But if Google wants to play their silly game using WebM as a decoy for Flash -- why not provide an alternative decoy? That way h.264 remains viable to every browser on every OS regardless of how Google and Adobe play with each other.
Because h264 is closed, and incompatible with an open web (see the W3C patent policy).
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir
Free does not equal open, and
having a price tag does not equal closed.
In the context of standards, yes, it does. Look up the W3C patent policy. Even Microsoft agrees that an open standard needs to be royalty-free.
Quote:
Flash is free (for browser vendors and end-users) but is it open?
You can open-source software but still attach patents to it.
I know what a joint venture is... But I don't understand what this has to do with my post...
I was telling an user that I don't think a 100% free and open video format may ever be a good solution!
You quoted my post in which I described the business model of the MPEG LA (without naming it) and said that my proposal (and thus the one of the MPEG LA) will not work because it is not 'commercial enough'.
My point was that if you start to describe the business model of the MGEG LA in general terms (without mentioning names) people will not criticise it for being too closed or too commercial. You even went beyond my expectations and criticised the MGEG LA's model as being too open and too non-commercial.
No, h264 is not an open standard. Even Microsoft agrees that an open standard must be royalty-free.
WebM is not a standard, but it's open, and a separate open-source project. Google is only one of several sponsors. ...
WebM isn't open. The source code is free (as in beer) but there isn't even a real specification, and Google will exercise complete control over it just as they do with Android. You're just allowing yourself to be misled by Google's hypocrtical and self-serving use of the word 'open'. That's what happens when you abandon critical thought and become a "single-issue voter", you get plated and you don't even realize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike
And what about the Apple fanboys who bash Google just because they fear the competition for Apple?
I think the definition of fanboy is one who can only see the issue in a single dimension, which fits you pretty perfectly if you think people are not happy about this because, "they fear the competition for Apple." This is all about Google using it's position to sabotage the open web and take even more control of it than they exercise today. Their life blood is in controlling information and access to it, and that is what this is all about for them. Stop thinking so unidimensionally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike
It most certainly does show that. If Google violates any patents, any patent owner will obviously go after them for the big bucks. There have been a lot of claims about WebM violating patents, but not a single actual case. Put up or shut up.
Google has a long history of not respecting iP law, of wantonly disregarding it. They don't care if WebM is violating patents because they a) expect their own liability will be minimal, and b) think they exercise enough power to escape unscathed -- Just like in the Google Books Program. They also don't care what kind of destruction they sow as a result of this or how much it costs other companies, or how it affects users. Chaos is Google's chief competitive weapon. Create enough chaos in a market so that it becomes unstable, then, use their search revenue to move in and take over, that's their business MO.
WebM isn't open. The source code is free (as in beer) but there isn't even a real specification, and Google will exercise complete control over it just as they do with Android.
WebM is open. You have failed to address the fact that Google has given everyone a global, free, irrevocable license to WebM. This means that it could be adopted by the W3C and become a real open standard.
Quote:
You're just allowing yourself to be misled by Google's hypocrtical and self-serving use of the word 'open'. That's what happens when you abandon critical thought and become a "single-issue voter", you get plated and you don't even realize it.
On the contrary, I know exactly what "open" means, as opposted to your ignorant ramblings. Unlike you, I actually know what the W3C Patent Policy says: Did you even read it yet? You have failed to address this even once. You have also failed to address the fact that even Microsoft's definition of "open standard" requires it to be royalty-free.
Quote:
I think the definition of fanboy is one who can only see the issue in a single dimension, which fits you pretty perfectly if you think people are not happy about this because, "they fear the competition for Apple." This is all about Google using it's position to sabotage the open web and take even more control of it than they exercise today. Their life blood is in controlling information and access to it, and that is what this is all about for them. Stop thinking so unidimensionally.
Your Apple fanboyism is shining through. You are scared shitless because of the way Android is growing, and you will attack any company you perceive as a threat to Apple.
Ridding the web of a closed standard is the opposite of sabotaging the open web. It is, in fact, helping to keep the web open.
Quote:
Google has a long history of not respecting iP law, of wantonly disregarding it. They don't care if WebM is violating patents because they a) expect their own liability will be minimal, and b) think they exercise enough power to escape unscathed -- Just like in the Google Books Program.
