No, I don't mean that at all. I clearly mean Adobe's historically demonstrated inability to properly support Flash on multiple platforms, making the lousy user experience, or lack thereof, entirely dependent on a single company. What various browser vendors do, independently, but based on standards that are open to all of them is exactly what should happen.
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.
it means flash won't work well on Apple devices unless apple works with Adobe to develop the API hooks needed. This is why, by the way, it won't work that well with Linux. There are so many distributions of linux that it would be impossible to properly hook the plugin into each OS/Browser.
They've done studies of HTML5vFlash on mac computers. The only browser where HTML5 was the clear winner was Safari (because Safari has a built in h.264 encoder for their HTML5 content) These numbers were even closer when you tested the new version of flash 10.1 on them using the h.264 api's that apple finally opened up.
With Windows, MS is working closely with them to try and make the best experience possible. With Apple, they've had a hand or two tied behind their back, and you really expect it to work as smoothly?
The new, better standards are what Apple uses. They refuse to support the ancient proprietary stuff. That is why they only use the MiniDisplyPort, for example. It is brand-new and it is a standard.
"will soon be" = "I haven't bothered to do an exact count"
All of the major browser developers either support VIDEO now, or will very shortly. Then if we add the instances of browsers on platforms that Flash doesn't exist on, that adds to the count.
earlier post = the future, which will be without Flash, in 2-5 years.
Flash is no longer in the running for the future.
Mozilla, the #2 browser worldwide doesn't support h.264 codec, and they have no plans to because of how expensive it would be for them. Their HTML5 codec of choice is WebM.
And while flash is no longer in the running for the future (to you) it's still a major player in the present.
Mozilla, the #2 browser worldwide doesn't support h.264 codec, and they have no plans to because of how expensive it would be for them. Their HTML5 codec of choice is WebM.
Formats were not his question, his question was how many browsers support VIDEO, Mozilla will either start supporting H.264, or they will become irrelevant. WebM isn't going anywhere, will be shown to be patent encumbered, and Google knows that. They are just running Mozilla around in circles so they can pick up their user base with Chrome.
The new, better standards are what Apple uses. They refuse to support the ancient proprietary stuff. That is why they only use the MiniDisplyPort, for example. It is brand-new and it is a standard.
you mean like microsim's that no one else uses? or their DVI ports on their computers that require special adapters to work with ANYTHING. or how about their 18pin connection on the iOS line.. works great with the microUSB charging standard that the rest of the world is using.
or h.264, a codec that is insanely expensive, so much so that Mozilla doesn't support it because it would bankrupt them.
Yep, all completely new standards that everyone else is doing.
With Apple, they've had a hand or two tied behind their back, and you really expect it to work as smoothly?
Well, not when Adobe has made it clear for many years that Macs are not a priority to them. They only got their new religion recently when it became clear they were not going to be a player in mobile. Too little, too late. And, whatever they do, Flash will never be an appropriate technology for mobile, and it isn't the appropriate technology for the rest of the web moving forward, if it ever was.
you mean like microsim's that no one else uses? or their DVI ports on their computers that require special adapters to work with ANYTHING. or how about their 18pin connection on the iOS line.. works great with the microUSB charging standard that the rest of the world is using.
or h.264, a codec that is insanely expensive, so much so that Mozilla doesn't support it because it would bankrupt them.
Yep, all completely new standards that everyone else is doing.
I'll do you a favor. SendMe is an old troll here on AI, banned several times, keeps returning under different aliases. He's best known as tekstud.
So, you don't really score any points by rebutting his current persona's ridiculous posts, so you're really just wasting your time on them
Anyone else here notice that the word "antitrust" doesn't occur in the article at all, but is used only by the posters here attempting to rebut a claim that hasn't being made? In logic class that's called that a "straw man argument".
Perhaps a more relevant phrase might be restraint of trade. But I seem to be the only one here who will admit that's just a guess. I don't know the specifics of the complaint filed, and they don't appear in the article.
Restraint of trade is anti-trust by definition in 1886 and is generally referred to as anti-competitive now. The Sherman act was passed using restraint of trade terminology and modern courts have been referring to it using the anti-competiitive terminology. For all intents and purposes they are the same thing, may even be formally defined as the same thing someplace in US law written since 1886.
If Apple is right in the middle of the pack with a large number of competitors in the OS space, what's your rationalization for singling Apple out for investigation?
Once again, you're quicker to reply to posts than to read the article they relate to.
Can you show us where in the article where it states that the complaint was filed by an AppleInsider poster known as RationalTroll?
In fact, in the very post you're replying to I've already made it clear why I don't believe an antitrust case would have much merit with a platform that has less than 17% of the market.
Dude, really, learn when to quit.
