That argument doesn't seem to work. I don't hear many complaints here about the cost of the VoiceAge codec. It's the clunkiness of the protection scheme people don't like. It's only the protection scheme that seems to be making people want to dump the VoiceAge code.
Remember how Microsoft got to be so big? Most successful packages, like 123, had clunky copy protection that hurt the genuine customers far more than the pirates. Microsoft's applications business was getting nowhere at that time. Then Microsoft make a big announcement that they would not use such clunky protection schemes on Word or Excel, and their applications sales have never looked back.
Inconveniencing the genuine customers is a proven loser. Perhaps the music industry will learn this soon.
Regards, Steve
Matthew Hardeman wrote:
If I had to venture a guess, I would say that the protection scheme is in
place in the hopes that everyone will use their implementation rather than
reinvent the wheel. If this is indeed the case, their protection scheme is
useful in helping to protect the patent license as well as their code. So
far, it would seem, no one has bothered to reinvent the wheel, and as such
we're stuck using their implementation.
_______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