Your constant whining about Google Books just goes to show how desperate you are to attack and smear Google. Their own liability will not be minimal if they are infringing on patents, especially since all future Android devices will support WebM natively.
Quote:
They also don't care what kind of destruction they sow as a result of this or how much it costs other companies, or how it affects users. Chaos is Google's chief competitive weapon. Create enough chaos in a market so that it becomes unstable, then, use their search revenue to move in and take over, that's their business MO.
H264 is not an open standard. Once again, stop making this false assertion, and educate yourself by reading the W3C patent policy.
Just because there is no standard video codec doesn't mean you get to choose some random closed codec and call it open. ...
H.264 is the only technology in this discussion that qualifies as an open standard under any definition. WebM is essentially the same as Flash, just controlled by Google rather than Adobe.
WebM is open. You have failed to address the fact that Google has given everyone a global, free, irrevocable license to WebM. This means that it could be adopted by the W3C and become a real open standard. ...
It isn't, and it won't be, and Google will maintain complete control over it just as they do with Android. You really don't know what open means and seem to have simply confused it with free. A common mistake, but one that undermines all your arguments.
Your point being? The interest that should matter here is the interest of the open web.
And supporting Google's actions in this matter does not promote an open Web. Supporting Google promotes a Web that Google has increasing control over. If you work for Google, or a shareholder, and don't care about anything but your self interest, that may be fine. For everyone else it is, and will be, a very big problem.
H.264 is the only technology in this discussion that qualifies as an open standard under any definition.
Wrong. Even if nothing else here qualifies as an open standard, that doesn't make h264 open. Did you read the W3C Patent Policy yet? Or are you going to keep willfully ignoring facts?
Quote:
WebM is essentially the same as Flash, just controlled by Google rather than Adobe.
Nope. Just like W3C members have to choose to give royalty-free access to their patents if an upcoming standard violates one, Google chose to make WebM royalty-free, and with an irrevocable open license to do anything.
It's pretty amazing how you keep attacking Google for something irrelevant like Google Books. Using your logic, Apple would be a willful violator and hater of open web standards, since it has cockblocked the W3C Widgets standard at least twice because it allegedly infringed on Apple patents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
And supporting Google's actions in this matter does not promote an open Web.
Indeed. What promotes an open web is to rid it of a closed standard like h264. In other words, removing h264 and promoting WebM doesn't make it open because it's Google. It makes it open because it removes a closed standard.
Quote:
Supporting Google promotes a Web that Google has increasing control over. If you work for Google, or a shareholder, and don't care about anything but your self interest, that may be fine. For everyone else it is, and will be, a very big problem.
Desperate smearing is desperate. You need to stop obsessing over Google.
Who can afford the cost of hosting two or three large files for every video on a site?
Everyone? Most sites already have different videos for various resolutions and bandwidths.
Quote:
If it were superior to the h.264 then it would make sense. Right now it doesn't even make sense.
It makes sense because h264 is closed, which is not compatible with an open web.
Quote:
Get something free that's not as good.
Quality is not really relevant. As long as it's good enough, that's what counts. If quality mattered, BetaMax would have own over VHS, SACD over CD, CD over MP3, PS3 over Wii, and so on.
Quote:
I'm sorry but we should be using the best video quality with the smallest size on the web.
Not if that means closing the web.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU
FF has 22% and chrome has 12% of the browser market. Let's get our facts straight. That's no where near 50%.
Chrome has nearly 15%, and Firefox around 30%. But let's look at WebM browsers vs. h264 browsers.
"Chrome, Firefox and Opera will not play h264. That's nearly 50% global market share (in Europe, Firefox is the top browser).
When Firefox 4 is released, most Firefox users will start using it, which means that in addition to the 10-15% market share of WebM-supporting Chrome versions, WebM-supporting Firefox versions will add to that, so that it adds up, to nearly 50% over a few months. And Chrome is growing extremely fast.
On the other hand, Safari has a mere 5% share of the market. And as history shows, uptake of new IE versions is extremely slow, so h264 supporting browsers will be lucky if their collective market share is more than 10% at the end of 2011.
Sorry guys there is no reason for Safari not to at least offer up support for WebM since there is not risk to them since they said they had no problem paying for the h.264 patents. I am an Apple fanboy as much as the next guy but that's the truth. Apple should be offering up the choice to use WebM or h.264 and LET THE MARKET DECIDE!
