What does the AT&T/iPhone contract have to do with video tagging in HTML5?
But just to clarify, legally after your 2 year contract with AT&T is finished, you are free to do whatever you want with your iPhone. But AT&T doesn't have to help you unlock your phone either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPhone1982
AT&T & Apple own and have the right to everything on your iPhone, even after the 2 year contract is over.
This issue seems to be a rather mute point. Either we support a current standard that already has support in many areas (including hardware and software) and we pay the current licensing fees (many of us already do) or we jump back in time and support an outdated standard with little support (except for the idealists) and pretend that the world is perfect and everything is magically free. I'm glad it's being debated but the choice is pretty clear once you weigh all of the points within the issue fairly. As others have pointed out, the only winners in this charade are the ones who hold the most stringent and vigorously defended patents. h264 isn't perfect but it's allot better than any iteration of Windows Media and certainly better than Flash.
Good article even if it is a bit "slanted". On that note. Those that are looking for a point of view that isn't slanted are kidding themselves and making any debate pointless. That's why it's a Point of View. Perspective is everything and to say that an argument for or against isn't slanted is misleading. There is no way of removing the observer from the observation.
So what this really is is a shakedown by companies looking to reduce the royalty rates they need to pay to implement a technology. By bringing about this PR tempest in a teapot they look to use the court of public opinion to drive a better bargain. Nice.
If you own an iPhone (I have 2, not the 3GS). You will never get FLASH.
No because an OS X machine using Core 2 Duo, Flash can use up to 90% of the CPU, that is horribly inefficient.
Quote:
It takes gaming revenue away from Apple.
Apple doesn't make games.
Quote:
If you own an iPhone. You will never get any Video that is FREE. It takes Movie & TV revenue away from Apple.
What about those free podcasts in iTunes. What about the fact that you can sync any video you want from iTunes, whether you paid for it or not. What about Youtube, or Joost, or TV.com, or Dailymotion, or any of the hundreds of sources of video streaming from the web.
Quote:
Edit. For those that say both drain the battery then why did Apple offer Both Video & Video editing on the phone (4years late) and still not offer true Multi-Tasking?
Because video recording isn't an excessive drain on the battery like multi-tasking.
Don't be ridiculous. Xiph.org is a non-profit organization. Their codec is royalty-free. What you're witnessing right now is big fat corporations vs folks with open ideas. Apple is no better than Adobe or Microsoft here. It hurts to acknowledge that for Apple fans like us, but it's the sad reality.
It's not an open idea. It's an implementation that is royalty free that mimics/copies H.264 as much as possible.
What does the AT&T/iPhone contract have to do with video tagging in HTML5?
But just to clarify, legally after your 2 year contract with AT&T is finished, you are free to do whatever you want with your iPhone. But AT&T doesn't have to help you unlock your phone either.
Agreed. iPhone1982 is paranoid and/or incredibly dimly lit upstairs.
I read this to say, video on Youtube looks like crap, OGG doesn't make much difference in this sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoserHead
That analysis - which shows screenshots, btw! - says roughly "H.264, as implemented by YouTube, is better than Theora, but not by much, and it probably doesn't make a difference to the average user."
What does the AT&T/iPhone contract have to do with video tagging in HTML5?
But just to clarify, legally after your 2 year contract with AT&T is finished, you are free to do whatever you want with your iPhone. But AT&T doesn't have to help you unlock your phone either.
AT&T and Apple don't unlock your phone for you after you paid for the phone and the privelage of owning the phone for 2 years.
Reverse the content. You pay for a lease on a car for 2 years (Pay it out and own it).
The car dealer says you have to get Gas at their dealership. Regardless where you happen to be in the world.
That is why Both AT&T & Apple are being investigated for what they offer (OR IN THIS CASE DON'T OFFER FOR A PHONE YOU OWN!)
Finally the rest of the country and government are getting involved with this.
YOU OWN THE PHONE, IT IS YOU PHONE. HOW SIMPLE CAN I MAKE IT.
Agreed. iPhone1982 is paranoid and/or incredibly dimly lit upstairs.
I am neither but it does show your ignorance to the bigger picture. I am just an iPhone user that this article has verified that Apple and AT&T wants us locked into their CASH COW with their standars.
Does anyone really remember anyone that has used QuickTime to watch a Video on the web?
