Certain posters here, defending Google's actions, appear to have a seriously mistaken notion of what both 'open standard' and the 'open web' actually mean. In neither case is free a necessary or sufficient condition for openness.
Also, it's not about defending Google's actions. It's about pointing out that what Google did happens to be to the benefit of the open web, regardless of their actual intentions. You have also failed to address the fact that the likes of Opera and Mozilla, well known open web proponents, applaud Google's move.
Quote:
'Open' in both cases means not controlled by a single company or cartel of companies.
So, the MPEG-LA cartel means that h264 is not free. Thanks for confirming that.
Quote:
H.264 meets this criteria of openness and freedom. It is an official public standard, arrived at by consensus, freely available to anyone to license (and largely royalty free).
It is not royalty-free, and therefore violates the W3C patent policy.
And what is relevant on the web? Well, gee, that's the W3C, and not ISO!
Quote:
So you are just offensive.
I have read all w3c policy. they don't define what an open standard is. They define what a w3c standard is.
W3C never use words "open-standard". W3C states that submitted technology needs to be royalty-free.
You do realize that the W3C defines open web standards, right? You know, things like HTML and CSS... You have failed miserably by ignoring the facts that are there, right in front of you.
Really? Which ones? What formats? Because at the moment H.264 and Flash pretty much cover it.
You probably don't know about YouTube, then. You must have missed how they have multiple videos to cater to different resolutions and bandwidths.
Quote:
Somehow you can simultaneously make this argument (as Google does) while pretending that the huge H.264 presence, not just on the web but in devices, formats and hardware acceleration just doesn't matter.
This is about video on the web. For video on the web, Flash is the way to go today.
Time for the freetard punks to learn the meaning of TANSTAFL.
I much prefer dealing with a company like Apple than Google. With Apple it's simple - they only want my money. I give them some money and they give me some product or service I want and that's it. Fair enough and straightforward.
It's not so simple with Google though. They don't charge me any money and just give me stuff. Sounds great, except that instead of taking a bit of my money they take a bit of my soul and sell it to somebody else to make their money. Remember, the devil will always get his pound of flesh.
NOBODY really works for free. The only question is whether you're open about your prices like Apple or if you stick it to the unwitting masses with hidden costs like Google.
I really wanted Apple to buy YouTube! when it was for sale so that it could (at the time) disable flash and make it mpeg based... I guess the operating costs would be high however in retrospect this would be a great idea...
Entering a project with incredibly high operationg costs and no hope of generating revenue is rarely a good idea! Apple would still need to either deliver ads or put content behind a paywall.
Which, if this whole thing is just about YouTube, offers yet another solution. Google could have a standard YouTube with Flash as an ad supported service and then offer a "premium" paid-for version that supports HTML5/H.264.
Apple could then pay Google for each iOS device with YouTube access, or Apple could offer YouTube as a paid application in the App Store.
Sure it would be hard to manage but it would be possible.
Firefox does not hold 30% share, nor has it ever. About a year ago, at its height, Firefox had somewhere between 25% and 26%; it has not hit 25% since.
Internet Explorer still holds around 70%. Webkit, holds much closer to 100% (mobile Firefox, Opera, and Internet Explorer each have under 1%) while mobile Safari is hovering in the upper 70s to 80s.
Actually, Opera is the dominant browser for mobile phones, with around 1/4:
Never mind the fact that Android is growing way faster than Safari for iOS.
You are also ignoring the fact that IE (and Safari) users are extremely slow to upgrade. On the other hand, 80-90% of all Firefox and Chrome users are using the very latest version.
So browsers capable of playing WebM video will vastly outnumber h264-capable browsers. Firefox 4 and Chrome alone will make up nearly 40% of the total web browser market in general. If we look at browsers with native video support, they will be completely dominant, since Safari has only 5% on the desktop in total, and nearly half of all Safari users don't upgrade.
Also, IE9 can play WebM videos if you install it as a system codec. So that boosts the WebM share, if anything.
Time for the freetard punks to learn the meaning of TANSTAFL.
So you think people should pay to implement support for HTML and CSS?
Quote:
I much prefer dealing with a company like Apple than Google. With Apple it's simple - they only want my money. I give them some money and they give me some product or service I want and that's it. Fair enough and straightforward.
Actually, Apple is getting heavily into ads. So I guess that means bye bye Apple for you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by X38
No it isn't. Flash plays like crap over my Internet connection, but H.264 videos work just fine. Flash can't die soon enough as far as I'm concerned.
