AfterDawn: News

RealVideo use continues to die

Arstechnica is reporting today that RealVideo continues its death spiral, this time with C-SPAN getting rid of the streaming video format in favor of Flash and Windows Media.

Says the C-SPAN site: "Due to lack of demand for the RealVideo format, we will be retiring our links to C-SPAN live video streams in the RealVideo format effective March 1, 2010."



The Ars reporter says the codec lives on in a few Government committees, such as the Senate's Committee on Environment and Public Works but the FCC finally upgraded last year to Flash, after previously broadcasting all their meetings on a server that could handle only up to 200 users and produced 240x240 resolution video.

Written by: Andre Yoskowitz @ 4 Feb 2010 18:35

• Previous article

• Future Kindle device to be touchscreen

• Next article

• Verizon service headed to iPad, says source

• 22 comments

• xnonsuchx

  Isn't built-in multimedia support in HTML5 supposed to kill all embedded players anyway?

  4.2.2010 20:21 #1

• ivymike

  Good Riddance, Real Media.

  4.2.2010 20:50 #2

• Josipher

  im with mike on this one..although the HTML5 beta on youtube is still quite buggy,but it loads much faster than flash so i still stick with it

  4.2.2010 22:31 #3

• ivymike

  I never liked the RealMedia format. It's a super closed-source format that can be easily DRM'd and is very hard to properly convert to a more desired format. Ever tried to convert an .RM file to .AVI? Why would you even want to considering the very poor quality?
  
  Poor Quality, Closed-Source & DRM has finally doomed the RealMedia format and I couldn't be happier.

  4.2.2010 23:24 #4

• BazNZ

  Good Riddance! "Real" Shame...LOL From day one Real Networks sucked! My first computer I ever bought used this crap media player and crap codecs which took over your PC like a dictator loading you up with Pop-ups and adverts. Had to pay if you wanted anything to work. A pain to un-install...it's no wonder Real is dying. I'm surprised this company lasted as long as it has with their tactics. Only unsuspecting noobs to computing would download Real Player when prompted to do so. R.I.P "REAL WORKS"

  4.2.2010 23:52 #5

• cyprusrom

  Originally posted by ivymike: I never liked the RealMedia format. It's a super closed-source format that can be easily DRM'd and is very hard to properly convert to a more desired format. Ever tried to convert an .RM file to .AVI? Why would you even want to considering the very poor quality?
  
  Poor Quality, Closed-Source & DRM has finally doomed the RealMedia format and I couldn't be happier.Hmm...maybe you guys never encoded or seen a good RM video. It does achieve very good compression and the quality can be very good, unless the files are encoded by some noobs that have no idea what they are doing and think it's cool to squeeze a full length movie in a 200MB video.
  Yes, I did covert a RMVB to AVI or DVD, and had no issues.
  Maybe different marketing strategies, different game play would've turned out better for Real Video...instead right now it is indeed dying, but not because "poor quality".

  5.2.2010 01:09 #6

• KillerBug

  Quote:Hmm...maybe you guys never encoded or seen a good RM video. It does achieve very good compression and the quality can be very good, unless the files are encoded by some noobs that have no idea what they are doing and think it's cool to squeeze a full length movie in a 200MB video.
  Yes, I did covert a RMVB to AVI or DVD, and had no issues.You converted a 2 hour movie into a 200MB RM file? I know for a fact that it looked terrible. I know there is a big difference between using the default settings and doing it correctly (just like most codecs), but you just can't squeeze 8GB into 200MB without noticable quality loss...you can't even do it into 700MB without noticable issues. Heck, even bluray disks have artifacts due to compression...and the compressed size is usualy over 20GB! The only thing that might look worse than a 2hr 200MB file is the AVI that you would be forced to convert it back to if you ever wanted to watch it.
  
  As for the death of RM, I say, "Whore-Ray!" there are better codecs available for free, without DRM, and without the need for some player that is little more than malware.
  
  Death to RM. Death to Quicktime. Death to SilverLight. Death to DivX. They all suck, and the only nice thing I can say about any of them is that DivX inspired some of the better open-source codecs.

