The wikipedia article is clear: there are very different meanings about what is and what is not an "open standard".
Both W3C and ISO define standards.
Standard may be patent-encumbered (as MP3, AAC, GIF) or royalty free (as PNG).
W3C: standard must be royalty-free
ISO: standard may be royalty-encumbered
I never mind h264 was a royalty-free standard.
But h264 is an ISO standard as a matter of facts.
WebM, on the contrary, is royalty-free but is not a standard (e.g. his improvements rely on Google alone, etc.)
So you are just offensive.
I have read all w3c policy. they don't define what an open standard is. They define what a w3c standard is.
W3C never use words "open-standard". W3C states that submitted technology needs to be royalty-free.
Google hasn't submitted WebM to W3C. And if MPEG-LA sues Google or whoever else on WebM, WebM becomes royalty-encumbered and therefore not W3C compliant.
Google can change WebM specifications at any time for whatever reason or no reason at all; no other can do that. Google and only google owns IP of contributors and may distribute it. This is not openness, is just royalty-free.
But they only decide what is WebM, and how to improve it.
Apple tomorrow may use webm container to encode with a better codec than VP8? No.
why do people feel the need to say this? no one cares about your ignore list. i am sure he gives as much about it as you would if i said you were on mine....
I suppose one could also say?
Quote:
why do people feel the need to say this? no one cares about how you think others think about each other. i am sure he gives as much about it as you would if i said this to you....
why do people feel the need to say this? no one cares about your ignore list. i am sure he gives as much about it as you would if i said you were on mine....
Well, in my case I mention it to mean "done with you, won't be responding to any more of your posts, use that information as you will." Might save someone the bother of mounting a scathing rebuttal.
It doesn't come up that often for me since I usually put people on my ignore list when I get tired of seeing their posts and consider them pointless. Occasionally I'll be in the midst of responding to someone and realize that I'm not interested in continuing the conversation.
Well, in my case I mention it to mean "done with you, won't be responding to any more of your posts, use that information as you will." Might save someone the bother of mounting a scathing rebuttal.
It doesn't come up that often for me since I usually put people on my ignore list when I get tired of seeing their posts and consider them pointless. Occasionally I'll be in the midst of responding to someone and realize that I'm not interested in continuing the conversation.
This is the future, if Google get their way, people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc
Ads... and serving up as many as possible, on as many platforms and content as possible.
Android
Was only developed and released free to serve up mobile ads. (period). Even developers acknowledge this fact, considering that the Marketplace doesn't seem to be working well for developers that would like to be paid outright for their efforts.
Search, Books, Services, Maps, Gmail, etc... is ALL about ads, nothing to think that the WebM ploy is about anything else BUT ads.
WebM
When released and integrated with their own devices, without a doubt, will have a Java-based layer to overlay ads. And surely the proposed WebM Plugin will be the same as Flash, but just different enough to get out of a patent dispute with Adobe.
You think for a moment that Google embraced Adobe and Flash, integrated it into Chrome and Android, without "looking under the hood"(?), or getting something other than a "selling point"?
WebM Plugin
This is seriously sinister, since it would allow Google to even serve ads overlayed on content that they are not serving on their own servers/services, since the layer code is built into the plugin.
Think: Vimeo, Facebook, or your own website's videos being overlayed with ads because the WebM plug-in is needed/installed. This without needing the consent of the owner of the video or the server publishing it, since Google received the consent to do so, by the end-user accepting the EULA when they installed the WebM plugin. Not to forget, but Google Analytics will also be built into the plugin, naturally, for it to be able to work properly.
At the moment, I doubt Google would try this trickery with H264, and besides they don't need to, because Adobe's Flash takes care of that for them with their wrapper.
NOTE: fact is that Google and many others are working on a way to overlay HTML5-H264 videos with ads anyway. One way or another, HTML5 video will have ads, and there's nothing anyone can do about that.
There is no such thing as "free". There are and always will be strings attached. And no, I'm not wearing a tin-hat or thinking conspiracy. Actually, you have to see this move by Google as doing good business and keeping focused: sell and deliver more ads!
This is the future, if Google get their way, people.
The post you referenced was number 65 - sad that the angst perpetuated through another 300 posts when this could have been the final word. Of course, it was posted on AI and so had little hope of closing the thread.