All shows are available in Flash the next day after airing for Free! Yes it is Flash. Add ESPN, NASCAR, GOLF Channel for a few other not popular (...) for an example.
All Flash, all video and all FREE. That means you don't get it on the iPhone.
Why upgrade to the 3GS when the 3G does everything but Vidow (4 years old)?
I want a Free to implement, to use , to create and to read and efficient format to publish video on the web
for ALL KIND OF DEVICES !
it's ALL system or NONE.
I just care about EASINESS, Simplicity and STANDARD ! you know ! the fight you did to make possible to use a MACINTOSH !
Now I want the same fight to use firefox, fennec, opera, webkit or whatever to read standard video on Linux, Mac and crazy tiny watches !
Etc, etc, etc. Post was too long for my purposes - sorry for the editing. Just wanted to highlight the theme. While I understand this perspective there are other "systems" to be considered. The web may, in fact, be the ideal environment for pure socialism, which I have no problem with. However, socialism has not been known historically to provide great encouragement for innovation. Part of the reason for the success of companies such as Apple and Microsoft is the rewards of capitalism, of profit. Without rambling too much on this philosophical path, there has to be some consideration for profit or a majority of people lose motivation. It's not a right/wrong or good/bad situation, just the reality of human existence. The idea of a completely open web may be admirable and ideal, but it is also completely ignorant of the human condition and idealistic. This is not to say that such an endeavor should be discouraged, but to ignore other forces that do have positive outcomes with the bad is not an open approach and will fail in the end. I'd be the first in line at the garden of eden, but for now I don't mind if I have to pay for admission.
Just some thoughts. Great article, very informative feedback in the comments. All-in-all, an outstanding conversation.
"specifications like HTML 5 are not intended to enforce political views but rather to foster interoperability."
Sorry, like it or not, but interoperability is a "political view." And the fact that McLean describes Ogg Theora as an "obsolete codec" says this is more about politics than anything else for him.
It's people like McLean we need less of. If it was people like McLean that invented the internet it wouldn't be the internet.
It's a really tough decision. H.264 may be technically superior, but it has such nasty licensing arrangement. I'd like not to have to pay someone to look at my own videos...
Stop with the scaremongering, licensing would never involve payment by the end user. It's the implementors (i.e. software developers) that have to pay license fees.
Stop with the scaremongering, licensing would never involve payment by the end user. It's the implementors (i.e. software developers) that have to pay license fees.
Not true, in 2011 the end user will have to pay $2,500 even to put one video online even for personal or non-profit use. You are mixing up the MP4 audio with MP4 video. MP4 audio only requires encoder and decoder payments. The video component requires fees for broadcast as well.
Here is where I got the $2,500 statistic. I see *now* that they have extended the free period to 2013.
This is from the MPEG LA MP4 visual licensing presentation
"Where remuneration is from other sources
Free Television (not Title-by-Title, Subscription or Free Internet Broadcast) - one-time fee of $2,500 per transmission encoder
Free Internet Broadcast (not Title-by-Title or Subscription) ? no royalty during the current term (through 2013; not greater than Free Television thereafter)"
What people need to understand is that the idea that people have to pay to use a file format is not a standard industry practice. It doesn't cost people anything to use HTML, PHP, Javascript, PDFs, Flash, etc.
But when there are patents involved that are not given away royalty free, whenever there is no more competition, they can raise the rates to anything they want. We already have free proprietary video on the web. Do we really want to go even more backwards and start using proprietary video that costs money just to distribute?
Many groups on the Internet that want to use video are not large corporations and cannot get the good volume deals than the big guys can get. You think it is bad that we don't have better video on the Internet, but think about what will happen if the only free alternative is MPEG-1 or AVI? Do we want to have the Internet even slower for those who cannot afford it? What will happen in the future - will Microsoft start charging for using their file formats in addition to the money paid for Microsoft Office?
Firefox supports GIF and JPEG formats for <img> tags, right ? Both of those formats are patented, yet they somehow were able to overcome philosophical differences and support those formats.
Mozilla should pull their head out of their Open Source arses and support h.264 - the industry standard. Simple as that.
It's too late to start arguing over this. h.264 is THE standard. DVD, BluRay, HD Video, YouTube, All mobile devices, all hardware (YOU own) supports h.264 (to some extent be that the container or the codec etc) if you want to go and buy a new housefull of electronics (computers, DVD players, mobile phones etc or just convert EVERY internet file you download to the h.264 codec go with OGG) Personally I would say go with the h.264 codec, as I dont want to shell out on a new mobile phone, graphics card, and other hardware that supports the ogg codec.
