Sites only need H.264 to reach all users. If a browser can't serve the video directly through HTML, then it could serve it up as a Flash object. (Flash supports H.264 playback).
The fact of the matter is, in a year or two the iOS user base could easily grow to a few hundred million users... This is a huge chunk of prolific users and no one is going to discount them. Content providers and site administrators will continue to deliver whatever iOS supports. Especially if that same content is compatible with other platforms.
How can it be anti-competitive when Google gives the codec away for free? That makes as much sense as apple being anti-competitive for snubbing flash.
Probably somewhat along the lines that giving away Internet Explorer for free was anti-competitive when Microsoft did it to kill competitors.
Google currently does not have the same market power that Microsoft wielded for a long time. And there are alternatives to Chrome, obviously. But suppose Google stops h.264 on YouTube next. There, they wield near monopoly power and the situation looks like Microsoft of the past. Apple is very strong in smartphones, but they do not wield monopoly power either, far from it.
What really stinks is that Google supports Flash (that has h.264 but is also a WebM partner) while snubbing h.264 because it is not open. Flash is? Google hardly innovates (WebM is not better than h.264 for instance and there is a long list of failed initiatives) but currently fights hard not to be out-inovated. At least in spirit that is not the kind of competitive behaviour one would like.
Google has only one cash cow and has so far not been able to innovate in a commercially successful way in another area. Even Android, which is successful, is just me-too that intends to keep Google's ad-selling machine protected.
Google seems to be run by beancounters, not by innovators.
How can it be anti-competitive when Google gives the codec away for free? That makes as much sense as apple being anti-competitive for snubbing flash.
The difference is Apple made flash available in the places it had always been. However, on mobile devices they didn't enable flash plug ins because flash couldn't perform on the mobile devices. The Android devices are still trying to get flash to run reasonably on flash. Google is taking away. Flash was never on any of Apple's mobile devices in the first place and it's iOS has never made use of flash....so there is nothing to take away. Additionally what's to stop google from forcing people to pay in the future. That concern isn't going to go away simply because Google's name is attached to it.
Sites only need H.264 to reach all users. If a browser can't serve the video directly through HTML, then it could serve it up as a Flash object. (Flash supports H.264 playback).
Sure, but it is still double the work to export an swf and write conditional code to support two versions, just like we do today. We were all hoping for video to eventually just be one <video> tag, but the FF issues was not resolved anyway, so really nothing has changed.
Apple is very strong in smartphones, but they do not wield monopoly power either, far from it.
So then why snub flash? Because it is the past, not open, etc? At least for video we have a replacement; there isn't anything I can use to view homestarrunner.com on an iOS device, is there?
Quote:
What really stinks is that Google supports Flash (that has h.264 but is also a WebM partner) while snubbing h.264 because it is not open. Flash is? Google hardly innovates (WebM is not better than h.264 for instance and there is a long list of failed initiatives) but currently fights hard not to be out-inovated. At least in spirit that is not the kind of competitive behaviour one would like.
Just bundling flash with the browser to make sure it is always up to date was done for security reasons. It is very much apparent that Google wants to go to HTML5.
But if we are to be cynical with google, then that means to be fair, apple doesn't want flash on their iphone because it allows running games, apps and other stuff outside their walled garden, and they do not want that at all.
This thread is relatively civil. You should look on ars and see how bad it is.
Probably somewhat along the lines that giving away Internet Explorer for free was anti-competitive when Microsoft did it to kill competitors.
Google currently does not have the same market power that Microsoft wielded for a long time. And there are alternatives to Chrome, obviously. But suppose Google stops h.264 on YouTube next. There, they wield near monopoly power and the situation looks like Microsoft of the past. Apple is very strong in smartphones, but they do not wield monopoly power either, far from it.
What really stinks is that Google supports Flash (that has h.264 but is also a WebM partner) while snubbing h.264 because it is not open. Flash is? Google hardly innovates (WebM is not better than h.264 for instance and there is a long list of failed initiatives) but currently fights hard not to be out-inovated. At least in spirit that is not the kind of competitive behaviour one would like.
