I am sick and tired of Google trying to explain how it is in everyone's best interest and how they are saving the little guy and the world from the evil that h.264 is.
It doesn't matter if Google is lying about the reasons. That only becomes insane, paranoid speculation. We can, however, look at the actual results of Google's actions. Apple fanboys want to spew the "evil Google" red herring, though, because they know that Google is a huge threat to Apple.
Yes, it is indeed about being paranoid. All of this is because Google is a huge threat to Apple, and hardcore Apple fanboys refuse to let it go. Thus, FUD.
WebM is not a lousy codec at all. By making such obviously false statements, you are showing just how desperate you are.
WebM is not a lousy codec I agree, but it is definitely NOT better than H.264, yet. Almost every comparison of H.264 and WebM that finds WebM to be better is using the baseline profile of H.264 (which is for lightweight/mobile devices). Where as the only effective for profile WebM (there is no concept of profiles in WebM) would be analogous to H.264 Main Profile. And H.264 Main Profile beats WebM hands down.
H.264 has 17 different profiles which allow it to scale very different situations and use-cases. WebM does not have this.
Quote:
On2's business was based around avoiding patents, and patenting their own technologies. It's more likely that h264 infringes on On2 patents than the other way around, since On2 did a lot of research to avoid patent infringement, whereas the MPEG-LA simply threw everything into a common patent pool and hoped for the best.
Maybe, maybe not. However On2 is a licensee of technology from the MPEG-LA, so the chances are they, however unintentionally, made use of patented implementations when writing their own code.
Quote:
FUD from desperate Apple fanboys is quite common these days.
At least they aren't just ignoring facts.
I fail to see why all the opposition is being placed in the court of the "Apple Fanboys", as Apple has the least interest in this, as per a previous post of mine:
Apple Inc. (4 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
Cisco Systems Canada IP Holdings Company (4 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York (9 patent filings(s) in 6 countries)
DAEWOO Electronics Corporation (2 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation (10 patent filings(s) in 6 countries)
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (4 patent filings(s) in 3 countries)
France Télécom, société anonyme (7 patent filings(s) in 7 countries)
Fraunhofer‐Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. (86 patent filings(s) in 28 countries)
Fujitsu Limited (18 patent filings(s) in 5 countries)
Hewlett‐Packard Company (1 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
Hitachi, Ltd. (4 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (42 patent filings(s) in 18 countries)
LG Electronics Inc. (386 patent filings(s) in 38 countries)
Microsoft Corporation (116 patent filings(s) in 23 countries)
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation (26 patent filings(s) in 8 countries)
Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation (2 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
NTT DOCOMO, INC. (15 patent filings(s) in 5 countries)
Panasonic Corporation (574 patent filings(s) in 41 countries)
Robert Bosch GmbH (5 patent filings(s) in 5 countries)
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (60 patent filings(s) in 12 countries)
Sedna Patent Services, LLC (1 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
Sharp Corporation (87 patent filings(s) in 19 countries)
Siemens AG (5 patent filings(s) in 4 countries)
Sony Corporation (34 patent filings(s) in 12 countries)
Tandberg Telecom AS (1 patent filings(s) in 1 countries)
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (5 patent filings(s) in 5 countries)
Toshiba Corporation (272 patent filings(s) in 6 countries)
Victor Company of Japan, Limited (5 patent filings(s) in 2 countries)
Quote:
And the bottom line: H264 can never be part of any open web standard.
And to be quite honest, I doubt WebM can either, as it WILL be patent nightmare.
On the contrary. On2's business relied on avoiding infringement, and the W3C process will weed out any potential issues.
A) That's only speculation.
It's irrelevant. No codec can become w W3C standard. Period. I can see you conveniently ignored the next to last paragraph of my last post.
Stop trying to look like you understand the W3C recommendation process. Have you ever had an edit on the HTML5 draft? Have you touched it with your fingers? Have you argued about some chunk of minutia in wording and whether that goes too far into legislating implementation or leaves too much slop in the description? Do you actually understand what the Working Group is trying to do, and what politics the Working Group doesn't want to get involved in, ever?
[No, I've never been to a WG meeting or communicated directly. Yes I've had a pass on the HTML5 draft awhile ago and argued points with our rep who does go to the WG meetings and has a vote.]
It would be simple to legislate a few codecs as necessary for the <video> tag. And that would so hopelessly break the relevance of the entire standard that every tag would be fought over for implementation supremacy legislated into the recommendation.
