*spin-off* Use of BD & Java, "blue" laser (405nm) etc

[Deadmeat]

What about releasing dual layer with both blu ray and DVD? That way if you've got the space you can support all present and future consoles with the one game release without needing multiple skus

Xbox 3 is NOT going to have a Blu-Ray drive under any condition, they are legally banned from playing Blu-Ray movies on any of Microsoft platforms forever, hence no built-in Blu-Ray playback in Windows 7 Media Center Edition.

What Microsoft will have is a custom format similar to Nintendo U's drive, assuming there is even an optical drive in the Xbox 3 to begin with.

 

[AlNom]

they are legally banned from playing Blu-Ray movies on any of Microsoft platforms forever, hence no built-in Blu-Ray playback in Windows 7 Media Center Edition.

This doesn't make sense to me. You can still play blu-ray movies on the Windows platform via whatever BD software is included with your BD drive. Blu ray is just a disc technology, not necessarily the movie playing aspect.

From what I can find, MS simply did not license Blu Ray movie codecs, so they do not support it out-of-the-box. Same story with DVD back with Xbox 1 (but then MS became part of the DVD Consortium/Forum at some point).

 

[Deadmeat]

This doesn't make sense to me. You can still play blu-ray movies on the Windows platform via whatever BD software is included with your BD drive.

The playback software is not from Microsoft. That's the catch.

Blu ray is just a disc technology, not necessarily the movie playing aspect.

There is no benefit of Blu-Ray as a data storage medium since you could build a piracy-resistant custom format for less money like Nintendo has done. Blu-Ray's sole benefit to console is as a movie playback format, from which is Microsoft is legally banned.

From what I can find, MS simply did not license Blu Ray movie codecs, so they do not support it out-of-the-box.

Blu-Ray movie playback requires Java, and Microsoft is banned from installing Java on its platforms per the terms of the Java-lawsuit settlement with Sun a decade ago.

Whatever optical drive, if any, Microsoft puts into its next console, it won't be Blu-Ray.

 

[AlNom]

The playback software is not from Microsoft. That's the catch.

Right, but that doesn't mean it's banned, but you already clarified the java connection (what you really meant) from your originally vague comment. Thanks.

I do believe you meant "pre-install" since it's pretty darn clear you can install Java. Ahem.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Whatever optical drive, if any, Microsoft puts into its next console, it won't be Blu-Ray.

It would likely be BluRay only with movie playback disabled. What other choice have they? And is there anything in the previous lawsuit that precludes MS licensing Java for non-Windows platforms?

 

[BoardBonobo]

Right, but that doesn't mean it's banned, but you already clarified the java connection (what you really meant) from your originally vague comment. Thanks.

I do believe you meant "pre-install" since it's pretty darn clear you can install Java. Ahem.

I think the point is that Microsoft can't install it. So how would you get it onto your console? And if it is presented as an 'app' to download how many people will just start moaning about all the extra effort required just to watch a movie...

 

[AlNom]

And if it is presented as an 'app' to download how many people will just start moaning about all the extra effort required just to watch a movie...

A one-time installation? Come on. People are already asked to do far worse with PS3 updates and mpeg4 codecs for current gen.

 

[bkilian]

they are legally banned from playing Blu-Ray movies on any of Microsoft platforms forever, hence no built-in Blu-Ray playback in Windows 7 Media Center Edition.

Blu-Ray movie playback requires Java, and Microsoft is banned from installing Java on its platforms per the terms of the Java-lawsuit settlement with Sun a decade ago.

Both these statements are wrong. For one, Microsoft is not legally banned from supporting blu-ray at all, if we paid the license fees, then we would be treated like any other licensee. And the second part, while also inaccurate, is irrelevant, because while blu-ray uses a version of java (called bd-j) in its interactivity engine, the license to use that version is included in the blu-ray license, as far as I remember.

That's not to say MS will or won't have a blu-ray player in any future product, it's just that your arguments against it are incorrect.

You'll notice Windows 8 no longer plays DVDs either, without paying extra for media center or getting a third party player. By your logic that would mean we're no longer allowed to?

 

[AlNom]

Thanks for the info, bk. Much appreciated.

 

[Rangers]

Next Xbox console started manufacturing? I bet it's the first dev kit if anything.



http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/05/03/is-microsoft-already-manufacturing-the-next-xbox

Tommy McClain

I cant figure out any way this makes sense (even for dev kits), so I chalk it up to IGN is stupid.

 

[Deadmeat]

Both these statements are wrong.