I added 10 names to my ignore list just through the agency of this thread alone.
On page 2 this was funny... but 10 pages of flaming? Seriously?
Assuming Google don't stop supporting H.264 on YouTube... can anyone explain to me how this affects Apple users and how we get to 10 pages of flames?
Websites started supporting H.264 video in HTML5 for iOS devices. They aren't going to remove this functionality just because Chrome doesn't support it anymore.
It seems to me the most likely scenario is that websites will support H.264 native for browsers that don't/can't have Flash installed and H.264 wrapped in Flash for those that do. The web/streaming server could even make this decision independently, or it could be wrapped in a self-contained script, so the implementation is transparent to the web developer.
This is all based on Google's continued support of H.264 on YouTube.
This is the future, if Google get their way, people.
Patent infringement and blatant copying aside, I actually don't have a problem with Google profiting from their products.
I don't see advertising as an any more or less legitimate way of monetizing a product or service than an upfront payment or pay-gate. They are just two sides of the same coin.
Believe it or not there was actually an idea floating around among a number of people that getting rid of Flash would somehow get rid of advertising... like wrapping H.264 inside <video> instead of <object> would magically make it free to produce and distribute.
If Google want to have no upfront fee for products and services and monetize with advertising then good on them.
It's then up to the users to decide if they want to buy in to that pay structure.
The W3C hasn't specified any codec standards, nor are they likely to, so your entire argument on that basis is moot. H.264 is an open standard. WebM isn't any kind of standard, and it's particularly not an open standard. WebM is controlled by a single company, Google, and it is faux open source in the same way Android is faux open source. Both will remain completely controlled by Google and contributions from "the community" will not, in any significant way, end up in either. Basically, what both are is not open source but simply free (as in beer) source code.
The bottom line is that Google loses the whole argument about open standards because WebM isn't any kind of standard (nor will it ever be), and, in the short term at least, this serves the purpose of propping up Flash, which isn't any kind of standard either.
The thing I'm finding the most disturbing about this entire scenario is discovering just how completely uncritical the thought of so many open source advocates. That they just accept without question and at face value, with apparently no real understanding, whatever Google says, as long as they couch it in terms of open this and open that.
Yes. This is exaclty my thoughts on the "Open" crowd that Google loves to play to. It seems to be their biggest supporter, and the their biggest leg to stand on...
This is the future, if Google get their way, people.
You have hit the nail on the head. Tht is exactly what Google will do to your great and "open" Web-M...You will thanks to Googles "free" and "Open" way, will get to see adds on top of the video you watch...you don't think Google is really doing this gfor the good of users do you...???
Ads... and serving up as many as possible, on as many platforms and content as possible.
Android
Was only developed and released free to serve up mobile ads. (period). Even developers acknowledge this fact, considering that the Marketplace doesn't seem to be working well for developers that would like to be paid outright for their efforts.
Search, Books, Services, Maps, Gmail, etc... is ALL about ads, nothing to think that the WebM ploy is about anything else BUT ads.
WebM
When released and integrated with their own devices, without a doubt, will have a Java-based layer to overlay ads. And surely the proposed WebM Plugin will be the same as Flash, but just different enough to get out of a patent dispute with Adobe.
You think for a moment that Google embraced Adobe and Flash, integrated it into Chrome and Android, without "looking under the hood"(?), or getting something other than a "selling point"?
WebM Plugin
This is seriously sinister, since it would allow Google to even serve ads overlayed on content that they are not serving on their own servers/services, since the layer code is built into the plugin.
Think: Vimeo, Facebook, or your own website's videos being overlayed with ads because the WebM plug-in is needed/installed. This without needing the consent of the owner of the video or the server publishing it, since Google received the consent to do so, by the end-user accepting the EULA when they installed the WebM plugin. Not to forget, but Google Analytics will also be built into the plugin, naturally, for it to be able to work properly.
At the moment, I doubt Google would try this trickery with H264, and besides they don't need to, because Adobe's Flash takes care of that for them with their wrapper.
NOTE: fact is that Google and many others are working on a way to overlay HTML5-H264 videos with ads anyway. One way or another, HTML5 video will have ads, and there's nothing anyone can do about that.