  5.2.2010 04:58 #7

• cyprusrom

  Quote:Quote:Hmm...maybe you guys never encoded or seen a good RM video. It does achieve very good compression and the quality can be very good, unless the files are encoded by some noobs that have no idea what they are doing and think it's cool to squeeze a full length movie in a 200MB video.
  Yes, I did covert a RMVB to AVI or DVD, and had no issues.You converted a 2 hour movie into a 200MB RM file? I know for a fact that it looked terrible. I know there is a big difference between using the default settings and doing it correctly (just like most codecs), but you just can't squeeze 8GB into 200MB without noticable quality loss...you can't even do it into 700MB without noticable issues. Heck, even bluray disks have artifacts due to compression...and the compressed size is usualy over 20GB! The only thing that might look worse than a 2hr 200MB file is the AVI that you would be forced to convert it back to if you ever wanted to watch it.
  
  As for the death of RM, I say, "Whore-Ray!" there are better codecs available for free, without DRM, and without the need for some player that is little more than malware.
  
  Death to RM. Death to Quicktime. Death to SilverLight. Death to DivX. They all suck, and the only nice thing I can say about any of them is that DivX inspired some of the better open-source codecs.You obviously didn't take 1 second to read my post...squeezing a full length movie in a 200MB video is exactly what I was talking against...

  5.2.2010 06:13 #8

• cky4987

  wow. I totally forgot about real media until I just now read this article. I remember using it years ago, and how much I hated it. I can't even believe that it's still going these days.

  5.2.2010 06:52 #9

• NHS2008

  hmm. who cares?!

  5.2.2010 07:53 #10

• Scaldari

  hell, ive just been using real alternative for years, same thing for quicktime. Now that they mention it though, i dont think i have had to use ether for a long time. Just takin up hard drive space >. Good Riddance!!!!!!!!

  5.2.2010 07:55 #11

• mrtim

  I'm amazed Real has been around this long. Ever since the web advanced beyond Mosaic it has been by far the most annoying package to deal with: lots of crapware, icons all over the desktop, threads starting up without asking . . . just about every rude thing a software package can do. Good riddance indeed!

  5.2.2010 16:15 #12

• ThePastor

  Yeah, I think that was the real problem with Real player.. .(and Quicktime), it was downright RUDE.
  For me, the most notable pain in the ass was the requirement to use their player. Nothing else supported .rm so if you got something in that format you were pretty much screwed.
  Conversion was tough as well.
  Also, I think there were a crapload of bundled packages that came with cameras and such that only used that format and so there was a gob of amatures using the shareware version making extremely bad videos.
  Whether it was a good codec or not is sorta besides the point. They killed themselves by being in your face.
  To this day I routinely dislike and many times uninstall ANY program which installs an updater due to the REAL player updater that used to always annoy the hell out of me...
  
  And all of the above, for the most part, can also be said for Quicktime.

  5.2.2010 20:29 #13

• ssj4_2004

  I rather liked Real PLayer a couple of years ago. When encoded properly videos look very nice for the size. I don't really see a need for super small videos at this point though, since internet speeds are going up, and servers are getting faster.

  5.2.2010 22:42 #14

• cyprusrom

  Of course, everybody knows that RealPlayer is not the only one that plays RM videos, right...I have a few dozen RM videos, I never used Real Player. The only time I installed it was for testing purposes...

  6.2.2010 00:50 #15

• scum101

  good riddance from me too.. horrid stuff.. especially the .rmvb format..
  
  to convert any of this crap I use T@bencode.. and rmvb needs renaming to .rm .. how silly..
  
  I want to see an internet free of proprietary garbage like real and adobe flash.. and proprietary codecs and websites that are built for one proprietary browser.. oh.. and sling java in the same bin.. because that's crap as well.. security risks every one.. java and flash based sites hit my "bad-bad" list almost immediately.. and that will go for the "new" afterdawn.. NO NEED for all that java guys.. or can't you code HTML for shizz?
  
  The internet with flash and java disabled is quite a nice place actually.. with them left on it's like trying to read in a room full of people jumping about shouting!!
  

  Yes, we give you 100% free, no strings attached email! Just send us your address and we will send you as much free email as you could ever wish for

  6.2.2010 01:24 #16

• bill1005j

  Quote:Originally posted by ivymike: I never liked the RealMedia format. It's a super closed-source format that can be easily DRM'd and is very hard to properly convert to a more desired format. Ever tried to convert an .RM file to .AVI? Why would you even want to considering the very poor quality?
  