Google has only one cash cow and has so far not been able to innovate in a commercially successful way in another area. Even Android, which is successful, is just me-too that intends to keep Google's ad-selling machine protected.
Google seems to be run by beancounters, not by innovators.
That's a great argument...far and away better logic than I had. I remember when that happened.
Microsoft was accused of being anti-competitive not because they gave IE away for free, but because they forced it on users by "tying" it to Windows. Claiming that Windows would "break" without the browser (which was complete rubbish). They made it un-installable and continuously reset user preferences to use IE as the default browser. That's what gave them an unfair advantage, they leveraged their Windows monopoly in an attempt to kill off competing browsers.
Apple's insistence of not using Flash in the iPhone had nothing to do with competition... in 2007 THERE WAS NO FLASH for the ARM architecture other than Flash Lite, which couldn't play desktop Flash apps anyway. Flash Lite is a subset of Flash several versions old and only served up very simple Flash apps, usually nothing more than ads. People can't get it in their heads that the full blown up to date version of Flash for ARM based mobile devices was only released this past fall. This happened after Apple released its fourth version of iOS. All the stink Adobe and everyone else made about it was nothing more than posturing for the cameras.
What Google is doing is not anti-competitive. They're removing a developmental hurdle which is understandable, but at the same time, pushing a new obstacle in front of their users. However, Google has never been about users, it is about data mining and serving ads.
Last August, the MPEG Licensing Authority announced that it would indefinitely extend royalty-free Internet broadcasting licensing of its H.264 video codec to end users, erasing a key advantage of Google's WebM rival and cementing Apple's preferred H.264 as the video format for modern HTML5 video on the web.
MPEGLA extended the royalty free license until the end of the lifetime of the patent portfolio -- there's nothing indefinite about it!
The only thing I can think of here is that Google wants MPEGLA to make all use of H264 on the Web free forever, not just non-commercial use. I think MPEGLA should go ahead and do that, and end all uncertainty about this issue.
So then why snub flash? Because it is the past, not open, etc? At least for video we have a replacement; there isn't anything I can use to view homestarrunner.com on an iOS device, is there?
In your politicking you completely ignore the continuing performance and power issues of flash on mobile devices.
MPEGLA extended the royalty free license until the end of the lifetime of the patent portfolio -- there's nothing indefinite about it!
The only thing I can think of here is that Google wants MPEGLA to make all use of H264 on the Web free forever, not just non-commercial use. I think MPEGLA should go ahead and do that, and end all uncertainty about this issue.
They should and make this easier for everyone. I wish Apple would just buy it and make it free and open.
But if we are to be cynical with google, then that means to be fair, apple doesn't want flash on their iphone because it allows running games, apps and other stuff outside their walled garden, and they do not want that at all.
This is an often repeated line about Flash on the iphone. Though, Apple pushed hard for web apps and relented with the app store. Seems like the only thing they've walled out (on the web, clearly they restrict certain apps) is Flash content.
Now, for good or for bad, Apple likes to control the user experience in many ways. In this case, I suspect it is much more of not wanting to dilute the perception of the iPhone because it slows down and drains the battery more quickly, two likely ramifications of allowing Flash. I don't doubt that there's at least a small amount of validity to that argument.
Adobe and Google aren't doing any of what they do out of the kindness of their hearts.
Rather have flash and homestarrunner.com plus less battery life than nothing at all.
Besides, it isn't as if video viewing drains the battery quick anyhow. Benchmarks have proved this time and time again.
Oh, yes, flash isn't good on Android. But there has always been more to flash than just video!
I don't miss flash - in any form - one bit on my 3GS or my iMac or MBP, I have moved on from it. With it's hit on performance and battery life Apple was right to not support it from the get-go.
Comments
The fact of the matter is, in a year or two the iOS user base could easily grow to a few hundred million users... This is a huge chunk of prolific users and no one is going to discount them. Content providers and site administrators will continue to deliver whatever iOS supports. Especially if that same content is compatible with other platforms.
How can it be anti-competitive when Google gives the codec away for free? That makes as much sense as apple being anti-competitive for snubbing flash.
