I come to this site to find out Apple news and rumors, not to get the latest news on Google.
You may think that is what you are doing, but from this site's perspective, you are coming here to become a product that they sell to their advertisers.
And stories about Google and Adobe move a lot of product.
I read the article to which AI is referring and that was not the interpretation I got. My read was that it is inferior to H.264, on par with several other specs, and far better than Theora (aka VP3). He also stated that there is plenty of room for improving the encoder/decoder, but that it would never be better than X264's implementation of H.264 for a couple of fundamental reasons. He also pointed out that the Open Licensing scheme is a strong positive in its favor, and that combined with the quality improvements over Theora, could make it a contender.
I think that it will do fairly well because of the objections Mozilla have with H.264. I don't think it will dominate though because of the potential for H.264 patent owners to sue over the similarities in the spec, and because MS has thrown its weight behind H.264 along with Apple.
It seems as though Google is all over the place and doesn't matter what havoc they reek as long as they get the ad dollars! And when I say 'havoc,' I mean, havoc on the end-user. And that's me!
Don't go to Google's websites. Problem solved. No more havoc.
Hence why I said, "And scientific results should be verifiable regardless of the bias of the checker."
However I wouldn't place his bias as strong enough to poison everything he says. He is a developer in an open source project and a contributor to ffmpeg. And if you read his previous post on the subject when all he could do is speculate, he gives a pretty even-handed overview of the situation and points out all of the pragmatic points.
Flash, Google, VP8, and the future of internet video
There is a comment made by a member of Xiph (which have their opposite bias) that helps give some perspective on it. He basically says that "the devil is in the details" about the patent infringement, meaning that they are similar but subtly different. On the code and spec, he seems to agree so there you go.
It would have been nice if Google had opened it up for the video developers to help clean things up, but that's not how they decided to roll. The spec is frozen. Hey Google, what happened to being truly "open"?
Now you are just grasping at straws and bringing in different sources on different topics. The fact remains, h264 developer says competing VP8 is a "mess". Just like when Microsoft says Windows is better than OSX, or Faux News says they are Fair and Balanced.
It's free and open and public domain. Why do you think so many phones have it? Why do thing there can be so many alternate UI designs with the same OS? Open in this case, means you can change it and use it freely to suit your needs. Google will never sue you, even if you create an OS of your own and distribute as an alternate Android OS. You could call it... Robot OS.
AppleInsider needs to really clarify their definition of Open. Anything that is riddled with patents that you run the risk of being sued over just for using is not Open. It's just as bad as Apple. Honestly, I would challenge MPEG-LA to sue over their codec. Just like Henry Ford tore down the illegally monopolizing patent for Automobile Engines, Google would tear down the illegal monopolizing patents of MPEG-LA. How can you monopolize a mathematical algorithm anyway? Really our patent system is broken. Software should not be patentable. Copyrightable... Yes. Patentable. No. After call, software is authored just like a book. Else maybe we should start allowing books to be patentable. I guess that would mean those that write books about a wizard can get sued.
Really you need to understand the problem with using H.264. It may be cool and all, but it will not work unless it truly becomes Open and Free to use.
And really, the author doesn't know a thing about Mozilla. Firefox works just fine. It's even faster than Safari. Maybe not on Apple machines, but neither does Flash. Does that tell you something? Apple's OS truly sucks at handling code other than their own. No wonder developers hate programming for that OS. Apple never supported developers, and until it learns how, it will never get love from them. Microsoft learned that lesson long ago. Now they have the best developer support sites, second to none.
Honestly, any reporter that reports false and opinionated tabloid information, such as this, should not be a reporter. Get your facts straight and subdue your opinions before writing such a stupid article. And don't rely on one idiots opinion. And stop twisting the truth to support your arguments. You are not doing the world a favor by spreading lies and partial truths.
The problem with H.264 is that it is an encumbered format. In order for a browser to playback H.264, the makers would have to pay a licence to the ISO to use it. To companies like Apple, Google and Microsoft, its easy for them to do, but alternatives like Firefox, Opera and any number of Open Source browsers including Chromium-based ones, they simply cannot or refuse to pay such high fees just to support video playback within the browser.