There is no such thing as "free". There are and always will be strings attached. And no, I'm not wearing a tin-hat or thinking conspiracy. Actually, you have to see this move by Google as doing good business and keeping focused: sell and deliver more ads!
What is to prevent Apple from building a free plugin for every browser on every OS, as a fallback to the <video> tag ala Flash, that supports h.264 using QuickTime and/or codecs already in the OS when available. MS could do the same with their technology.
Certainly, the "open" browsers would have to give the same level of support to these plugins to use h.264 (and hardware acceleration, when available) as they do the Flash plugin.
Since the royalties are being paid, the end user gets a superior result (codec) -- who could complain?
Good :: Goose == Good :: Gander!
I really wish Apple would do this? How could Google not accept it? It would be a laugh in the face of Google's double-talk. Which it does best obviously...
I really wanted Apple to buy YouTube! when it was for sale so that it could (at the time) disable flash and make it mpeg based... I guess the operating costs would be high however in retrospect this would be a great idea...
Complete bullshit. It can and is open in the context or the "open web", it just isn't free. You keep saying you understand the difference between free and open, but you keep demonstrating that you don't.
Someone keeps ignoring the W3C's patent policy. I wonder why.
Quote:
Firefox isn't using it because they are suffering from the same delusions and misguided desire for ideological purity as you. There is nothing stopping Firefox from using it but stubbornness.
Yes, the desire for an open web is a delusional, misguided desire for ideological purity. Evil open web purists!
What about future development? Google and google alone decides what happens as it relates to it's codec and others can submit things in the hopes that google will include it in it's codec? That's not open. That's a deal breaker. It's not like HTML 5 at all where a large group of people decide the fate of HTML5. Google should submit WebM to the w3c. Did you even read the link that's from google's own website?
What about it? WebM is an open-source project. Google has given away all IP rights to it.
Why would they since H.264 already works fine with Flash?
Because there are no royalties.
Quote:
More importantly, why should they have to just so Google can control video on the Web?
WebM doesn't give Google control over anything. They gave it away, remember.
Quote:
Are you just here to troll? A shill who's not very skilled? Just not really much to say?
Says the rabid Apple fanboy? Hilarious.
Quote:
You keep repeating the same discredited nonsense over and over again. Repeating it doesn't make it true, and it isn't true. H.264 is the open video standard. WebM is a proprietary codec controlled by Google that has nothing open about it. H.264 fosters the open Web, not Google's proprietary codec, any more than Flash does.
It is you who are repeating falsehoods. H264 is closed, and WebM is open.
As I understand it, MPEG-LA includes all parties holding all relevant patents. Indemnify against themselves? Hmmm...
Wow, so the patent holder is indemnified against his own patents! AMAZING!
Quote:
If they can give it away, potentially luring theirs friends into patent problems, well, then they should indemnify. Referring to open-source does not make it legally ok to infringe on patents.
The MPEG-LA does not indemnify. Your hypocrisy is really getting old.
I don't think it will slow H.264 at all, I think it will simply drive more people away from Chrome & towards IE & Safari, or in the least towards quicktime or Window Media Player (assuming Microsoft builds support for H.264 into WMP).
Why would it drive people away from Chrome? Chrome will still be able to play almost any videon the web since it still supports Flash.
Quote:
A lot of people were absolutely convinced that HD-DVD would win out over Blu-ray because it was cheaper but in the end technical superiority won out.
BR didn't win because of technical superiority. In fact, technical superiority has proven to be irrelevant in the market (VHS vs. BetaMax, CD vs. SACD, Wii vs. PS3, etc.). BR won for other reasons, such as Sony putting massive resources into promoting it, including through its movie studio and game console. No one else had that kind of muscle, and since the market doesn't really care about HD, BR won (although DVDs still win over BR).
Comments
The wikipedia article is clear: there are very different meanings about what is and what is not an "open standard".
Both W3C and ISO define standards.
Standard may be patent-encumbered (as MP3, AAC, GIF) or royalty free (as PNG).
W3C: standard must be royalty-free
ISO: standard may be royalty-encumbered
I never mind h264 was a royalty-free standard.
But h264 is an ISO standard as a matter of facts.
