insike
About
- Username
- insike
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- -
- Roles
- member
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 188
Reactions
Comments
-
Quote: Originally Posted by X38 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 Ap…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by sennen Good distillation of the facts. Except his "facts" are factually wrong.
-
Quote: Originally Posted by gavers 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.c…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by addabox 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 di…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Guglielmo Altavilla Both W3C and ISO define standards. 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 wh…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by anonymouse 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 c…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by hezetation I don't think it will slow H.264 at all, I think it will simply drive more people away from Chrome & towards IE & Safari, or in the least towards quicktime or Window Media Player (assuming Microsoft …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. H It was merely explaining why WebM is a proprietary rather than open standard. WebM is not a standard. And it is not proprietary. Quote: Google is the proprietor. No, the WebM project is.
-
Quote: Originally Posted by tumme-totte As I understand it, MPEG-LA includes all parties holding all relevant patents. Indemnify against themselves? Hmmm... Wow, so the patent holder is indemnified against his own patents! AMAZING! Quote: …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by anonymouse Why would they since H.264 already works fine with Flash? Because there are no royalties. Quote: More importantly, why should they have to just so Google can control video on the Web? WebM doesn't …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by anonymouse An open standard is one which is available for anyone to implement. It doesn't have to be free to be considered an open standard. False. And you have consistently ignored all the links proving you wrong. …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by AdonisSMU What about future development? Google and google alone decides what happens as it relates to it's codec and others can submit things in the hopes that google will include it in it's codec? That's not open. Th…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by anonymouse Complete bullshit. It can and is open in the context or the "open web", it just isn't free. You keep saying you understand the difference between free and open, but you keep demonstrating that you don't. …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by hill60 And Flash is mainly h.264 Whether that is true or not, it's irrelevant. It's still Flash.
-
Quote: Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer You invest the hundreds of Billions to make your pipe dream happen. Otherwise, get back to Reality. And there you have it. The open web is a pipe dream. Case closed.
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Guglielmo Altavilla I have read w3c patent policy. I wasn't able to find any single occurrence of the words "open standard". Holy shit! You didn't even read the abstract, where they clearly use the term "royalty-fr…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum Whenever a discussion on AI involves Apple and Google on different sides of an issue -- the forum seems to be monopolized by a tag team of anti-Apple posters, who seem to play off each other's posts. …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum Ya' know... I've read your last 30, or so, posts -- and you just keep repeating the same arbitrary, unsupported statements. On the contrary, I have consistently pointed to well known definitions and e…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by mstone Will Chrome continue supporting the GIF/Jpeg image formats? Did they work out a deal with Unisys/Compuserve or whoever owns them? Excellent point. The gif patents have expired now, but this shows that it was …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by addabox There's every reason to believe that the easiest path for video encoders is to simply serve their H.264 content in a Flash wrapper to clients that don't have H.264 straight up. Video sites are already re-enc…