My bottom line is, I have no problem with Apple banning Flash -- that's there prerogative. They want a consistent user experience and I GREATLY appreciate that.
I noticed your post stating, "If Apple wants to [...] that's their choice as well", so I know you understand that the company also has a choice. My comments are focused on Flash still being a larger issue than Adobe and its fans wish to acknowledge. If you look at the OS requirement, the HW requirements, the demos not rendering correctly, the current lack of HW acceleration, and the lack of a public Beta despite Flash 10.1 has been a public Beta for any months now, despite having years to get Flash on mobiles it all points to a house of cards that is not inline with the UX Apple focuses on.
I can understand that. The problem is that if you're targeting mobile devices, you DO NOT have a choice. Flash for mobile devices DOES NOT EXIST.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s
Android 2.2 support Adobe Flash 10.1 and it's already out for the Nexus One.
okay lets clarify. there is not a well functioning full version of Flash for mobile devices.
cause I've seen Flash on a Nexus One and it stutters, freezes, sucks battery and all the stuff that the naysayers were worried about. It is not yet ready for prime time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147
I don't think it's an issue of Flash or HTML5, I think it's a matter (Hulu at least) of DRM. They need to protect their content and I am not sure HTML5 allows DRM. If I'm wrong on whether HTML5 supports DRM or not, please let me know.
Yep. it's not so much HTML5 has to support DRM, but the video format does. And a lot of the stuff on Hulu is in flash so they would have to redo everything from scratch to a new video format that also has DRM. Plus would allow for the ads etc. It's just super expensive. So it makes sense on that issue that they are waiting.
Yep. it's not so much HTML5 has to support DRM, but the video format does. And a lot of the stuff on Hulu is in flash so they would have to redo everything from scratch to a new video format that also has DRM. Plus would allow for the ads etc. It's just super expensive. So it makes sense on that issue that they are waiting.
I think the issue is deeper and more convoluted than that. Hulu could offer security video the stream and through a dedicated app, like ABC, CBS, Netflix, et. al.
Their reluctance may have something to do with them disallowing any Android phones from playing Hulu video when it's just more eyeballs and page hits for them. I have to think that they unfortunately don't have contracts in place with some of their content vendors for mobile devices and any viewership from these devices may be a violation of terms and/or cost Hulu money not gain them ad revenue. So, not making an HTML5 version or dedicated app for mobiles is currently the cheapest option until such time as deals can be altered, which I have to assume they are working on.
Oh hellz no. I wasn't crazy enough to spend $500+ to get one unlocked direct from Google
But from all the reports I've seen on the web of the Nexus One running Hulu, it appears to work just fine.
One must not recommend something simply because one read it be so. I also read a report where the Flash evangelist tried a demo in a conference. It did not work. He asked the audience for another site, and he said.
"That will not work."
My own experience with Adobe as a company is that they are not reliable in providing updates. And the updates are not just $10-20, if they even decide to do it. The OS version of my old iMac, they decided it was not worth making an upgrade, for one of their products that I bought. But, they do not even have the latest version for the Mac that I could buy. If there was one, it would have cost about $299, if memort serves me. The Windows version was $100 cheaper. To use their Windows product, I had to buy a new PC (since I did not have one), or buy the Mac and install a Windows software.
Then, the issue were just two OS, the Apple OS and the Windows.
In the mobile computing world, there will be more OS and variations of these OS, if some phone manufacturers decide to fork open source versions, like the Android.
Right now, many of these OS get major upgrades every year, plus minor upgrades in between.
If Adobe, considering mobile devices, specifically smartphones, have been around for more than three years now, and Adobe has promised to come up with one that was supposed to be a mobile Flash version since early 2009 has yet to delay that version, possibly later part of the year -- and that is just for Android -- what is the assurance that Adobe will ever keep up, not only for Android, but the iPhone OS, and other OS?
Would they treat all OS or their iterations equally? Or, would they preferentially favor one OS over another, in terms of features and frequency of updates, as they favored Windows OS over the Mac OS, in the PC market?