There's no official codec for graphics; web developers can use JPEG, GIF, PNG, or any other format. If users can't see the image, they might need to load a helper plugin. There is no problem related to lacking an official graphics format.
Are you freaking kidding me? IE6's poor support for PNG alpha-transparencies is a huge pain in the @ss. Why should a user have to load a plugin just to view basic images on a web page?
Comments
But just to clarify, legally after your 2 year contract with AT&T is finished, you are free to do whatever you want with your iPhone. But AT&T doesn't have to help you unlock your phone either.
AT&T & Apple own and have the right to everything on your iPhone, even after the 2 year contract is over.
Good article even if it is a bit "slanted". On that note. Those that are looking for a point of view that isn't slanted are kidding themselves and making any debate pointless. That's why it's a Point of View. Perspective is everything and to say that an argument for or against isn't slanted is misleading. There is no way of removing the observer from the observation.
Seeing how Firefox has greater than 20% browser share, I find it difficult to justify saying 20% of internet users and their preferences don't matter.
So what this really is is a shakedown by companies looking to reduce the royalty rates they need to pay to implement a technology. By bringing about this PR tempest in a teapot they look to use the court of public opinion to drive a better bargain. Nice.
Spot on!
If you own an iPhone (I have 2, not the 3GS). You will never get FLASH.
No because an OS X machine using Core 2 Duo, Flash can use up to 90% of the CPU, that is horribly inefficient.
It takes gaming revenue away from Apple.
Apple doesn't make games.
If you own an iPhone. You will never get any Video that is FREE. It takes Movie & TV revenue away from Apple.
What about those free podcasts in iTunes. What about the fact that you can sync any video you want from iTunes, whether you paid for it or not. What about Youtube, or Joost, or TV.com, or Dailymotion, or any of the hundreds of sources of video streaming from the web.
Edit. For those that say both drain the battery then why did Apple offer Both Video & Video editing on the phone (4years late) and still not offer true Multi-Tasking?
Because video recording isn't an excessive drain on the battery like multi-tasking.
Don't be ridiculous. Xiph.org is a non-profit organization. Their codec is royalty-free. What you're witnessing right now is big fat corporations vs folks with open ideas. Apple is no better than Adobe or Microsoft here. It hurts to acknowledge that for Apple fans like us, but it's the sad reality.
It's not an open idea. It's an implementation that is royalty free that mimics/copies H.264 as much as possible.
Firefox has 20% market share in desktops. The fastest growth is in mobile devices where Firefox has next to no market share.
Correct.
What does the AT&T/iPhone contract have to do with video tagging in HTML5?
But just to clarify, legally after your 2 year contract with AT&T is finished, you are free to do whatever you want with your iPhone. But AT&T doesn't have to help you unlock your phone either.
Agreed. iPhone1982 is paranoid and/or incredibly dimly lit upstairs.
That analysis - which shows screenshots, btw! - says roughly "H.264, as implemented by YouTube, is better than Theora, but not by much, and it probably doesn't make a difference to the average user."
What does the AT&T/iPhone contract have to do with video tagging in HTML5?
But just to clarify, legally after your 2 year contract with AT&T is finished, you are free to do whatever you want with your iPhone. But AT&T doesn't have to help you unlock your phone either.
AT&T and Apple don't unlock your phone for you after you paid for the phone and the privelage of owning the phone for 2 years.
Reverse the content. You pay for a lease on a car for 2 years (Pay it out and own it).
The car dealer says you have to get Gas at their dealership. Regardless where you happen to be in the world.
That is why Both AT&T & Apple are being investigated for what they offer (OR IN THIS CASE DON'T OFFER FOR A PHONE YOU OWN!)
Finally the rest of the country and government are getting involved with this.
YOU OWN THE PHONE, IT IS YOU PHONE. HOW SIMPLE CAN I MAKE IT.
Agreed. iPhone1982 is paranoid and/or incredibly dimly lit upstairs.
I am neither but it does show your ignorance to the bigger picture. I am just an iPhone user that this article has verified that Apple and AT&T wants us locked into their CASH COW with their standars.
Does anyone really remember anyone that has used QuickTime to watch a Video on the web?