WebM, on the contrary, is royalty-free but is not a standard (e.g. his improvements rely on Google alone, etc.)
So you are just offensive.
I have read all w3c policy. they don't define what an open standard is. They define what a w3c standard is.
W3C never use words "open-standard". W3C states that submitted technology needs to be royalty-free.
Google hasn't submitted WebM to W3C. And if MPEG-LA sues Google or whoever else on WebM, WebM becomes royalty-encumbered and therefore not W3C compliant.
Google can change WebM specifications at any time for whatever reason or no reason at all; no other can do that. Google and only google owns IP of contributors and may distribute it. This is not openness, is just royalty-free.
But they only decide what is WebM, and how to improve it.
Apple tomorrow may use webm container to encode with a better codec than VP8? No.
Who say this? W3C? No.
Google said.
Not WebM project, Google.
Good distillation of the facts.
why do people feel the need to say this? no one cares about your ignore list. i am sure he gives as much about it as you would if i said you were on mine....
I suppose one could also say?
why do people feel the need to say this? no one cares about how you think others think about each other. i am sure he gives as much about it as you would if i said this to you....
why do people feel the need to say this? no one cares about your ignore list. i am sure he gives as much about it as you would if i said you were on mine....
Well, in my case I mention it to mean "done with you, won't be responding to any more of your posts, use that information as you will." Might save someone the bother of mounting a scathing rebuttal.
It doesn't come up that often for me since I usually put people on my ignore list when I get tired of seeing their posts and consider them pointless. Occasionally I'll be in the midst of responding to someone and realize that I'm not interested in continuing the conversation.
Well, in my case I mention it to mean "done with you, won't be responding to any more of your posts, use that information as you will." Might save someone the bother of mounting a scathing rebuttal.
It doesn't come up that often for me since I usually put people on my ignore list when I get tired of seeing their posts and consider them pointless. Occasionally I'll be in the midst of responding to someone and realize that I'm not interested in continuing the conversation.
well said.
Man, I am so over this whole open-source bull$#it floating around at the moment ...
At the end of the day, the main beneficiaries of open-source are academics ... and armchair coders looking to steel other people's work
many of us are beneficiaries of open source
- Chrome and Safari web browsers
- several applications on Mac OS X like Dashboard and Mail
- parts of the core of Mac OS X use FreeBSD and NetBSD
Ads... and serving up as many as possible, on as many platforms and content as possible.
Android
Was only developed and released free to serve up mobile ads. (period). Even developers acknowledge this fact, considering that the Marketplace doesn't seem to be working well for developers that would like to be paid outright for their efforts.
Search, Books, Services, Maps, Gmail, etc... is ALL about ads, nothing to think that the WebM ploy is about anything else BUT ads.
WebM
When released and integrated with their own devices, without a doubt, will have a Java-based layer to overlay ads. And surely the proposed WebM Plugin will be the same as Flash, but just different enough to get out of a patent dispute with Adobe.
You think for a moment that Google embraced Adobe and Flash, integrated it into Chrome and Android, without "looking under the hood"(?), or getting something other than a "selling point"?
WebM Plugin
This is seriously sinister, since it would allow Google to even serve ads overlayed on content that they are not serving on their own servers/services, since the layer code is built into the plugin.
Think: Vimeo, Facebook, or your own website's videos being overlayed with ads because the WebM plug-in is needed/installed. This without needing the consent of the owner of the video or the server publishing it, since Google received the consent to do so, by the end-user accepting the EULA when they installed the WebM plugin. Not to forget, but Google Analytics will also be built into the plugin, naturally, for it to be able to work properly.
At the moment, I doubt Google would try this trickery with H264, and besides they don't need to, because Adobe's Flash takes care of that for them with their wrapper.
NOTE: fact is that Google and many others are working on a way to overlay HTML5-H264 videos with ads anyway. One way or another, HTML5 video will have ads, and there's nothing anyone can do about that.
There is no such thing as "free". There are and always will be strings attached. And no, I'm not wearing a tin-hat or thinking conspiracy. Actually, you have to see this move by Google as doing good business and keeping focused: sell and deliver more ads!
This is the future, if Google get their way, people.