So h264 videos played through Flash play like crap? Hmm...
An open standard is one which is available for anyone to implement.
False. And you have consistently ignored all the links proving you wrong. This is a false claim, and you know it.
You can go to an open air cinema, but you still have to buy a ticket before you go it!
The problem is that the word "open" is inherently ambiguous. Open standard, open web standard, open source... there are so many conflicting and contextual definitions of the word "open" that it's pointless arguing about a specific meaning.
It's like two people arguing if birds fly high in the sky or not. Since "high" is contextual and relative no solution can be reached by arguing its meaning. One person might have a definition from the Aviation Society and the other might have a different definition from the Skyscraper Builders Guide... it's irrelevant. The argument needs to be redefined to address the actual question.
The question here is what are the implications to the to the end users of the web of each competing codec becoming standard, and of Google's decision to support WebM?
The definition of "open" is insignificant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike
So h264 videos played through Flash play like crap? Hmm...
I've run a bunch of tests with Flash and the results are inconsistent. It can literally be the best or worst performer depending on your hardware and OS. It seems to be about whether hardware acceleration is supported or not.
So you think people should pay to implement support for HTML and CSS?
No. I think this would be plain wrong.
A mid-term solution that would appease both Apple and open web fanatics is: all browsers commit support to at least one common royalty-free codec (any royalty-free codec, doesn't need to be WebM).
This way, everybody would know that at least a fallback is available, and those that need higher resolutions or have other needs could opt to serve or consume video using different codecs (H.264 or any other that appear in the future).
Also this would ensure that existing and new players could at least support a base video format. Opera for example has stated that they can't afford the $6,5 million year/fees required by H.264. Yes for relatively small companies this may be a big deal. I'm sure there are other cases, and also we can't ignore new, non-established players or developers in poor countries that would be out of the game because of the potential fees.
Providing a base codec would also ensure that any software maker, and specially small ones and those that provide software under permissive licenses, could ship that base codec for embedded devices and other targets where the OS doesn't provide the mainstream codec.
And Apple, Microsoft could continue supporting H.264 as their mainstream codec for the web. Firefox, Chrome, Chromium, Opera, Konqueror etc get a plugin to play H.264, and everybody becomes happy.
Doesn't it sound like the perfect solution? Trying to be reasonable here.
While most of what you wrote is correct, I want to point out that 'clean room' development is NOT a defense in patent issues. It only applies in copyright cases. So Google can't use that defense, anyway.
Regardless, there is absolutely NO WAY that they could easily improve WebM without accidentally polluting it with the H.264 "way of doing things".
Never mind the fact that Android is growing way faster than Safari for iOS.
You are also ignoring the fact that IE (and Safari) users are extremely slow to upgrade. On the other hand, 80-90% of all Firefox and Chrome users are using the very latest version.
So browsers capable of playing WebM video will vastly outnumber h264-capable browsers. Firefox 4 and Chrome alone will make up nearly 40% of the total web browser market in general. If we look at browsers with native video support, they will be completely dominant, since Safari has only 5% on the desktop in total, and nearly half of all Safari users don't upgrade.
Also, IE9 can play WebM videos if you install it as a system codec. So that boosts the WebM share, if anything.
Who is going to install WebM as a system codec? Seriously? If it's not pre-installed on the machine already no end user accept for a geek is going to install that.
A mid-term solution that would appease both Apple and open web fanatics is: all browsers commit support to at least one common royalty-free codec (any royalty-free codec, doesn't need to be WebM).
This way, everybody would know that at least a fallback is available, and those that need higher resolutions or have other needs could opt to serve or consume video using different codecs (H.264 or any other that appear in the future).
Also this would ensure that existing and new players could at least support a base video format. Opera for example has stated that they can't afford the $6,5 million year/fees required by H.264. Yes for relatively small companies this may be a big deal. I'm sure there are other cases, and also we can't ignore new, non-established players or developers in poor countries that would be out of the game because of the potential fees.
Providing a base codec would also ensure that any software maker, and specially small ones and those that provide software under permissive licenses, could ship that base codec for embedded devices and other targets where the OS doesn't provide the mainstream codec.
And Apple, Microsoft could continue supporting H.264 as their mainstream codec for the web. Firefox, Chrome, Chromium, Opera, Konqueror etc get a plugin to play H.264, and everybody becomes happy.
Doesn't it sound like the perfect solution? Trying to be reasonable here.