Probably somewhat along the lines that giving away Internet Explorer for free was anti-competitive when Microsoft did it to kill competitors.
Google currently does not have the same market power that Microsoft wielded for a long time. And there are alternatives to Chrome, obviously. But suppose Google stops h.264 on YouTube next. There, they wield near monopoly power and the situation looks like Microsoft of the past. Apple is very strong in smartphones, but they do not wield monopoly power either, far from it.
What really stinks is that Google supports Flash (that has h.264 but is also a WebM partner) while snubbing h.264 because it is not open. Flash is? Google hardly innovates (WebM is not better than h.264 for instance and there is a long list of failed initiatives) but currently fights hard not to be out-inovated. At least in spirit that is not the kind of competitive behaviour one would like.
Google has only one cash cow and has so far not been able to innovate in a commercially successful way in another area. Even Android, which is successful, is just me-too that intends to keep Google's ad-selling machine protected.
Google seems to be run by beancounters, not by innovators.
You mean like the way they gave IE away for free was not deemed anti-competitive?
The crime was bundling IE with win98, not giving it away for free. Besides, know of anyone else who was allowed to implement active x?
How can it be anti-competitive when Google gives the codec away for free? That makes as much sense as apple being anti-competitive for snubbing flash.
The difference is Apple made flash available in the places it had always been. However, on mobile devices they didn't enable flash plug ins because flash couldn't perform on the mobile devices. The Android devices are still trying to get flash to run reasonably on flash. Google is taking away. Flash was never on any of Apple's mobile devices in the first place and it's iOS has never made use of flash....so there is nothing to take away. Additionally what's to stop google from forcing people to pay in the future. That concern isn't going to go away simply because Google's name is attached to it.
Sites only need H.264 to reach all users. If a browser can't serve the video directly through HTML, then it could serve it up as a Flash object. (Flash supports H.264 playback).
Sure, but it is still double the work to export an swf and write conditional code to support two versions, just like we do today. We were all hoping for video to eventually just be one <video> tag, but the FF issues was not resolved anyway, so really nothing has changed.
Apple is very strong in smartphones, but they do not wield monopoly power either, far from it.
So then why snub flash? Because it is the past, not open, etc? At least for video we have a replacement; there isn't anything I can use to view homestarrunner.com on an iOS device, is there?
What really stinks is that Google supports Flash (that has h.264 but is also a WebM partner) while snubbing h.264 because it is not open. Flash is? Google hardly innovates (WebM is not better than h.264 for instance and there is a long list of failed initiatives) but currently fights hard not to be out-inovated. At least in spirit that is not the kind of competitive behaviour one would like.
Just bundling flash with the browser to make sure it is always up to date was done for security reasons. It is very much apparent that Google wants to go to HTML5.
But if we are to be cynical with google, then that means to be fair, apple doesn't want flash on their iphone because it allows running games, apps and other stuff outside their walled garden, and they do not want that at all.
This thread is relatively civil. You should look on ars and see how bad it is.
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/n...r#comments-bar
Probably somewhat along the lines that giving away Internet Explorer for free was anti-competitive when Microsoft did it to kill competitors.
Google currently does not have the same market power that Microsoft wielded for a long time. And there are alternatives to Chrome, obviously. But suppose Google stops h.264 on YouTube next. There, they wield near monopoly power and the situation looks like Microsoft of the past. Apple is very strong in smartphones, but they do not wield monopoly power either, far from it.
What really stinks is that Google supports Flash (that has h.264 but is also a WebM partner) while snubbing h.264 because it is not open. Flash is? Google hardly innovates (WebM is not better than h.264 for instance and there is a long list of failed initiatives) but currently fights hard not to be out-inovated. At least in spirit that is not the kind of competitive behaviour one would like.
Google has only one cash cow and has so far not been able to innovate in a commercially successful way in another area. Even Android, which is successful, is just me-too that intends to keep Google's ad-selling machine protected.
Google seems to be run by beancounters, not by innovators.
That's a great argument...far and away better logic than I had. I remember when that happened.
http://www.0xdeadbeef.com/weblog/201...-with-the-web/
The crime was bundling IE with win98, not giving it away for free. Besides, know of anyone else who was allowed to implement active x?