Those are the long term issues that Steve Jobs/Apple and many Apple products have to deal with, for decades.
Would you really they would trust Adobe, this time around?
That's just it though. You do have a choice. Don't purchase any Apple devices.
Actually, that doesn't help. You STILL won't have Flash on a mobile device. MAYBE you'll have a very limited buggy version later this year if you choose one of a very limited number of phones, but for 99% of the market, THERE IS NO FLASH on mobile devices, NOR WILL THERE BE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s
**Scratches head**
Android 2.2 support Adobe Flash 10.1 and it's already out for the Nexus One. On top of that, the Nexus One running Android 2.2 can play content from Hulu:
Second, it works very poorly - as shown by the link YOU cited.
Finally, even if Adobe fixes the problems and actually gets around to releasing it, it only covers a tiny percentage of smart phones.
TODAY, there are no mobile devices with a full version of Flash. Even by the end of the year, and even assuming Adobe's most optimistic projections, the vast majority of smart phones will still not have Flash.
Oh, and Hulu has announced that they will be releasing an iPad app, so by the time Flash is out of beta, it will likely be possible to run Hulu on the iPad, so that's a lousy example.
Oh hellz no. I wasn't crazy enough to spend $500+ to get one unlocked direct from Google
But from all the reports I've seen on the web of the Nexus One running Hulu, it appears to work just fine.
Do they say how much you can watch on a charge? That's a pretty important detail too. Proving that it can play smoothly is only half the battle. If it turns out that it flattens the battery in an hour, then that still limits its usefulness. Given that Hulu is actively trying to stop phone users, I would expect that the workaround would need to change every month or so (see also the Boxee situation), which is too bad.
It seems to me that organizations such as TW and NBC should be able to automatically handle multiple formats without huge expense. Heck, Flash supports h.264 now, and that's the currently favored video format for just about anything and h.264 can be decoded in hardware very efficiently. If their current streaming assets are on VP6 or older, then they really should be replacing them.
Retards! I assume their app would be subscription based...no? So why would they throw out the potential market base of the MILLIONS of iPad users? Douche bags!
Actually, that doesn't help. You STILL won't have Flash on a mobile device. MAYBE you'll have a very limited buggy version later this year if you choose one of a very limited number of phones, but for 99% of the market, THERE IS NO FLASH on mobile devices, NOR WILL THERE BE.
Let them find contentment in their choice. Only then will they find contentment, if they chose correctly. If they did, all is well. If not, let them feel the consequences.
As we experience those of our own choices.
Only then will we all learn, and perhaps exercise more prudence before we cast judgement on people's choices
I can understand that. The problem is that if you're targeting mobile devices, you DO NOT have a choice. Flash for mobile devices DOES NOT EXIST. HTML is your only choice (even if you have to ignore the newest features of html 5 for a while).
That's what these "Apple is blocking Flash' people keep missing. THERE IS NO VERSION OF FLASH that would run on an iPhone - no matter what Apple does. Witness the fact that there's no Flash on jailbroken phones or on any other mobile device.
Idiots.
Didn't google just demo it running nicely on android?
I'm not against the other formats but for sure you tube on iPhone is awful quality compared to a pc
Didn't google just demo it running nicely on android?
It's been demo'd, but t's still not even a public Beta. It still doesn't work smoothly in the browser, it is still unstable, it still doesn't have HW acceleration and it's still not a PUBLIC beta or an official release in mid-2010. On top of that, it still can't play video well in the browser, it still will only be for Android phones with a 600MHz+ Cortex-A8 and Android v2.2+ which limits it to very few handsets even within the Android community, and it's still a huge battery suck and reduces the UX tremendously.
These studios have decided to continue to support FLASH and REFUSE to provide content to devices that can not or will not render FLASH containers.
One of the reasons....
Google TV
Wait, the same Google TV that will CONNECT TO THE TV* search for video content on YOUTUBE as well as the studio web sites AND hulu and let the viewer play that video back ON THE BIG TV for free (if google could find it that is).