CNN, no. Hulu, no. CNBC, no. ABC, NBC, CBS, Sci Fi. no. Fox, No.,
All shows are available in Flash the next day after airing for Free! Yes it is Flash. Add ESPN, NASCAR, GOLF Channel for a few other not popular (...) for an example.
All Flash, all video and all FREE. That means you don't get it on the iPhone.
Why upgrade to the 3GS when the 3G does everything but Vidow (4 years old)?
I want a Free to implement, to use , to create and to read and efficient format to publish video on the web
for ALL KIND OF DEVICES !
it's ALL system or NONE.
I just care about EASINESS, Simplicity and STANDARD ! you know ! the fight you did to make possible to use a MACINTOSH !
Now I want the same fight to use firefox, fennec, opera, webkit or whatever to read standard video on Linux, Mac and crazy tiny watches !
Etc, etc, etc. Post was too long for my purposes - sorry for the editing. Just wanted to highlight the theme. While I understand this perspective there are other "systems" to be considered. The web may, in fact, be the ideal environment for pure socialism, which I have no problem with. However, socialism has not been known historically to provide great encouragement for innovation. Part of the reason for the success of companies such as Apple and Microsoft is the rewards of capitalism, of profit. Without rambling too much on this philosophical path, there has to be some consideration for profit or a majority of people lose motivation. It's not a right/wrong or good/bad situation, just the reality of human existence. The idea of a completely open web may be admirable and ideal, but it is also completely ignorant of the human condition and idealistic. This is not to say that such an endeavor should be discouraged, but to ignore other forces that do have positive outcomes with the bad is not an open approach and will fail in the end. I'd be the first in line at the garden of eden, but for now I don't mind if I have to pay for admission.
Just some thoughts. Great article, very informative feedback in the comments. All-in-all, an outstanding conversation.
Sorry, like it or not, but interoperability is a "political view." And the fact that McLean describes Ogg Theora as an "obsolete codec" says this is more about politics than anything else for him.
It's people like McLean we need less of. If it was people like McLean that invented the internet it wouldn't be the internet.
It's a really tough decision. H.264 may be technically superior, but it has such nasty licensing arrangement. I'd like not to have to pay someone to look at my own videos...
Stop with the scaremongering, licensing would never involve payment by the end user. It's the implementors (i.e. software developers) that have to pay license fees.
Stop with the scaremongering, licensing would never involve payment by the end user. It's the implementors (i.e. software developers) that have to pay license fees.
Not true, in 2011 the end user will have to pay $2,500 even to put one video online even for personal or non-profit use. You are mixing up the MP4 audio with MP4 video. MP4 audio only requires encoder and decoder payments. The video component requires fees for broadcast as well.
This is from the MPEG LA MP4 visual licensing presentation
"Where remuneration is from other sources
Free Television (not Title-by-Title, Subscription or Free Internet Broadcast) - one-time fee of $2,500 per transmission encoder
Free Internet Broadcast (not Title-by-Title or Subscription) ? no royalty during the current term (through 2013; not greater than Free Television thereafter)"
What people need to understand is that the idea that people have to pay to use a file format is not a standard industry practice. It doesn't cost people anything to use HTML, PHP, Javascript, PDFs, Flash, etc.
But when there are patents involved that are not given away royalty free, whenever there is no more competition, they can raise the rates to anything they want. We already have free proprietary video on the web. Do we really want to go even more backwards and start using proprietary video that costs money just to distribute?
Many groups on the Internet that want to use video are not large corporations and cannot get the good volume deals than the big guys can get. You think it is bad that we don't have better video on the Internet, but think about what will happen if the only free alternative is MPEG-1 or AVI? Do we want to have the Internet even slower for those who cannot afford it? What will happen in the future - will Microsoft start charging for using their file formats in addition to the money paid for Microsoft Office?
Mozilla should pull their head out of their Open Source arses and support h.264 - the industry standard. Simple as that.
Same goes for Opera.
There's no official codec for graphics; web developers can use JPEG, GIF, PNG, or any other format. If users can't see the image, they might need to load a helper plugin. There is no problem related to lacking an official graphics format.
Are you freaking kidding me? IE6's poor support for PNG alpha-transparencies is a huge pain in the @ss. Why should a user have to load a plugin just to view basic images on a web page?
And what purpose does Opera serve other than to make the EU feel like it has some say in the browser market?
Opera is Norwegian. Norway is not a member of EU.