The post you referenced was number 65 - sad that the angst perpetuated through another 300 posts when this could have been the final word. Of course, it was posted on AI and so had little hope of closing the thread.
I added 10 names to my ignore list just through the agency of this thread alone.
(Hopefully, some of those are ignoring me too!)
Assuming Google don't stop supporting H.264 on YouTube... can anyone explain to me how this affects Apple users and how we get to 10 pages of flames?
Websites started supporting H.264 video in HTML5 for iOS devices. They aren't going to remove this functionality just because Chrome doesn't support it anymore.
It seems to me the most likely scenario is that websites will support H.264 native for browsers that don't/can't have Flash installed and H.264 wrapped in Flash for those that do. The web/streaming server could even make this decision independently, or it could be wrapped in a self-contained script, so the implementation is transparent to the web developer.
This is all based on Google's continued support of H.264 on YouTube.
This is the future, if Google get their way, people.
Patent infringement and blatant copying aside, I actually don't have a problem with Google profiting from their products.
I don't see advertising as an any more or less legitimate way of monetizing a product or service than an upfront payment or pay-gate. They are just two sides of the same coin.
Believe it or not there was actually an idea floating around among a number of people that getting rid of Flash would somehow get rid of advertising... like wrapping H.264 inside <video> instead of <object> would magically make it free to produce and distribute.
If Google want to have no upfront fee for products and services and monetize with advertising then good on them.
It's then up to the users to decide if they want to buy in to that pay structure.
The W3C hasn't specified any codec standards, nor are they likely to, so your entire argument on that basis is moot. H.264 is an open standard. WebM isn't any kind of standard, and it's particularly not an open standard. WebM is controlled by a single company, Google, and it is faux open source in the same way Android is faux open source. Both will remain completely controlled by Google and contributions from "the community" will not, in any significant way, end up in either. Basically, what both are is not open source but simply free (as in beer) source code.
The bottom line is that Google loses the whole argument about open standards because WebM isn't any kind of standard (nor will it ever be), and, in the short term at least, this serves the purpose of propping up Flash, which isn't any kind of standard either.
The thing I'm finding the most disturbing about this entire scenario is discovering just how completely uncritical the thought of so many open source advocates. That they just accept without question and at face value, with apparently no real understanding, whatever Google says, as long as they couch it in terms of open this and open that.
Yes. This is exaclty my thoughts on the "Open" crowd that Google loves to play to. It seems to be their biggest supporter, and the their biggest leg to stand on...
This is the future, if Google get their way, people.
You have hit the nail on the head. Tht is exactly what Google will do to your great and "open" Web-M...You will thanks to Googles "free" and "Open" way, will get to see adds on top of the video you watch...you don't think Google is really doing this gfor the good of users do you...???
Ads... and serving up as many as possible, on as many platforms and content as possible.
Android
Was only developed and released free to serve up mobile ads. (period). Even developers acknowledge this fact, considering that the Marketplace doesn't seem to be working well for developers that would like to be paid outright for their efforts.
Search, Books, Services, Maps, Gmail, etc... is ALL about ads, nothing to think that the WebM ploy is about anything else BUT ads.
WebM
When released and integrated with their own devices, without a doubt, will have a Java-based layer to overlay ads. And surely the proposed WebM Plugin will be the same as Flash, but just different enough to get out of a patent dispute with Adobe.
You think for a moment that Google embraced Adobe and Flash, integrated it into Chrome and Android, without "looking under the hood"(?), or getting something other than a "selling point"?
WebM Plugin
This is seriously sinister, since it would allow Google to even serve ads overlayed on content that they are not serving on their own servers/services, since the layer code is built into the plugin.
Think: Vimeo, Facebook, or your own website's videos being overlayed with ads because the WebM plug-in is needed/installed. This without needing the consent of the owner of the video or the server publishing it, since Google received the consent to do so, by the end-user accepting the EULA when they installed the WebM plugin. Not to forget, but Google Analytics will also be built into the plugin, naturally, for it to be able to work properly.
At the moment, I doubt Google would try this trickery with H264, and besides they don't need to, because Adobe's Flash takes care of that for them with their wrapper.
NOTE: fact is that Google and many others are working on a way to overlay HTML5-H264 videos with ads anyway. One way or another, HTML5 video will have ads, and there's nothing anyone can do about that.