Where do I begin...
Okay lets start with this..
HULU & ABC (other too I think) have stated numerous times that it's content is NOT intended to be seen on 'THE BIG TV' and they fear that if it WAS allowed their CABLE TV REVENUE would be very much in jeopardy. To support that notion, the ABC iPad APP was specifically designed to NOT output shows to the TV if the Apple video cable was attached. In other words... the programs were only displayed on iPad or iPhone screens and short of jail-breaking your device and finding software to 'work around' this issue that was how things would remain.
Now all of a sudden it's GREAT to show their shows ON THE BIG SCREEN and at NO COST to the users and the CABLE TV INDUSTRY can just like or or lump it?
Something's not right here.
Next these same studios who have all but pulled their content from iTunes due to that fact that they want HIGHER PRICES and were simply unwilling entertain the idea of 'subscription pricing' are NOW gonna get behind GOOGLE TV that will allow its owners to snatch EVERYTHING FOR FREE from the studio web sites OR youtube OR perhaps even TORRENT DOWNLOADS ... after all its an OPEN SYSTEM and EVERYTHING can be written for it.
Is it me or are the studios just hell bent on NOT working with APPLE at all at any price?
Which is fine and they can do whatever they want but lets just come out and say it then... The Google community can WATCH HD PROGRAMMING FOR FREE on any TV they want with the blessings of the studios while the Apple community is forced to pay $2.99 per episode unless they find the need to charge us even more (unless they rig something on their own or buy a Google TV)!
Maybe these news reporters are using Google TV as a reason for the studios behavior when it CLEARLY isn't the reason for their change of heart. (sounds more likely but who knows)
I think this has more to do with the fact that HTML 5 has yet to come up with even a recommended list of video codecs for Browsers to support. I.E., the biggest browser doesn't support any HTML 5 video yet. And Firefox, the second largest, only supports Ogg Theora as HTML 5 video. Google chrome supports both OGG Theora and H.264, Safari only supports H.264.
The truth is, theres no point to make content available as H.264 encoded video in HTML 5, as only people running Chrome or Safari, and the minute amount of iPad users, could view it. Plus both Chrome and Firefox are pushing the new VP8 codec, which is a much better choice than H.264 for HTML 5.
If Apple is truthful when they say they are pushing HTML content because they support open standards, I don't know why they don't support open source codecs like VP8 or OGG Theora. Apple keeps pushing H.264 as the standard for an "open" standard, HTML 5, even though H.264 subject to licensing fees and royalties to MPEG LA. MPEG LA is a group of patent holding companies including Microsoft, Apple, Dolby, and Sony.
Apple needs to support VP8 on the iPad and in Safari, so does I.E. VP8 is open source, and has performance similar to H.264, while OGG Theora isn't as efficient. VP8 is a much more future proof as H.264 has been very inconsistent in charging royalty fees. Chrome, Firefox, and Opera have all committed to supporting VP8 in their next browser versions.
The problem is that if you're targeting mobile devices, you DO NOT have a choice. Flash for mobile devices DOES NOT EXIST. HTML is your only choice (even if you have to ignore the newest features of html 5 for a while).
Before the fast growing mobile market is big enough to make a huge difference to these companies, so that they target mobile devices big-time, Flash 10.1 will be entrenched.
And why hasn't Steve and company, or anyone else for that matter, mad an application, were someone drops a file on an icon, in the background, it up-dates or converts a Flash file to a HTML5 file ? you know, something like an APPLESCRIPT!
Ok, so Steve is a big boy, and he is going to stick to his guns on this flash war. Will Apple once he's gone?
Is this an Apple thing, or a Steve j. thing?
Are they both so pig headed that they can't work out they're differences?
If you don't want to pay adobe the big bucks l buy them and pay yourself, and others will be paying you as well.