VP8 and WebM are Google's attempt to bring a modern, high quality codec that is available to anyone and everyone, so that they can deliver video within the browser and the HTML5 spec. Will it work? That's another issue.
Google is doing this because the more people that use the web, the more traffic it drives to their services, which in turn drives up ad revenue. Anything that makes the web a richer experience to use is in Google's interest financially.
Except that according to the article, VP8 is likely infringing on H.264 patents and that Google won't help anyone out who gets sued.
Hence why I said, "And scientific results should be verifiable regardless of the bias of the checker."
However I wouldn't place his bias as strong enough to poison everything he says. He is a developer in an open source project and a contributor to ffmpeg. And if you read his previous post on the subject when all he could do is speculate, he gives a pretty even-handed overview of the situation and points out all of the pragmatic points.
Flash, Google, VP8, and the future of internet video
There is a comment made by a member of Xiph (which have their opposite bias) that helps give some perspective on it. He basically says that "the devil is in the details" about the patent infringement, meaning that they are similar but subtly different. On the code and spec, he seems to agree so there you go.
It would have been nice if Google had opened it up for the video developers to help clean things up, but that's not how they decided to roll. The spec is frozen. Hey Google, what happened to being truly "open"?
Where was the rule written that open software could not be patented?
You have no point and is the reason you are all over the place with this. The mathematical algorithm itself is not patented. Its a combination of mathematical algorithms in sequence that perform a specific function. Why would a company invest millions of dollars in resources to create software if anyone is free to use their effort without having sacrificed anything. These companies are in business is to make money not give things away for free.
Software and media are completely different. Software actually performs an active function. A book or movie are passively read and watched, they perform no active function in of themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blullama
AppleInsider needs to really clarify their definition of Open. Anything that is riddled with patents that you run the risk of being sued over just for using is not Open. It's just as bad as Apple. Honestly, I would challenge MPEG-LA to sue over their codec. Just like Henry Ford tore down the illegally monopolizing patent for Automobile Engines, Google would tear down the illegal monopolizing patents of MPEG-LA. How can you monopolize a mathematical algorithm anyway? Really our patent system is broken. Software should not be patentable. Copyrightable... Yes. Patentable. No. After call, software is authored just like a book. Else maybe we should start allowing books to be patentable. I guess that would mean those that write books about a wizard can get sued.
It's free and open and public domain. Why do you think so many phones have it? Why do thing there can be so many alternate UI designs with the same OS? Open in this case, means you can change it and use it freely to suit your needs. Google will never sue you, even if you create an OS of your own and distribute as an alternate Android OS. You could call it... Robot OS.
Before rambling a copy/paste reply, read what was actually stated.
Android is open source, but the valuable part of android is the "with Google" apps, which are free (if you abide by Google's restrictions so that Google is making ad revenue from your use) but not open or free to use however the end user wants to adapt them.
Patches to a closed spec is equivalent to asking for free labor to repaint your house, landscape your existing yard, give your roof new shingles, etc. The specification was done before it was discussed.
Where was the rule written that open software could not be patented?
You have no point and is the reason you are all over the place with this. The mathematical algorithm itself is not patented. Its a combination of mathematical algorithms in sequence that perform a specific function. Why would a company invest millions of dollars in resources to create software if anyone is free to use their effort without having sacrificed anything. These companies are in business is to make money not give things away for free.
Software and media are completely different. Software actually performs an active function. A book or movie are passively read and watched, they perform no active function in of themselves.
Software doesn't do anything unless a CPU interprets it. It's still just written instructions that has no function until it is executed by the little electrical pieces inside of your computer.
It's just like having a cookbook. It's just a set of instructions on a page until you actually follow those instructions.
Stop trying to make software into something that it is not.
How is a combination of algorithms more patentable versus one? Honestly. That's a dumb argument.
H.264 is about as open as Flash. Use it at your own risk.
Patches to a closed spec is equivalent to asking for free labor to repaint your house, landscape your existing yard, give your roof new shingles, etc. The specification was done before it was discussed.
Open is WebKit.
Closed spec??? Uh.. Hullo? The code is right there. You have the specs. You can take the code, edit it, make changes and make your own codec and call it MyVideoCodec without the risk of being sued by google. Let's see you do that with H.264.
