Talk:DIVX (Digital Video Express)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] NPOV, citations
The last paragraph of this article has some serious (but quite fixable) problems. It says "...Circuit City management actively instructing their employees to mislead customers...". This needs to be sourced from a reliable source, per Wikipedia:Cite sources. The way it's worded is plain flat fact is particularly broken, as later it says Circuit City deny it's true. What the article should say is that so-and-so claims that Circuit City told its employees to mislead, and we need to cite a reliable source showing that person made that claim. Also, we need to cite where Circuit City deny it's true. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, this is one for you googleheads and archive.org divers - I only found one page that seemed to support my hazy memories on this matter. [1] you may also go digging archive.org to get the archives of fightdivx.com, which collected all sorts of idiocy CC was doing. Not sure if these qualify as "reliable sources" though. I think this also appeared on slashdot.org and some other news websites, but I'm not sure. Basically, the story goes like this: one beautiful day, a "Pro DIVX Association" showed up, and it was - surprise surprise - run by a person with ties to CC. I also remember them setting up some GeoCities page that was not exactly as crappy-looking as your average GC pages were at the time... probably this same thing. And the first rule of astroturfing discovery recovery is simple: Deny Everything. --Wwwwolf 03:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm removing this snippet: "other studios would probably have followed suit. Many were relieved when the format was finally abandoned." The first part sounds like speculation, and the second part has nothing to back it up at all. --Mdwyer 19:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] reselling
this article claims users were able to resell a silver status disc, but the drm article claims that they were unable to do so.
[edit] Self-Destruct?
I thought DIVX discs self-destructed after 48 hours, and were not usable afterwards or convertable into a long-term disc.
- MSTCrow 10:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hacking
Has anyone come up with any hacks for this, allowing free playing of these discs without paying any money? Or is it a more complex encryption scheme, where it simply sends the data over the phone line and then the computers at DIVX decrypt it and send it back?
--FLaRN2005 (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Advantages and disadvantages
These sections need a complete rewrite, not least the "advantages" section because it is unclear what DIVX is being compared to.
For example:
"Every purchased DIVX disc was the property of the consumer and was not required to be returned to the retailer" - er, right. Surely, if you purchase an item, it is (by default) your property, and you do not have to return it to the retailer unless you wish to do so.
"Discs were cheaper ($4.49 US) than a full movie in any other format, and the new 2-day rentals were cheaper ($3.25 US) than a new disc" - it is not at all clear what comparisons are being made here.
"The player didn’t need to connect to DIVX to play a movie because it stored viewing and disc information internally, allowing calls to be made during the night, when a phone line was more likely to be free" - again, how does this constitute an "advantage"? Were DIVX players competing against players that had to connect to a server every time a movie was played? If so, what were these players, because I've never heard of any such thing.
"A player belonged to an account, and a disc could be viewed in any player that belonged to the account. If a user owned several DIVX players, he/she could play the movie in each player, but not in a neighbor’s player" - if I can't play a disc in my neighbor's player surely that's a BAD thing? What are you comparing this to?
"After the first period, the disc could be played as many times as desired in the same account after paying a fee" - what is the comparison being made here?
"Gold discs could be played without limit in any DIVX player of any account" - quite apart from the comparison issue, this is of no relevance as Gold discs never existed.
"DIVX players were specialized DVD players which could also play non-DIVX DVDs and music CDs" - yeah... and? 217.155.20.163 00:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Privacy
As far as I know/remember, one of the biggest arguements against DIVX was the privacy issue of having information on your every play of a divx disc sent via phone line and recorded on your account somewhere. If this can be verified, it should be added to the article. 75.36.128.21 03:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Div?
Why is it that Div isn't important enough to be put on the page? I'd put good money on more people knowing who Div is than what he's supposed to be.
