support H.264 video with AAC audio and nothing else, using this calculator. Assuming they sell 10,000 Pandoras per year they need to pay 12,500 USD for those alone (assuming that the Pandora counts as a PDA rather than a PC). And that's just if they only ship decoders; encoders cost extra. Add to that MPEG-2 (30.000 USD), MP3 (15.000 USD; 25,000 if they also ship LAME) and all the other codecs people consider neccessary and we look at a fairly significant amout of work they need to do just to obtain all the licenses as well as additional cost they will need to pass on to the buyers.

While it's possible to license every useful codec under the sun and the additional cost per Pandora isn't that large compared to the base price (I'd expect about 20-30 USD), I'd expect it to delay the Pandora launch by at least one month and most likely even more.

Quite frankly, I'd rather take an expedite launch over favorable reviews from reviewers who are too lazy to install a media player through the package manager.

 

[juniorm33]

Imagine the clueless mainstream reviews saying it does not play any formats. You make it sound like that's a good thing.
If their clueless they'll just write it can't even play a simple xvid, mp4 file, mp3's, etc. Not exactly a glowing review!
Although it maybe simpler to not put any on. Don't kid yourself to think it makes it somehow a better review.

Not a mainstream product, etc.

I'm quoting Craig.
And may not be a mainstream product but doesn't mean there wont be mainstream reviews, personally I'm happy to download these stuff and expected to. But for Craig to imply it's a good thing I disagree with.

@j6cubic - I'm aware of the costs, and never said it should be included, I'm saying that somehow doesn't make it a positive as Craig implied. Esp when they will be comparing it to other things that can play them, even mobile phones can. My point of view is it's a necessary evil! (believe media has been shown working so I don't expect to be waiting to be able to download a player, it's just not using the dsp so don't expect to be playing h264 720p stuff)

@Aninhumer - it's not a games/emulation console

 

[tristan.clark]

It makes sense given that OP is a small company that people have to download and install their own CODECs. As they can't afford to include them and are likely face legal consequences if they do any way. No one is likely to prosecute OP owners spread across the planet, but one 'rogue' company IS a target. This way the Pandora is no different to any other PDA / PC / UMPC out there, the manufacture isn't responsible for what you the user do with it.

Does make it difficult to sell it to the press through if you can't give them a list of functions and features as long as your arm. But due to lead times, the understandable desire for a bit of a rest there is time between now and the second batch to get more software out there, games...whatever. We are guinea pigs as first batchers, we did all know that didn't we?

Having a product (the first batch) gets the Pandora properly on the radar as its proven not to be rumour or vapourware. By the second batch the Pandora will hopefully appear a much more mature product with much more software.

 

[WizardStan]

But for Craig to imply it's a good thing I disagree with.

Which is better: being able to play a couple of lesser known formats but not any of the common ones; or being told that you have to download a player in order to play anything?
The reasons behind the second being better have already been given. Now let's hear your reason why you think the former is better.

 

[juniorm33]

But for Craig to imply it's a good thing I disagree with.

Which is better: being able to play a couple of lesser known formats but not any of the common ones; or being told that you have to download a player in order to play anything?
The reasons behind the second being better have already been given. Now let's hear your reason why you think the former is better.

Errrr what, when did I say it was better?
I'll repeat myself. It's a necessary evil, doesn't make it a good thing.
If you don't understand that statement I'll break it down for you.
I agree that it has to ship without one, which has been discussed many times before why (and as said before I agree with).
But I don't think it's a good thing, just necessary as there's no other viable choice.
Hence necessary evil!
Maybe the saying necessary evil isn't a universal saying and you couldn't work it out, if not I apologise for any confusion, just surprised.

 

[Aninhumer]

I think a clear message when you try to play a file for which you need extra codecs, to the effect that "You CAN play this, but you need to get codecs" with a checkbox and button as stated before is probably sufficient.

If a reviewer still says it's rubbish then there's not a lot that can be done about that, short of actually paying for codecs.

 

[juniorm33]

I think a clear message when you try to play a file for which you need extra codecs, to the effect that "You CAN play this, but you need to get codecs" with a checkbox and button as stated before is probably sufficient.

If a reviewer still says it's rubbish then there's not a lot that can be done about that, short of actually paying for codecs.

I think that's worse. Then the user will never be sure if they got the codec they need, and always having to download a new one when you go to play another file. Better that it doesn't play anything and you have to download a single one of package.

Unless we send out pre-prepared ones saying, we've installed some of the things we expect users may want to use. Probably could get away with that with say vlc I'm not sure about mplayer's legality.

 

[aesir911]

i know i don't get it, that's why i asked about it... thank you for informing me.

the data is out of date

...

And that is why you fail. If you're not going to do any thinking for yourself and just want all the answers handed to you on a silver plate, then I am not going to answer any more of your questions.

I said thank you multiple times. I posted the "..." because you keep blowing up at me. Thank you for answering my questions, I greatly appreciate your time and effort in answering some of my questions.

 

[Aninhumer]

I think that's worse. Then the user will never be sure if they got the codec they need, and always having to download a new one when you go to play another file. Better that it doesn't play anything and you have to download a single one of package.

It could be made to download all licence restricted codecs at that point (gstreamer-plugins-bad).

Unless we send out pre-prepared ones saying, we've installed some of the things we expect users may want to use. Probably could get away with that with say vlc I'm not sure about mplayer's legality.

Most likely some kind of suggested software, as a CD, or preinstalled would probably be necessary for reviewers anyway, so a media player could be included in that.

I think mplayer and VLC are about the same, seeing as the key component will be ffmpeg either way.

 

[aq21]

What's the trick of all these "illegal" PMPs not to be harmed for not paying licenses? And could we also benefit from this trick if there is one? Just in case...

The trick is, they don't care and more trouble than it's worth trying to stop them. Probably partially due to the copyright laws over there. Not the same for OP. Simpler to just let people install it themselves, won't be hard and as craig said I'm sure that there'll be an unoficial firmware that people can install
Still curious about the legit nature of vlc etc though, pretty sure that would be ok

The problem is not with copyrights, but with patents. vlc and mplayer are clear as far as copyrights go - they were released as free software by their authors. The problem is with patents - a lot of the compressed video and audio formats are patented. Unlike copyright, where if you write something it is yours, even if it is very similar (or identical) to someone else's code, patents cover every implementation. On the other hand copyrights are almost universal, while patent law differ a lot between countries, which is why mplayer and vlc might need permission to distribute (or use) in some countries and ve completely free in others.

BTW, windows can't play most formats without installing codecs, so I guess even the unwashed masses can manage this. And in Linux it is much simpler.

 

[BackAssward]

...

Well said, and better than I could.

Edit: though we got off topic a while back, in a healthy conversation kinda way. Which I am glad we can do without being closed.

 

[juniorm33]

aq21 thanks found that interesting.

 

[atomicthumbs]

The first thing the software will want you to do is to download and install the latest image. This might not be a feature on the first 4000, but it will be on the next batch.

Also note there will be *NO* real media playing abilities built in - you will have to download mplayer for that as we can't afford to pay the licences for all the codecs. All those Chinese/Korean PMPs just get away with not paying - we would not, someone would make sure we were found out.

However I'm sure there will be a PandoraFirmware++ with everything built in, ready to download, from day one.

Why not just have a button that says "Download Media Player"?