Before rambling a copy/paste reply, read what was actually stated.
Android is open source, but the valuable part of android is the "with Google" apps, which are free (if you abide by Google's restrictions so that Google is making ad revenue from your use) but not open or free to use however the end user wants to adapt them.
True. Google Apps are closed source.
But, as you confirmed, Android is open source and you can aways create your own apps. Your not forced to use Google Apps, nor are you tied down to Google. Yahoo could come out with their own Android platform if the wanted to. And so could you.
Boy did you entirely miss the analogy? How may patents are on Julia Child's cookbooks?
My point is software should not be patentable. Copyrightable, yes, but patentable, no. Consumers are losing because this is going on.
Free is not the issue. The patents that riddle the purported "Open" H.264 video format are the big elephant in the room. My point is, that because software is written much like a cookbook, instruction manual and just about any novel out there, it should not be allowed to have patents on it. This is what allows businesses to have illegal monopolizing patents, such as what surrounds the H.264 codec.
Did you know that Thumbnails are patented. It's patent infringement for you to use thumbnails on a web page. Apple, Google and Microsoft are being sued over it. How many more ridiculous patents should we as tax payers and consumers have to pay for.
Am I the only one here that thinks this is messed up?
Obviously there are degrees of Open, and I'm saying it's not truly open unless it's fully open.
H.264 is open just a crack. We have the specifications, but if someone were to use those specifications to create their own codec, they could get sued due to patents. Which, then tightly closes the door on the format.
Adobe has recently provided the Specifications for Flash, thus, it is open in the same sense. If I decided to take up the challenge, I could develop a Flash player using those specifications without using an ounce of code from Adobe.
Does that make sense? Consider what Apple is selling you out for. I personally want nothing to do with it.
I know I'm going to get derided by the following-Solipism are you there!
But from a user's perspective, I find Google's products, other than search, of course, clumsy and fragmented. Basically, one level above MS. Apple is a hundred levels above Google.
I can see why they want to 'expand' into other areas, but that's how unimaginative CEO's show some semblance of growth/leadership.
I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Google is going into the frozen meatball business! Or buying Taco Bell!
The CEO's of Google, MS, Dell, Sony, HP have the Walmart business model. Which is design and make 'crap' as cheaply as possible, sell it as cheaply as possible and 'hope' they sell a lot of crap to a lot of people.
I think that most businesses after the first generation go out of business because subsequent CEO's really don't know what they are doing.
Essentially, most businesses, 'are in the business of going out of business.' It's just a matter of time!
Not every company can have a blockbuster, cheap, 'crap,' product like Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Starbucks, GM, MS, Budweiser, Gateway, Dell and sell the sh*t out of it!
I would agree many times Googles products are fun but a bit flakey. The worst part is the continual 'beta feeling' to most. Plus the ever likely knowledge that a drastic change that scuppers you may happen any moment. One small example; I recall having many clients set up with Google Analytic manager access using their own e-mails only to find one day Google changed the rules, now requiring a GMail account. Not a massive issue to us techies but a terrible pain since I deal with so many clients that are clueless and even adding a new e-mail account for many is a terrifying experience, especially PC users. They cling to their [email protected] addresses lol
Regarding expanding ... I would not be surprised to see Google take on Amazon next.
Comments
I come to this site to find out Apple news and rumors, not to get the latest news on Google.
You may think that is what you are doing, but from this site's perspective, you are coming here to become a product that they sell to their advertisers.
And stories about Google and Adobe move a lot of product.
I think that it will do fairly well because of the objections Mozilla have with H.264. I don't think it will dominate though because of the potential for H.264 patent owners to sue over the similarities in the spec, and because MS has thrown its weight behind H.264 along with Apple.
It seems as though Google is all over the place and doesn't matter what havoc they reek as long as they get the ad dollars! And when I say 'havoc,' I mean, havoc on the end-user. And that's me!
Don't go to Google's websites. Problem solved. No more havoc.
As far as business model, Google's is to give free crap away so they can harvest private user data out of it, essentially the trojan horse model.
That is precisely the model used by this website, AppleInsider.
They give away content to harvest info via cookies that they sell to advertisers. Essentially the Trojan Horse model.
