so posters are either 'google shills' or 'deluded' unless they are siding with apple and the h.264?
so google is out to make more money and ads are the way they do it. flash does about 94% of ads so of course they like flash. apple apparently likes h.264 because they make lots of money off of google and others to license it. wow. but yet 'google' are the bad guys.
anyone who thinks apple is looking out for 'them' is just brainwashed. apple is out for filling its own coffers just like every other business. the difference is you have somehow convinced yourself that apple is more 'noble' than the rest. dream on, they ain't.
You almost got it right, but sort of backwards. Here's a correct summary:
Quote:
Posters siding with Google on this are either shills (from Google or Adobe), or deluded into thinking Google is doing this for any sort of "public good".
In other words, Google looks out for no one but itself, which isn't necessarily an aberration in the business world, and, yes, Apple is looking out for its interests, too.
The difference here is that what Apple has decided is in its best interests happens to coincide with what's in the public interest: high quality, open standards that are widely accepted and implemented, and which further serve the purpose of freeing the Internet from proprietary content traps -- namely Flash. (Again, WebM isn't going anywhere.)
Google, apparently, has decided that promoting these widely adopted open standards isn't giving it the leverage it wants in certain markets. So, they dump the open standard in favor of a move that essentially drives content providers back into the arms of closed, proprietary Flash. (Again, because, WebM isn't going to be adopted by anyone who matters.) Sure, lot's of "open" and "openness" thrown around in their statements as justification, but it's just a smokescreen to hide the fact that they have abandoned open. (Just as Android effectively undermines the highly desirable, from a consumers perspective, forcing of carriers to be more open.)
Talk of "open" and "openness" from Google is just so much self serving bullshit. All they are really interested in doing is undermining anything that they perceive may allow anyone to gain success, any such success they see as limiting their ability to exploit markets. The mentality at Google in regard to this sort of thing is actually quite similar to Microsoft, where they have always felt they had to dominate in anything remotely related to their business, because every successful company is perceived as a threat. The only difference is their respective methodologies.
The shills require no more discussion: we all know they are among us. The deluded open source advocates are actually a sad case. Many of them are highly idealistic people who believe they are working for a greater good. Unfortunately, their uncritical acceptance of Google as the company that can do no evil, because, after all, they are always talking about their strong support for open source leaves them open to exactly this sort of manipulation by Google. The reality is that Google doesn't give a shit about the open source community, except as a demographic they can easily rile up with a carefully worded press release.
No one is getting rich directly from H.264. There are about 40 or so companies and organizations contributing IP to it. This is not a major source of profit for any of them.
Simply because they receive payment for their contribution you make baseless claims to their over all motivations. Microsoft did not want to support HTML5 at all originally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist
this article is interesting. why? because it states that Apple and Microsoft are a part of MPEG-LA and receive money for the licensing of h.264? how very sweet of them to support h.264 and proclaim google as 'rubbish'. so noble it makes me want to vomit.
BTW, where do I get my copy of Google's source code, all of it? I don't find it credible that they haven't used large amounts of open source code in their various products: Search, GMail, AdSense/Analytics, etc., etc.
So, shouldn't the source code for this stuff be made available when they provide the software to users, over the web? Or, is it OK for Google to freeload on the open source community? At the very least, there should be an audit -- I have a feeling they are violating open source licenses all over the place.
BTW, where do I get my copy of Google's source code, all of it? I don't find it credible that they haven't used large amounts of open source code in their various products: Search, GMail, AdSense/Analytics, etc., etc.
So, shouldn't the source code for this stuff be made available when they provide the software to users, over the web? Or, is it OK for Google to freeload on the open source community? At the very least, there should be an audit -- I have a feeling they are violating open source licenses all over the place.
Probably why they use Python for everything.
GPL-compatible doesn?t mean that we?re distributing Python under the GPL. All Python licenses, unlike the GPL, let you distribute a modified version without making your changes open source. The GPL-compatible licenses make it possible to combine Python with other software that is released under the GPL; the others don?t.
GPL-compatible doesn?t mean that we?re distributing Python under the GPL. All Python licenses, unlike the GPL, let you distribute a modified version without making your changes open source. The GPL-compatible licenses make it possible to combine Python with other software that is released under the GPL; the others don?t.
