Patents, trademarks, copyrights, IP, it ALL has to go... GO AWAY FOR GOOD!
This is a GOOD MOVE! Partially.
drop the HIGHLY ENCUMBERED h.264 standard. The only reason the MPEGLA gestapo is doing what they are is to get you hooked in like an addict.. then.... WHAMN! LICENSING FEES! ! ! Any one who doesn't see this coming is just not paying attention.
So this is PARTIALLY a good thing... supporting flash is another debate... for another time.
ff has already said they will not support h.264 for HTML5.
Wow, so much clairvoyance. I'm glad you can read minds and see into the future.
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.
Never mind that Flash is a steaming pile of shite on mobile devices. If you care about how long your battery will last, that is. If not, by all means. Flash away!
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!
Like what? Games? That'll drain your mobile device's battery the fastest. The best Flash-based game I've played is one that was written in Flash and translated to iOS using Adobe's tools. It's a great game, and I hope to see a LOT more of them. That way Flash developers can just compile their apps down to iOS format using Adobe's own excellent tools for the job.
Patents, trademarks, copyrights, IP, it ALL has to go... GO AWAY FOR GOOD!
This is a GOOD MOVE! Partially.
drop the HIGHLY ENCUMBERED h.264 standard. The only reason the MPEGLA gestapo is doing what they are is to get you hooked in like an addict.. then.... WHAMN! LICENSING FEES! ! ! Any one who doesn't see this coming is just not paying attention.
So this is PARTIALLY a good thing... supporting flash is another debate... for another time.
ff has already said they will not support h.264 for HTML5.
Communism much?
Seriously. You want a life that's funded by advertisements or what? I think I saw something like that in blade runner
It's a natural evolution. Flash has become an inferior user experience, so h264 is moving in. Once licensing fees come into play and the consumer experience is affected, something new will come. no sense staying in the past because you're afraid of the future
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.
What you're saying already ends all uncertainty. When the patents in a portfolio expire, that's it. Patents are not renewable. When any patent expires after a maximum of 20 years, it becomes public domain - no ifs, ands or buts about it. At that point, anybody can use it and there would be no legal way for MPEG LA to demand licensing fees. There's no need to define anything after the 20 year term.
Also note that Jobs statement, while truthful, wasn?t the whole truth. There are plenty of reasons why Apple was never going to adopt Blu-ray. For one, they were backing their video service. Digital video downloads and streaming is more popular on computers than all optical media for watching videos and it?s growing at a huge rate.
Couldn't agree with this more. The longer it takes blu-ray to become the optical standard, the faster it becomes obsolete.
Quote:
I suspect it won?t be long before the optical drive ? which takes 25% of the 13? Mac internal space, has moving parts and uses a lot of power to run at slower than NAND speeds ? will be removed entirely.
I would also add that they already have a head start with optimization and implementation of such a device as well as a very strong following of iOS device users that have no need for optical drives.
Like what? Games? That'll drain your mobile device's battery the fastest. The best Flash-based game I've played is one that was written in Flash and translated to iOS using Adobe's tools. It's a great game, and I hope to see a LOT more of them. That way Flash developers can just compile their apps down to iOS format using Adobe's own excellent tools for the job.
And thankfully Steve changed his mind about allowing such stuff in iOS. For whatever the reason, nice or cynical.
This is an often repeated line about Flash on the iphone. Though, Apple pushed hard for web apps and relented with the app store.
If my memory serves me well, the app store was in the cards even before web apps. Web apps were merely a stopgap feature until the app store was ready to launch
So what does Mozilla say? I see more people using Firefox still than Chrome. Especially on PCs. I do see the points made that Google is doing this just as retaliation to the iPhone on Verizon. They will naturally have Adobe on their side since they are the only ones who want Flash on their platform. Ironic, isn't it? Adobe who used to DESPISE any open source company has gotten in bed with Google.
I'm getting worried that a lot of these companies think that they can control us by dictating what we can and cannot do by removing things from software for no good reason. I'm also worried that Rixstep might be right about the state of the Mac with 10.6.6, the Mac app store and 10.7 being able to restrict what we can run on our Macs. Sure it might be tin foil hat stuff, but it still gives me the creeps cause it could happen:
I know, my answer is a complete epiphany. It's a wonder nobody's pointed that out yet
True, most reviews for Flash for Android say that it's slow and buggy, but it's flash. So how is that a selling point? It would be like saying you can run OS 9 on an iPad.