But given that Google and AI are using the same "model", does that change your attitude towards the model?
The problem is this reads like an attack article: Google dared come out with a rival to the iPhone so lets start posting negative articles about them.
You've gotta choose your side.
Steve has declared that Google is evil. Therefore, you cannot like anything about Google without automatically being disloyal to Apple.
Those are your choices. Deal with them.
Hence why I said, "And scientific results should be verifiable regardless of the bias of the checker."
However I wouldn't place his bias as strong enough to poison everything he says. He is a developer in an open source project and a contributor to ffmpeg. And if you read his previous post on the subject when all he could do is speculate, he gives a pretty even-handed overview of the situation and points out all of the pragmatic points.
Flash, Google, VP8, and the future of internet video
http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=292
There is a comment made by a member of Xiph (which have their opposite bias) that helps give some perspective on it. He basically says that "the devil is in the details" about the patent infringement, meaning that they are similar but subtly different. On the code and spec, he seems to agree so there you go.
http://xiphmont.livejournal.com/5023...135231#t135231
It would have been nice if Google had opened it up for the video developers to help clean things up, but that's not how they decided to roll. The spec is frozen. Hey Google, what happened to being truly "open"?
Now you are just grasping at straws and bringing in different sources on different topics. The fact remains, h264 developer says competing VP8 is a "mess". Just like when Microsoft says Windows is better than OSX, or Faux News says they are Fair and Balanced.
Open means publicly documented. It doesn't mean free and/or public domain.
The works of Shakespeare are open, free, and public domain
Linux is open and free (within the terms of the GPL), but not public domain
WebKit is open and free (within the terms of BSD) but not public domain
Android's "with Google" is neither open nor free nor public domain
Safari is neither open nor free nor public domain
W3C HTML is open and free and essentially public domain
VP6 is open and free but not public domain (but won't be free once the patents settle)
H.264 is open but not entirely free nor public domain
You don't have to lie about Android. http://source.android.com/
It's free and open and public domain. Why do you think so many phones have it? Why do thing there can be so many alternate UI designs with the same OS? Open in this case, means you can change it and use it freely to suit your needs. Google will never sue you, even if you create an OS of your own and distribute as an alternate Android OS. You could call it... Robot OS.
AppleInsider needs to really clarify their definition of Open. Anything that is riddled with patents that you run the risk of being sued over just for using is not Open. It's just as bad as Apple. Honestly, I would challenge MPEG-LA to sue over their codec. Just like Henry Ford tore down the illegally monopolizing patent for Automobile Engines, Google would tear down the illegal monopolizing patents of MPEG-LA. How can you monopolize a mathematical algorithm anyway? Really our patent system is broken. Software should not be patentable. Copyrightable... Yes. Patentable. No. After call, software is authored just like a book. Else maybe we should start allowing books to be patentable. I guess that would mean those that write books about a wizard can get sued.
Really you need to understand the problem with using H.264. It may be cool and all, but it will not work unless it truly becomes Open and Free to use.
And really, the author doesn't know a thing about Mozilla. Firefox works just fine. It's even faster than Safari. Maybe not on Apple machines, but neither does Flash. Does that tell you something? Apple's OS truly sucks at handling code other than their own. No wonder developers hate programming for that OS. Apple never supported developers, and until it learns how, it will never get love from them. Microsoft learned that lesson long ago. Now they have the best developer support sites, second to none.
Mozilla also added tabbed browsing long before Safari and other browser did. Here is the wiki on Firefox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Firefox
Honestly, any reporter that reports false and opinionated tabloid information, such as this, should not be a reporter. Get your facts straight and subdue your opinions before writing such a stupid article. And don't rely on one idiots opinion. And stop twisting the truth to support your arguments. You are not doing the world a favor by spreading lies and partial truths.
The problem with H.264 is that it is an encumbered format. In order for a browser to playback H.264, the makers would have to pay a licence to the ISO to use it. To companies like Apple, Google and Microsoft, its easy for them to do, but alternatives like Firefox, Opera and any number of Open Source browsers including Chromium-based ones, they simply cannot or refuse to pay such high fees just to support video playback within the browser.