That isn't what W3C is about. You implement to the standard, not standardize an implementation. Standardizing an implementation is how you make the standard technologically obsolete in three or four years, and irrelevant in just a few more. And the next whine I can see coming is saying "WebM is a standard!", and the answer is yes and no. Yes it is a codec standard. No, a codec is not a web standard.
What utter nonsense. Do you really think a company like Apple would be so retarded as to pull a stunt like that? When Apple does iAds it's because there's money to be made. That's the reason behind business decisions.
There's plenty of money to be made in databases. Ask oracle. So why no Apple enterprise database offering? Because it's way out of Apple's swim lane.
Quote:
You are joking, right? Mobile ads are expected to be huge in the future. Why would Google, an online ad monopoly, not want to make money from ads on mobile phones?
It would. But Apple didn't do ads before Google elected to compete directly in one of Apple's core areas. Apple returned the favor but not all that seriously. iAds is a pinprick against AdMob.
The key is that in antagonizing Apple Google stands to loose access to iOS devices. For no good reason.
Quote:
The engine is the least important part there. It isn't the engine that makes Safari less than competitive on Windows.
The engines are the same so the differences are in user experience. Apple can do user experience better than Google when it cares to. Safari doesn't get all that much attention from Apple...moving the battleground to include browsers may make Apple put a little more TLC into Safari again. That's pretty dumb from a strategic perspective. You don't want Apple to spend anything on improving safari.
Quote:
But then there's Android...
I can see why Apple fanboys are worried. But it's just business. Businesses want to make money. There's money in mobile advertising, and Apple does mobile phones, while Google does advertising. Of course they are going to start crossing the river to make more money.
Google could have made a lot of money staying partnered with apple as opposed to directly competing. I guess their concern was if WM6/WP7 had gone unopposed then MS would have had a large share locking out Google eyeballs. Getting locked out of iOS eyeballs will be just as bad if it comes to that. And Android having such large share would allow Apple to do whatever and not worry about monopoly issues if it comes to that.
Eh, they made an enemy unnecessarily and now face competition where they wouldn't have otherwise. The WebM decision is simply petty and stupid. Their only saving grace is that maybe Jobs is too sick to really fight hard. I don't think he really has the strength and time to personally manage iAds to make it great. Beating Android does little to hurt Google and Oracle might do just enough perception damage to make WP7 bounce back from the dead.
There's plenty of money to be made in databases. Ask oracle. So why no Apple enterprise database offering? Because it's way out of Apple's swim lane.
Ads apparently are not.
Quote:
The key is that in antagonizing Apple Google stands to loose access to iOS devices. For no good reason.
So what you are saying is that Apple is a bunch of childish whiners who will start doing stuff just to spite some other company? I guess that fits their behavior in the W3C, come to think of it...
Quote:
moving the battleground to include browsers may make Apple put a little more TLC into Safari again. That's pretty dumb from a strategic perspective. You don't want Apple to spend anything on improving safari.
LOL. Apple is always trying to improve Safari.
Quote:
Eh, they made an enemy unnecessarily and now face competition where they wouldn't have otherwise.
LOL. Your comments are hilarious. You are afraid of Google, and are trying to come up with reasons to reassure yourself.
Quote:
The WebM decision is simply petty and stupid.
That's amazing coming from someone who says that Apple is so childish, petty and stupid as to add a new business model out of spite! ROTFL!
That's hilarious coming from people who are actively spreading FUD by speculating about "surely WebM must be infringing on some patent somewhere".
How's that hilarious, it's merely the flip side of YOUR coin. A quite serious coin indeed.
Quote:
Of course a codec can become a W3C standard. The W3C actually wanted one, but Apple sabotaged the whole thing.
Spoken like a true crusader for what I don't know. Go ahead and think you know what you do, if it makes you comfortable and shuts you up, the boards will have less thought pollution.
And thanks for putting your disregard and lack of knowledge of the W3C process on display for all others to determine for themselves. My work in that regard is done, anyone who cares now can see it quite plainly.
Spoken like a true crusader for what I don't know. Go ahead and think you know what you do, if it makes you comfortable and shuts you up, the boards will have less thought pollution.
Uh, hello? Apple opposed a standard codec in HTML5! It's a known fact. It's on the god damn record!
Quote:
And thanks for putting your disregard and lack of knowledge of the W3C process on display for all others to determine for themselves. My work in that regard is done, anyone who cares now can see it quite plainly.