Welcome to the club guys. I've almost been Google free for awhile now. No searching on Google, no GMail, no maps, none of their other services either with the exception of YouTube.
It appears I will say goodbye to YouTube now.
The GPL guys (don't call these guys open source) are all into this dystopian ideal of unrestricted usage rights of software, and many of the fans of Google and open source seem to have a common bond.
But, you know what this will lead to? A classless, no elegance world of ads ads ads everywhere. It's Minority Report where you'll be identified where ever you go and ads are served just for your eyeballs. Realized this long time ago and stopped using Google search or anything else Google with the exception of YouTube.
For search engines. Try something like blekko and wolfram alpha. Google's search algorithm has been so gamed now that search results are nothing but ads. This was true years ago. Google's business model is to commoditize all software and hardware to encourage ad-supported revenue models in order to sell more advertising. A world like that is pretty classless.
I wonder when the GPL and open source guys will really start to subvert all of the advertising on the web. Flashblock and adblock are cool an all, but what about every ad? And hopefully a real YouTube competitor will appear.
So if I want to watch H.264 on Chrome, I can install an extension and watch it.
If I want to watch WebM on Safari, I can't.
If you think Google's choice is somehow inflammatory, Apple has made similar decisions with Flash and Java on their recent notebook releases. Of course, the end-user is free to install these add-ons and continue to consume this content.
In the same way, end-user isn't barred from H.264 in Chrome at all. They just need to take an extra step.
There are no steps anyone can take to watch WebM on Safari, or Flash in an iPad browser (short of the pre-rendering browser or Frash via jailbreaking both of which are incomplete solutions).
Don't get me wrong, I don't really care for Flash or WebM - but stop it with the unnecessary anti-Google rhetoric that doesn't really belong. People consider me rabidly pro-Apple, and even I think that some of the Google bashing here goes a little overboard.
Seriously. You want a life that's funded by advertisements or what? I think I saw something like that in blade runner
It's a natural evolution. Flash has become an inferior user experience, so h264 is moving in. Once licensing fees come into play and the consumer experience is affected, something new will come. no sense staying in the past because you're afraid of the future
Something new has come, and its called WebM...technically its been here awhile but whatever.
I know there is a bunch of butthurt going on in this thread, and its pretty pathetic and hilarious at the same time.
H.264 is not open source in the least bit, and is only freely given away to end users but Google (and Apple) are eating costs to provide it to us for free. Still, history has taught us that what might be given away for free today wont be tomorrow, have we not learned anything from the issues with MP3 and GIF?
Google can easily squash H.264, especially being the towering streaming giant by owning Youtube and do encoding solely in WebM. While Apple has done admirably pushing HTML5 via H.264, Apple does not have the power to do anything about this. WebM will be supported by IE9, Chrome, Firefox, AND Opera, about 93% of web usage comes from these browsers...the only ones not on this list of course is Apple's Safari, which is that last 7% (that includes both mobile and desktop Safari).
about 93% of web usage comes from these browsers...the only ones not on this list of course is Apple's Safari, which is that last 7% (that includes both mobile and desktop Safari).
I guess I've been reading that Perian has added experimental WebM support. I imagine WebM would be accessible like a WMV would be a-la Flip4Mac.. that is until Apple adopts it formally.
True, most reviews for Flash for Android say that it's slow and buggy, but it's flash. So how is that a selling point? It would be like saying you can run OS 9 on an iPad.
It's not a matter of being a selling point. It's about managing customer expectations. If you have flash on a phone, the consumer expects it to work. And if it doesn't, the average consumer isn't savvy enough to understand that it's flashs fault, they just would say the device is slow or has terrible battery. Apple benefits from the consumer understanding that they just don't have flash rathr than having the blame for poor performance thrust on them
Comments
Most of you are missing the point.
Patents, trademarks, copyrights, IP, it ALL has to go... GO AWAY FOR GOOD!