  Poor Quality, Closed-Source & DRM has finally doomed the RealMedia format and I couldn't be happier.Hmm...maybe you guys never encoded or seen a good RM video. It does achieve very good compression and the quality can be very good, unless the files are encoded by some noobs that have no idea what they are doing and think it's cool to squeeze a full length movie in a 200MB video.
  Yes, I did covert a RMVB to AVI or DVD, and had no issues.
  Maybe different marketing strategies, different game play would've turned out better for Real Video...instead right now it is indeed dying, but not because "poor quality".

  6.2.2010 12:44 #17

• bill1005j

  Quote:Originally posted by ivymike: I never liked the RealMedia format. It's a super closed-source format that can be easily DRM'd and is very hard to properly convert to a more desired format. Ever tried to convert an .RM file to .AVI? Why would you even want to considering the very poor quality?
  
  Poor Quality, Closed-Source & DRM has finally doomed the RealMedia format and I couldn't be happier.Hmm...maybe you guys never encoded or seen a good RM video. It does achieve very good compression and the quality can be very good, unless the files are encoded by some noobs that have no idea what they are doing and think it's cool to squeeze a full length movie in a 200MB video.
  Yes, I did covert a RMVB to AVI or DVD, and had no issues.
  Maybe different marketing strategies, different game play would've turned out better for Real Video...instead right now it is indeed dying, but not because "poor quality".Sorry! Haven't posted here for years, so made mistake of clicking "Post Reply" button before I typed my remarks. Here it is:
  
  I wanted to second CyprusRom's post that .RMVB is fine, with good quality, compression, and converted great to avi or dvd. Besides, Videolan player can play .RMVB fine. That said, I never liked REAL PLAYER, and never used it for the reasons others have stated here.

  6.2.2010 12:49 #18

• oappi

  Hated rm from the start... only quicktime is more annoying. Rm was quite good codec when it was used on cartoons, but i just can't stand any format that needs it's own player. Thats why i really dont want divx to die, since you can watch divx video with other players unlike rm or quicktime.

  6.2.2010 20:07 #19

• PierreLeo

  I was new to computers when a website told me I needed to download Real Player. As some of you have noted, it is a bugger for taking over your computer. It totally upset my browsing experience for a short while. But it did force me to learn more about the inner workings of my laptop, as I struggled to get rid of the annoyance. So I suppose some good came of it in a way.

  7.2.2010 20:18 #20

• ZippyDSM

  Real media needs a wake up, they need to focus on being a better media player and encoder that encodes to flash,avi,mki,RM format.
  
  Being able to stream seamlessly to any computer anywhere on the net would be helpful as well, the pay version offers HD support.
  
  When they can bride CSS to alow them to transcode leaglly they can add some drm to it if they want but that seems unlikely...

  8.2.2010 02:31 #21

• DADEO1

  Quote:Quote:Hmm...maybe you guys never encoded or seen a good RM video. It does achieve very good compression and the quality can be very good, unless the files are encoded by some noobs that have no idea what they are doing and think it's cool to squeeze a full length movie in a 200MB video.
  Yes, I did covert a RMVB to AVI or DVD, and had no issues.You converted a 2 hour movie into a 200MB RM file? I know for a fact that it looked terrible. I know there is a big difference between using the default settings and doing it correctly (just like most codecs), but you just can't squeeze 8GB into 200MB without noticable quality loss...you can't even do it into 700MB without noticable issues. Heck, even bluray disks have artifacts due to compression...and the compressed size is usualy over 20GB! The only thing that might look worse than a 2hr 200MB file is the AVI that you would be forced to convert it back to if you ever wanted to watch it.
  
  As for the death of RM, I say, "Whore-Ray!" there are better codecs available for free, without DRM, and without the need for some player that is little more than malware.
  
  Death to RM. Death to Quicktime. Death to SilverLight. Death to DivX. They all suck, and the only nice thing I can say about any of them is that DivX inspired some of the better open-source codecs.
  I like DIVX alot.

  8.2.2010 08:46 #22