There was a post yesterday on this forum stating how the latest Safari 4 in Leopard doesn't work with these demos. That is likely due to QTX only being supported in Snow Leopard. Thanks, I was wondering about Apple's angel there.
See, Apple isn't just ignoring Firefox and Chrome, but also Leopard, in these demos.
This is what seems to stain (a little bit) Apple's Safari TEchnology demos (HTML5 "triumphant" page — for instance, the "VR" demo doesn't work on Leopard's Safari 4.0.5
The Tron trailer on the video demo page works great, though.
I understand there are technical differences between Leopard and Snow Leopard that might have something to do with this, but... Snow Leopard was released not even a year ago and Safari for Leopard doesn't support all these demos?
I know that the upgrade price to Snow Leopard is low, but some people still cannot upgrade because they rely professionally on software that still isn't Snow Leopard ready. (Yes, I understand Apple is not responsible for 3rd-party apps.)
Maybe it's more a question of coherence (or lack of) that bugs me a bit in this case.
I guess (and hope) a version 5 of Safari may address this.
1. Apple doesn't care about those people that use 10 year old browsers. Remember, this is the company that dropped the floppy before anyone else did.
2. Apple isn't targeting slow to upgrade businesses.
3. That isn't correct at all. Both Chrome and Firefox on Windows support most of these demos.
4. That number has been decreasing pretty rapidly. That is why the IE team is starting to move towards more standards. We'll see how far they take it.
The fact of the matter is that web developers have always had to target multiple browsers with different capabilities. Apple is trying to force browser developers to adopt some of the more advanced features in the current spec as well as introduce some new features to the spec. We are in a time of change and change is rough sometimes. They are also trying to enlighten their iPhone OS user base that Flash isn't the only answer and that an alternative is available right now. The only users that Apple cares about is their users.
Regarding 1 and 2 - While Apple is not targeting these people, lots of companies on the web are and Apple is limiting the reach to those people if they make up your demographic. For instance, we develop for a lot of companies that use IE and until HTML5 is usable on our client's browsers we will not code for it (and then like IE 6 v IE 7 we will code for both if HTML 5 takes off). I am hoping that Adobe will expand Flash to be able to compile to either Flash or HTML 5 so that this will not be a real issue in the future.
Its not unusual in any way. Snow Leopard has a lot of new API's that Leopard will never have.
If its an OS level API issue, then no it will never change. Leopard will never get SL API's.
Safari 5 will have nothing to do with Mac OS X APIs. It's an application. A separate entity.
There's no way Apple will leave millions of Leopard refugees... users stuck with PPC Macs... in the dark. They'll certainly release a Leopard version of Safari 5, if that's what will really happen.
Apple DOES have a history of releasing compatibility and bug fixes for prior OS releases for quite awhile after an OS is no longer officially shipping. Just take a look at simultaneous 10.5 and 10.6 Security updates and such.
We probably won't see an end to, at least minor, support of Leopard until well after Mac OS X 10.7 is released.
That kid is so annoying. What part of free and open-source does he keep missing. I don't mind disagreeing with posters, but I can't stand when they constantly fail to read.
On February 2, 2010 MPEG LA announced that H.264-encoded Internet Video that is free to end users would continue to be exempt from royalty fees until at least December 31, 2015.[11] However, other fees remain in place.
After you've caught up on your reading, let us know if you still believe Apple's patented h.264 codec is "free and open-source".
Awesome! Next time try conprehending why you read, then reply. My comment was clearly about Handbeake's stated use of the x264 decoder, not about the H.264 codec.
H.264 is open to anyone who has something of value to contribute to it.
That's fine, but how much will it cost you to use what you contributed?
h.264 is neither free nor open source. It is a proprietary, patented technology that requires fees for its use.
Currently the fees required are not called specifically "royalty" fees, but those will be added to the expense of using it in just a few years. The royalty fees are being waived now in an attempt to build market support for lock-in to those fees down the road. Call it "bait and switch", call it "shrewd", or call it whatever you like, just don't call it "free".
Awesome! Next time try conprehending why you read, then reply. My comment was clearly about Handbeake's stated use of the x264 decoder, not about the H.264 codec.
You would do well to heed your own advice. Review the posts in the chain you replied to.
A brief summary to help you out:
I wrote: "How much does the DEcoder cost?" (#295)
To which TenoBell replied: "Are you planning to go into the media playback business?" (#298)
Quoting that, you wrote: "What part of free and open-source does he keep missing." (#299)
You do that often, switching topics and then claiming someone else switched topics. Not at all clever, and not lost on the readers here.
The h.264 decoder is neither free nor open source. What part of "proprietary and requires fees" do you keep missing?
