And free and open standards would be great for medicine too. But it doesn't make economic sense.
It takes a hell of a lot of effort, expense, and risk to develop os-level or web standards-level software. Just like it takes a hell of a lot of effort, expense and risk to develop medicine.
There is no one who has produced a free, efficient, lawsuit-proof video codec. Until that happens, Jobs is right and Adobe is wrong. A codec that has waived licensing until 2016 may not be perfectly open, but it is far more open than what Adobe has to offer.
My eyes glaze over almost immediately whenever the free-as-in-beer crowd gets on their tired old soap box and barks at the moon. We are never going to have a completely "free" internet. Never have had before, never will in the future. The actual choice in the real world most of us inhabit is between good, better, best of proprietary products. This is called "freedom of choice" -- maybe not "free" the way the free software evangelists would like, but it's the way markets really work. If you don't like these products, then by all means decline to use them. But don't try to tell us that proprietary is inherently evil and the choice between them is between bad and worse.
Probably, but I'm hearing this line of argument quite a bit lately, even from people who don't seem to have much grasp of the actual issues. It has become surprisingly easy to stir up a hornet's nest of resentment against Apple, simply by positing the bogus argument that Steve is trying to turn all of us into his love slaves simply for being willing to going toe-to-toe with Adobe over products. The comparisons to Microsoft are particularly lame. If Apple had (or ever has) Microsoft's power to dictate winners and losers, then comparison might be valid. They don't, so it isn't.
My eyes glaze over almost immediately whenever the free-as-in-beer crowd gets on their tired old soap box and barks at the moon. We are never going to have a completely "free" internet. Never have had before, never will in the future. The actual choice in the real world most of us inhabit is between good, better, best of proprietary products. This is called "freedom of choice" -- maybe not "free" the way the free software evangelists would like, but it's the way markets really work. If you don't like these products, then by all means decline to use them. But don't try to tell us that proprietary is inherently evil and the choice between them is between bad and worse.
Yeah I had to stop reading the minute I got the "freetard" vibe. These people are insane.
Probably, but I'm hearing this line of argument quite a bit lately, even from people who don't seem to have much grasp of the actual issues. It has become surprisingly easy to stir up a hornet's nest of resentment against Apple, simply by positing the bogus argument that Steve is trying to turn all of us into his love slaves simply for being willing to going toe-to-toe with Adobe over products. The comparisons to Microsoft are particularly lame. If Apple had (or ever has) Microsoft's power to dictate winners and losers, then comparison might be valid. They don't, so it isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
Yeah I had to stop reading the minute I got the "freetard" vibe. These people are insane.
Yep, but the freetard is driven by ideology, whereas the people who are throwing in their lot with same are just happy to have some cudgel to use against Apple.
That's why the latest round of bashing is so thoroughly incoherent: people are swearing allegiance to Android because it's "free" and "open" and gives them "choice" but when pressed they can't really tell you what any of those things mean in practice, beyond "I can customize my home screen" and "something something any app I want something."
The idea that any computer platform is "free" in the sense we mean that in ordinary life has always been nonsensical, IMO. Computer devices are insanely specific machines that can only do a fantastically limited number of tasks predicated on a massively circumscribed set of instructions-- compared to my freedom to cross the street, pick up a penny, and tie my shoe.
The idea that some computer platforms offer limitless choice while others present fascistic limitations is simply a fantasy. Every computer platform presents a vanishingly slight subset of the possibilities of human agency. If you think Android offers limitless choice, you're not getting out enough.
The idea that some computer platforms offer limitless choice while others present fascistic limitations is simply a fantasy. Every computer platform presents a vanishingly slight subset of the possibilities of human agency. If you think Android offers limitless choice, you're not getting out enough.
Open vs Closed system have had much debate but much like democracy there is no universal system that works.
Most people want security in this world, not liberty.
Open vs Closed system have had much debate but much like democracy there is no universal system that works.
As addabox points out, the real issue is that nobody really knows what they mean by "open." It seems to be essentially a state of mind, not an actual concept that we can discuss completely rationally.
Yep, but the freetard is driven by ideology, whereas the people who are throwing in their lot with same are just happy to have some cudgel to use against Apple.
That's why the latest round of bashing is so thoroughly incoherent: people are swearing allegiance to Android because it's "free" and "open" and gives them "choice" but when pressed they can't really tell you what any of those things mean in practice, beyond "I can customize my home screen" and "something something any app I want something."
[/snip]
Good catch ...i totally agree with you
Freetard vibe is what's selling Android IMHO...
If they want total "freedom" in a well-built Linux box, they should get a Nokia N900, not an Android phone...
On Android, "rooting" a phone (read: jailbreaking) voids the warranty. So "free and open" is out the window. Most people will not go as far as lose the warranty. Security over freedom
For the N900, you can also download the source code for its distro, just like with Android (Maemo is based on Debian), and reflash the phone with your custom build, of just write your own, unsigned apps...but you get to have your cake and eat it too
What about... if Apple were to buy a majority stake in MPEG LA and realease h.264 as totally open source, royalty-free (is this possible?) How would the Apple critics respond?