I'm reasonably sure this won't eat up to much of the BILLIONS that they are sitting on! My guess is, that Steve wants to flat out win this war, then he'll buy Adobe
I think this has more to do with the fact that HTML 5 has yet to come up with even a recommended list of video codecs for Browsers to support. I.E., the biggest browser doesn't support any HTML 5 video yet. And Firefox, the second largest, only supports Ogg Theora as HTML 5 video. Google chrome supports both OGG Theora and H.264, Safari only supports H.264.
The truth is, theres no point to make content available as H.264 encoded video in HTML 5, as only people running Chrome or Safari, and the minute amount of iPad users, could view it. Plus both Chrome and Firefox are pushing the new VP8 codec, which is a much better choice than H.264 for HTML 5.
If Apple is truthful when they say they are pushing HTML content because they support open standards, I don't know why they don't support open source codecs like VP8 or OGG Theora. Apple keeps pushing H.264 as the standard for an "open" standard, HTML 5, even though H.264 subject to licensing fees and royalties to MPEG LA. MPEG LA is a group of patent holding companies including Microsoft, Apple, Dolby, and Sony.
Apple needs to support VP8 on the iPad and in Safari, so does I.E. VP8 is open source, and has performance similar to H.264, while OGG Theora isn't as efficient. VP8 is a much more future proof as H.264 has been very inconsistent in charging royalty fees. Chrome, Firefox, and Opera have all committed to supporting VP8 in their next browser versions.
You are wrong on every count. HTML5 isn't going to support a particular video codec. How or why you got this idea that it should or would is beyond me.
Safari, Chrome, the iPhone, iPad, Android all support H.264 video along with others. ARM, Intel, AMD, ATI and Nvidia are all supporting H.264 in HW. MS, Apple and Google are all supporting H.264 in their browsers and OSes. Firefox and Opera with their browsers can't stand up to that.
H.264 is HW accelerated, unlike VP8 and Theora. It's the best option for high quality with a low cost to local resources.
If you think not being free means it's not open then you need to look up these definitions.
Google may be able to push VP8 as an H.264 competitor, but it years away from being a true contender.
Comments
My bottom line is, I have no problem with Apple banning Flash -- that's there prerogative. They want a consistent user experience and I GREATLY appreciate that.
I noticed your post stating, "If Apple wants to [...] that's their choice as well", so I know you understand that the company also has a choice. My comments are focused on Flash still being a larger issue than Adobe and its fans wish to acknowledge. If you look at the OS requirement, the HW requirements, the demos not rendering correctly, the current lack of HW acceleration, and the lack of a public Beta despite Flash 10.1 has been a public Beta for any months now, despite having years to get Flash on mobiles it all points to a house of cards that is not inline with the UX Apple focuses on.
I can understand that. The problem is that if you're targeting mobile devices, you DO NOT have a choice. Flash for mobile devices DOES NOT EXIST.
Android 2.2 support Adobe Flash 10.1 and it's already out for the Nexus One.
okay lets clarify. there is not a well functioning full version of Flash for mobile devices.
cause I've seen Flash on a Nexus One and it stutters, freezes, sucks battery and all the stuff that the naysayers were worried about. It is not yet ready for prime time.
I don't think it's an issue of Flash or HTML5, I think it's a matter (Hulu at least) of DRM. They need to protect their content and I am not sure HTML5 allows DRM. If I'm wrong on whether HTML5 supports DRM or not, please let me know.
Yep. it's not so much HTML5 has to support DRM, but the video format does. And a lot of the stuff on Hulu is in flash so they would have to redo everything from scratch to a new video format that also has DRM. Plus would allow for the ads etc. It's just super expensive. So it makes sense on that issue that they are waiting.
Yep. it's not so much HTML5 has to support DRM, but the video format does. And a lot of the stuff on Hulu is in flash so they would have to redo everything from scratch to a new video format that also has DRM. Plus would allow for the ads etc. It's just super expensive. So it makes sense on that issue that they are waiting.
I think the issue is deeper and more convoluted than that. Hulu could offer security video the stream and through a dedicated app, like ABC, CBS, Netflix, et. al.