You didn't even know about Apple's involvement in blocking a standard HTML5 codec. LOL.
Just using flash seems to cause other problems that using a dedicated, single purpose plug-in rarely causes.
Wow, really? Did you read the part that he quoted?
He's just being coy, because he knows as well as everyone else there is no such source, and that W3C never wanted a single codec as a standard, as that isn't multi-vendor interoperable. The whole idea of legislating a single implementation for something is counter the the W3C philosophy.
After all this time, I still don't get the problem. Why can't the <video> tag support whatever the browser is developed to support, just like what was the case with the <img> tag? It would get things moving.
Look at PNG in <img> tags. It was never widely included in browser implementation, as far as I know, until Safari started pushing it, and now all the other browsers have added PNG support.
So what I'm saying is that browser developers should add whatever support they want to the <video> tag, and see where the market takes them. Why do they have to wait for W3C to act?
That's the rub, isn't it! Some browser makers are whinging that more than one codec is a fracturing influence and a burden to development. And as you point out with the previous history, it's all a bunch of bunk. So really it's about politics and market power, nothing else.
Just using flash seems to cause other problems that using a dedicated, single purpose plug-in rarely causes.
Such as?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton
After all this time, I still don't get the problem. Why can't the <video> tag support whatever the browser is developed to support, just like what was the case with the <img> tag? It would get things moving.
Because there needs to be an open standard to ensure an open web. Remember the gif mess? The W3C learned from that. But Apple and Nokia refused to allow for an open baseline codec.
He's just being coy, because he knows as well as everyone else there is no such source, and that W3C never wanted a single codec as a standard, as that isn't multi-vendor interoperable. The whole idea of legislating a single implementation for something is counter the the W3C philosophy.
I didn't know people were this ignorant of the history of HTML5. Maybe you should educate yourself:
"The HTML5 Working Group consider it desirable to specify at least one video format which all user agents (browsers) should support."
"Initially, Ogg Theora was the recommended standard video format in HTML5, because it was not affected by any known patents"
And as for your ignorant comment about "a single implementation", that is just nonsense. The W3C wouldn't standardize a single implementation. They would create a standard which implementations would be based on.
So contrary to your crazy claim, this would be exactly what the W3C is doing everywhere else.
Comments
I am sick and tired of Google trying to explain how it is in everyone's best interest and how they are saving the little guy and the world from the evil that h.264 is.
It doesn't matter if Google is lying about the reasons. That only becomes insane, paranoid speculation. We can, however, look at the actual results of Google's actions. Apple fanboys want to spew the "evil Google" red herring, though, because they know that Google is a huge threat to Apple.
Please forgive me if this link has been posted previously:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/c...e_skin;content
Last word?
Yet another windbag who ignores the actual facts, and goes on an all-out attack.
He even bring up the old Flash argument, which is so thoroughly debunked he must know he's lying through his teeth.
Fail.
Yes, it is indeed about being paranoid. All of this is because Google is a huge threat to Apple, and hardcore Apple fanboys refuse to let it go. Thus, FUD.
WebM is not a lousy codec at all. By making such obviously false statements, you are showing just how desperate you are.
WebM is not a lousy codec I agree, but it is definitely NOT better than H.264, yet. Almost every comparison of H.264 and WebM that finds WebM to be better is using the baseline profile of H.264 (which is for lightweight/mobile devices). Where as the only effective for profile WebM (there is no concept of profiles in WebM) would be analogous to H.264 Main Profile. And H.264 Main Profile beats WebM hands down.
H.264 has 17 different profiles which allow it to scale very different situations and use-cases. WebM does not have this.
On2's business was based around avoiding patents, and patenting their own technologies. It's more likely that h264 infringes on On2 patents than the other way around, since On2 did a lot of research to avoid patent infringement, whereas the MPEG-LA simply threw everything into a common patent pool and hoped for the best.
Maybe, maybe not. However On2 is a licensee of technology from the MPEG-LA, so the chances are they, however unintentionally, made use of patented implementations when writing their own code.
FUD from desperate Apple fanboys is quite common these days.
At least they aren't just ignoring facts.
I fail to see why all the opposition is being placed in the court of the "Apple Fanboys", as Apple has the least interest in this, as per a previous post of mine:
And the bottom line: H264 can never be part of any open web standard.
And to be quite honest, I doubt WebM can either, as it WILL be patent nightmare.