So, they found a loophole that allows them to do an end-run around the GPL? But, still, I find it hard to believe all their development is in Python. I still think we need an audit of Google's code to see if they are in violation. I mean, after all, they are all about openness, they should welcome an audit.
No one is getting rich directly from H.264. There are about 40 or so companies and organizations contributing IP to it. This is not a major source of profit for any of them.
Simply because they receive payment for their contribution you make baseless claims to their over all motivations. Microsoft did not want to support HTML5 at all originally.
anyone backing MPEG-LA and H.264 are either brainwashed or scum.
this article is interesting. why? because it states that Apple and Microsoft are a part of MPEG-LA and receive money for the licensing of h.264? how very sweet of them to support h.264 and proclaim google as 'rubbish'. so noble it makes me want to vomit.
Really the best argument is...they don't tell people weather or not to use .gif, .jpg, .png for images why should Google be trying to impose their will on people as it relates to video codecs. Gif is a known patent troll. Chrome should disable it.
I think given that size is in fact an issue I think its best for the developers and content providers to only have to serve up one codec for the web.
IE will be supporting WebM btw...
Also h.264 is far superior to WebM but you could argue that WebM will never get the attention it needs to become better than h.264 or at the very least on par with h.264 if Google didn't put it's name on the line here.
Comments
How is Android a rip of iOS?
so posters are either 'google shills' or 'deluded' unless they are siding with apple and the h.264?
so google is out to make more money and ads are the way they do it. flash does about 94% of ads so of course they like flash. apple apparently likes h.264 because they make lots of money off of google and others to license it. wow. but yet 'google' are the bad guys.
anyone who thinks apple is looking out for 'them' is just brainwashed. apple is out for filling its own coffers just like every other business. the difference is you have somehow convinced yourself that apple is more 'noble' than the rest. dream on, they ain't.
You almost got it right, but sort of backwards. Here's a correct summary:
Posters siding with Google on this are either shills (from Google or Adobe), or deluded into thinking Google is doing this for any sort of "public good".
In other words, Google looks out for no one but itself, which isn't necessarily an aberration in the business world, and, yes, Apple is looking out for its interests, too.
The difference here is that what Apple has decided is in its best interests happens to coincide with what's in the public interest: high quality, open standards that are widely accepted and implemented, and which further serve the purpose of freeing the Internet from proprietary content traps -- namely Flash. (Again, WebM isn't going anywhere.)
Google, apparently, has decided that promoting these widely adopted open standards isn't giving it the leverage it wants in certain markets. So, they dump the open standard in favor of a move that essentially drives content providers back into the arms of closed, proprietary Flash. (Again, because, WebM isn't going to be adopted by anyone who matters.) Sure, lot's of "open" and "openness" thrown around in their statements as justification, but it's just a smokescreen to hide the fact that they have abandoned open. (Just as Android effectively undermines the highly desirable, from a consumers perspective, forcing of carriers to be more open.)
Talk of "open" and "openness" from Google is just so much self serving bullshit. All they are really interested in doing is undermining anything that they perceive may allow anyone to gain success, any such success they see as limiting their ability to exploit markets. The mentality at Google in regard to this sort of thing is actually quite similar to Microsoft, where they have always felt they had to dominate in anything remotely related to their business, because every successful company is perceived as a threat. The only difference is their respective methodologies.
The shills require no more discussion: we all know they are among us. The deluded open source advocates are actually a sad case. Many of them are highly idealistic people who believe they are working for a greater good. Unfortunately, their uncritical acceptance of Google as the company that can do no evil, because, after all, they are always talking about their strong support for open source leaves them open to exactly this sort of manipulation by Google. The reality is that Google doesn't give a shit about the open source community, except as a demographic they can easily rile up with a carefully worded press release.
Simply because they receive payment for their contribution you make baseless claims to their over all motivations. Microsoft did not want to support HTML5 at all originally.
this article is interesting. why? because it states that Apple and Microsoft are a part of MPEG-LA and receive money for the licensing of h.264? how very sweet of them to support h.264 and proclaim google as 'rubbish'. so noble it makes me want to vomit.
So, shouldn't the source code for this stuff be made available when they provide the software to users, over the web? Or, is it OK for Google to freeload on the open source community? At the very least, there should be an audit -- I have a feeling they are violating open source licenses all over the place.
BTW, where do I get my copy of Google's source code, all of it? I don't find it credible that they haven't used large amounts of open source code in their various products: Search, GMail, AdSense/Analytics, etc., etc.
