Perhaps, but Steve Jobs claiming H.264 is "open" is an absolute falsehood. It is nothing of the sort. That's why Firefox and Opera are not adopting it.
"H.264 is neither free nor open-source. If...you want to use H.264 to serve HTML5 video in your browser, you need to pay MPEG LA, the owners of the codec, a $5 million licensing fee. This has raised some eyebrows by the likes of Mozilla Firefox, who want HTML5?s video compression standard to be the free, open-source Ogg Theora. Their argument, summarized, is it?s foolish to build the next decade?s internet video standards upon the back of a licensed codec when there?s a free alternative that works nearly as well."
Perhaps, but Steve Jobs claiming H.264 is "open" is an absolute falsehood. It is nothing of the sort. That's why Firefox and Opera are not adopting it.
"H.264 is neither free nor open-source. If...you want to use H.264 to serve HTML5 video in your browser, you need to pay MPEG LA, the owners of the codec, a $5 million licensing fee. This has raised some eyebrows by the likes of Mozilla Firefox, who want HTML5?s video compression standard to be the free, open-source Ogg Theora. Their argument, summarized, is it?s foolish to build the next decade?s internet video standards upon the back of a licensed codec when there?s a free alternative that works nearly as well."
Nice out of context grab. You probably shouldn't have posted the link so people can read the rest of the quote and realize the author is talking about Ogg Theora, not Flash.
The difference is striking: on an iPhone, for example, H.264 videos play for up to 10 hours, while videos decoded in software play for less than 5 hours before the battery is fully drained.
Perhaps, but Steve Jobs claiming H.264 is "open" is an absolute falsehood. It is nothing of the sort. That's why Firefox and Opera are not adopting it.
"H.264 is neither free nor open-source. If...you want to use H.264 to serve HTML5 video in your browser, you need to pay MPEG LA, the owners of the codec, a $5 million licensing fee. This has raised some eyebrows by the likes of Mozilla Firefox, who want HTML5?s video compression standard to be the free, open-source Ogg Theora. Their argument, summarized, is it?s foolish to build the next decade?s internet video standards upon the back of a licensed codec when there?s a free alternative that works nearly as well."
Still, what can you say about HTML5 and CSS and Javascript? Those are open, non-proprietary formats.
Flash is not "Open". Steve is right! He never said H.264 was open or free, he just said it was an industry Standard and Modern. If its a standard, and they support the playback of it, with no plugin required, then what is your problem?
I'm pretty surprised he felt compelled to write this letter. If Adobe Flash is going to circle the drain, let it. If not, so what? Adobe makes products that complement the Mac, why call them out?
Good explanation of the hardware/software energy consumption issues xnd the touchscreen/mouse distinction. We'll have to see how Flash works on Android (can I use that word here!) 2.2. Job's staff sure are good writers!
I'm fortunate that I never created my website in flash. I used some flash elements that I have now replaced with javascript. Flash sites do not index well in the search engines, and they are painfully difficult to change as time goes on. I say down with Flash.
I think they're worried they might actually have to compete on the merits of their software if they did that.
Well I think they might find, if they relax about their plugin vs HTML5, their real lock-in comes from the fact that so many artsy people (including my sister) know their tools the best.
Do you understand any on this discussion in regards to PLATFORM, vs. DEVICE. VS Dev Environment Vs. system....VS common sense?
I do love my Adobe phones though. The ones that run Flash. Oh wait. There are none.
Quote:
Originally Posted by agl82
"While Adobe's Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system."
Wow, that's rich! One proprietary dinosaur of a company bad-mouthing another. Apple is just as proprietary as Adobe, if not more so. Nice try, Steve!
If you think Jobs had a staff write that you are even duller in the head than your post makes out. if it's one thing that's clear, Mr. Jobs has been having and voicing his own opinion for many years.
I'm sure it runs great on Android....wait. It's not out yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aklrt
Good explanation of the hardware/software energy consumption issues xnd the touchscreen/mouse distinction. We'll have to see how Flash works on Android (can I use that word here!) 2.2. Job's staff sure are good writers!