"open" (and by that you actually mean "free") is more important than quality or hardware support (required for decent battery life and playback of high-res video on portable devices (portable device CPUs being not powerful enough to decode high-res video in software)).
You advocate the "free" web but you're happy with Flash because Flash is a plugin.
"open" (and by that you actually mean "free") is more important than quality or hardware support (required for decent battery life and playback of high-res video on portable devices (portable device CPUs being not powerful enough to decode high-res video in software)).
You advocate the "free" web but you're happy with Flash because Flash is a plugin.
Royalty-free is a criterion for an open standard, especially on the web. And yes, for the web, open standards are fundamental. You could probably replace the web with some amazing proprietary thing, but that would be a huge step back. The innovation should happen on top of the web, not as a replacement.
Hardware support for WebM is coming, and all future Android devices will have that.
I'm not happy with Flash at all, but Flash is a necessary evil. It's what "everyone" uses for video on the web, so there's no getting around it. However, native video has yet to be clearly defined and settled on. Supporting Flash is necessary while working on eventually replacing it with native video. It's obviously a strategic and pragmatic decision to keep market share while getting the open solution out there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
That's because you don't understand what 'open' means in this context.
The context is the web. What does the W3C Patent Policy say again? And even the likes of Microsoft?
Wrong. Even if nothing else here qualifies as an open standard, that doesn't make h264 open. Did you read the W3C Patent Policy yet? Or are you going to keep willfully ignoring facts?
H.264 is an open standard under the accepted definition of what an open standard is. The W3C patent policy doesn't change that and the fact that they have decided not to specify codecs makes it entirely irrelevant since there will be no standard codec.
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike
It's pretty amazing how you keep attacking Google for something irrelevant like Google Books. Using your logic, Apple would be a willful violator and hater of open web standards, since it has cockblocked the W3C Widgets standard at least twice because it allegedly infringed on Apple patents.
It's entirely to the point. Google has shown that it is an outlaw company that does not respect intellectual property law. Therefore, they cannot be trusted when they say something doesn't violate that law: they claim nothing they do violates the law and they've misled the public on it in cases where they were clearly in violation of the law. Simply, they have no credibility left.
W3C Widgets have no bearing on that issue, which you clearly either don't understand or wish to dance around by bringing in irrelevant side topics to confuse the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike
Indeed. What promotes an open web is to rid it of a closed standard like h264. In other words, removing h264 and promoting WebM doesn't make it open because it's Google. It makes it open because it removes a closed standard.
No, what promotes an open web is to not allow companies like Microsoft (IE), Adobe (Flash) and Google (where to begin, but WebM in this instance) exercise control over the technology and data of the Web. H.264, which is an open standard, no matter how many times you deny that it is, that promotes an open Web, and has been embraced by an open Web. WebM is nothing but a power play by Google to control the Web, and make it less open, less free, and more their private property. Interestingly, sabotaging the open Web with WebM fits nicely into the strategy they revealed when they conspired with Verizon to sabotage net neutrality. Part of a pattern and entirely relevant to the discussion.
Comments
But if Google wants to play their silly game using WebM as a decoy for Flash -- why not provide an alternative decoy? That way h.264 remains viable to every browser on every OS regardless of how Google and Adobe play with each other.
Because h264 is closed, and incompatible with an open web (see the W3C patent policy).
Free does not equal open, and
having a price tag does not equal closed.
In the context of standards, yes, it does. Look up the W3C patent policy. Even Microsoft agrees that an open standard needs to be royalty-free.
Flash is free (for browser vendors and end-users) but is it open?
You can open-source software but still attach patents to it.
Exactly. Flash is not open. H264 is not open.
I know what a joint venture is... But I don't understand what this has to do with my post...
I was telling an user that I don't think a 100% free and open video format may ever be a good solution!
You quoted my post in which I described the business model of the MPEG LA (without naming it) and said that my proposal (and thus the one of the MPEG LA) will not work because it is not 'commercial enough'.
My point was that if you start to describe the business model of the MGEG LA in general terms (without mentioning names) people will not criticise it for being too closed or too commercial. You even went beyond my expectations and criticised the MGEG LA's model as being too open and too non-commercial.
