[wdmaudiodev] Re: USB Audio Class 2.0
- From: Dominik Peklo <dominikp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: wdmaudiodev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 07:44:45 +0800
Hi Tim,
I wonder how Apple did the math then, especially considering the fractional
OS X market share. It's not like we talk about a ground up development of a
whole new class of device - it's just adding support for a 10 year old
revision of a 16 year old standard already supported.
Why did Microsoft choose to bother with HDAudio support when they already
supported AC'97 and I don't recall customers craving for anything more?
After all, if anybody wants that fancy HDAudio, they can do their own
drivers for it - who's stopping them?
If they can't see the business case of their OS not bothering customers
with 3rd party driver installs like it's the 90's again, potential driver
related crashes and conflicts, while competing platforms 'just work' to a
customer's satisfaction, then they need to step back a bit and maybe order
a new pair of glasses.
The whole reason for unified device class specifications is that it enables
Plug'n'Play worry free use by the customer and prevents the need to
re-invent the wheel hundred times over and instead work on one robust, well
maintained implementation. If a major OS market player fails to ship class
driver, the entire device class is effectively toast. It's even more tragic
considering Microsoft sat on the board defining the very standard they
choose to ignore!
For Microsoft, the additional resources required - if any (as they
currently maintain UAC1 support and those same people would no doubt watch
over UAC2), it's like drop in the bucket. They could even work with/buy
out/license an existing implementation a few of which are being offered in
the market, then maintain it. If there was a way to sell the driver
licenses - however stupid that is - even that would be much preferable to
the existing situation. Perhaps a per-device license fee on the order of
10c with a driver delivered through Windows Update and matching device's
serial number to the vendor provided and paid for list of serials? I'm
going crazy, but at this point any way that gets us closer to in-box UAC2
support is a good one.
Regards,
Dominik
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 2:02 AM, Tim Roberts <timr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dominik Peklo wrote:
> >
> > The question should really be "Why NOT have a native UAC2 support?"
>
> That question is not hard to answer. Microsoft is driven by dollars.
> Every new feature they add represents a testing burden and 10 or 15-year
> support burden. It's a big commitment. Such a commitment has to be
> justified by a a business case that forecasts a corresponding increase
> in sales, and up to this point, no one has been able to present a
> convincing business case. Consumers just don't care.
>
> --
> Tim Roberts, timr@xxxxxxxxx
> Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
>
> ******************
>
> WDMAUDIODEV addresses:
> Post message: mailto:wdmaudiodev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subscribe: mailto:wdmaudiodev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=subscribe
> Unsubscribe: mailto:wdmaudiodev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
> Moderator: mailto:wdmaudiodev-moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> URL to WDMAUDIODEV page:
> http://www.wdmaudiodev.com/
>
>
Other related posts:
