Google sabotages standards-based video
ZnU
rome-herd-the-masses-towa/
Google is dropping H.264 support in Chrome. This serves two strategic
purposes for them. First, it advances a codec largely controlled by
Google at the expense of a codec that is a legitimate open standard
controlled by a multi-vendor governance process managed by reputable
international standards bodies. And second, it will slow the transition
to HTML5 and away from Flash by creating more confusion about which
codec to use for HTML5 video, which hurts Apple because Apple doesn't
want to support Flash.
It is, in other words, a thoroughly nasty bit of work. Not quite as bad
as selling consumers down the river to Verizon on 'net neutrality, but
close.
"But wait!", the OSS fans are saying. "Isn't Google really standing up
for freedom and justice, because H.264 requires evil patent licensing?"
No. Expert opinion is that WebM infringes on numerous patents in the
H.264 pool, and will need a licensing pool of its own to be set up. The
patents are a wash. This is Google manipulating the market entirely for
selfish advantage, and it's all the worse because they're pretending
otherwise.
--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
Uncle Max
"ZnU" wrote in message
news:znu-03F9FC.1...@Port80.Individual.NET...
http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/11/google-will-drop-h-264-support-from-ch
rome-herd-the-masses-towa/
Google is dropping H.264 support in Chrome. This serves two strategic
purposes for them. First, it advances a codec largely controlled by
Google at the expense of a codec that is a legitimate open standard
controlled by a multi-vendor governance process managed by reputable
international standards bodies. And second, it will slow the transition
to HTML5 and away from Flash by creating more confusion about which
codec to use for HTML5 video, which hurts Apple because Apple doesn't
want to support Flash.
It is, in other words, a thoroughly nasty bit of work. Not quite as bad
as selling consumers down the river to Verizon on 'net neutrality, but
close.
"But wait!", the OSS fans are saying. "Isn't Google really standing up
for freedom and justice, because H.264 requires evil patent licensing?"
No. Expert opinion is that WebM infringes on numerous patents in the
H.264 pool, and will need a licensing pool of its own to be set up. The
patents are a wash. This is Google manipulating the market entirely for
selfish advantage, and it's all the worse because they're pretending
otherwise.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Paybacks a bitch.
Chris Ahlstrom
> http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/11/google-will-drop-h-264-support-from-chrome-herd-the-masses-towa/
>
> Google is dropping H.264 support in Chrome. This serves two strategic
> purposes for them. First, it advances a codec largely controlled by
> Google at the expense of a codec that is a legitimate open standard
> controlled by a multi-vendor governance process managed by reputable
> international standards bodies. And second, it will slow the transition
> to HTML5 and away from Flash by creating more confusion about which
> codec to use for HTML5 video, which hurts Apple because Apple doesn't
> want to support Flash.
>
> It is, in other words, a thoroughly nasty bit of work. Not quite as bad
> as selling consumers down the river to Verizon on 'net neutrality, but
> close.
Sure is nasty. Now the poor user will have to *gasp* download their own
codec or support applet... just like they do today!
No wonder people think Mac users are light in the loafers! The Mac mascot
should be Chicken Little.
> "But wait!", the OSS fans are saying. "Isn't Google really standing up
> for freedom and justice, because H.264 requires evil patent licensing?"
>
> No. Expert opinion is that WebM infringes on numerous patents in the
> H.264 pool, and will need a licensing pool of its own to be set up. The
> patents are a wash. This is Google manipulating the market entirely for
> selfish advantage, and it's all the worse because they're pretending
> otherwise.
What advantage do they get out of it, other than lessening their chances of
getting sued for "licensing"?
Anyway, others have positive comments for Google here:
http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/html-video-codec-support-in-chrome.html
Whoah, ballsy move Google. Ballsy move. I like it.
Thumbs up, Google.
Those are great news for the open source software and for the developers.
The codecs war is almost over.
Your move Apple.
You can quote the negative comments for yourself.
--
Westheimer's Discovery:
A couple of months in the laboratory can frequently save a
couple of hours in the library.
ZnU
Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
> ZnU wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
> > http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/11/google-will-drop-h-264-support-from-chrom
> > e-herd-the-masses-towa/
> >
> > Google is dropping H.264 support in Chrome. This serves two strategic
> > purposes for them. First, it advances a codec largely controlled by
> > Google at the expense of a codec that is a legitimate open standard
> > controlled by a multi-vendor governance process managed by reputable
> > international standards bodies. And second, it will slow the transition
> > to HTML5 and away from Flash by creating more confusion about which
> > codec to use for HTML5 video, which hurts Apple because Apple doesn't
> > want to support Flash.
> >
> > It is, in other words, a thoroughly nasty bit of work. Not quite as bad
> > as selling consumers down the river to Verizon on 'net neutrality, but
> > close.
>
> Sure is nasty. Now the poor user will have to *gasp* download their own
> codec or support applet... just like they do today!
>
> No wonder people think Mac users are light in the loafers! The Mac mascot
> should be Chicken Little.
You're not accounting for the hesitancy this move is going to create
among web developers, which will undoubtably slow HTML5 adoption.
> > "But wait!", the OSS fans are saying. "Isn't Google really standing up
> > for freedom and justice, because H.264 requires evil patent licensing?"
> >
> > No. Expert opinion is that WebM infringes on numerous patents in the
> > H.264 pool, and will need a licensing pool of its own to be set up. The
> > patents are a wash. This is Google manipulating the market entirely for
> > selfish advantage, and it's all the worse because they're pretending
> > otherwise.
>
> What advantage do they get out of it, other than lessening their chances of
> getting sued for "licensing"?
>
> Anyway, others have positive comments for Google here:
>
> http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/html-video-codec-support-in-chrome.html
>
> Whoah, ballsy move Google. Ballsy move. I like it.
>
> Thumbs up, Google.
>
> Those are great news for the open source software and for the developers.
> The codecs war is almost over.
> Your move Apple.
>
> You can quote the negative comments for yourself.
Any comment predicated on the notion that this is somehow a good thing
because WebM is "more open" can clearly be ignored, because it's not.
Chris Ahlstrom
> In article <igj2as$6ho$4...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
>
>> ZnU wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>> > http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/11/google-will-drop-h-264-support-from-chrom
>> > e-herd-the-masses-towa/
>> >
>> > Google is dropping H.264 support in Chrome. This serves two strategic
>> > purposes for them. First, it advances a codec largely controlled by
>> > Google at the expense of a codec that is a legitimate open standard
>> > controlled by a multi-vendor governance process managed by reputable
>> > international standards bodies. And second, it will slow the transition
>> > to HTML5 and away from Flash by creating more confusion about which
>> > codec to use for HTML5 video, which hurts Apple because Apple doesn't
>> > want to support Flash.
>>
>> Sure is nasty. Now the poor user will have to *gasp* download their own
>> codec or support applet... just like they do today!
>>
>> No wonder people think Mac users are light in the loafers! The Mac mascot
>> should be Chicken Little.
>
> You're not accounting for the hesitancy this move is going to create
> among web developers, which will undoubtably slow HTML5 adoption.
Udoubtedly?
>> > "But wait!", the OSS fans are saying. "Isn't Google really standing up
>> > for freedom and justice, because H.264 requires evil patent licensing?"
>> >
>> > No. Expert opinion is that WebM infringes on numerous patents in the
>> > H.264 pool, and will need a licensing pool of its own to be set up. The
>> > patents are a wash. This is Google manipulating the market entirely for
>> > selfish advantage, and it's all the worse because they're pretending
>> > otherwise.
>>
>> What advantage do they get out of it, other than lessening their chances of
>> getting sued for "licensing"?
>>
>> Anyway, others have positive comments for Google here:
>>
>> http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/html-video-codec-support-in-chrome.html
>>
>> Whoah, ballsy move Google. Ballsy move. I like it.
>>
>> Thumbs up, Google.
>>
>> Those are great news for the open source software and for the developers.
>> The codecs war is almost over.
>> Your move Apple.
>>
>> You can quote the negative comments for yourself.
>
> Any comment predicated on the notion that this is somehow a good thing
> because WebM is "more open" can clearly be ignored, because it's not.
Remember MP3!
--
Stenderup's Law:
The sooner you fall behind, the more time you will have to catch up.
Snit
1/11/11 7:08 PM:
> ZnU wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/11/google-will-drop-h-264-support-from-chrome
>> -herd-the-masses-towa/
>>
>> Google is dropping H.264 support in Chrome. This serves two strategic
>> purposes for them. First, it advances a codec largely controlled by
>> Google at the expense of a codec that is a legitimate open standard
>> controlled by a multi-vendor governance process managed by reputable
>> international standards bodies. And second, it will slow the transition
>> to HTML5 and away from Flash by creating more confusion about which
>> codec to use for HTML5 video, which hurts Apple because Apple doesn't
>> want to support Flash.
>>
>> It is, in other words, a thoroughly nasty bit of work. Not quite as bad
>> as selling consumers down the river to Verizon on 'net neutrality, but
>> close.
>
> Sure is nasty. Now the poor user will have to *gasp* download their own
> codec or support applet... just like they do today!
>
> No wonder people think Mac users are light in the loafers! The Mac mascot
> should be Chicken Little.
Maybe in your next post you will show some understanding of what you read?
Maybe?
...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
1/11/11 7:28 PM:
> ZnU wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> In article <igj2as$6ho$4...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ZnU wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>>
http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/11/google-will-drop-h-264-support-from-chro>>>>
m
>>>> e-herd-the-masses-towa/
>>>>
>>>> Google is dropping H.264 support in Chrome. This serves two strategic
>>>> purposes for them. First, it advances a codec largely controlled by
>>>> Google at the expense of a codec that is a legitimate open standard
>>>> controlled by a multi-vendor governance process managed by reputable
>>>> international standards bodies. And second, it will slow the transition
>>>> to HTML5 and away from Flash by creating more confusion about which
>>>> codec to use for HTML5 video, which hurts Apple because Apple doesn't
>>>> want to support Flash.
>>>
>>> Sure is nasty. Now the poor user will have to *gasp* download their own
>>> codec or support applet... just like they do today!
>>>
>>> No wonder people think Mac users are light in the loafers! The Mac mascot
>>> should be Chicken Little.
>>
>> You're not accounting for the hesitancy this move is going to create
>> among web developers, which will undoubtably slow HTML5 adoption.
>
> Udoubtedly?
Yes: undoubtedly. As the big players fight over a video format, the
customer is going to suffer. In the end, it is almost certain that H.264 is
going to "win" (at least for some time) - it seems to be the best and most
adopted format.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
owl
> ZnU wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> >
> > You're not accounting for the hesitancy this move is going to create
> > among web developers, which will undoubtably slow HTML5 adoption.
> Udoubtedly?
See, kids, this is what happens when... :)
Chris Ahlstrom
> In article <igj2as$6ho$4...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
>
>> ZnU wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>> > http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/11/google-will-drop-h-264-support-from-chrom
>> > e-herd-the-masses-towa/
>> >
>> > Google is dropping H.264 support in Chrome. This serves two strategic
>> > purposes for them. First, it advances a codec largely controlled by
>> > Google at the expense of a codec that is a legitimate open standard
>> > controlled by a multi-vendor governance process managed by reputable
>> > international standards bodies. And second, it will slow the transition
>> > to HTML5 and away from Flash by creating more confusion about which
>> > codec to use for HTML5 video, which hurts Apple because Apple doesn't
>> > want to support Flash.
>>
>> Sure is nasty. Now the poor user will have to *gasp* download their own
>> codec or support applet... just like they do today!
>>
>> No wonder people think Mac users are light in the loafers! The Mac mascot
>> should be Chicken Little.
>
> You're not accounting for the hesitancy this move is going to create
> among web developers, which will undoubtably slow HTML5 adoption.
Undoubtedly?
>> > "But wait!", the OSS fans are saying. "Isn't Google really standing up
>> > for freedom and justice, because H.264 requires evil patent licensing?"
>> >
>> > No. Expert opinion is that WebM infringes on numerous patents in the
>> > H.264 pool, and will need a licensing pool of its own to be set up. The
>> > patents are a wash. This is Google manipulating the market entirely for
>> > selfish advantage, and it's all the worse because they're pretending
>> > otherwise.
>>
>> What advantage do they get out of it, other than lessening their chances of
>> getting sued for "licensing"?
>>
>> Anyway, others have positive comments for Google here:
>>
>> http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/html-video-codec-support-in-chrome.html
>>
>> Whoah, ballsy move Google. Ballsy move. I like it.
>>
>> Thumbs up, Google.
>>
>> Those are great news for the open source software and for the developers.
>> The codecs war is almost over.
>> Your move Apple.
>>
>> You can quote the negative comments for yourself.
>
> Any comment predicated on the notion that this is somehow a good thing
> because WebM is "more open" can clearly be ignored, because it's not.
Remember MP3!
Chris Ahlstrom
Check my message again, owl.
--
No running on pool deck.
Snit
1/11/11 7:42 PM:
Yes... you corrected your typo. And the crowd goes wild. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
JEDIDIAH
> http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/11/google-will-drop-h-264-support-from-ch
> rome-herd-the-masses-towa/
>
> Google is dropping H.264 support in Chrome. This serves two strategic
> purposes for them. First, it advances a codec largely controlled by
> Google at the expense of a codec that is a legitimate open standard
...controlled by a cabal of short sighted self centered corporations
that would each grind your granny into green crackers if it suited them
and they could get away with it.
These are the same people that are suing each other senseless in
the mobile space.
--
Apple: because TRANS.TBL is an mp3 file. It really is! |||
/ | \
ZnU
Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
> ZnU wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
> > In article <igj2as$6ho$4...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
> >
> >> ZnU wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> >>
> >> > http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/11/google-will-drop-h-264-support-from-ch
> >> > rom
> >> > e-herd-the-masses-towa/
> >> >
> >> > Google is dropping H.264 support in Chrome. This serves two strategic
> >> > purposes for them. First, it advances a codec largely controlled by
> >> > Google at the expense of a codec that is a legitimate open standard
> >> > controlled by a multi-vendor governance process managed by reputable
> >> > international standards bodies. And second, it will slow the transition
> >> > to HTML5 and away from Flash by creating more confusion about which
> >> > codec to use for HTML5 video, which hurts Apple because Apple doesn't
> >> > want to support Flash.
> >>
> >> Sure is nasty. Now the poor user will have to *gasp* download their own
> >> codec or support applet... just like they do today!
> >>
> >> No wonder people think Mac users are light in the loafers! The Mac mascot
> >> should be Chicken Little.
> >
> > You're not accounting for the hesitancy this move is going to create
> > among web developers, which will undoubtably slow HTML5 adoption.
>
> Undoubtedly?
OK, well, you know, I'd hope it didn't have this effect. But in general,
I think this saps a lot of momentum from HTML5 video, because there's no
longer one clear technology that (almost) everyone it moving towards.
> >> You can quote the negative comments for yourself.
> >
> > Any comment predicated on the notion that this is somehow a good thing
> > because WebM is "more open" can clearly be ignored, because it's not.
>
> Remember MP3!
You mean the standardized audio format that launched a revolution in
music consumption and distribution?
KDT
> ...controlled by a cabal of short sighted self centered corporations
> that would each grind your granny into green crackers if it suited them
> and they could get away with it.
So if Google is all about being open, where can I find the source code
to their page ranking algorithm? Google Docs? Gmail? Does that mean
they are going to stop bundling Flash with Chrome? BTW, where can I
find devices with hardware assisted WebM decoding?
ZnU
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
A ludicrous misrepresentation of the standardization process.
JEDIDIAH
> In article <slrniiq5e...@nomad.mishnet>,
> JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2011-01-11, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> > http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/11/google-will-drop-h-264-support-from-ch
>> > rome-herd-the-masses-towa/
>> >
>> > Google is dropping H.264 support in Chrome. This serves two strategic
>> > purposes for them. First, it advances a codec largely controlled by
>> > Google at the expense of a codec that is a legitimate open standard
>>
>> ...controlled by a cabal of short sighted self centered corporations
>> that would each grind your granny into green crackers if it suited them
>> and they could get away with it.
>>
>> These are the same people that are suing each other senseless in
>> the mobile space.
>
> A ludicrous misrepresentation of the standardization process.
Yes. And the patent world war going on at this very moment in the
mobile space is "ludicrous" too.
--
Metallica is not worth the ruination of someone |||
who has pirated their music / | \
JEDIDIAH
> On Jan 11, 9:45 pm, JEDIDIAH <j...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> ...controlled by a cabal of short sighted self centered corporations
>> that would each grind your granny into green crackers if it suited them
>> and they could get away with it.
>
> So if Google is all about being open, where can I find the source code
> to their page ranking algorithm? Google Docs? Gmail? Does that mean
I didn't say it was. Just addressing the Apple fanboy spin regarding
h264. h264 is "open" just like consumers are "open" to keep on buying
Apple hardware in perpetuity so they can play the h264 content that
they've bought from Apple.
ZnU
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> On 2011-01-12, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <slrniiq5e...@nomad.mishnet>,
> > JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2011-01-11, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >> > http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/11/google-will-drop-h-264-support-from-ch
> >> > rome-herd-the-masses-towa/
> >> >
> >> > Google is dropping H.264 support in Chrome. This serves two strategic
> >> > purposes for them. First, it advances a codec largely controlled by
> >> > Google at the expense of a codec that is a legitimate open standard
> >>
> >> ...controlled by a cabal of short sighted self centered corporations
> >> that would each grind your granny into green crackers if it suited them
> >> and they could get away with it.
> >>
> >> These are the same people that are suing each other senseless in
> >> the mobile space.
> >
> > A ludicrous misrepresentation of the standardization process.
>
> Yes. And the patent world war going on at this very moment in the
> mobile space is "ludicrous" too.
Yes, it is. But it's entirely irrelevant to the subject at hand.
And not to belabor the point, but you guys keep arguing as if there's
actually a patent-free alternative to H.264 on offer. There's not.
MPEG-LA, and OSS developers who've taken a look at the code, have both
already expressed the opinion that WebM almost certainly infringes on
numerous patents.
People need to recognize this Google move for what it is: a massive
corporate power grab. I know some people insist on interpreting all of
this through some sort of Apple = Closed = Evil, Google = Open = Good
framework, but frankly, Apple has been one of the largest corporate
advocates of standards-based video since literally before Google had its
IPO, and any notion that Google still adheres to "Don't be evil" should
have vanished the day Google issued that doublespeak-ridden explanation
of how war is peace, freedom is slavery, and 'net neutrality consists of
Google getting into bed with Verizon.
Lusotec
> http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/11/google-will-drop-h-264-support-from-ch
> rome-herd-the-masses-towa/
>
Browsers should just use the system's available codecs like most other
video/audio programs. This would solve the video/audio patents licensing
issues for the browsers' developers and distributors.
So, why don't they?!
Regards.
Chris Ahlstrom
> On Jan 11, 9:45?pm, JEDIDIAH <j...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> ? ? ...controlled by a cabal of short sighted self centered corporations
>> that would each grind your granny into green crackers if it suited them
>> and they could get away with it.
>
> So if Google is all about being open, where can I find the source code
> to their page ranking algorithm? Google Docs? Gmail? Does that mean
> they are going to stop bundling Flash with Chrome? BTW, where can I
> find devices with hardware assisted WebM decoding?
http://gigaom.com/video/new-vlc-version-supports-webm-h-264-hardware-decoding/
Apparently, if Google supports it, people will follow.
--
I'd crawl over an acre of 'Visual This++' and 'Integrated Development
That' to get to gcc, Emacs, and gdb. Thank you.
-- Vance Petree, Virginia Power
Chris Ahlstrom
> People need to recognize this Google move for what it is: a massive
> corporate power grab. I know some people insist on interpreting all of
> this through some sort of Apple = Closed = Evil, Google = Open = Good
> framework, but frankly, Apple has been one of the largest corporate
> advocates of standards-based video since literally before Google had its
> IPO, and any notion that Google still adheres to "Don't be evil" should
> have vanished the day Google issued that doublespeak-ridden explanation
> of how war is peace, freedom is slavery, and 'net neutrality consists of
> Google getting into bed with Verizon.
LOL.
--
"Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will
fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines."
-- Bertrand Russell
KDT
> KDT wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
> > On Jan 11, 9:45?pm, JEDIDIAH <j...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
> >> ? ? ...controlled by a cabal of short sighted self centered corporations
> >> that would each grind your granny into green crackers if it suited them
> >> and they could get away with it.
>
> > So if Google is all about being open, where can I find the source code
> > to their page ranking algorithm? Google Docs? Gmail? Does that mean
> > they are going to stop bundling Flash with Chrome? BTW, where can I
> > find devices with hardware assisted WebM decoding?
>
>
> Apparently, if Google supports it, people will follow.