I stand corrected and this is not really an issue unless Google pulls h.264 from YouTube.
Apple's insistence of not using Flash in the iPhone had nothing to do with competition... in 2007 THERE WAS NO FLASH for the ARM architecture other than Flash Lite, which couldn't play desktop Flash apps anyway. Flash Lite is a subset of Flash several versions old and only served up very simple Flash apps, usually nothing more than ads. People can't get it in their heads that the full blown up to date version of Flash for ARM based mobile devices was only released this past fall. This happened after Apple released its fourth version of iOS. All the stink Adobe and everyone else made about it was nothing more than posturing for the cameras.
What Google is doing is not anti-competitive. They're removing a developmental hurdle which is understandable, but at the same time, pushing a new obstacle in front of their users. However, Google has never been about users, it is about data mining and serving ads.
I stand corrected and this is not really an issue unless Google pulls h.264 from YouTube.
They probably won't, as it serves their needs and would be negative to them.
Before the iphone they still used the old vp6 or whatever codec for flash.
Last August, the MPEG Licensing Authority announced that it would indefinitely extend royalty-free Internet broadcasting licensing of its H.264 video codec to end users, erasing a key advantage of Google's WebM rival and cementing Apple's preferred H.264 as the video format for modern HTML5 video on the web.
MPEGLA extended the royalty free license until the end of the lifetime of the patent portfolio -- there's nothing indefinite about it!
The only thing I can think of here is that Google wants MPEGLA to make all use of H264 on the Web free forever, not just non-commercial use. I think MPEGLA should go ahead and do that, and end all uncertainty about this issue.
So then why snub flash? Because it is the past, not open, etc? At least for video we have a replacement; there isn't anything I can use to view homestarrunner.com on an iOS device, is there?
In your politicking you completely ignore the continuing performance and power issues of flash on mobile devices.
MPEGLA extended the royalty free license until the end of the lifetime of the patent portfolio -- there's nothing indefinite about it!
The only thing I can think of here is that Google wants MPEGLA to make all use of H264 on the Web free forever, not just non-commercial use. I think MPEGLA should go ahead and do that, and end all uncertainty about this issue.
They should and make this easier for everyone. I wish Apple would just buy it and make it free and open.
But if we are to be cynical with google, then that means to be fair, apple doesn't want flash on their iphone because it allows running games, apps and other stuff outside their walled garden, and they do not want that at all.
This is an often repeated line about Flash on the iphone. Though, Apple pushed hard for web apps and relented with the app store. Seems like the only thing they've walled out (on the web, clearly they restrict certain apps) is Flash content.
Now, for good or for bad, Apple likes to control the user experience in many ways. In this case, I suspect it is much more of not wanting to dilute the perception of the iPhone because it slows down and drains the battery more quickly, two likely ramifications of allowing Flash. I don't doubt that there's at least a small amount of validity to that argument.
Adobe and Google aren't doing any of what they do out of the kindness of their hearts.
In your politicking you completely ignore the continuing performance and power issues of flash on mobile devices.
Rather have flash and homestarrunner.com plus less battery life than nothing at all.
Besides, it isn't as if video viewing drains the battery quick anyhow. Benchmarks have proved this time and time again.
Oh, yes, flash isn't good on Android. But there has always been more to flash than just video!
They should and make this easier for everyone. I wish Apple would just buy it and make it free and open.
You don't buy out a consortium of patent holders.
Rather have flash and homestarrunner.com plus less battery life than nothing at all.
Besides, it isn't as if video viewing drains the battery quick anyhow. Benchmarks have proved this time and time again.
Oh, yes, flash isn't good on Android. But there has always been more to flash than just video!
I don't miss flash - in any form - one bit on my 3GS or my iMac or MBP, I have moved on from it. With it's hit on performance and battery life Apple was right to not support it from the get-go.
Another angle.
http://www.0xdeadbeef.com/weblog/201...-with-the-web/
The bit you missed:
PUBLISHED: January 24, 2010
Since then the motion picture experts group have take all end user charging out. Forever.