On the contrary. On2's business relied on avoiding infringement, and the W3C process will weed out any potential issues.
A) That's only speculation.
Stop trying to look like you understand the W3C recommendation process. Have you ever had an edit on the HTML5 draft? Have you touched it with your fingers? Have you argued about some chunk of minutia in wording and whether that goes too far into legislating implementation or leaves too much slop in the description? Do you actually understand what the Working Group is trying to do, and what politics the Working Group doesn't want to get involved in, ever?
[No, I've never been to a WG meeting or communicated directly. Yes I've had a pass on the HTML5 draft awhile ago and argued points with our rep who does go to the WG meetings and has a vote.]
It would be simple to legislate a few codecs as necessary for the <video> tag. And that would so hopelessly break the relevance of the entire standard that every tag would be fought over for implementation supremacy legislated into the recommendation.
That isn't what W3C is about. You implement to the standard, not standardize an implementation. Standardizing an implementation is how you make the standard technologically obsolete in three or four years, and irrelevant in just a few more. And the next whine I can see coming is saying "WebM is a standard!", and the answer is yes and no. Yes it is a codec standard. No, a codec is not a web standard.
What utter nonsense. Do you really think a company like Apple would be so retarded as to pull a stunt like that? When Apple does iAds it's because there's money to be made. That's the reason behind business decisions.
There's plenty of money to be made in databases. Ask oracle. So why no Apple enterprise database offering? Because it's way out of Apple's swim lane.
You are joking, right? Mobile ads are expected to be huge in the future. Why would Google, an online ad monopoly, not want to make money from ads on mobile phones?
It would. But Apple didn't do ads before Google elected to compete directly in one of Apple's core areas. Apple returned the favor but not all that seriously. iAds is a pinprick against AdMob.
The key is that in antagonizing Apple Google stands to loose access to iOS devices. For no good reason.
The engine is the least important part there. It isn't the engine that makes Safari less than competitive on Windows.
The engines are the same so the differences are in user experience. Apple can do user experience better than Google when it cares to. Safari doesn't get all that much attention from Apple...moving the battleground to include browsers may make Apple put a little more TLC into Safari again. That's pretty dumb from a strategic perspective. You don't want Apple to spend anything on improving safari.
But then there's Android...
I can see why Apple fanboys are worried. But it's just business. Businesses want to make money. There's money in mobile advertising, and Apple does mobile phones, while Google does advertising. Of course they are going to start crossing the river to make more money.
Google could have made a lot of money staying partnered with apple as opposed to directly competing. I guess their concern was if WM6/WP7 had gone unopposed then MS would have had a large share locking out Google eyeballs. Getting locked out of iOS eyeballs will be just as bad if it comes to that. And Android having such large share would allow Apple to do whatever and not worry about monopoly issues if it comes to that.
Eh, they made an enemy unnecessarily and now face competition where they wouldn't have otherwise. The WebM decision is simply petty and stupid. Their only saving grace is that maybe Jobs is too sick to really fight hard. I don't think he really has the strength and time to personally manage iAds to make it great. Beating Android does little to hurt Google and Oracle might do just enough perception damage to make WP7 bounce back from the dead.
A) That's only speculation.
That's hilarious coming from people who are actively spreading FUD by speculating about "surely WebM must be infringing on some patent somewhere".
Of course a codec can become a W3C standard. The W3C actually wanted one, but Apple sabotaged the whole thing.
I can see you conveniently ignored the next to last paragraph of my last post.
Which was?
Stop trying to look like you understand the W3C recommendation process.
I do understand it. You don't.
There's plenty of money to be made in databases. Ask oracle. So why no Apple enterprise database offering? Because it's way out of Apple's swim lane.
Ads apparently are not.
The key is that in antagonizing Apple Google stands to loose access to iOS devices. For no good reason.
So what you are saying is that Apple is a bunch of childish whiners who will start doing stuff just to spite some other company? I guess that fits their behavior in the W3C, come to think of it...
moving the battleground to include browsers may make Apple put a little more TLC into Safari again. That's pretty dumb from a strategic perspective. You don't want Apple to spend anything on improving safari.
LOL. Apple is always trying to improve Safari.
Eh, they made an enemy unnecessarily and now face competition where they wouldn't have otherwise.
LOL. Your comments are hilarious. You are afraid of Google, and are trying to come up with reasons to reassure yourself.
The WebM decision is simply petty and stupid.