They are factual and correct.

For one, Microsoft is not legally banned from supporting blu-ray at all

I specifically mentioned "Blu-Ray movie playbacks", not the reading of disc files.

if we paid the license fees

Which Microsoft won't pay to license Java at all.

then we would be treated like any other licensee.

Then why is the Blu-Ray playback not included in the Media Center Edition? Microsoft provides hooks for 3rd party playback software, but won't even integrate them in the package at extra cost.

And the second part, while also inaccurate, is irrelevant, because while blu-ray uses a version of java (called bd-j) in its interactivity engine, the license to use that version is included in the blu-ray license, as far as I remember.

The 2001 Java lawsuit settlement prohibits Microsoft from pre-installing Java on its platforms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Java_Virtual_Machine#Sun_vs._Microsoft

Sun vs. Microsoft
In October 1997, Sun Microsystems, the creator of Java, sued Microsoft for incompletely implementing the Java 1.1 standard.[4]
In January 2001, Sun and Microsoft settled the suit. Microsoft paid Sun $20 million and the two agreed to a plan for Microsoft to phase out products that included the older version of Microsoft Java that allegedly infringed on Sun's Java copyrights and trademarks.

The Microsoft Java Virtual Machine was discontinued in 2001 in response to the Sun Microsystems lawsuit. Microsoft continued to offer support until June 30, 2009.[5]
[edit]Windows XP

See also: Windows XP
The initial edition Windows XP RTM did not ship with a Java virtual machine 2001, due to the settlement. This required users that wanted to run Java Applets in Internet Explorer to download and install either the standard Sun Java virtual machine, or locate a copy of the Microsoft Java virtual machine elsewhere.
Service Pack 1 (SP1) for Windows XP was released on September 9, 2002. It contained post-RTM security fixes and hot-fixes, compatibility updates, optional .NET Framework support, and enabled technologies for new devices such as Tablet PCs. It also included the Microsoft Java virtual machine.[6]
On February 3, 2003, Microsoft released Service Pack 1 (SP1) again as Service Pack 1a (SP1a). This release removed Microsoft's Java virtual machine as a result of the lawsuit with Sun Microsystems.

 

[AlphaWolf]

I don't think it means what you think it means. I've no doubt that if MS wanted to license blu-ray and use it, it wouldn't be a problem. That doesn't mean they will.

 

[AlNom]

Yeah...Deadmeat, I think you've irrationally jumped to the wrong conclusion on your last point. Looking at the info on the wiki, it seems they were just dinged on the MS Java VM, which had proprietary extensions and was not fully Java 1.1 compliant. That last bolded quote is a natural response considering they (for some reason) included MS JVM in one of their updates. It really doesn't say anything about a proper Java implementation for the future nor does it say they cannot pre-install a fully compliant java ("this required users to download and install either the standard Sun JVM..."). It was simply referring to the MS JVM that started the whole suit.

edit:
It really wouldn't be in the interest of Sun to ban the company, which has the world's most installed OS, from being able to license BD movie playback. It looks like MS simply just doesn't feel the need to do so, or perhaps there could be anti-trust suits as there are 3rd party software solutions that enable it.

 

[Deadmeat]

Yeah...Deadmeat, I think you've irrationally jumped to the wrong conclusion on your last point. Looking at the info on the wiki, it seems they were just dinged on the MS Java VM, which had proprietary extensions and was not fully Java 1.1 compliant. That last bolded quote is a natural response considering they (for some reason) included MS JVM in one of their updates. It really doesn't say anything about a proper Java implementation for the future nor does it say they cannot pre-install a fully compliant java. It was simply referring to the MS JVM that started the whole suit.

1. Microsoft doesn't have a Java license.
2. Microsoft agreed to not use any version of its own implementation of Java after 2008.

So it's quite clear based on the wording of the settlement, Microsoft cannot develop and use its own Java implementation at all, standard compliant or not.

The only solution is to let somebody else come up with a player software as an installed app and then it becomes legal. But how many will pay $50 or so to watch Blu-Ray movies on an Xbox when the dedicated players are affordable?

What use of is the Blu-Ray drive to Microsoft if it cannot be used for movie playback by the vast majority of owners? As a data storage format? Microsoft doesn't need Blu-Ray then, there are other optical solutions providing similar capacity and Microsoft then would simply skip the Blu-Ray drive royalty.

Better yet, the flash drive is falling in cost and putting games on flash drives enables Microsoft to release the Xbox Pad and Xbox Lite integrated into 3rd party TV sets.