The problem is WebM is technically inferior. I think the open source committee should've improved WebM so that it was technically superior to h.264 first. Then it would be an easier sell.
It's actually pretty funny the way you post links, as though they actually prove your statements, when in fact they don't do anything of the sort. Is it that you don't bother to read them or that you hope we won't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike
So, the MPEG-LA cartel means that h264 is not free. Thanks for confirming that.
MPEG-LA isn't a cartel, it's simply an entity that handles the licensing for an open standard. An open standard that is available for anyone to license, and which, because it is a standard isn't actually controlled by any of the companies who have contributed patents to the pool. You're right, it isn't free, but it is open. WebM is free, but it isn't open.
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike
Also, it's not about defending Google's actions. It's about pointing out that what Google did happens to be to the benefit of the open web, regardless of their actual intentions. You have also failed to address the fact that the likes of Opera and Mozilla, well known open web proponents, applaud Google's move.
...
It is not royalty-free, and therefore violates the W3C patent policy.
I think it's kind of interesting that I write an entire post about how Google is a threat to an open web, how this and other acts of theirs, such as the conspiracy with Verizon to kill net neutrality, all represent assaults on the open Web (which you claim to be all about) and you chop up the reply to eliminate any references to these facts and simply regurgitate your mantra of, "It is not royalty-free, and therefore violates the W3C patent policy."
So, again, I have to ask, are you a troll or just completely stupid? Maybe, it's entirely possible.
Or, are you a shill being paid to come here to post in support of Google. Frankly, at this point, I'm leaning toward this latter explanation of your behavior, and the primary reason I have decided you are a shill is two-fold. First, your dogmatic sticking to your talking points as demonstrated in the reply I've quoted. Your reply in this instance is practically a non-sequitur, but, as noted, you've chopped it up to try to mask that fact. In other words, you haven't been told what to say in response to charges that Google itself is a threat to an open Web, but you're paid to respond to all charges, so you have to make it seem as though you are responding to something else. Secondly, the limited number of your talking points, which are basically limited to one: "H.264 is not royalty-free, and therefore violates the W3C patent policy." Oh, and let's not overlook the bursty nature of your posts, as though you are coming here on some sort of schedule.
You're wrong on all counts, of course, but I'm happy we've exposed why you are really here.
It's actually pretty funny the way you post links, as though they actually prove your statements, when in fact they don't do anything of the sort. Is it that you don't bother to read them or that you hope we won't.
MPEG-LA isn't a cartel, it's simply an entity that handles the licensing for an open standard. An open standard that is available for anyone to license, and which, because it is a standard isn't actually controlled by any of the companies who have contributed patents to the pool. You're right, it isn't free, but it is open. WebM is free, but it isn't open.
I think it's kind of interesting that I write an entire post about how Google is a threat to an open web, how this and other acts of theirs, such as the conspiracy with Verizon to kill net neutrality, all represent assaults on the open Web (which you claim to be all about) and you chop up the reply to eliminate any references to these facts and simply regurgitate your mantra of, "It is not royalty-free, and therefore violates the W3C patent policy."
So, again, I have to ask, are you a troll or just completely stupid? Maybe, it's entirely possible.
Or, are you a shill being paid to come here to post in support of Google. Frankly, at this point, I'm leaning toward this latter explanation of your behavior, and the primary reason I have decided you are a shill is two-fold. First, your dogmatic sticking to your talking points as demonstrated in the reply I've quoted. Your reply in this instance is practically a non-sequitur, but, as noted, you've chopped it up to try to mask that fact. In other words, you haven't been told what to say in response to charges that Google itself is a threat to an open Web, but you're paid to respond to all charges, so you have to make it seem as though you are responding to something else. Secondly, the limited number of your talking points, which are basically limited to one: "H.264 is not royalty-free, and therefore violates the W3C patent policy." Oh, and let's not overlook the bursty nature of your posts, as though you are coming here on some sort of schedule.
You're wrong on all counts, of course, but I'm happy we've exposed why you are really here.
You Apple sheeple crack me up. How dare you insert fact into this discussion.
Comments
Certain posters here, defending Google's actions, appear to have a seriously mistaken notion of what both 'open standard' and the 'open web' actually mean. In neither case is free a necessary or sufficient condition for openness.
Wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard
Also, it's not about defending Google's actions. It's about pointing out that what Google did happens to be to the benefit of the open web, regardless of their actual intentions. You have also failed to address the fact that the likes of Opera and Mozilla, well known open web proponents, applaud Google's move.