Their reluctance may have something to do with them disallowing any Android phones from playing Hulu video when it's just more eyeballs and page hits for them. I have to think that they unfortunately don't have contracts in place with some of their content vendors for mobile devices and any viewership from these devices may be a violation of terms and/or cost Hulu money not gain them ad revenue. So, not making an HTML5 version or dedicated app for mobiles is currently the cheapest option until such time as deals can be altered, which I have to assume they are working on.
Oh hellz no. I wasn't crazy enough to spend $500+ to get one unlocked direct from Google
But from all the reports I've seen on the web of the Nexus One running Hulu, it appears to work just fine.
One must not recommend something simply because one read it be so. I also read a report where the Flash evangelist tried a demo in a conference. It did not work. He asked the audience for another site, and he said.
"That will not work."
My own experience with Adobe as a company is that they are not reliable in providing updates. And the updates are not just $10-20, if they even decide to do it. The OS version of my old iMac, they decided it was not worth making an upgrade, for one of their products that I bought. But, they do not even have the latest version for the Mac that I could buy. If there was one, it would have cost about $299, if memort serves me. The Windows version was $100 cheaper. To use their Windows product, I had to buy a new PC (since I did not have one), or buy the Mac and install a Windows software.
Then, the issue were just two OS, the Apple OS and the Windows.
In the mobile computing world, there will be more OS and variations of these OS, if some phone manufacturers decide to fork open source versions, like the Android.
Right now, many of these OS get major upgrades every year, plus minor upgrades in between.
If Adobe, considering mobile devices, specifically smartphones, have been around for more than three years now, and Adobe has promised to come up with one that was supposed to be a mobile Flash version since early 2009 has yet to delay that version, possibly later part of the year -- and that is just for Android -- what is the assurance that Adobe will ever keep up, not only for Android, but the iPhone OS, and other OS?
Would they treat all OS or their iterations equally? Or, would they preferentially favor one OS over another, in terms of features and frequency of updates, as they favored Windows OS over the Mac OS, in the PC market?
Those are the long term issues that Steve Jobs/Apple and many Apple products have to deal with, for decades.
Would you really they would trust Adobe, this time around?
CGC
That's just it though. You do have a choice. Don't purchase any Apple devices.
Actually, that doesn't help. You STILL won't have Flash on a mobile device. MAYBE you'll have a very limited buggy version later this year if you choose one of a very limited number of phones, but for 99% of the market, THERE IS NO FLASH on mobile devices, NOR WILL THERE BE.
**Scratches head**
Android 2.2 support Adobe Flash 10.1 and it's already out for the Nexus One. On top of that, the Nexus One running Android 2.2 can play content from Hulu:
http://www.absolutelyandroid.com/gui...oid-2-2-froyo/
First, 10.1 BETA is out. Not a release version.
Second, it works very poorly - as shown by the link YOU cited.
Finally, even if Adobe fixes the problems and actually gets around to releasing it, it only covers a tiny percentage of smart phones.
TODAY, there are no mobile devices with a full version of Flash. Even by the end of the year, and even assuming Adobe's most optimistic projections, the vast majority of smart phones will still not have Flash.
Oh, and Hulu has announced that they will be releasing an iPad app, so by the time Flash is out of beta, it will likely be possible to run Hulu on the iPad, so that's a lousy example.
Oh hellz no. I wasn't crazy enough to spend $500+ to get one unlocked direct from Google
But from all the reports I've seen on the web of the Nexus One running Hulu, it appears to work just fine.
Do they say how much you can watch on a charge? That's a pretty important detail too. Proving that it can play smoothly is only half the battle. If it turns out that it flattens the battery in an hour, then that still limits its usefulness. Given that Hulu is actively trying to stop phone users, I would expect that the workaround would need to change every month or so (see also the Boxee situation), which is too bad.