I LOL'd.
No, h264 is not an open standard. Even Microsoft agrees that an open standard must be royalty-free.
WebM is not a standard, but it's open, and a separate open-source project. Google is only one of several sponsors. ...
WebM isn't open. The source code is free (as in beer) but there isn't even a real specification, and Google will exercise complete control over it just as they do with Android. You're just allowing yourself to be misled by Google's hypocrtical and self-serving use of the word 'open'. That's what happens when you abandon critical thought and become a "single-issue voter", you get plated and you don't even realize it.
And what about the Apple fanboys who bash Google just because they fear the competition for Apple?
I think the definition of fanboy is one who can only see the issue in a single dimension, which fits you pretty perfectly if you think people are not happy about this because, "they fear the competition for Apple." This is all about Google using it's position to sabotage the open web and take even more control of it than they exercise today. Their life blood is in controlling information and access to it, and that is what this is all about for them. Stop thinking so unidimensionally.
It most certainly does show that. If Google violates any patents, any patent owner will obviously go after them for the big bucks. There have been a lot of claims about WebM violating patents, but not a single actual case. Put up or shut up.
Google has a long history of not respecting iP law, of wantonly disregarding it. They don't care if WebM is violating patents because they a) expect their own liability will be minimal, and b) think they exercise enough power to escape unscathed -- Just like in the Google Books Program. They also don't care what kind of destruction they sow as a result of this or how much it costs other companies, or how it affects users. Chaos is Google's chief competitive weapon. Create enough chaos in a market so that it becomes unstable, then, use their search revenue to move in and take over, that's their business MO.
The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from.
Andrew S. Tanenbaum
This isn't about standards -- it's about self-interests!
- Google has self interests -- ask yourself what they are
- Adobe has self interests -- ask yourself what they are
- Mozilla et al has self interests -- ask yourself what they are
- Apple has self interests -- ask yourself what they are
- Microsoft has self interests -- ask yourself what they are
- The W3C has self interests -- ask yourself what they are
- MPEG LA has self interests -- ask yourself what they are
- FOSS has self interests -- ask yourself what they are
- Web Content Publishers have self interests -- ask yourself what they are
- Web Content Data Miners have self interests -- ask yourself what they are
- Web Advertisers have self interests -- ask yourself what they are
- Posters to this forum have self interests -- ask yourself what they are
- Web users/consumers have self interests -- ask yourself what they are
"Look around, Big Joe! Did I miss anybody?"WebM isn't open. The source code is free (as in beer) but there isn't even a real specification, and Google will exercise complete control over it just as they do with Android.
WebM is open. You have failed to address the fact that Google has given everyone a global, free, irrevocable license to WebM. This means that it could be adopted by the W3C and become a real open standard.
You're just allowing yourself to be misled by Google's hypocrtical and self-serving use of the word 'open'. That's what happens when you abandon critical thought and become a "single-issue voter", you get plated and you don't even realize it.
On the contrary, I know exactly what "open" means, as opposted to your ignorant ramblings. Unlike you, I actually know what the W3C Patent Policy says: Did you even read it yet? You have failed to address this even once. You have also failed to address the fact that even Microsoft's definition of "open standard" requires it to be royalty-free.
I think the definition of fanboy is one who can only see the issue in a single dimension, which fits you pretty perfectly if you think people are not happy about this because, "they fear the competition for Apple." This is all about Google using it's position to sabotage the open web and take even more control of it than they exercise today. Their life blood is in controlling information and access to it, and that is what this is all about for them. Stop thinking so unidimensionally.
Your Apple fanboyism is shining through. You are scared shitless because of the way Android is growing, and you will attack any company you perceive as a threat to Apple.
Ridding the web of a closed standard is the opposite of sabotaging the open web. It is, in fact, helping to keep the web open.
Google has a long history of not respecting iP law, of wantonly disregarding it. They don't care if WebM is violating patents because they a) expect their own liability will be minimal, and b) think they exercise enough power to escape unscathed -- Just like in the Google Books Program.
Your constant whining about Google Books just goes to show how desperate you are to attack and smear Google. Their own liability will not be minimal if they are infringing on patents, especially since all future Android devices will support WebM natively.