Please understand that I'm not the one telling web publishers that they need to spend thousands of dollars recoding their sites just to make my browser look good, and for video pay my consortium fees for the privilege. If the irrational business proposition that represents that makes you uncomfortable don't shoot the messenger, take it to the source. Steve Jobs can be reached at his widely-published email address at apple.com.
That's fine, but how much will it cost you to use what you contributed? h.264 is neither free nor open source. It is a proprietary, patented technology that requires fees for its use.
What you don't seem to understand is that something that is proprietary is owned and controlled by one entity. No one owns H.264, the MPEG-LA manages the licensing of it. No one owns it.
The cost depends on the type of business you run. If you distribute free content to use H.264 is free, if you distribute content for sale you have to pay based on the size of your business.
Quote:
Currently the fees required are not called specifically "royalty" fees, but those will be added to the expense of using it in just a few years. The royalty fees are being waived now in an attempt to build market support for lock-in to those fees down the road. Call it "bait and switch", call it "shrewd", or call it whatever you like, just don't call it "free".
This is all your assumption. The MPEG-LA has detailed no plans to do this.
What you don't seem to understand is that something that is proprietary is owned and controlled by one entity. No one owns H.264, the MPEG-LA manages the licensing of it. No one owns it.
The cost depends on the type of business you run. If you distribute free content to use H.264 is free, if you distribute content for sale you have to pay based on the size of your business.
This is all your assumption. The MPEG-LA has detailed no plans to do this.
question.
Is, H.264, open source, and free, forever. Yes, or no.
Comments
I'm not sure what version of Safari he used to get 70/160, but Mobile Safari get 133/160 and Safari 4.0.5 on Mac OS X gets 113/160.
Yes I figured he wasn't using the latest version of Safari.
I find it interesting that Safari doesn't yet support AAC in audio tag.
Yes I noticed that too. Apple is so strategic about how they do everything, I'm sure this is no idle oversight.
There was a post yesterday on this forum stating how the latest Safari 4 in Leopard doesn't work with these demos. That is likely due to QTX only being supported in Snow Leopard. Thanks, I was wondering about Apple's angel there.
See, Apple isn't just ignoring Firefox and Chrome, but also Leopard, in these demos.
This is what seems to stain (a little bit) Apple's Safari TEchnology demos (HTML5 "triumphant" page — for instance, the "VR" demo doesn't work on Leopard's Safari 4.0.5
The Tron trailer on the video demo page works great, though.
I understand there are technical differences between Leopard and Snow Leopard that might have something to do with this, but... Snow Leopard was released not even a year ago and Safari for Leopard doesn't support all these demos?
I know that the upgrade price to Snow Leopard is low, but some people still cannot upgrade because they rely professionally on software that still isn't Snow Leopard ready. (Yes, I understand Apple is not responsible for 3rd-party apps.)
Maybe it's more a question of coherence (or lack of) that bugs me a bit in this case.
I guess (and hope) a version 5 of Safari may address this.
1. Apple doesn't care about those people that use 10 year old browsers. Remember, this is the company that dropped the floppy before anyone else did.
2. Apple isn't targeting slow to upgrade businesses.
3. That isn't correct at all. Both Chrome and Firefox on Windows support most of these demos.
4. That number has been decreasing pretty rapidly. That is why the IE team is starting to move towards more standards. We'll see how far they take it.
The fact of the matter is that web developers have always had to target multiple browsers with different capabilities. Apple is trying to force browser developers to adopt some of the more advanced features in the current spec as well as introduce some new features to the spec. We are in a time of change and change is rough sometimes. They are also trying to enlighten their iPhone OS user base that Flash isn't the only answer and that an alternative is available right now. The only users that Apple cares about is their users.
Regarding 1 and 2 - While Apple is not targeting these people, lots of companies on the web are and Apple is limiting the reach to those people if they make up your demographic. For instance, we develop for a lot of companies that use IE and until HTML5 is usable on our client's browsers we will not code for it (and then like IE 6 v IE 7 we will code for both if HTML 5 takes off). I am hoping that Adobe will expand Flash to be able to compile to either Flash or HTML 5 so that this will not be a real issue in the future.
Maybe it's more a question of coherence (or lack of) that bugs me a bit in this case.
Its not unusual in any way. Snow Leopard has a lot of new API's that Leopard will never have.
I guess (and hope) a version 5 of Safari may address this.
If its an OS level API issue, then no it will never change. Leopard will never get SL API's.
Its not unusual in any way. Snow Leopard has a lot of new API's that Leopard will never have.
If its an OS level API issue, then no it will never change. Leopard will never get SL API's.
Safari 5 will have nothing to do with Mac OS X APIs. It's an application. A separate entity.
There's no way Apple will leave millions of Leopard refugees... users stuck with PPC Macs... in the dark. They'll certainly release a Leopard version of Safari 5, if that's what will really happen.