I fully agree with Steve. If Adobe wants to be in the game make Flash output an Xcode projects and HTML 5 options. The one that want to protect Flash are the ones that churn out buggy crap on it. It worked as a good video player/wrapper when YouTube and others came out, but now we have better options.
The difference between Adobe in Apple on this is Adobe wants to keep it's hold and dominance in an old technology it has not properly maintained. Apple wants to protect the user experience on it's mobile devices. Yes Flash could work, but device performance would suffer.
Jobs could care less if the standard used is open or not. He's commissioned plenty of closed ones and modified quite a few open standards to make them closed. What he cares about is that adobe has control and he doesn't.
You managed to reply to my comment without confronting its central thesis. Steve Jobs claims that Adobe's Flash technology is proprietary. This is a fact. Flash IS proprietary. However, Steve also claims that HTML5 (which includes H.264 for video playback) is an "open standard". His words:
"...we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript – all open standards."
This is undeniably false. H.264 is a proprietary codec which must be licensed from MPEG LA. It is not "open" in any sense whatsoever. Steve Jobs is, therefore, a liar.
W3C decided to support H.264 as part of their standard because of its current wide implementation. They made a deal with MPEG to waive the fees b/c it will be part of the OPEN HTML5 web standard.
You managed to reply to my comment without confronting its central thesis. Steve Jobs claims that Adobe's Flash technology is proprietary. This is a fact. Flash IS proprietary. However, Steve also claims that HTML5 (which includes H.264 for video playback) is an "open standard". His words:
"...we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript ? all open standards."
This is undeniably false. H.264 is a proprietary codec which must be licensed from MPEG LA. It is not "open" in any sense whatsoever. Steve Jobs is, therefore, a liar.
Except what you said is false. H.264 is NOT part of HTML5 (which is why Firefox can continue supporting it, without being non-open).
And as Steve correctly states, it is an Industry Standard (which is also true, and not true of Flash).
Also, the only "open" alternative to H.264 until a couple of weeks ago was Ogg-Theora. This was a non-starter because of mainly extremely poor HW support, and almost non-existent quantity of content (how much of Youtube is Theora? Ans: 0%).
2-3 weeks ago, Google released VP8 as open-source, however, since that was only a couple of weeks ago, there is no content in that format, and also, no hardware (or decent software) support for it. It will take at least a few years before it becomes popular, so is not a viable choice right now.
Comments
Perhaps, but Steve Jobs claiming H.264 is "open" is an absolute falsehood. It is nothing of the sort. That's why Firefox and Opera are not adopting it.
"H.264 is neither free nor open-source. If...you want to use H.264 to serve HTML5 video in your browser, you need to pay MPEG LA, the owners of the codec, a $5 million licensing fee. This has raised some eyebrows by the likes of Mozilla Firefox, who want HTML5?s video compression standard to be the free, open-source Ogg Theora. Their argument, summarized, is it?s foolish to build the next decade?s internet video standards upon the back of a licensed codec when there?s a free alternative that works nearly as well."
http://www.cultofmac.com/h-264-will-...ugh-2016/28982
You seem to have difficulty to see difference between "Open" and "Free".
Perhaps, but Steve Jobs claiming H.264 is "open" is an absolute falsehood. It is nothing of the sort. That's why Firefox and Opera are not adopting it.
"H.264 is neither free nor open-source. If...you want to use H.264 to serve HTML5 video in your browser, you need to pay MPEG LA, the owners of the codec, a $5 million licensing fee. This has raised some eyebrows by the likes of Mozilla Firefox, who want HTML5?s video compression standard to be the free, open-source Ogg Theora. Their argument, summarized, is it?s foolish to build the next decade?s internet video standards upon the back of a licensed codec when there?s a free alternative that works nearly as well."
http://www.cultofmac.com/h-264-will-...ugh-2016/28982
Nice out of context grab. You probably shouldn't have posted the link so people can read the rest of the quote and realize the author is talking about Ogg Theora, not Flash.
Fourth, there?s battery life.