This is a GOOD MOVE! Partially.
drop the HIGHLY ENCUMBERED h.264 standard. The only reason the MPEGLA gestapo is doing what they are is to get you hooked in like an addict.. then.... WHAMN! LICENSING FEES! ! ! Any one who doesn't see this coming is just not paying attention.
So this is PARTIALLY a good thing... supporting flash is another debate... for another time.
ff has already said they will not support h.264 for HTML5.
Wow, so much clairvoyance. I'm glad you can read minds and see into the future.
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.
Flash is not open. Maybe you missed that part.
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.
Never mind that Flash is a steaming pile of shite on mobile devices. If you care about how long your battery will last, that is. If not, by all means. Flash away!
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!
Like what? Games? That'll drain your mobile device's battery the fastest. The best Flash-based game I've played is one that was written in Flash and translated to iOS using Adobe's tools. It's a great game, and I hope to see a LOT more of them. That way Flash developers can just compile their apps down to iOS format using Adobe's own excellent tools for the job.
Most of you are missing the point.
Patents, trademarks, copyrights, IP, it ALL has to go... GO AWAY FOR GOOD!
This is a GOOD MOVE! Partially.
drop the HIGHLY ENCUMBERED h.264 standard. The only reason the MPEGLA gestapo is doing what they are is to get you hooked in like an addict.. then.... WHAMN! LICENSING FEES! ! ! Any one who doesn't see this coming is just not paying attention.
So this is PARTIALLY a good thing... supporting flash is another debate... for another time.
ff has already said they will not support h.264 for HTML5.
Communism much?
Seriously. You want a life that's funded by advertisements or what? I think I saw something like that in blade runner
It's a natural evolution. Flash has become an inferior user experience, so h264 is moving in. Once licensing fees come into play and the consumer experience is affected, something new will come. no sense staying in the past because you're afraid of the future
Flash is not open. Maybe you missed that part.
Oh I know.
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.
What you're saying already ends all uncertainty. When the patents in a portfolio expire, that's it. Patents are not renewable. When any patent expires after a maximum of 20 years, it becomes public domain - no ifs, ands or buts about it. At that point, anybody can use it and there would be no legal way for MPEG LA to demand licensing fees. There's no need to define anything after the 20 year term.
Also note that Jobs statement, while truthful, wasn?t the whole truth. There are plenty of reasons why Apple was never going to adopt Blu-ray. For one, they were backing their video service. Digital video downloads and streaming is more popular on computers than all optical media for watching videos and it?s growing at a huge rate.
Couldn't agree with this more. The longer it takes blu-ray to become the optical standard, the faster it becomes obsolete.
I suspect it won?t be long before the optical drive ? which takes 25% of the 13? Mac internal space, has moving parts and uses a lot of power to run at slower than NAND speeds ? will be removed entirely.
I would also add that they already have a head start with optimization and implementation of such a device as well as a very strong following of iOS device users that have no need for optical drives.
K
Like what? Games? That'll drain your mobile device's battery the fastest. The best Flash-based game I've played is one that was written in Flash and translated to iOS using Adobe's tools. It's a great game, and I hope to see a LOT more of them. That way Flash developers can just compile their apps down to iOS format using Adobe's own excellent tools for the job.
And thankfully Steve changed his mind about allowing such stuff in iOS. For whatever the reason, nice or cynical.
So then why snub flash? Because it is the past, not open, etc?
Because of poor performance on mobile devices.
I know, my answer is a complete epiphany. It's a wonder nobody's pointed that out yet
This is an often repeated line about Flash on the iphone. Though, Apple pushed hard for web apps and relented with the app store.
If my memory serves me well, the app store was in the cards even before web apps. Web apps were merely a stopgap feature until the app store was ready to launch
I'm getting worried that a lot of these companies think that they can control us by dictating what we can and cannot do by removing things from software for no good reason. I'm also worried that Rixstep might be right about the state of the Mac with 10.6.6, the Mac app store and 10.7 being able to restrict what we can run on our Macs. Sure it might be tin foil hat stuff, but it still gives me the creeps cause it could happen:
http://rixstep.com/2/20110111,00.shtml
Because of poor performance on mobile devices.