That's amazing coming from someone who says that Apple is so childish, petty and stupid as to add a new business model out of spite! ROTFL!
That's hilarious coming from people who are actively spreading FUD by speculating about "surely WebM must be infringing on some patent somewhere".
How's that hilarious, it's merely the flip side of YOUR coin. A quite serious coin indeed.
Of course a codec can become a W3C standard. The W3C actually wanted one, but Apple sabotaged the whole thing.
Spoken like a true crusader for what I don't know. Go ahead and think you know what you do, if it makes you comfortable and shuts you up, the boards will have less thought pollution.
And thanks for putting your disregard and lack of knowledge of the W3C process on display for all others to determine for themselves. My work in that regard is done, anyone who cares now can see it quite plainly.
Microsoft provides H.264 plug-in for Windows users of Firefox and Chrome
How's that hilarious, it's merely the flip side of YOUR coin. A quite serious coin indeed.
It's hilarious because the fact is that On2's business model relied on avoiding patents. Nice analysis here:
http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/an-an...s-patent-risk/
More:
http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/on-we...ality-patents/
Spoken like a true crusader for what I don't know. Go ahead and think you know what you do, if it makes you comfortable and shuts you up, the boards will have less thought pollution.
Uh, hello? Apple opposed a standard codec in HTML5! It's a known fact. It's on the god damn record!
And thanks for putting your disregard and lack of knowledge of the W3C process on display for all others to determine for themselves. My work in that regard is done, anyone who cares now can see it quite plainly.
You didn't even know about Apple's involvement in blocking a standard HTML5 codec. LOL.
I was wondering when third party solutions would begin to appear, here is one:
Microsoft provides H.264 plug-in for Windows users of Firefox and Chrome
Not very useful, since it's just a plugin. Not native HTML5 video.
Not very useful, since it's just a plugin. Not native HTML5 video.
I don't understand why you don't think it's useful because it is a plug in. Plug ins aren't an alien concept to computer users.
Uh, hello? Apple opposed a standard codec in HTML5! It's a known fact. It's on the god damn record!
You didn't even know about Apple's involvement in blocking a standard HTML5 codec. LOL.
Source please.
I don't understand why you don't think it's useful because it is a plug in. Plug ins aren't an alien concept to computer users.
Because you might as well use Flash then. Why replace one plugin with a different plugin?
Source please.
Source for what?
Because you might as well use Flash then. Why replace one plugin with a different plugin?
Just using flash seems to cause other problems that using a dedicated, single purpose plug-in rarely causes.
Source for what?
Wow, really? Did you read the part that he quoted?
Source please.
Just using flash seems to cause other problems that using a dedicated, single purpose plug-in rarely causes.
Wow, really? Did you read the part that he quoted?
He's just being coy, because he knows as well as everyone else there is no such source, and that W3C never wanted a single codec as a standard, as that isn't multi-vendor interoperable. The whole idea of legislating a single implementation for something is counter the the W3C philosophy.
Look at PNG in <img> tags. It was never widely included in browser implementation, as far as I know, until Safari started pushing it, and now all the other browsers have added PNG support.
So what I'm saying is that browser developers should add whatever support they want to the <video> tag, and see where the market takes them. Why do they have to wait for W3C to act?
Just using flash seems to cause other problems that using a dedicated, single purpose plug-in rarely causes.
Such as?
After all this time, I still don't get the problem. Why can't the <video> tag support whatever the browser is developed to support, just like what was the case with the <img> tag? It would get things moving.
Because there needs to be an open standard to ensure an open web. Remember the gif mess? The W3C learned from that. But Apple and Nokia refused to allow for an open baseline codec.
He's just being coy, because he knows as well as everyone else there is no such source, and that W3C never wanted a single codec as a standard, as that isn't multi-vendor interoperable. The whole idea of legislating a single implementation for something is counter the the W3C philosophy.
I didn't know people were this ignorant of the history of HTML5. Maybe you should educate yourself:
"The HTML5 Working Group consider it desirable to specify at least one video format which all user agents (browsers) should support."
"Initially, Ogg Theora was the recommended standard video format in HTML5, because it was not affected by any known patents"
And as for your ignorant comment about "a single implementation", that is just nonsense. The W3C wouldn't standardize a single implementation. They would create a standard which implementations would be based on.
So contrary to your crazy claim, this would be exactly what the W3C is doing everywhere else.
The W3C learned from the gif mess, you see.