The major point is that Adobe has done a lot more for open standards and open source than Apple.
And still you are wrong. If the only thing that APple had done was crush Microsoft's hopes and dreams for the primacy of the DRM laden WMA file that would still be more than Adobe had done.
Quote:
Apple is simply fighting for control of media distribution. Any talk of "standards" is simply smoke and reality distortion.
And again you are wrong. Apple is fighting for control of media distribution with open standards! What is it you do not get about Mpeg4, AAC, MP3 and H.264?
How does QT stack up against Flash and Silverlight, i.e., how is it the same kind of tool and how is it different? Is Apple in this game or kind of on the sidelines with QT? I also get confused about how QT did and didn't support Flash content and how Flash does and doesn't support H.264 -- and showing my naivete, how H.264 is different when implemented via any of these development/playback platforms, and whether you can play Flash or QT H.264 content on multiple players/plug-ins, etc.
About Silverlight, the answer is quick : Silverlight will just not play H264 content : as usual, microsoft has adopted a look alike, incompatible video format : VC1.
About why Quicktime is better that Flash when it comes to serious H264 usage, you may want to have a look at the following note/demonstration of a quicktime+javascript player :
In short : Quicktime can reach any frame of a video. Flash just reach the I-Frames. So if you have a GOP/keyframing of 250 for instance, you can see only one frame every 10s of video (to be honest, most classical gop implies a frame every one or two seconds)
There are a bunch more I'm missing, but even that list is significant.
The logic that "EVERYTHING should be opensourced (or else company X is evil)" strikes me as simply positioning every company as evil, because it's unrealistic to expect everyone to OSS their work.
Comments
What do you think the chances of and part of QuickTime going open source is?
Apple's Darwin Streaming Server has been available for years. It is designed to serve Quicktime content and it is free and open source.
The major point is that Adobe has done a lot more for open standards and open source than Apple.
And still you are wrong. If the only thing that APple had done was crush Microsoft's hopes and dreams for the primacy of the DRM laden WMA file that would still be more than Adobe had done.
Apple is simply fighting for control of media distribution. Any talk of "standards" is simply smoke and reality distortion.
And again you are wrong. Apple is fighting for control of media distribution with open standards! What is it you do not get about Mpeg4, AAC, MP3 and H.264?
How does QT stack up against Flash and Silverlight, i.e., how is it the same kind of tool and how is it different? Is Apple in this game or kind of on the sidelines with QT? I also get confused about how QT did and didn't support Flash content and how Flash does and doesn't support H.264 -- and showing my naivete, how H.264 is different when implemented via any of these development/playback platforms, and whether you can play Flash or QT H.264 content on multiple players/plug-ins, etc.
About Silverlight, the answer is quick : Silverlight will just not play H264 content : as usual, microsoft has adopted a look alike, incompatible video format : VC1.
About why Quicktime is better that Flash when it comes to serious H264 usage, you may want to have a look at the following note/demonstration of a quicktime+javascript player :
http://blog.vrarchitect.net/post/200...ter-than-Flash
In short : Quicktime can reach any frame of a video. Flash just reach the I-Frames. So if you have a GOP/keyframing of 250 for instance, you can see only one frame every 10s of video (to be honest, most classical gop implies a frame every one or two seconds)
Alright, I'm wrong about the who contributed the "most". I'd agree Red Hat has done more, and possible Sun too.
The major point is that Adobe has done a lot more for open standards and open source than Apple.
Apple is simply fighting for control of media distribution. Any talk of "standards" is simply smoke and reality distortion.
[...]
- Sterling Ledet
http://www.ledet.com
I'm not sure that Red Hat has contributed much in terms of research (novel technology) to the world, but I could be missing something.
Flash code has been opensourced in the past (resulting in Gnash and another OSS project)
Adobe has made PDF an open technology, ISO spec 32000-1.
SVG came from Adobe.
Tamarin (one of the fastest Javascript interpreters) is now part of Mozilla open source.
Adobe Source Libraries (ASL) is quite useful: http://sourceforge.net/projects/adobe-source/
...
There are a bunch more I'm missing, but even that list is significant.
The logic that "EVERYTHING should be opensourced (or else company X is evil)" strikes me as simply positioning every company as evil, because it's unrealistic to expect everyone to OSS their work.
Dave