VP8 and WebM are Google's attempt to bring a modern, high quality codec that is available to anyone and everyone, so that they can deliver video within the browser and the HTML5 spec. Will it work? That's another issue.
Google is doing this because the more people that use the web, the more traffic it drives to their services, which in turn drives up ad revenue. Anything that makes the web a richer experience to use is in Google's interest financially.
Except that according to the article, VP8 is likely infringing on H.264 patents and that Google won't help anyone out who gets sued.
Hence why I said, "And scientific results should be verifiable regardless of the bias of the checker."
However I wouldn't place his bias as strong enough to poison everything he says. He is a developer in an open source project and a contributor to ffmpeg. And if you read his previous post on the subject when all he could do is speculate, he gives a pretty even-handed overview of the situation and points out all of the pragmatic points.
Flash, Google, VP8, and the future of internet video
http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=292
There is a comment made by a member of Xiph (which have their opposite bias) that helps give some perspective on it. He basically says that "the devil is in the details" about the patent infringement, meaning that they are similar but subtly different. On the code and spec, he seems to agree so there you go.
http://xiphmont.livejournal.com/5023...135231#t135231
It would have been nice if Google had opened it up for the video developers to help clean things up, but that's not how they decided to roll. The spec is frozen. Hey Google, what happened to being truly "open"?
This truly open enough for you???
To submit your code contributions visit this page: http://www.webmproject.org/code/cont...tting-patches/
How much more open can you get?
You have no point and is the reason you are all over the place with this. The mathematical algorithm itself is not patented. Its a combination of mathematical algorithms in sequence that perform a specific function. Why would a company invest millions of dollars in resources to create software if anyone is free to use their effort without having sacrificed anything. These companies are in business is to make money not give things away for free.
Software and media are completely different. Software actually performs an active function. A book or movie are passively read and watched, they perform no active function in of themselves.
AppleInsider needs to really clarify their definition of Open. Anything that is riddled with patents that you run the risk of being sued over just for using is not Open. It's just as bad as Apple. Honestly, I would challenge MPEG-LA to sue over their codec. Just like Henry Ford tore down the illegally monopolizing patent for Automobile Engines, Google would tear down the illegal monopolizing patents of MPEG-LA. How can you monopolize a mathematical algorithm anyway? Really our patent system is broken. Software should not be patentable. Copyrightable... Yes. Patentable. No. After call, software is authored just like a book. Else maybe we should start allowing books to be patentable. I guess that would mean those that write books about a wizard can get sued.
You don't have to lie about Android. http://source.android.com/
It's free and open and public domain. Why do you think so many phones have it? Why do thing there can be so many alternate UI designs with the same OS? Open in this case, means you can change it and use it freely to suit your needs. Google will never sue you, even if you create an OS of your own and distribute as an alternate Android OS. You could call it... Robot OS.
Before rambling a copy/paste reply, read what was actually stated.
Android is open source, but the valuable part of android is the "with Google" apps, which are free (if you abide by Google's restrictions so that Google is making ad revenue from your use) but not open or free to use however the end user wants to adapt them.
This truly open enough for you???
To submit your code contributions visit this page: http://www.webmproject.org/code/cont...tting-patches/
How much more open can you get?
Patches to a closed spec is equivalent to asking for free labor to repaint your house, landscape your existing yard, give your roof new shingles, etc. The specification was done before it was discussed.
Open is WebKit.
Where was the rule written that open software could not be patented?
You have no point and is the reason you are all over the place with this. The mathematical algorithm itself is not patented. Its a combination of mathematical algorithms in sequence that perform a specific function. Why would a company invest millions of dollars in resources to create software if anyone is free to use their effort without having sacrificed anything. These companies are in business is to make money not give things away for free.
Software and media are completely different. Software actually performs an active function. A book or movie are passively read and watched, they perform no active function in of themselves.
Software doesn't do anything unless a CPU interprets it. It's still just written instructions that has no function until it is executed by the little electrical pieces inside of your computer.
It's just like having a cookbook. It's just a set of instructions on a page until you actually follow those instructions.
Stop trying to make software into something that it is not.
How is a combination of algorithms more patentable versus one? Honestly. That's a dumb argument.
H.264 is about as open as Flash. Use it at your own risk.