Quote:
(Other than your rabid hatred of everything Apple does, of course).
Another sweeping straw man. Did you find a sale on hay?
Some of the things I like about Apple, many of which I've posted here before:
- Jonathan Ive is one of the most talented designers of our time
- Mac OS X is a great OS
- Their advertising is among the best in the world, recognizing the importance of emotions over gigahertz
- The responsiveness of their QuickTime developer relations staff is truly excellent (I've had replies from them in under two hours; good team)
- Their stock performance rocks (proceeds from which I'll be using to buy and Android-powered device, just as I did to buy my last Linux system)
Unlike some of the Apple customers here, I can enjoy some things about them without getting all gushy about absolutely everything they do. They're just a company; a reasonably good one in many respects, but not without fault and not without risk of repeating past mistakes.
Formats were not his question, his question was how many browsers support VIDEO, Mozilla will either start supporting H.264, or they will become irrelevant. WebM isn't going anywhere, will be shown to be patent encumbered, and Google knows that. They are just running Mozilla around in circles so they can pick up their user base with Chrome.
h.264 would cost mozilla over 5 million dollars to license a year. They're not going to become irrelevant because those sites continue to support Flash content, and thanks to flash wrappers, mozilla can play h.264 content. On top of that mozilla has a larger marketshare than Safari, Chrome, and Opera combined (the big HTML5 browsers). Yes, IE is finally supporting HTML5, but most people running IE are running old versions of it, which won't support HTML5 so websites that wish to reach 82% of the web will either have to support Flash, or webM/flash wrappers.
Youtube is planning to convert a lot of their content to WebM, and Google's making a big push for it. WebM isn't patent encumbered, the issue are patent holders of mpeg trying to scare providers away from another platform. This is what we call "actions taken by a monopoly that's afraid of competition." If apple truly cared about an open web they would denounce the Mpeg group.
h.264 would cost mozilla over 5 million dollars to license a year. They're not going to become irrelevant because those sites continue to support Flash content, and thanks to flash wrappers, mozilla can play h.264 content. On top of that mozilla has a larger marketshare than Safari, Chrome, and Opera combined (the big HTML5 browsers). ...
And, at one time, Netscape had a huge market share, only to lose it. It's ridiculous to think that browser market shares are going to remain fixed. Chrome is out there to put Mozilla's user base directly under Google's control, and it will succeed in that at the expense of Mozilla. WebM will not be the future of video on the web, and Google knows that too.
EDIT: And, I'll add to this that the only reason Mozilla exists today is because Google has been propping them up. Not out of the goodness of their hearts, but to prevent themselves from being shut out of Windows or Mac OS by Microsoft or Apple. With Chrome's increasing adoption as a browser, Google doesn't need Mozilla any longer, and they aren't going to continue to subsidize them forever. They'll chip away at their market share for a few years, declare them irrelevant, and pull the plug.
Flash is a big pit of bad web design, Adobe is utterly incompetent and will never be able to support Flash on 7 or 8 platforms, and frankly, once it's gone, no one will look back missing it.
And yet ironically much, if not a majority, of Flash content on the web was made by Mac users.
Cool. Define "niche" and put an amount and you may have a bet.
That is, unless you're not all that confident in your prognostication.
It's hard to see what it will end up being used for, if anything. It'll still exist in sites not update, but that's hardly relevant. Maybe there will be some specifc cases where it might be useful, situations with a highly targeted audience. It won't however be a significant player.
h.264 would cost mozilla over 5 million dollars to license a year.
That's one of the other Oops moments in Jobs' "Thoughts on Flash". Immediately after he espouses the benefits of "free and open", he jumps right into a discussion of h.264, without noting the most relevant details of that pitch:
- It is a proprietary technology.
- Just because the fees are called by a name other than "royalty fees" doesn't mean there aren't any fees at all.
- Those fees are big now, and royalties will be added on top of them in 2016 once the bait-and-switch gambit takes hold.
- The patent those license fees cover is owned by MPEG-LA
- Apple is one of the prominent members of MPEG-LA, and as such profits from fees paid for h.264.
It's hard to see what it will end up being used for, if anything. It'll still exist in sites not update, but that's hardly relevant. Maybe there will be some specifc cases where it might be useful, situations with a highly targeted audience. It won't however be a significant player.
Should be a sucker bet then, eh? Go on, take my money: define measurable terms and let's do it.
Comments
No, I don't mean that at all. I clearly mean Adobe's historically demonstrated inability to properly support Flash on multiple platforms, making the lousy user experience, or lack thereof, entirely dependent on a single company. What various browser vendors do, independently, but based on standards that are open to all of them is exactly what should happen.