 

[AlNom]

2. Microsoft agreed to not use any version of its own implementation of Java after 2008.

Where does it say that? All the article says is that they phased out products and supported their implementation of the software (presumably for apps that did make use of the proprietary additions) up until June 2009, but it was otherwise removed where they could through updates or just not included in the OS.

So it's quite clear based on the wording of the settlement, Microsoft cannot develop and use its own Java implementation at all, standard compliant or not.

No, it's not clear that they can't use the standard JVM. The wiki even mentions users can use the standard version. The whole lawsuit was about non-compliancy and all the issues that came with that.

Where do they specifically say that they cannot use standard Sun JVM?

Nowhere in that entire article does it even hint that they cannot license a future Java software (such as BD-J). The lawsuit was inclusive of the non-compliant version that MS developed.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I specifically mentioned "Blu-Ray movie playbacks", not the reading of disc files.

Your opener was:

Xbox 3 is NOT going to have a Blu-Ray drive under any condition, they are legally banned from playing Blu-Ray movies on any of Microsoft platforms forever, hence no built-in Blu-Ray playback in Windows 7 Media Center Edition.

You categorically assert that XB360 cannot use BRD, and not that it can use the BRD format but without BRD movie playback.

I see nothing supporting that view. And as others are contesting, your conclusions from the information presented regards the Java lawsuit don't correlate with the information. The wiki quotes aren't saying at all that MS are banned from using/installing Java forever, or banned from licensing the technology. They were just told off for supplying their flavour of Java. But I'll leave it to others to argue the finer points of that case. I'd just like to know how you get from MS being disallowed to use Java ever to MS not being allowed to use an optical sotrage format? Why cannot XB3 games be released on BRD discs?

 

[BRiT]

For those who haven't paid attention to the Java license issues. Here's what the real situation is based on actual legal requirements and case law:

• You do not need a License to use Java runtime.
• You need a License to use the Java Brand logo.
• You need a License to use the Java TCK (Sun's Java compliance testing kit).

EDIT: Oh, and the agreement was only for MS to remove the OLD MS-extended Java versions and from calling it "Java". It says nothing about future official Java versions. It also does not preclude MS from creating their own version of the runtime and calling it Java after it passes the official Java compliance tests.

 

[Deadmeat]

Your opener was:

You categorically assert that XB360 cannot use BRD

This is what I said.

Xbox 3 is NOT going to have a Blu-Ray drive under any condition, they are legally banned from playing Blu-Ray movies on any of Microsoft platforms forever

What's the point of having a costly Blu-Ray drive when it cannot be used to playback movies? You can get a proprietary optical drive and skip the Blu-Ray royalty payment, which is what Nintendo has done with Wii U.

And as others are contesting, your conclusions from the information presented regards the Java lawsuit don't correlate with the information. The wiki quotes aren't saying at all that MS are banned from using/installing Java forever

Do you see JVM preinstalled on any of Microsoft product?

MS not being allowed to use an optical sotrage format?

I repeat one more time, there is no reason to use Blu-Ray drive for data-storage; Microsoft can order 25 GB ~ 30 GB proprietary drives for half the price of Blu-Ray drives, which has the added benefit of combating piracy.

Why cannot XB3 games be released on BRD discs?

Proprietary drives are far cheaper, no Blu-Ray royalty.

• You do not need a License to use Java runtime.

• 
  But you need a license to develop a runtime.
  
  

  [*] You need a License to use the Java TCK (Sun's Java compliance testing kit).

  Another legal barrier.
  
  

  EDIT: Oh, and the agreement was only for MS to remove the OLD MS-extended Java versions and from calling it "Java". It says nothing about future official Java versions.

  Microsoft has no Java license. Thus cannot develop a runtime or SDK.
  
  

  It also does not preclude MS from creating their own version of the runtime and calling it Java after it passes the official Java compliance tests.

  To do that Microsoft needs a Java license, which they don't have.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Not having a license doesn't mean they can't get one... If MS doesn't include blu-ray in this or any future product, it won't be because of their lack of ability to do so because of any legal issue.

 

[BRiT]

But you need a license to develop a runtime.

No you do not. See the Apache Harmony, GNU Classpath, and Google Android projects. You only need one if you label/brand it as Java.

Microsoft has no Java license. Thus cannot develop a runtime or SDK.

No, they do not need to do that. They do not need a full Java license. They merely need the BluRay license.

Even under your logic at the very worst they could simply use the OpenJDK runtime with no development costs at all.