You did read the part about "WebM doesn't have any hardware decoding
yet"?
VLC added:
1. WebM support
2. H.264 hardware decoding
not
WebM and H.264 hardware decoding.
chrisv
That's about it, isn't it.
What Google has done is even *worse*, you know, because they are
"pretending otherwise" (read: explaining their position).
Guffaw. What a transparent idiot, Comrad Znu is.
Chris Ahlstrom
> On Jan 12, 6:19?am, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstr...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
>> KDT wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>> > On Jan 11, 9:45?pm, JEDIDIAH <j...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>
>> >> ? ? ...controlled by a cabal of short sighted self centered corporations
>> >> that would each grind your granny into green crackers if it suited them
>> >> and they could get away with it.
>>
>> > So if Google is all about being open, where can I find the source code
>> > to their page ranking algorithm? ?Google Docs? Gmail? ?Does that mean
>> > they are going to stop bundling Flash with Chrome? ?BTW, where can I
>> > find devices with hardware assisted WebM decoding?
>>
>> ? ?http://gigaom.com/video/new-vlc-version-supports-webm-h-264-hardware-...
>>
>> Apparently, if Google supports it, people will follow.
>
> You did read the part about "WebM doesn't have any hardware decoding
> yet"?
>
> VLC added:
>
> 1. WebM support
> 2. H.264 hardware decoding
>
> not
>
> WebM and H.264 hardware decoding.
Doh! Burned by the headline!
I wonder how long it will take Google to implement hardware decoding.
--
Isn't air travel wonderful? Breakfast in London, dinner in New York,
luggage in Brazil.
ZnU
Lusotec <nom...@nomail.not> wrote:
Because this isn't actually about paying royalties for Google, it's
about pushing their codec over the industry standard codec.
ZnU
chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> "Apple Good, Google Evil. You are all fools!"
>
> That's about it, isn't it.
Look, it's generally silly to attribute moral positions to corporations.
They do whatever will benefit them most in a given situation. It's just
the case that with respect to this particular issue, Apple's strategic
needs happen to line up with those of consumers. Apple wants to build
devices without having to worry about codecs, and consumers want to play
video without having to worry about codecs.
Google, in contrast, wants to pick and choose winners in the codec wars
in order to further entrench itself as a company critical to the
functioning of the modern Internet.
chrisv
>Apple's strategic needs happen to line up with those of consumers.
In the opinion of a blinkered Apple fanboi who has never understood
the true value of freedom or choice.
There are a lot of idiots in the world who would argue that the M$
monopoly is good for consumers, as well.
--
"What monopoly?" - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark
chrisv
>Look, it's generally silly to attribute moral positions to corporations.
>They do whatever will benefit them most in a given situation.
Then why did you claim that what Google did was "all the worse"
because they put their "spin" on their decision ("pretending
otherwise*, in your words), which is something *all* corporations will
*always* do?
--
"For all the COLA gang denying it, Win 3.1 did a good job for the
time." - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark
ZnU
chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
>
> >Look, it's generally silly to attribute moral positions to corporations.
> >They do whatever will benefit them most in a given situation.
>
> Then why did you claim that what Google did was "all the worse"
> because they put their "spin" on their decision ("pretending
> otherwise*, in your words), which is something *all* corporations will
> *always* do?
Everyone spins things, but Goole has lately developed a consistent
pattern of simply claiming to be doing the precise _opposite_ of what
it's actually doing.
ZnU
chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
>
> >Apple's strategic needs happen to line up with those of consumers.
>
> In the opinion of a blinkered Apple fanboi who has never understood
> the true value of freedom or choice.
>
> There are a lot of idiots in the world who would argue that the M$
> monopoly is good for consumers, as well.
This argument would almost make sense if WebM were actually free of
patent encumbrance, but that's very unlikely to be the case. WebM
advocates seem to be unable to hold that fact in their minds for more
than five seconds.
And frankly, even then I'd be a bit leery of the whole thing. All else
being equal, would a patent-free codec be better? Yes. But all else
wouldn't be equal; WebM would still be a "source code dump standard"
rather than an actual standard, which is not exactly ideal.
chrisv
>Everyone spins things, but Goole has lately developed a consistent
>pattern of simply claiming to be doing the precise _opposite_ of what
>it's actually doing.