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.
it means flash won't work well on Apple devices unless apple works with Adobe to develop the API hooks needed. This is why, by the way, it won't work that well with Linux. There are so many distributions of linux that it would be impossible to properly hook the plugin into each OS/Browser.
They've done studies of HTML5vFlash on mac computers. The only browser where HTML5 was the clear winner was Safari (because Safari has a built in h.264 encoder for their HTML5 content) These numbers were even closer when you tested the new version of flash 10.1 on them using the h.264 api's that apple finally opened up.
With Windows, MS is working closely with them to try and make the best experience possible. With Apple, they've had a hand or two tied behind their back, and you really expect it to work as smoothly?
"will soon be" = "doesn't exist right now"
Therefore:
earlier post = fantasy
We need to look forward!
The new, better standards are what Apple uses. They refuse to support the ancient proprietary stuff. That is why they only use the MiniDisplyPort, for example. It is brand-new and it is a standard.
"will soon be" = "I haven't bothered to do an exact count"
All of the major browser developers either support VIDEO now, or will very shortly. Then if we add the instances of browsers on platforms that Flash doesn't exist on, that adds to the count.
earlier post = the future, which will be without Flash, in 2-5 years.
Flash is no longer in the running for the future.
Mozilla, the #2 browser worldwide doesn't support h.264 codec, and they have no plans to because of how expensive it would be for them. Their HTML5 codec of choice is WebM.
And while flash is no longer in the running for the future (to you) it's still a major player in the present.
Flocking to what?
The future of mobile platforms, leaving a bitter past behind.
Mozilla, the #2 browser worldwide doesn't support h.264 codec, and they have no plans to because of how expensive it would be for them. Their HTML5 codec of choice is WebM.
Formats were not his question, his question was how many browsers support VIDEO, Mozilla will either start supporting H.264, or they will become irrelevant. WebM isn't going anywhere, will be shown to be patent encumbered, and Google knows that. They are just running Mozilla around in circles so they can pick up their user base with Chrome.
We need to look forward!
The new, better standards are what Apple uses. They refuse to support the ancient proprietary stuff. That is why they only use the MiniDisplyPort, for example. It is brand-new and it is a standard.
you mean like microsim's that no one else uses? or their DVI ports on their computers that require special adapters to work with ANYTHING. or how about their 18pin connection on the iOS line.. works great with the microUSB charging standard that the rest of the world is using.
or h.264, a codec that is insanely expensive, so much so that Mozilla doesn't support it because it would bankrupt them.
Yep, all completely new standards that everyone else is doing.
With Apple, they've had a hand or two tied behind their back, and you really expect it to work as smoothly?
Well, not when Adobe has made it clear for many years that Macs are not a priority to them. They only got their new religion recently when it became clear they were not going to be a player in mobile. Too little, too late. And, whatever they do, Flash will never be an appropriate technology for mobile, and it isn't the appropriate technology for the rest of the web moving forward, if it ever was.
you mean like microsim's that no one else uses? or their DVI ports on their computers that require special adapters to work with ANYTHING. or how about their 18pin connection on the iOS line.. works great with the microUSB charging standard that the rest of the world is using.
or h.264, a codec that is insanely expensive, so much so that Mozilla doesn't support it because it would bankrupt them.
Yep, all completely new standards that everyone else is doing.
I'll do you a favor. SendMe is an old troll here on AI, banned several times, keeps returning under different aliases. He's best known as tekstud.
So, you don't really score any points by rebutting his current persona's ridiculous posts, so you're really just wasting your time on them
Anyone else here notice that the word "antitrust" doesn't occur in the article at all, but is used only by the posters here attempting to rebut a claim that hasn't being made? In logic class that's called that a "straw man argument".
Perhaps a more relevant phrase might be restraint of trade. But I seem to be the only one here who will admit that's just a guess. I don't know the specifics of the complaint filed, and they don't appear in the article.
Restraint of trade is anti-trust by definition in 1886 and is generally referred to as anti-competitive now. The Sherman act was passed using restraint of trade terminology and modern courts have been referring to it using the anti-competiitive terminology. For all intents and purposes they are the same thing, may even be formally defined as the same thing someplace in US law written since 1886.
If Apple is right in the middle of the pack with a large number of competitors in the OS space, what's your rationalization for singling Apple out for investigation?
Once again, you're quicker to reply to posts than to read the article they relate to.
Can you show us where in the article where it states that the complaint was filed by an AppleInsider poster known as RationalTroll?
In fact, in the very post you're replying to I've already made it clear why I don't believe an antitrust case would have much merit with a platform that has less than 17% of the market.
Dude, really, learn when to quit.
(Other than your rabid hatred of everything Apple does, of course).
Another sweeping straw man. Did you find a sale on hay?