I mostly stay out of these ridiculous Flash discussions for two reasons. They are both subsets of the same reason. All of these Flash mobs are completely disingenuous:
1. No body actually likes Adobe or Flash. There have been Flash blockers long before there was a public debate about the merits of Flash. There are no Adobe/Flash fanboys; there are only Apple haters. The lack of Flash has not hurt the iPhone, and the presence of Flash is, arguably, one of the things that killed the JooJoo. The absence of Flash is a feature, not a limitation. In a world of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." it kind of makes sense. But even the Apple haters have to be a little sick about being forced to cozy up to Flash.
2. There are no mainstream, successful, mobile, Flash playing products. None! The Flash mob has to raise a blank banner which looks a lot like a white flag, or a banner with the logo of a company that does not actually support Flash such as Android or WebOS. All they can say is "Look at the great phones that might one day run Flash well." The fact that Flash has been out there long before the iPhone was born and yet no flagship, mobile Flash product exists is the most telling evidence of all that these debates have nothing to do with embracing Flash and everything to do with hating Apple.
The lack of Flash has not hurt the iPhone, and the presence of Flash is, arguably, one of the things that killed the JooJoo.
[/snip]
The JooJoo was dead even before it was born.
It was supposed to have come out way before the iPad and at a decent price. It did neither.
Flash or not, it's a cheap substitute for the iPad and being priced the same, it looks bad. That, and Fusion Garage screwed Mike Arrington out of his idea, basically.
Except for over 90% market share that Photoshop has, or the fact that, among Apple users alone, over 3 times as many use Lightroom as Aperture.
I think what you maybe meant to write was that nobody likes how slow Flash runs on OSX... which is true, and due to Adobe and Apple not getting together to work their shit out. Instead we get open letters from bitchy Stevie, and cancellations from Adobe after getting screwed over on the iPhone.
Imagine if all that energy was used to make Flash run as smoothly as it does in Firefox and IE in Windows 7 (which is relatively great).
The guy from Ars is a little bit ignorant. The fact is, it costs a lot of money to drive a standard to completion and then maintain it once it is there. Almost every standard has some form of financing mechanism. MANY successful standards are royalty bearing.
- "Open Standard" means the spec is available for anyone, for free or for a nominal "bookeeping" fee. It doesn't have anything to do with royalties.
- There are many royalty free standards that are not open. Most of these require the users to pay some group an annual fee in order to get access to the constantly evolving standard, and access to certification processes.
- There are many open standards that are not royalty free.
- There are some standards that are open and royalty free, but require the purchase of ancillary elements from a single management company.
- The presence of royalties has not hurt ARM, Bluetooth, or pretty much any flavor of cellular (where do you think Qualcomm makes its money). Very soon, WiFi will have royalties as well.
- There are dozens upon dozens of highly successful ISO standards, and most bear some type of royalty until the patents expire.
- I know of at least one open-source implementation of an open standard which also happens to be royalty-bearing.
Comments
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...r-on-flash.ars
And free and open standards would be great for medicine too. But it doesn't make economic sense.
It takes a hell of a lot of effort, expense, and risk to develop os-level or web standards-level software. Just like it takes a hell of a lot of effort, expense and risk to develop medicine.
There is no one who has produced a free, efficient, lawsuit-proof video codec. Until that happens, Jobs is right and Adobe is wrong. A codec that has waived licensing until 2016 may not be perfectly open, but it is far more open than what Adobe has to offer.
My eyes glaze over almost immediately whenever the free-as-in-beer crowd gets on their tired old soap box and barks at the moon. We are never going to have a completely "free" internet. Never have had before, never will in the future. The actual choice in the real world most of us inhabit is between good, better, best of proprietary products. This is called "freedom of choice" -- maybe not "free" the way the free software evangelists would like, but it's the way markets really work. If you don't like these products, then by all means decline to use them. But don't try to tell us that proprietary is inherently evil and the choice between them is between bad and worse.
Yeah I had to stop reading the minute I got the "freetard" vibe. These people are insane.
I doubt that SpotOn is actually much of an open software enthusiast, he just found bad stuff about Apple and eagerly linked to it.
I thought it would make good discussion.
As any other intelligent person, I look at all my options.
Probably, but I'm hearing this line of argument quite a bit lately, even from people who don't seem to have much grasp of the actual issues. It has become surprisingly easy to stir up a hornet's nest of resentment against Apple, simply by positing the bogus argument that Steve is trying to turn all of us into his love slaves simply for being willing to going toe-to-toe with Adobe over products. The comparisons to Microsoft are particularly lame. If Apple had (or ever has) Microsoft's power to dictate winners and losers, then comparison might be valid. They don't, so it isn't.
Yeah I had to stop reading the minute I got the "freetard" vibe. These people are insane.
Yep, but the freetard is driven by ideology, whereas the people who are throwing in their lot with same are just happy to have some cudgel to use against Apple.
That's why the latest round of bashing is so thoroughly incoherent: people are swearing allegiance to Android because it's "free" and "open" and gives them "choice" but when pressed they can't really tell you what any of those things mean in practice, beyond "I can customize my home screen" and "something something any app I want something."
