insike
About
- Username
- insike
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- -
- Roles
- member
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 188
Reactions
Comments
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum Open web. What does that mean? It means, among other things, that web standards must be royalty-free. Quote: The idealist stance on "free and open" needs to be tempered with reality. That "i…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Jensonb You're literally too close-minded to understand that liking Apple and liking Google are not mutually exclusive I never said it was. But it is clear that desperate Apple fanboys are going to desperately bash …
-
Quote: Originally Posted by anonymouse Nice attempt to confuse the issue, but Google is the company here pushing everyone to Flash. LOL. Now you are really losing it
-
Quote: Originally Posted by anonymouse Well, if it's FUD, FUD, FUD, and I'm "desperate" why don't you refute the arguments? I already have, but you keep repeating them. Quote: Google's agenda is to control information on the Web, and acces…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by tumme-totte Google - if you are a good supplier of the platforms you develop, include indemnification in the licensing terms. It's kind of a no brainer. If you are sure their is none, then there's no threat. Like th…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Jensonb No, what H.264 is not is "free as in beer". It is entirely open, and you'e free to use it to your heart's content. No, it is not entirely open. It is restricted by patents. It is patent-encumbered. Quote:…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by anonymouse Quite simply, you are 100% wrong about this. Restating it, yet again, won't make you any less wrong. You have failed to address the W3C Patent Policy. Until you do, you are just trolling.
-
Quote: Originally Posted by anonymouse 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 irre…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Mr. H 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 d…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by nvidia2008 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…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by AdonisSMU 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 super…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by anonymouse 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 yo…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum 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.
-
Quote: Originally Posted by anonymouse 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 fail…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by noirdesir Quote: Originally Posted by EgoAleSum 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 forma…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum 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…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by anonymouse H.264 is an open standard, and there are no W3C standards on codecs, nor will there be, so your argument is meaningless. WebM is not open nor is it a standard, it's completely controlled by one company, Goog…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by anonymouse To the contrary, This action by Google props up a proprietary plugin, Flash, and seeks to eventually replace it with another proprietary technology that isn't open or standard. WebM is not proprietary. Go…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by anonymouse The W3C hasn't specified any codec standards, nor are they likely to, so your entire argument on that basis is moot. H.264 is an open standard. No, h264 is not an open standard. Even Microsoft agrees that…
-
Quote: Originally Posted by Jensonb What the W3C says on the matter is irrelevant, because H.264 is not listed in W3C's HTML5 specification - neither is webM - because the specification leaves it up to the Browser developers (And by extension, th…