[NathanKP]

With regard to point #1 I generally find VLC to be much more forgiving than the generic video players built into Windows or Mac OS X. VLC will often play damaged video files and all sorts of random, slightly corrupted files found on file sharing sites, etc.

With regard to point #2 it is more than just a new interface look for VLC. It will require extensive rewriting to work within the Windows sandbox using appropriate security sandboxed API's to allow distribution through the Windows Store. There is also the subsequent project to get it to work on ARM architecture, which will be a challenging project due to the reliance on low level C and assembler code.

[aes256]

1) Oh absolutely, I don't dispute VLC remains useful. I just think it's a shame that we still need VLC. To most of its users, VLC is "that thing that my friend told me I'd need to install to play these videos because for some reason Windows can't play them on its own"

2) I'm more worried about the precedent this sets. Is VLC going to need new cash injections every time Microsoft change the rules of the Windows Store, or release updates to Windows 8 that break the app? As I say, the next major release of Windows will undoubtedly break everything all over again.

It just strikes me as an awful lot of time, money and effort to build a solution to a problem that really oughtn't to exist in this day and age...

[TazeTSchnitzel]

>the next major release of Windows will undoubtedly break everything all over again.

Not really. Windows 8 hasn't broken anything (although there have been UI changes and some apps have a few bugs that have cropped up). Rather, they have introduced, for the first time in two decades (literally), a completely new foundation on which to build apps. That foundation won't be swept away in Windows 9, and I expect it will mean less things break, not more.

[NathanKP]

1) It's probably a function of specialization. VLC is better at video because that is all they do. Windows and Mac OS X built in solutions are mediocre because they are part of a larger platform which isn't so specific. Also to be frank VLC is still relevant because it can be used to do things of dubious legality such as ripping copy protected DVD's and saving them in other formats.

2) A project which isn't getting updated to work on new platforms and with new API's is a dead project that fades from relevance very quickly. VLC is obviously looking ahead and has judged the Metro interface to be something worth investing in to maintain relevance.

[pavel_lishin]

Regarding #2: They might, yes, and it might be easier for a lot of people to contribute monetarily, rather than spend the time learning enough about VLC to be able to submit code.

And yes, the next version of the OS may break everything, but that's life in the big city - operating systems evolve, upgrades need to be written.

[wmf]

it's a shame that we still need VLC.

I agree, but the various "scenes" resolutely refuse to adopt industry standards.

[voltagex_]

x264 isn't a standard?

[brigade]

No, it's a program that encodes video.

H.264 / AVC / MPEG-4 Part 10 is the standard that describes the video format encoded by x264.

[wmf]

Nope, H.264 in Matroska is not a standard.

[voltagex_]

The TV scene people now use H.264 in MP4.

[aes256]

That's only for SD releases; HD still use the MKV container

[drivebyacct2]

>I'm more worried about the precedent this sets. Is VLC going to need new cash injections every time Microsoft change the rules of the Windows Store, or release updates to Windows 8 that break the app? As I say, the next major release of Windows will undoubtedly break everything all over again.

The FUD is so strong I don't even know where to begin. It doesn't jive with common sense, history or the rumors regarding the future of Windows.

[zmonkeyz]

The best description of VLC was that the icon is a traffic cone because it will actually play one. :)