So, shouldn't the source code for this stuff be made available when they provide the software to users, over the web? Or, is it OK for Google to freeload on the open source community? At the very least, there should be an audit -- I have a feeling they are violating open source licenses all over the place.
Probably why they use Python for everything.
GPL-compatible doesn?t mean that we?re distributing Python under the GPL. All Python licenses, unlike the GPL, let you distribute a modified version without making your changes open source. The GPL-compatible licenses make it possible to combine Python with other software that is released under the GPL; the others don?t.
Probably why they use Python for everything.
GPL-compatible doesn?t mean that we?re distributing Python under the GPL. All Python licenses, unlike the GPL, let you distribute a modified version without making your changes open source. The GPL-compatible licenses make it possible to combine Python with other software that is released under the GPL; the others don?t.
So, they found a loophole that allows them to do an end-run around the GPL? But, still, I find it hard to believe all their development is in Python. I still think we need an audit of Google's code to see if they are in violation. I mean, after all, they are all about openness, they should welcome an audit.
No one is getting rich directly from H.264. There are about 40 or so companies and organizations contributing IP to it. This is not a major source of profit for any of them.
Simply because they receive payment for their contribution you make baseless claims to their over all motivations. Microsoft did not want to support HTML5 at all originally.
anyone backing MPEG-LA and H.264 are either brainwashed or scum.
http://gigaom.com/video/nero-sues-mp...buse-of-power/
anyone backing MPEG-LA and H.264 are either brainwashed or scum.
So, are you here as a shill or just deluded?
So, are you here as a shill or just deluded?
glad you had the capability to see the tie in....
but i really am not for apple, ms, or google. i think they all stink. but i am for open code no matter who releases it.
glad you had the capability to see the tie in....
OK, we'll assume shill since you don't deny it. Glad we cleared that up.
this article is interesting. why? because it states that Apple and Microsoft are a part of MPEG-LA and receive money for the licensing of h.264? how very sweet of them to support h.264 and proclaim google as 'rubbish'. so noble it makes me want to vomit.
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/We...elf-71647.html
So that means Samsung, Sony and others who make google products are scum as well?
anyone backing MPEG-LA and H.264 are either brainwashed or scum.
http://gigaom.com/video/nero-sues-mp...buse-of-power/
That means Google is scum because they back it heavily on Google Video and YouTube.
So that means Samsung, Sony and others who make google products are scum as well?
Yep, everyone who isn't fully on the Google train when it leaves the station is scum. At least that's my understanding of what he said.
That means Google is scum because they back it heavily on Google Video and YouTube.
I see what you did there.
OK, we'll assume shill since you don't deny it. Glad we cleared that up.
can i take more than 30 seconds to finish? i am trying to get my work done too...
You may want to learn what anti-competitive means.
Why would they or anything adopt this when there is a better codec that is already adopted and invested?
Gruber sums it up nicely.
Really the best argument is...they don't tell people weather or not to use .gif, .jpg, .png for images why should Google be trying to impose their will on people as it relates to video codecs. Gif is a known patent troll. Chrome should disable it.
I think given that size is in fact an issue I think its best for the developers and content providers to only have to serve up one codec for the web.
IE will be supporting WebM btw...
Also h.264 is far superior to WebM but you could argue that WebM will never get the attention it needs to become better than h.264 or at the very least on par with h.264 if Google didn't put it's name on the line here.
anyone backing MPEG-LA and H.264 are either brainwashed or scum.
http://gigaom.com/video/nero-sues-mp...buse-of-power/
That means Google is scum because they back it heavily on Google Video and YouTube.
let me add this to it so as to not cause confusion for you unibrows
"anyone backing MPEG-LA and H.264 are either brainwashed, scum or coerced"
so yes you could add google to that.
anyone backing MPEG-LA and H.264 are either brainwashed or scum.
http://gigaom.com/video/nero-sues-mp...buse-of-power/
That means Google is scum because they back it heavily on Google Video and YouTube.
That also means the majority, if not all, of these companies are also scum for backing H.264.
reread the post moron.
Cool it with the personal attacks.
Yep, everyone who isn't fully on the Google train when it leaves the station is scum. At least that's my understanding of what he said.
of course sony is scum. one of the worst. apple has become the new sony.