In the opinion of someone who is known to regularly come to
ridiculous, completely and obviously incorrect, conclusions. And
always, it seems, disparaging of FOSS and it's advocates.
ZnU
chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
>
> >Everyone spins things, but Goole has lately developed a consistent
> >pattern of simply claiming to be doing the precise _opposite_ of
> >what it's actually doing.
>
> In the opinion of someone who is known to regularly come to
> ridiculous, completely and obviously incorrect, conclusions.
That you can never seem to refute.
> And always, it seems, disparaging of FOSS and it's advocates.
Mostly just COLA fanatics and their unlikely claims.
-hh
> ZnU wrote:
> >Apple's strategic needs happen to line up with those of consumers.
>
> In the opinion of a blinkered Apple fanboi who has never understood
> the true value of freedom or choice.
"...blinkered Apple fanboi..."?
Chrisv's bigotry is showing ... again.
> There are a lot of idiots in the world who would argue that the M$
> monopoly is good for consumers, as well.
But was it not that very monopoly which facilitated an
"open" (competitive) hardware reference platform? If not that, then
what specifically was the key impetus for the fact that there's been
an observed ~75% reduction in PC purchase prices over the past ~20
years?
True, this doesn't mean we have to "like" monopolies (there's still
'hidden' costs), but we should at least be honest enough to give
credit where credit is due, which is in the commoditization of x86
hardware.
-hh
Snit
6:44 AM:
Too bad you cannot actually refute the arguments you claim are wrong.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
9:26 AM:
> ZnU wrote:
>
>> Apple's strategic needs happen to line up with those of consumers.
>
> In the opinion of a blinkered Apple fanboi who has never understood
> the true value of freedom or choice.
You have no honest answer so you just spew bile.
> There are a lot of idiots in the world who would argue that the M$
> monopoly is good for consumers, as well.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
10:18 AM:
Can you give some examples?
Oh.
Since you cannot, who should believe you?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
chrisv
>That you can never seem to refute.
Nope. You are lying.
>Mostly just COLA fanatics and their unlikely claims.
You are too stupid to judge us.
-hh
Speaking of "...fanatics and their unlikely claims...", the above from
chrisv is a textbook example.
And unfortunately, yet another potentially interesting & beneficial
discussion is ended. Time will tell if Google really is doing
something that's in the interests of FOSS, or not...
-hh
ZnU
(successfully) mocking you:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/tims/archive/2011/01/11/an-open-letter-from-the-p
resident-of-the-united-states-of-google.aspx
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> Browsers should just use the system's available codecs like most other
> video/audio programs.
That might work on reasonably-designed OSes, but unfortunately not on
Windows. One of the Mozilla developers wrote a detailed blog posting on this
issue, explaining the huge number of bug reports they were getting which
turned out to be due to problems with crap Windows codecs. That’s why
Firefox no longer uses system codecs.
Even Microsoft’s own Windows Media Player no longer pays much attention to
user-installed codecs.
Sandman
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/11/google-will-drop-h-264-support-from-ch
> rome-herd-the-masses-towa/
>
> Google is dropping H.264 support in Chrome. This serves two strategic
> purposes for them. First, it advances a codec largely controlled by
> Google at the expense of a codec that is a legitimate open standard
> controlled by a multi-vendor governance process managed by reputable
> international standards bodies. And second, it will slow the transition
> to HTML5 and away from Flash by creating more confusion about which
> codec to use for HTML5 video, which hurts Apple because Apple doesn't
> want to support Flash.
>
> It is, in other words, a thoroughly nasty bit of work. Not quite as bad
> as selling consumers down the river to Verizon on 'net neutrality, but
> close.
>
> "But wait!", the OSS fans are saying. "Isn't Google really standing up
> for freedom and justice, because H.264 requires evil patent licensing?"
>
> No. Expert opinion is that WebM infringes on numerous patents in the
> H.264 pool, and will need a licensing pool of its own to be set up. The
> patents are a wash. This is Google manipulating the market entirely for
> selfish advantage, and it's all the worse because they're pretending
> otherwise.
Hey, you were quoted by Gruber:
<http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/01/12/slashdot-comment>
--
Sandman[.net]
ZnU
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
I noticed that, yeah. Makes sense; Gruber seems to be reading my mind
sometimes anyway.