'Open' in both cases means not controlled by a single company or cartel of companies.
So, the MPEG-LA cartel means that h264 is not free. Thanks for confirming that.
H.264 meets this criteria of openness and freedom. It is an official public standard, arrived at by consensus, freely available to anyone to license (and largely royalty free).
It is not royalty-free, and therefore violates the W3C patent policy.
Both W3C and ISO define standards.
And what is relevant on the web? Well, gee, that's the W3C, and not ISO!
So you are just offensive.
I have read all w3c policy. they don't define what an open standard is. They define what a w3c standard is.
W3C never use words "open-standard". W3C states that submitted technology needs to be royalty-free.
You do realize that the W3C defines open web standards, right? You know, things like HTML and CSS... You have failed miserably by ignoring the facts that are there, right in front of you.
Really? Which ones? What formats? Because at the moment H.264 and Flash pretty much cover it.
You probably don't know about YouTube, then. You must have missed how they have multiple videos to cater to different resolutions and bandwidths.
Somehow you can simultaneously make this argument (as Google does) while pretending that the huge H.264 presence, not just on the web but in devices, formats and hardware acceleration just doesn't matter.
This is about video on the web. For video on the web, Flash is the way to go today.
I much prefer dealing with a company like Apple than Google. With Apple it's simple - they only want my money. I give them some money and they give me some product or service I want and that's it. Fair enough and straightforward.
It's not so simple with Google though. They don't charge me any money and just give me stuff. Sounds great, except that instead of taking a bit of my money they take a bit of my soul and sell it to somebody else to make their money. Remember, the devil will always get his pound of flesh.
NOBODY really works for free. The only question is whether you're open about your prices like Apple or if you stick it to the unwitting masses with hidden costs like Google.
I really wanted Apple to buy YouTube! when it was for sale so that it could (at the time) disable flash and make it mpeg based... I guess the operating costs would be high however in retrospect this would be a great idea...
Entering a project with incredibly high operationg costs and no hope of generating revenue is rarely a good idea!
Which, if this whole thing is just about YouTube, offers yet another solution. Google could have a standard YouTube with Flash as an ad supported service and then offer a "premium" paid-for version that supports HTML5/H.264.
Apple could then pay Google for each iOS device with YouTube access, or Apple could offer YouTube as a paid application in the App Store.
Sure it would be hard to manage but it would be possible.
You probably don't know about YouTube, then. You must have missed how they have multiple videos to cater to different resolutions and bandwidths.
This is about video on the web. For video on the web, Flash is the way to go today.
No it isn't. Flash plays like crap over my Internet connection, but H.264 videos work just fine. Flash can't die soon enough as far as I'm concerned.
Firefox does not hold 30% share, nor has it ever. About a year ago, at its height, Firefox had somewhere between 25% and 26%; it has not hit 25% since.
This shows Firefox above 30%:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-w...912-201012-bar
Nearly 40% in Europe for Firefox:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-e...912-201012-bar
Internet Explorer still holds around 70%. Webkit, holds much closer to 100% (mobile Firefox, Opera, and Internet Explorer each have under 1%) while mobile Safari is hovering in the upper 70s to 80s.
Actually, Opera is the dominant browser for mobile phones, with around 1/4:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_br...912-201012-bar
Never mind the fact that Android is growing way faster than Safari for iOS.
You are also ignoring the fact that IE (and Safari) users are extremely slow to upgrade. On the other hand, 80-90% of all Firefox and Chrome users are using the very latest version.
So browsers capable of playing WebM video will vastly outnumber h264-capable browsers. Firefox 4 and Chrome alone will make up nearly 40% of the total web browser market in general. If we look at browsers with native video support, they will be completely dominant, since Safari has only 5% on the desktop in total, and nearly half of all Safari users don't upgrade.
Also, IE9 can play WebM videos if you install it as a system codec. So that boosts the WebM share, if anything.
Good distillation of the facts.
Except his "facts" are factually wrong.
Time for the freetard punks to learn the meaning of TANSTAFL.
So you think people should pay to implement support for HTML and CSS?
I much prefer dealing with a company like Apple than Google. With Apple it's simple - they only want my money. I give them some money and they give me some product or service I want and that's it. Fair enough and straightforward.
Actually, Apple is getting heavily into ads. So I guess that means bye bye Apple for you?
No it isn't. Flash plays like crap over my Internet connection, but H.264 videos work just fine. Flash can't die soon enough as far as I'm concerned.