There is no such thing as "free". There are and always will be strings attached. And no, I'm not wearing a tin-hat or thinking conspiracy. Actually, you have to see this move by Google as doing good business and keeping focused: sell and deliver more ads!
This is what I truly believe.
Your post brings up a thought.
What is to prevent Apple from building a free plugin for every browser on every OS, as a fallback to the <video> tag ala Flash, that supports h.264 using QuickTime and/or codecs already in the OS when available. MS could do the same with their technology.
Certainly, the "open" browsers would have to give the same level of support to these plugins to use h.264 (and hardware acceleration, when available) as they do the Flash plugin.
Since the royalties are being paid, the end user gets a superior result (codec) -- who could complain?
Good :: Goose == Good :: Gander!
I really wish Apple would do this? How could Google not accept it? It would be a laugh in the face of Google's double-talk. Which it does best obviously...
I really wanted Apple to buy YouTube! when it was for sale so that it could (at the time) disable flash and make it mpeg based... I guess the operating costs would be high however in retrospect this would be a great idea...
Complete bullshit. It can and is open in the context or the "open web", it just isn't free. You keep saying you understand the difference between free and open, but you keep demonstrating that you don't.
Someone keeps ignoring the W3C's patent policy. I wonder why.
Firefox isn't using it because they are suffering from the same delusions and misguided desire for ideological purity as you. There is nothing stopping Firefox from using it but stubbornness.
Yes, the desire for an open web is a delusional, misguided desire for ideological purity. Evil open web purists!
What about future development? Google and google alone decides what happens as it relates to it's codec and others can submit things in the hopes that google will include it in it's codec? That's not open. That's a deal breaker. It's not like HTML 5 at all where a large group of people decide the fate of HTML5. Google should submit WebM to the w3c. Did you even read the link that's from google's own website?
What about it? WebM is an open-source project. Google has given away all IP rights to it.
An open standard is one which is available for anyone to implement. It doesn't have to be free to be considered an open standard.
False. And you have consistently ignored all the links proving you wrong.
This is pretty much the commonly accepted definition for probably longer than you have been alive.
This is a false claim, and you know it.
Why would they since H.264 already works fine with Flash?
Because there are no royalties.
More importantly, why should they have to just so Google can control video on the Web?
WebM doesn't give Google control over anything. They gave it away, remember.
Are you just here to troll? A shill who's not very skilled? Just not really much to say?
Says the rabid Apple fanboy? Hilarious.
You keep repeating the same discredited nonsense over and over again. Repeating it doesn't make it true, and it isn't true. H.264 is the open video standard. WebM is a proprietary codec controlled by Google that has nothing open about it. H.264 fosters the open Web, not Google's proprietary codec, any more than Flash does.
It is you who are repeating falsehoods. H264 is closed, and WebM is open.
As I understand it, MPEG-LA includes all parties holding all relevant patents. Indemnify against themselves? Hmmm...
Wow, so the patent holder is indemnified against his own patents! AMAZING!
If they can give it away, potentially luring theirs friends into patent problems, well, then they should indemnify. Referring to open-source does not make it legally ok to infringe on patents.
The MPEG-LA does not indemnify. Your hypocrisy is really getting old.
It was merely explaining why WebM is a proprietary rather than open standard.
WebM is not a standard. And it is not proprietary.
Google is the proprietor.
No, the WebM project is.
I don't think it will slow H.264 at all, I think it will simply drive more people away from Chrome & towards IE & Safari, or in the least towards quicktime or Window Media Player (assuming Microsoft builds support for H.264 into WMP).
Why would it drive people away from Chrome? Chrome will still be able to play almost any videon the web since it still supports Flash.
A lot of people were absolutely convinced that HD-DVD would win out over Blu-ray because it was cheaper but in the end technical superiority won out.
BR didn't win because of technical superiority. In fact, technical superiority has proven to be irrelevant in the market (VHS vs. BetaMax, CD vs. SACD, Wii vs. PS3, etc.). BR won for other reasons, such as Sony putting massive resources into promoting it, including through its movie studio and game console. No one else had that kind of muscle, and since the market doesn't really care about HD, BR won (although DVDs still win over BR).