It seems to me that organizations such as TW and NBC should be able to automatically handle multiple formats without huge expense. Heck, Flash supports h.264 now, and that's the currently favored video format for just about anything and h.264 can be decoded in hardware very efficiently. If their current streaming assets are on VP6 or older, then they really should be replacing them.
Actually, that doesn't help. You STILL won't have Flash on a mobile device. MAYBE you'll have a very limited buggy version later this year if you choose one of a very limited number of phones, but for 99% of the market, THERE IS NO FLASH on mobile devices, NOR WILL THERE BE.
Let them find contentment in their choice. Only then will they find contentment, if they chose correctly. If they did, all is well. If not, let them feel the consequences.
As we experience those of our own choices.
Only then will we all learn, and perhaps exercise more prudence before we cast judgement on people's choices
CGC
I can understand that. The problem is that if you're targeting mobile devices, you DO NOT have a choice. Flash for mobile devices DOES NOT EXIST. HTML is your only choice (even if you have to ignore the newest features of html 5 for a while).
That's what these "Apple is blocking Flash' people keep missing. THERE IS NO VERSION OF FLASH that would run on an iPhone - no matter what Apple does. Witness the fact that there's no Flash on jailbroken phones or on any other mobile device.
Idiots.
Didn't google just demo it running nicely on android?
I'm not against the other formats but for sure you tube on iPhone is awful quality compared to a pc
Didn't google just demo it running nicely on android?
It's been demo'd, but t's still not even a public Beta. It still doesn't work smoothly in the browser, it is still unstable, it still doesn't have HW acceleration and it's still not a PUBLIC beta or an official release in mid-2010. On top of that, it still can't play video well in the browser, it still will only be for Android phones with a 600MHz+ Cortex-A8 and Android v2.2+ which limits it to very few handsets even within the Android community, and it's still a huge battery suck and reduces the UX tremendously.
Let me see if I can make some sense of this...
These studios have decided to continue to support FLASH and REFUSE to provide content to devices that can not or will not render FLASH containers.
One of the reasons....
Google TV
Wait, the same Google TV that will CONNECT TO THE TV* search for video content on YOUTUBE as well as the studio web sites AND hulu and let the viewer play that video back ON THE BIG TV for free (if google could find it that is).
Where do I begin...
Okay lets start with this..
HULU & ABC (other too I think) have stated numerous times that it's content is NOT intended to be seen on 'THE BIG TV' and they fear that if it WAS allowed their CABLE TV REVENUE would be very much in jeopardy. To support that notion, the ABC iPad APP was specifically designed to NOT output shows to the TV if the Apple video cable was attached. In other words... the programs were only displayed on iPad or iPhone screens and short of jail-breaking your device and finding software to 'work around' this issue that was how things would remain.
Now all of a sudden it's GREAT to show their shows ON THE BIG SCREEN and at NO COST to the users and the CABLE TV INDUSTRY can just like or or lump it?
Something's not right here.
Next these same studios who have all but pulled their content from iTunes due to that fact that they want HIGHER PRICES and were simply unwilling entertain the idea of 'subscription pricing' are NOW gonna get behind GOOGLE TV that will allow its owners to snatch EVERYTHING FOR FREE from the studio web sites OR youtube OR perhaps even TORRENT DOWNLOADS ... after all its an OPEN SYSTEM and EVERYTHING can be written for it.
Is it me or are the studios just hell bent on NOT working with APPLE at all at any price?
Which is fine and they can do whatever they want but lets just come out and say it then... The Google community can WATCH HD PROGRAMMING FOR FREE on any TV they want with the blessings of the studios while the Apple community is forced to pay $2.99 per episode unless they find the need to charge us even more (unless they rig something on their own or buy a Google TV)!
Maybe these news reporters are using Google TV as a reason for the studios behavior when it CLEARLY isn't the reason for their change of heart. (sounds more likely but who knows)
Whatever media dudes... I will still get your content on my iPad, you just won't get any money or ad views from it.
This is exactly what it comes down to... when no options are made available .... options usually turn up in places you'd likely never visit.