They also don't care what kind of destruction they sow as a result of this or how much it costs other companies, or how it affects users. Chaos is Google's chief competitive weapon. Create enough chaos in a market so that it becomes unstable, then, use their search revenue to move in and take over, that's their business MO.
Your FUD is getting old.
This isn't about standards -- it's about self-interests!
Your point being? The interest that should matter here is the interest of the open web.
H264 is not an open standard. Once again, stop making this false assertion, and educate yourself by reading the W3C patent policy.
Just because there is no standard video codec doesn't mean you get to choose some random closed codec and call it open. ...
H.264 is the only technology in this discussion that qualifies as an open standard under any definition. WebM is essentially the same as Flash, just controlled by Google rather than Adobe.
WebM is open. You have failed to address the fact that Google has given everyone a global, free, irrevocable license to WebM. This means that it could be adopted by the W3C and become a real open standard. ...
It isn't, and it won't be, and Google will maintain complete control over it just as they do with Android. You really don't know what open means and seem to have simply confused it with free. A common mistake, but one that undermines all your arguments.
Your point being? The interest that should matter here is the interest of the open web.
And supporting Google's actions in this matter does not promote an open Web. Supporting Google promotes a Web that Google has increasing control over. If you work for Google, or a shareholder, and don't care about anything but your self interest, that may be fine. For everyone else it is, and will be, a very big problem.
H.264 is the only technology in this discussion that qualifies as an open standard under any definition.
Wrong. Even if nothing else here qualifies as an open standard, that doesn't make h264 open. Did you read the W3C Patent Policy yet? Or are you going to keep willfully ignoring facts?
WebM is essentially the same as Flash, just controlled by Google rather than Adobe.
Nope. Just like W3C members have to choose to give royalty-free access to their patents if an upcoming standard violates one, Google chose to make WebM royalty-free, and with an irrevocable open license to do anything.
It's pretty amazing how you keep attacking Google for something irrelevant like Google Books. Using your logic, Apple would be a willful violator and hater of open web standards, since it has cockblocked the W3C Widgets standard at least twice because it allegedly infringed on Apple patents.
And supporting Google's actions in this matter does not promote an open Web.
Indeed. What promotes an open web is to rid it of a closed standard like h264. In other words, removing h264 and promoting WebM doesn't make it open because it's Google. It makes it open because it removes a closed standard.
Supporting Google promotes a Web that Google has increasing control over. If you work for Google, or a shareholder, and don't care about anything but your self interest, that may be fine. For everyone else it is, and will be, a very big problem.
Desperate smearing is desperate. You need to stop obsessing over Google.
Who can afford the cost of hosting two or three large files for every video on a site?
Everyone? Most sites already have different videos for various resolutions and bandwidths.
If it were superior to the h.264 then it would make sense. Right now it doesn't even make sense.
It makes sense because h264 is closed, which is not compatible with an open web.
Get something free that's not as good.
Quality is not really relevant. As long as it's good enough, that's what counts. If quality mattered, BetaMax would have own over VHS, SACD over CD, CD over MP3, PS3 over Wii, and so on.
I'm sorry but we should be using the best video quality with the smallest size on the web.
Not if that means closing the web.
FF has 22% and chrome has 12% of the browser market. Let's get our facts straight. That's no where near 50%.
Chrome has nearly 15%, and Firefox around 30%. But let's look at WebM browsers vs. h264 browsers.
I did exactly that in the following post:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=252
"Chrome, Firefox and Opera will not play h264. That's nearly 50% global market share (in Europe, Firefox is the top browser).
When Firefox 4 is released, most Firefox users will start using it, which means that in addition to the 10-15% market share of WebM-supporting Chrome versions, WebM-supporting Firefox versions will add to that, so that it adds up, to nearly 50% over a few months. And Chrome is growing extremely fast.
On the other hand, Safari has a mere 5% share of the market. And as history shows, uptake of new IE versions is extremely slow, so h264 supporting browsers will be lucky if their collective market share is more than 10% at the end of 2011.
40-50% for WebM vs. 5-10% for h264."
Give Firefox feedback! http://input.mozilla.com/en-US/sad (they force you to download Firefox 4 Beta though... which is not bad, actually)
Do you really expect Mozilla to take nonsense like that seriously? You know as well as everyone else that there's now way Firefox can support h264.