Some of the things I like about Apple, many of which I've posted here before:
- Jonathan Ive is one of the most talented designers of our time
- Mac OS X is a great OS
- Their advertising is among the best in the world, recognizing the importance of emotions over gigahertz
- The responsiveness of their QuickTime developer relations staff is truly excellent (I've had replies from them in under two hours; good team)
- Their stock performance rocks (proceeds from which I'll be using to buy and Android-powered device, just as I did to buy my last Linux system)
Unlike some of the Apple customers here, I can enjoy some things about them without getting all gushy about absolutely everything they do. They're just a company; a reasonably good one in many respects, but not without fault and not without risk of repeating past mistakes.
Flash is no longer in the running for the future.
Taking bets on that?
Define "future" and I may take you up on that.
Formats were not his question, his question was how many browsers support VIDEO, Mozilla will either start supporting H.264, or they will become irrelevant. WebM isn't going anywhere, will be shown to be patent encumbered, and Google knows that. They are just running Mozilla around in circles so they can pick up their user base with Chrome.
h.264 would cost mozilla over 5 million dollars to license a year. They're not going to become irrelevant because those sites continue to support Flash content, and thanks to flash wrappers, mozilla can play h.264 content. On top of that mozilla has a larger marketshare than Safari, Chrome, and Opera combined (the big HTML5 browsers). Yes, IE is finally supporting HTML5, but most people running IE are running old versions of it, which won't support HTML5 so websites that wish to reach 82% of the web will either have to support Flash, or webM/flash wrappers.
Youtube is planning to convert a lot of their content to WebM, and Google's making a big push for it. WebM isn't patent encumbered, the issue are patent holders of mpeg trying to scare providers away from another platform. This is what we call "actions taken by a monopoly that's afraid of competition." If apple truly cared about an open web they would denounce the Mpeg group.
h.264 would cost mozilla over 5 million dollars to license a year. They're not going to become irrelevant because those sites continue to support Flash content, and thanks to flash wrappers, mozilla can play h.264 content. On top of that mozilla has a larger marketshare than Safari, Chrome, and Opera combined (the big HTML5 browsers). ...
And, at one time, Netscape had a huge market share, only to lose it. It's ridiculous to think that browser market shares are going to remain fixed. Chrome is out there to put Mozilla's user base directly under Google's control, and it will succeed in that at the expense of Mozilla. WebM will not be the future of video on the web, and Google knows that too.
EDIT: And, I'll add to this that the only reason Mozilla exists today is because Google has been propping them up. Not out of the goodness of their hearts, but to prevent themselves from being shut out of Windows or Mac OS by Microsoft or Apple. With Chrome's increasing adoption as a browser, Google doesn't need Mozilla any longer, and they aren't going to continue to subsidize them forever. They'll chip away at their market share for a few years, declare them irrelevant, and pull the plug.
Taking bets on that?
Define "future" and I may take you up on that.
2-5 years, Flash will have become a niche product.
Flash is a big pit of bad web design, Adobe is utterly incompetent and will never be able to support Flash on 7 or 8 platforms, and frankly, once it's gone, no one will look back missing it.
And yet ironically much, if not a majority, of Flash content on the web was made by Mac users.
2-5 years, Flash will have become a niche product.
Cool. Define "niche" and put an amount and you may have a bet.
That is, unless you're not all that confident in your prognostication.
And yet ironically much, if not a majority, of Flash content on the web was made by Mac users.
A totally irrelevant point to the discussion, even if we were to stipulate it to be true.
Cool. Define "niche" and put an amount and you may have a bet.
That is, unless you're not all that confident in your prognostication.
It's hard to see what it will end up being used for, if anything. It'll still exist in sites not update, but that's hardly relevant. Maybe there will be some specifc cases where it might be useful, situations with a highly targeted audience. It won't however be a significant player.
h.264 would cost mozilla over 5 million dollars to license a year.
That's one of the other Oops moments in Jobs' "Thoughts on Flash". Immediately after he espouses the benefits of "free and open", he jumps right into a discussion of h.264, without noting the most relevant details of that pitch:
- It is a proprietary technology.
- Just because the fees are called by a name other than "royalty fees" doesn't mean there aren't any fees at all.
- Those fees are big now, and royalties will be added on top of them in 2016 once the bait-and-switch gambit takes hold.
- The patent those license fees cover is owned by MPEG-LA
- Apple is one of the prominent members of MPEG-LA, and as such profits from fees paid for h.264.
Oops.
It's hard to see what it will end up being used for, if anything. It'll still exist in sites not update, but that's hardly relevant. Maybe there will be some specifc cases where it might be useful, situations with a highly targeted audience. It won't however be a significant player.
Should be a sucker bet then, eh? Go on, take my money: define measurable terms and let's do it.