Patches to a closed spec is equivalent to asking for free labor to repaint your house, landscape your existing yard, give your roof new shingles, etc. The specification was done before it was discussed.
Open is WebKit.
Closed spec??? Uh.. Hullo? The code is right there. You have the specs. You can take the code, edit it, make changes and make your own codec and call it MyVideoCodec without the risk of being sued by google. Let's see you do that with H.264.
Open spec for H.264? Open as much as Flash is.
Before rambling a copy/paste reply, read what was actually stated.
Android is open source, but the valuable part of android is the "with Google" apps, which are free (if you abide by Google's restrictions so that Google is making ad revenue from your use) but not open or free to use however the end user wants to adapt them.
True. Google Apps are closed source.
But, as you confirmed, Android is open source and you can aways create your own apps. Your not forced to use Google Apps, nor are you tied down to Google. Yahoo could come out with their own Android platform if the wanted to. And so could you.
...
It's just like having a cookbook. It's just a set of instructions on a page until you actually follow those instructions.
....
How many free cookbooks did Julia Child write?
Open spec for H.264? Open as much as Flash is.
Since when does open mean license free?
How many free cookbooks did Julia Child write?
Boy did you entirely miss the analogy? How may patents are on Julia Child's cookbooks?
My point is software should not be patentable. Copyrightable, yes, but patentable, no. Consumers are losing because this is going on.
Free is not the issue. The patents that riddle the purported "Open" H.264 video format are the big elephant in the room. My point is, that because software is written much like a cookbook, instruction manual and just about any novel out there, it should not be allowed to have patents on it. This is what allows businesses to have illegal monopolizing patents, such as what surrounds the H.264 codec.
Did you know that Thumbnails are patented. It's patent infringement for you to use thumbnails on a web page. Apple, Google and Microsoft are being sued over it. How many more ridiculous patents should we as tax payers and consumers have to pay for.
Am I the only one here that thinks this is messed up?
Since when does open mean license free?
Who said anything about a license? All open formats have licenses. Many very unrestrictive licenses.
So what is "Open" in the sense used in the article?
This?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard
This?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_specifications
Or this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_format
Or this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_content
Or this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
Obviously there are degrees of Open, and I'm saying it's not truly open unless it's fully open.
H.264 is open just a crack. We have the specifications, but if someone were to use those specifications to create their own codec, they could get sued due to patents. Which, then tightly closes the door on the format.
Adobe has recently provided the Specifications for Flash, thus, it is open in the same sense. If I decided to take up the challenge, I could develop a Flash player using those specifications without using an ounce of code from Adobe.
Does that make sense? Consider what Apple is selling you out for. I personally want nothing to do with it.
I know I'm going to get derided by the following-Solipism are you there!
But from a user's perspective, I find Google's products, other than search, of course, clumsy and fragmented. Basically, one level above MS. Apple is a hundred levels above Google.
I can see why they want to 'expand' into other areas, but that's how unimaginative CEO's show some semblance of growth/leadership.
I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Google is going into the frozen meatball business! Or buying Taco Bell!
The CEO's of Google, MS, Dell, Sony, HP have the Walmart business model. Which is design and make 'crap' as cheaply as possible, sell it as cheaply as possible and 'hope' they sell a lot of crap to a lot of people.
I think that most businesses after the first generation go out of business because subsequent CEO's really don't know what they are doing.
Essentially, most businesses, 'are in the business of going out of business.' It's just a matter of time!
Not every company can have a blockbuster, cheap, 'crap,' product like Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Starbucks, GM, MS, Budweiser, Gateway, Dell and sell the sh*t out of it!
I would agree many times Googles products are fun but a bit flakey. The worst part is the continual 'beta feeling' to most. Plus the ever likely knowledge that a drastic change that scuppers you may happen any moment. One small example; I recall having many clients set up with Google Analytic manager access using their own e-mails only to find one day Google changed the rules, now requiring a GMail account. Not a massive issue to us techies but a terrible pain since I deal with so many clients that are clueless and even adding a new e-mail account for many is a terrifying experience, especially PC users. They cling to their [email protected] addresses lol
Regarding expanding ... I would not be surprised to see Google take on Amazon next.