"open" (and by that you actually mean "free") is more important than quality or hardware support (required for decent battery life and playback of high-res video on portable devices (portable device CPUs being not powerful enough to decode high-res video in software)).
You advocate the "free" web but you're happy with Flash because Flash is a plugin.
Your point being? The interest that should matter here is the interest of the open web.
Wrong!
The real world is an imperfect place.
A totally open web means, either:
-- everything goes
-- nothing goes
Standards are a means to curb/redirect self-interests to the benefit of the majority.
As you, so conveniently ignore, the user/consumer/tax payer has some skin the game too!
To allow parties to arbitrarily [attempt to] determine what is of benefit to all is not free or open.
What if Apple, MS, and Google were to band together and decide that Flash was not open -- and removed Flash support from their Browsers and OSes?
Would the "interests of the open web" suffer?
Not according to your arguments -- Apple. MS and Google would have just done the "open web" a favor by deprecating closed/proprietary implementations.
The only open standard that is viable for that, however, is H.264. WebM isn't open and it isn't a standard.
H.264 isn't open because it is not royalty-free. That was said already.
H.264 isn't open because it is not royalty-free. That was said already.
That's because you don't understand what 'open' means in this context.
"open" (and by that you actually mean "free") is more important than quality or hardware support
The meme "H.264 is superior" is false. WebM is superior in several aspects. It all depends on who is analyzing.
Hardware support is coming. Matter of time. Most mobile chip makers are already involved with WebM.
This is about the future of the open web.
insike, let me get this straight:
"open" (and by that you actually mean "free") is more important than quality or hardware support (required for decent battery life and playback of high-res video on portable devices (portable device CPUs being not powerful enough to decode high-res video in software)).
You advocate the "free" web but you're happy with Flash because Flash is a plugin.
Royalty-free is a criterion for an open standard, especially on the web. And yes, for the web, open standards are fundamental. You could probably replace the web with some amazing proprietary thing, but that would be a huge step back. The innovation should happen on top of the web, not as a replacement.
Hardware support for WebM is coming, and all future Android devices will have that.
I'm not happy with Flash at all, but Flash is a necessary evil. It's what "everyone" uses for video on the web, so there's no getting around it. However, native video has yet to be clearly defined and settled on. Supporting Flash is necessary while working on eventually replacing it with native video. It's obviously a strategic and pragmatic decision to keep market share while getting the open solution out there.
That's because you don't understand what 'open' means in this context.
The context is the web. What does the W3C Patent Policy say again? And even the likes of Microsoft?
Wrong. Even if nothing else here qualifies as an open standard, that doesn't make h264 open. Did you read the W3C Patent Policy yet? Or are you going to keep willfully ignoring facts?
H.264 is an open standard under the accepted definition of what an open standard is. The W3C patent policy doesn't change that and the fact that they have decided not to specify codecs makes it entirely irrelevant since there will be no standard codec.
It's pretty amazing how you keep attacking Google for something irrelevant like Google Books. Using your logic, Apple would be a willful violator and hater of open web standards, since it has cockblocked the W3C Widgets standard at least twice because it allegedly infringed on Apple patents.
It's entirely to the point. Google has shown that it is an outlaw company that does not respect intellectual property law. Therefore, they cannot be trusted when they say something doesn't violate that law: they claim nothing they do violates the law and they've misled the public on it in cases where they were clearly in violation of the law. Simply, they have no credibility left.
W3C Widgets have no bearing on that issue, which you clearly either don't understand or wish to dance around by bringing in irrelevant side topics to confuse the issue.
Indeed. What promotes an open web is to rid it of a closed standard like h264. In other words, removing h264 and promoting WebM doesn't make it open because it's Google. It makes it open because it removes a closed standard.
No, what promotes an open web is to not allow companies like Microsoft (IE), Adobe (Flash) and Google (where to begin, but WebM in this instance) exercise control over the technology and data of the Web. H.264, which is an open standard, no matter how many times you deny that it is, that promotes an open Web, and has been embraced by an open Web. WebM is nothing but a power play by Google to control the Web, and make it less open, less free, and more their private property. Interestingly, sabotaging the open Web with WebM fits nicely into the strategy they revealed when they conspired with Verizon to sabotage net neutrality. Part of a pattern and entirely relevant to the discussion.