The truth is, theres no point to make content available as H.264 encoded video in HTML 5, as only people running Chrome or Safari, and the minute amount of iPad users, could view it. Plus both Chrome and Firefox are pushing the new VP8 codec, which is a much better choice than H.264 for HTML 5.
If Apple is truthful when they say they are pushing HTML content because they support open standards, I don't know why they don't support open source codecs like VP8 or OGG Theora. Apple keeps pushing H.264 as the standard for an "open" standard, HTML 5, even though H.264 subject to licensing fees and royalties to MPEG LA. MPEG LA is a group of patent holding companies including Microsoft, Apple, Dolby, and Sony.
Apple needs to support VP8 on the iPad and in Safari, so does I.E. VP8 is open source, and has performance similar to H.264, while OGG Theora isn't as efficient. VP8 is a much more future proof as H.264 has been very inconsistent in charging royalty fees. Chrome, Firefox, and Opera have all committed to supporting VP8 in their next browser versions.
The problem is that if you're targeting mobile devices, you DO NOT have a choice. Flash for mobile devices DOES NOT EXIST. HTML is your only choice (even if you have to ignore the newest features of html 5 for a while).
Before the fast growing mobile market is big enough to make a huge difference to these companies, so that they target mobile devices big-time, Flash 10.1 will be entrenched.
How painful could it be to convert videos to HTML5?
...
Seems like such a poor business decision not to get your media in as many players as possible, even if there are technical obstacles.
It is a cost-benefit analysis. They conclude that the non-flash market will be too small to justify the cost.
Time will tell.
Ok, so Steve is a big boy, and he is going to stick to his guns on this flash war. Will Apple once he's gone?
Is this an Apple thing, or a Steve j. thing?
Are they both so pig headed that they can't work out they're differences?
If you don't want to pay adobe the big bucks l buy them and pay yourself, and others will be paying you as well.
I'm reasonably sure this won't eat up to much of the BILLIONS that they are sitting on! My guess is, that Steve wants to flat out win this war, then he'll buy Adobe
Skip
I think this has more to do with the fact that HTML 5 has yet to come up with even a recommended list of video codecs for Browsers to support. I.E., the biggest browser doesn't support any HTML 5 video yet. And Firefox, the second largest, only supports Ogg Theora as HTML 5 video. Google chrome supports both OGG Theora and H.264, Safari only supports H.264.
The truth is, theres no point to make content available as H.264 encoded video in HTML 5, as only people running Chrome or Safari, and the minute amount of iPad users, could view it. Plus both Chrome and Firefox are pushing the new VP8 codec, which is a much better choice than H.264 for HTML 5.
If Apple is truthful when they say they are pushing HTML content because they support open standards, I don't know why they don't support open source codecs like VP8 or OGG Theora. Apple keeps pushing H.264 as the standard for an "open" standard, HTML 5, even though H.264 subject to licensing fees and royalties to MPEG LA. MPEG LA is a group of patent holding companies including Microsoft, Apple, Dolby, and Sony.
Apple needs to support VP8 on the iPad and in Safari, so does I.E. VP8 is open source, and has performance similar to H.264, while OGG Theora isn't as efficient. VP8 is a much more future proof as H.264 has been very inconsistent in charging royalty fees. Chrome, Firefox, and Opera have all committed to supporting VP8 in their next browser versions.
You are wrong on every count. HTML5 isn't going to support a particular video codec. How or why you got this idea that it should or would is beyond me.
Safari, Chrome, the iPhone, iPad, Android all support H.264 video along with others. ARM, Intel, AMD, ATI and Nvidia are all supporting H.264 in HW. MS, Apple and Google are all supporting H.264 in their browsers and OSes. Firefox and Opera with their browsers can't stand up to that.
H.264 is HW accelerated, unlike VP8 and Theora. It's the best option for high quality with a low cost to local resources.
If you think not being free means it's not open then you need to look up these definitions.
Google may be able to push VP8 as an H.264 competitor, but it years away from being a true contender.