So h264 videos played through Flash play like crap? Hmm...
An open standard is one which is available for anyone to implement.
False. And you have consistently ignored all the links proving you wrong. This is a false claim, and you know it.
You can go to an open air cinema, but you still have to buy a ticket before you go it!
The problem is that the word "open" is inherently ambiguous. Open standard, open web standard, open source... there are so many conflicting and contextual definitions of the word "open" that it's pointless arguing about a specific meaning.
It's like two people arguing if birds fly high in the sky or not. Since "high" is contextual and relative no solution can be reached by arguing its meaning. One person might have a definition from the Aviation Society and the other might have a different definition from the Skyscraper Builders Guide... it's irrelevant. The argument needs to be redefined to address the actual question.
The question here is what are the implications to the to the end users of the web of each competing codec becoming standard, and of Google's decision to support WebM?
The definition of "open" is insignificant.
So h264 videos played through Flash play like crap? Hmm...
I've run a bunch of tests with Flash and the results are inconsistent. It can literally be the best or worst performer depending on your hardware and OS. It seems to be about whether hardware acceleration is supported or not.
Except his "facts" are factually wrong.
Keep telling yourself that.
So you think people should pay to implement support for HTML and CSS?
No. I think this would be plain wrong.
A mid-term solution that would appease both Apple and open web fanatics is: all browsers commit support to at least one common royalty-free codec (any royalty-free codec, doesn't need to be WebM).
This way, everybody would know that at least a fallback is available, and those that need higher resolutions or have other needs could opt to serve or consume video using different codecs (H.264 or any other that appear in the future).
Also this would ensure that existing and new players could at least support a base video format. Opera for example has stated that they can't afford the $6,5 million year/fees required by H.264. Yes for relatively small companies this may be a big deal. I'm sure there are other cases, and also we can't ignore new, non-established players or developers in poor countries that would be out of the game because of the potential fees.
Providing a base codec would also ensure that any software maker, and specially small ones and those that provide software under permissive licenses, could ship that base codec for embedded devices and other targets where the OS doesn't provide the mainstream codec.
And Apple, Microsoft could continue supporting H.264 as their mainstream codec for the web. Firefox, Chrome, Chromium, Opera, Konqueror etc get a plugin to play H.264, and everybody becomes happy.
Doesn't it sound like the perfect solution? Trying to be reasonable here.
While most of what you wrote is correct, I want to point out that 'clean room' development is NOT a defense in patent issues. It only applies in copyright cases. So Google can't use that defense, anyway.
Regardless, there is absolutely NO WAY that they could easily improve WebM without accidentally polluting it with the H.264 "way of doing things".
I'll stick to a more credible website like MacRumors.
Promises, promises. If only you would keep your word!
This shows Firefox above 30%:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-w...912-201012-bar
Nearly 40% in Europe for Firefox:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-e...912-201012-bar
Actually, Opera is the dominant browser for mobile phones, with around 1/4:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_br...912-201012-bar
Never mind the fact that Android is growing way faster than Safari for iOS.
You are also ignoring the fact that IE (and Safari) users are extremely slow to upgrade. On the other hand, 80-90% of all Firefox and Chrome users are using the very latest version.
So browsers capable of playing WebM video will vastly outnumber h264-capable browsers. Firefox 4 and Chrome alone will make up nearly 40% of the total web browser market in general. If we look at browsers with native video support, they will be completely dominant, since Safari has only 5% on the desktop in total, and nearly half of all Safari users don't upgrade.
Also, IE9 can play WebM videos if you install it as a system codec. So that boosts the WebM share, if anything.
Who is going to install WebM as a system codec? Seriously? If it's not pre-installed on the machine already no end user accept for a geek is going to install that.
No. I think this would be plain wrong.
A mid-term solution that would appease both Apple and open web fanatics is: all browsers commit support to at least one common royalty-free codec (any royalty-free codec, doesn't need to be WebM).
This way, everybody would know that at least a fallback is available, and those that need higher resolutions or have other needs could opt to serve or consume video using different codecs (H.264 or any other that appear in the future).
Also this would ensure that existing and new players could at least support a base video format. Opera for example has stated that they can't afford the $6,5 million year/fees required by H.264. Yes for relatively small companies this may be a big deal. I'm sure there are other cases, and also we can't ignore new, non-established players or developers in poor countries that would be out of the game because of the potential fees.
Providing a base codec would also ensure that any software maker, and specially small ones and those that provide software under permissive licenses, could ship that base codec for embedded devices and other targets where the OS doesn't provide the mainstream codec.