The difference is striking: on an iPhone, for example, H.264 videos play for up to 10 hours, while videos decoded in software play for less than 5 hours before the battery is fully drained.
Steve Jobs
April, 2010
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
Hmmmm...
Which iPhone is he using where there is 10 hours of video playing?
Perhaps, but Steve Jobs claiming H.264 is "open" is an absolute falsehood. It is nothing of the sort. That's why Firefox and Opera are not adopting it.
"H.264 is neither free nor open-source. If...you want to use H.264 to serve HTML5 video in your browser, you need to pay MPEG LA, the owners of the codec, a $5 million licensing fee. This has raised some eyebrows by the likes of Mozilla Firefox, who want HTML5?s video compression standard to be the free, open-source Ogg Theora. Their argument, summarized, is it?s foolish to build the next decade?s internet video standards upon the back of a licensed codec when there?s a free alternative that works nearly as well."
http://www.cultofmac.com/h-264-will-...ugh-2016/28982
Still, what can you say about HTML5 and CSS and Javascript? Those are open, non-proprietary formats.
Flash is not "Open". Steve is right! He never said H.264 was open or free, he just said it was an industry Standard and Modern. If its a standard, and they support the playback of it, with no plugin required, then what is your problem?
JEESH
I think they're worried they might actually have to compete on the merits of their software if they did that.
Well I think they might find, if they relax about their plugin vs HTML5, their real lock-in comes from the fact that so many artsy people (including my sister) know their tools the best.
Talk about DEATH KNELL...
Where can I send the flowers?
I do love my Adobe phones though. The ones that run Flash. Oh wait. There are none.
"While Adobe's Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system."
Wow, that's rich! One proprietary dinosaur of a company bad-mouthing another. Apple is just as proprietary as Adobe, if not more so. Nice try, Steve!
I'm sure it runs great on Android....wait. It's not out yet.
Good explanation of the hardware/software energy consumption issues xnd the touchscreen/mouse distinction. We'll have to see how Flash works on Android (can I use that word here!) 2.2. Job's staff sure are good writers!
The difference between Adobe in Apple on this is Adobe wants to keep it's hold and dominance in an old technology it has not properly maintained. Apple wants to protect the user experience on it's mobile devices. Yes Flash could work, but device performance would suffer.
Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future
I think this is a great idea and something that Adobe could really do well at if they persued it.
You managed to reply to my comment without confronting its central thesis. Steve Jobs claims that Adobe's Flash technology is proprietary. This is a fact. Flash IS proprietary. However, Steve also claims that HTML5 (which includes H.264 for video playback) is an "open standard". His words:
"...we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript – all open standards."
This is undeniably false. H.264 is a proprietary codec which must be licensed from MPEG LA. It is not "open" in any sense whatsoever. Steve Jobs is, therefore, a liar.
W3C decided to support H.264 as part of their standard because of its current wide implementation. They made a deal with MPEG to waive the fees b/c it will be part of the OPEN HTML5 web standard.
You managed to reply to my comment without confronting its central thesis. Steve Jobs claims that Adobe's Flash technology is proprietary. This is a fact. Flash IS proprietary. However, Steve also claims that HTML5 (which includes H.264 for video playback) is an "open standard". His words:
"...we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript ? all open standards."
This is undeniably false. H.264 is a proprietary codec which must be licensed from MPEG LA. It is not "open" in any sense whatsoever. Steve Jobs is, therefore, a liar.
Except what you said is false. H.264 is NOT part of HTML5 (which is why Firefox can continue supporting it, without being non-open).
And as Steve correctly states, it is an Industry Standard (which is also true, and not true of Flash).
Also, the only "open" alternative to H.264 until a couple of weeks ago was Ogg-Theora. This was a non-starter because of mainly extremely poor HW support, and almost non-existent quantity of content (how much of Youtube is Theora? Ans: 0%).
2-3 weeks ago, Google released VP8 as open-source, however, since that was only a couple of weeks ago, there is no content in that format, and also, no hardware (or decent software) support for it. It will take at least a few years before it becomes popular, so is not a viable choice right now.
Steve Jobs is spot on here.