I know, my answer is a complete epiphany. It's a wonder nobody's pointed that out yet
True, most reviews for Flash for Android say that it's slow and buggy, but it's flash. So how is that a selling point? It would be like saying you can run OS 9 on an iPad.
Sadly I don't like Bing. Apple perhaps should be looking at a YouTube alternative, Map and Search option for OS X and iOS users.
Yeah, I tried Bing when it first came out and didn't really warm to it - I like Google's minimalism.
I'm not sure I really want to see Apple competing in Search or Maps unless through partnerships.
It appears I will say goodbye to YouTube now.
The GPL guys (don't call these guys open source) are all into this dystopian ideal of unrestricted usage rights of software, and many of the fans of Google and open source seem to have a common bond.
But, you know what this will lead to? A classless, no elegance world of ads ads ads everywhere. It's Minority Report where you'll be identified where ever you go and ads are served just for your eyeballs. Realized this long time ago and stopped using Google search or anything else Google with the exception of YouTube.
For search engines. Try something like blekko and wolfram alpha. Google's search algorithm has been so gamed now that search results are nothing but ads. This was true years ago. Google's business model is to commoditize all software and hardware to encourage ad-supported revenue models in order to sell more advertising. A world like that is pretty classless.
I wonder when the GPL and open source guys will really start to subvert all of the advertising on the web. Flashblock and adblock are cool an all, but what about every ad? And hopefully a real YouTube competitor will appear.
If I want to watch WebM on Safari, I can't.
If you think Google's choice is somehow inflammatory, Apple has made similar decisions with Flash and Java on their recent notebook releases. Of course, the end-user is free to install these add-ons and continue to consume this content.
In the same way, end-user isn't barred from H.264 in Chrome at all. They just need to take an extra step.
There are no steps anyone can take to watch WebM on Safari, or Flash in an iPad browser (short of the pre-rendering browser or Frash via jailbreaking both of which are incomplete solutions).
Don't get me wrong, I don't really care for Flash or WebM - but stop it with the unnecessary anti-Google rhetoric that doesn't really belong. People consider me rabidly pro-Apple, and even I think that some of the Google bashing here goes a little overboard.
Communism much?
Seriously. You want a life that's funded by advertisements or what? I think I saw something like that in blade runner
It's a natural evolution. Flash has become an inferior user experience, so h264 is moving in. Once licensing fees come into play and the consumer experience is affected, something new will come. no sense staying in the past because you're afraid of the future
Something new has come, and its called WebM...technically its been here awhile but whatever.
I know there is a bunch of butthurt going on in this thread, and its pretty pathetic and hilarious at the same time.
H.264 is not open source in the least bit, and is only freely given away to end users but Google (and Apple) are eating costs to provide it to us for free. Still, history has taught us that what might be given away for free today wont be tomorrow, have we not learned anything from the issues with MP3 and GIF?
Google can easily squash H.264, especially being the towering streaming giant by owning Youtube and do encoding solely in WebM. While Apple has done admirably pushing HTML5 via H.264, Apple does not have the power to do anything about this. WebM will be supported by IE9, Chrome, Firefox, AND Opera, about 93% of web usage comes from these browsers...the only ones not on this list of course is Apple's Safari, which is that last 7% (that includes both mobile and desktop Safari).
H.264 is done, and thank god.
about 93% of web usage comes from these browsers...the only ones not on this list of course is Apple's Safari, which is that last 7% (that includes both mobile and desktop Safari).
I guess I've been reading that Perian has added experimental WebM support. I imagine WebM would be accessible like a WMV would be a-la Flip4Mac.. that is until Apple adopts it formally.
True, most reviews for Flash for Android say that it's slow and buggy, but it's flash. So how is that a selling point? It would be like saying you can run OS 9 on an iPad.
It's not a matter of being a selling point. It's about managing customer expectations. If you have flash on a phone, the consumer expects it to work. And if it doesn't, the average consumer isn't savvy enough to understand that it's flashs fault, they just would say the device is slow or has terrible battery. Apple benefits from the consumer understanding that they just don't have flash rathr than having the blame for poor performance thrust on them