The idea that any computer platform is "free" in the sense we mean that in ordinary life has always been nonsensical, IMO. Computer devices are insanely specific machines that can only do a fantastically limited number of tasks predicated on a massively circumscribed set of instructions-- compared to my freedom to cross the street, pick up a penny, and tie my shoe.
The idea that some computer platforms offer limitless choice while others present fascistic limitations is simply a fantasy. Every computer platform presents a vanishingly slight subset of the possibilities of human agency. If you think Android offers limitless choice, you're not getting out enough.
The idea that some computer platforms offer limitless choice while others present fascistic limitations is simply a fantasy. Every computer platform presents a vanishingly slight subset of the possibilities of human agency. If you think Android offers limitless choice, you're not getting out enough.
Open vs Closed system have had much debate but much like democracy there is no universal system that works.
Most people want security in this world, not liberty.
H. L. Mencken
Open vs Closed system have had much debate but much like democracy there is no universal system that works.
As addabox points out, the real issue is that nobody really knows what they mean by "open." It seems to be essentially a state of mind, not an actual concept that we can discuss completely rationally.
Yep, but the freetard is driven by ideology, whereas the people who are throwing in their lot with same are just happy to have some cudgel to use against Apple.
That's why the latest round of bashing is so thoroughly incoherent: people are swearing allegiance to Android because it's "free" and "open" and gives them "choice" but when pressed they can't really tell you what any of those things mean in practice, beyond "I can customize my home screen" and "something something any app I want something."
[/snip]
Good catch
Freetard vibe is what's selling Android IMHO...
If they want total "freedom" in a well-built Linux box, they should get a Nokia N900, not an Android phone...
On Android, "rooting" a phone (read: jailbreaking) voids the warranty. So "free and open" is out the window. Most people will not go as far as lose the warranty. Security over freedom
For the N900, you can also download the source code for its distro, just like with Android (Maemo is based on Debian), and reflash the phone with your custom build, of just write your own, unsigned apps...but you get to have your cake and eat it too
Dan
1. No body actually likes Adobe or Flash. There have been Flash blockers long before there was a public debate about the merits of Flash. There are no Adobe/Flash fanboys; there are only Apple haters. The lack of Flash has not hurt the iPhone, and the presence of Flash is, arguably, one of the things that killed the JooJoo. The absence of Flash is a feature, not a limitation. In a world of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." it kind of makes sense. But even the Apple haters have to be a little sick about being forced to cozy up to Flash.
2. There are no mainstream, successful, mobile, Flash playing products. None! The Flash mob has to raise a blank banner which looks a lot like a white flag, or a banner with the logo of a company that does not actually support Flash such as Android or WebOS. All they can say is "Look at the great phones that might one day run Flash well." The fact that Flash has been out there long before the iPhone was born and yet no flagship, mobile Flash product exists is the most telling evidence of all that these debates have nothing to do with embracing Flash and everything to do with hating Apple.
http://www.androlib.com/android.appl...layer-wim.aspx
This should immediately be preinstalled on all iPhones.
/sarcasm
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...r-on-flash.ars
[snip]
The lack of Flash has not hurt the iPhone, and the presence of Flash is, arguably, one of the things that killed the JooJoo.
[/snip]
The JooJoo was dead even before it was born.
It was supposed to have come out way before the iPad and at a decent price. It did neither.
Flash or not, it's a cheap substitute for the iPad and being priced the same, it looks bad. That, and Fusion Garage screwed Mike Arrington out of his idea, basically.
So it should die twice over.
Dan
Look at this wonderful, real life example of a Flash for Android application.
http://www.androlib.com/android.appl...layer-wim.aspx
This should immediately be preinstalled on all iPhones.
/sarcasm
Good Lord, man! Don't ever do that again! Who designed that abomination of a site?
1. No body actually likes Adobe or Flash.
Except for over 90% market share that Photoshop has, or the fact that, among Apple users alone, over 3 times as many use Lightroom as Aperture.
I think what you maybe meant to write was that nobody likes how slow Flash runs on OSX... which is true, and due to Adobe and Apple not getting together to work their shit out. Instead we get open letters from bitchy Stevie, and cancellations from Adobe after getting screwed over on the iPhone.
Imagine if all that energy was used to make Flash run as smoothly as it does in Firefox and IE in Windows 7 (which is relatively great).
- "Open Standard" means the spec is available for anyone, for free or for a nominal "bookeeping" fee. It doesn't have anything to do with royalties.
- There are many royalty free standards that are not open. Most of these require the users to pay some group an annual fee in order to get access to the constantly evolving standard, and access to certification processes.
- There are many open standards that are not royalty free.
- There are some standards that are open and royalty free, but require the purchase of ancillary elements from a single management company.
- The presence of royalties has not hurt ARM, Bluetooth, or pretty much any flavor of cellular (where do you think Qualcomm makes its money). Very soon, WiFi will have royalties as well.
- There are dozens upon dozens of highly successful ISO standards, and most bear some type of royalty until the patents expire.
- I know of at least one open-source implementation of an open standard which also happens to be royalty-bearing.