Apple DOES have a history of releasing compatibility and bug fixes for prior OS releases for quite awhile after an OS is no longer officially shipping. Just take a look at simultaneous 10.5 and 10.6 Security updates and such.
We probably won't see an end to, at least minor, support of Leopard until well after Mac OS X 10.7 is released.
That kid is so annoying. What part of free and open-source does he keep missing. I don't mind disagreeing with posters, but I can't stand when they constantly fail to read.
Read this:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=264
And this:
On February 2, 2010 MPEG LA announced that H.264-encoded Internet Video that is free to end users would continue to be exempt from royalty fees until at least December 31, 2015.[11] However, other fees remain in place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264#Patent_licensing
And this:
The following organizations hold one or more patents in the H.264/AVC patent pool.[12]
* Apple Inc.
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_LA
After you've caught up on your reading, let us know if you still believe Apple's patented h.264 codec is "free and open-source".
Safari 5 will have nothing to do with Mac OS X APIs. It's an application. A separate entity.
Read this:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=264
And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264#Patent_licensing
And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_LA
After you've caught up on your reading, let us know if you still believe Apple's patented h.264 codec is "free and open-source".
Awesome! Next time try conprehending why you read, then reply. My comment was clearly about Handbeake's stated use of the x264 decoder, not about the H.264 codec.
After you've caught up on your reading, let us know if you still believe Apple's patented h.264 codec is "free and open-source".
Apple only has 1 patent with the MPEG-LA, MS has over 40. Its open software because no one company owns it.
Simply having multiple patent holders/licensors does not make a software "open-source":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
Simply having multiple patent holders/licensors does not make a software "open-source":
H.264 is open to anyone who has something of value to contribute to it.
That's fine, but how much will it cost you to use what you contributed?
h.264 is neither free nor open source. It is a proprietary, patented technology that requires fees for its use.
Currently the fees required are not called specifically "royalty" fees, but those will be added to the expense of using it in just a few years. The royalty fees are being waived now in an attempt to build market support for lock-in to those fees down the road. Call it "bait and switch", call it "shrewd", or call it whatever you like, just don't call it "free".
Awesome! Next time try conprehending why you read, then reply. My comment was clearly about Handbeake's stated use of the x264 decoder, not about the H.264 codec.
You would do well to heed your own advice. Review the posts in the chain you replied to.
A brief summary to help you out:
I wrote: "How much does the DEcoder cost?" (#295)
To which TenoBell replied: "Are you planning to go into the media playback business?" (#298)
Quoting that, you wrote: "What part of free and open-source does he keep missing." (#299)
You do that often, switching topics and then claiming someone else switched topics. Not at all clever, and not lost on the readers here.
The h.264 decoder is neither free nor open source. What part of "proprietary and requires fees" do you keep missing?
Please understand that I'm not the one telling web publishers that they need to spend thousands of dollars recoding their sites just to make my browser look good, and for video pay my consortium fees for the privilege. If the irrational business proposition that represents that makes you uncomfortable don't shoot the messenger, take it to the source. Steve Jobs can be reached at his widely-published email address at apple.com.
That's fine, but how much will it cost you to use what you contributed? h.264 is neither free nor open source. It is a proprietary, patented technology that requires fees for its use.
What you don't seem to understand is that something that is proprietary is owned and controlled by one entity. No one owns H.264, the MPEG-LA manages the licensing of it. No one owns it.
The cost depends on the type of business you run. If you distribute free content to use H.264 is free, if you distribute content for sale you have to pay based on the size of your business.
Currently the fees required are not called specifically "royalty" fees, but those will be added to the expense of using it in just a few years. The royalty fees are being waived now in an attempt to build market support for lock-in to those fees down the road. Call it "bait and switch", call it "shrewd", or call it whatever you like, just don't call it "free".
This is all your assumption. The MPEG-LA has detailed no plans to do this.
What you don't seem to understand is that something that is proprietary is owned and controlled by one entity. No one owns H.264, the MPEG-LA manages the licensing of it. No one owns it.
The cost depends on the type of business you run. If you distribute free content to use H.264 is free, if you distribute content for sale you have to pay based on the size of your business.
This is all your assumption. The MPEG-LA has detailed no plans to do this.
question.
Is, H.264, open source, and free, forever. Yes, or no.
I recall gif being free once...
I will say this though it is good Google has developed an alternative. Every system needs competiton.
question.
Is, H.264, open source, and free, forever. Yes, or no.
I recall gif being free once...
How can we really answer a question about forever today?
I will say this though it is good Google has developed an alternative. Every system needs competiton.
well then. If you can't, clearly, it isn't open source and free.
well then. If you can't, clearly, it isn't open source and free.
People have taken to equating open and free as synonymous. But thats not always the case.
who is?
That's why I used the word "and"...