And Apple, Microsoft could continue supporting H.264 as their mainstream codec for the web. Firefox, Chrome, Chromium, Opera, Konqueror etc get a plugin to play H.264, and everybody becomes happy.
Doesn't it sound like the perfect solution? Trying to be reasonable here.
The problem is WebM is technically inferior. I think the open source committee should've improved WebM so that it was technically superior to h.264 first. Then it would be an easier sell.
Wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard
It's actually pretty funny the way you post links, as though they actually prove your statements, when in fact they don't do anything of the sort. Is it that you don't bother to read them or that you hope we won't.
So, the MPEG-LA cartel means that h264 is not free. Thanks for confirming that.
MPEG-LA isn't a cartel, it's simply an entity that handles the licensing for an open standard. An open standard that is available for anyone to license, and which, because it is a standard isn't actually controlled by any of the companies who have contributed patents to the pool. You're right, it isn't free, but it is open. WebM is free, but it isn't open.
Also, it's not about defending Google's actions. It's about pointing out that what Google did happens to be to the benefit of the open web, regardless of their actual intentions. You have also failed to address the fact that the likes of Opera and Mozilla, well known open web proponents, applaud Google's move.
...
It is not royalty-free, and therefore violates the W3C patent policy.
I think it's kind of interesting that I write an entire post about how Google is a threat to an open web, how this and other acts of theirs, such as the conspiracy with Verizon to kill net neutrality, all represent assaults on the open Web (which you claim to be all about) and you chop up the reply to eliminate any references to these facts and simply regurgitate your mantra of, "It is not royalty-free, and therefore violates the W3C patent policy."
So, again, I have to ask, are you a troll or just completely stupid? Maybe, it's entirely possible.
Or, are you a shill being paid to come here to post in support of Google. Frankly, at this point, I'm leaning toward this latter explanation of your behavior, and the primary reason I have decided you are a shill is two-fold. First, your dogmatic sticking to your talking points as demonstrated in the reply I've quoted. Your reply in this instance is practically a non-sequitur, but, as noted, you've chopped it up to try to mask that fact. In other words, you haven't been told what to say in response to charges that Google itself is a threat to an open Web, but you're paid to respond to all charges, so you have to make it seem as though you are responding to something else. Secondly, the limited number of your talking points, which are basically limited to one: "H.264 is not royalty-free, and therefore violates the W3C patent policy." Oh, and let's not overlook the bursty nature of your posts, as though you are coming here on some sort of schedule.
You're wrong on all counts, of course, but I'm happy we've exposed why you are really here.
It's actually pretty funny the way you post links, as though they actually prove your statements, when in fact they don't do anything of the sort. Is it that you don't bother to read them or that you hope we won't.
MPEG-LA isn't a cartel, it's simply an entity that handles the licensing for an open standard. An open standard that is available for anyone to license, and which, because it is a standard isn't actually controlled by any of the companies who have contributed patents to the pool. You're right, it isn't free, but it is open. WebM is free, but it isn't open.
I think it's kind of interesting that I write an entire post about how Google is a threat to an open web, how this and other acts of theirs, such as the conspiracy with Verizon to kill net neutrality, all represent assaults on the open Web (which you claim to be all about) and you chop up the reply to eliminate any references to these facts and simply regurgitate your mantra of, "It is not royalty-free, and therefore violates the W3C patent policy."
So, again, I have to ask, are you a troll or just completely stupid? Maybe, it's entirely possible.
Or, are you a shill being paid to come here to post in support of Google. Frankly, at this point, I'm leaning toward this latter explanation of your behavior, and the primary reason I have decided you are a shill is two-fold. First, your dogmatic sticking to your talking points as demonstrated in the reply I've quoted. Your reply in this instance is practically a non-sequitur, but, as noted, you've chopped it up to try to mask that fact. In other words, you haven't been told what to say in response to charges that Google itself is a threat to an open Web, but you're paid to respond to all charges, so you have to make it seem as though you are responding to something else. Secondly, the limited number of your talking points, which are basically limited to one: "H.264 is not royalty-free, and therefore violates the W3C patent policy." Oh, and let's not overlook the bursty nature of your posts, as though you are coming here on some sort of schedule.
You're wrong on all counts, of course, but I'm happy we've exposed why you are really here.
You Apple sheeple crack me up. How dare you insert fact into this discussion.
How does one ignite a hailstorm?
use methane ice.