HP, Apple Drop Support for Royalties on Web Standards
Posted by
michael
on from the peer-pressure-works dept.
Medeii writes: "This article on CNET states that Apple and HP have both decided to withdraw their support for the recommendation. Both companies issued statements supporting the development of royalty-free web standards. Both were, interestingly, also authors of the current recommendation."
Well, what a nice surprise.
by
DragonPup
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Whatever their real reasons for withdrawing support, I have a feeling that the backlash a lot of people on/. expressed helped change their minds.
-Henry
-- "Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
Re:Well, what a nice surprise.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Funny
It could also be that elements within the companies that "get it" weren't aware of this until the controversy arose, and managed to change the minds of the greedy bastards responsible. Corporations aren't just one big hive kind, you know.
Re:Well, what a nice surprise.
by
DNS-and-BIND
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Someone's got doom-and-gloom clouding their eyes. The fanatical social outcasts of such causes as feminism and animal rights appear to do a damn good job forcing their views on both corporations and society in general.
-- Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Of course, the good question is... Will this be a case where Apple and HP drop support publically and the issue dissapears (And then quietly reappears 6 months later in a different form) or the case where Apple and HP drop support publically and it just goes on as if nothing happened (Like Adobe's dropping support of suing for Acrobat-Crackers);)
Its all about who the customers are...
by
Whyte+Wolf
·
· Score: 4, Funny
The backlash we saw here on/. and elsewhere against the RAND recommendation fromt he W3C, and the subsequent response from HP and Apple says something quite significant--I think-- about who the real customers of web technology are.
Apple and HPs move are PR motivated, and it looks like they were motivated by the response from their 'real' web cutomers -- the web developers and web designers who work with HTML and W3C 'standards' every day.
I find it interesting to note that Microsoft has yet to say anything about the backlash or its current position. Like always I suspect they hold their customers, and developers in nothing less than utter contempt.
--
Beware the Whyte Wolf.
With a gun barrel between your teeth, you speak only in vowels...
Big Bad Borg....
by
wowbagger
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Sounds like both Apple and HP looked at how many standards Microsoft was going to own, and came to their senses.
Either that, or the constant barrage of hostile emails had an effect.
If I had to bet, I'd bet on the former, not the latter....
Definately a Surprise
by
TheLOTR
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
This definately comes as a surprise given the direction that HP has taken as of late. Many of the people I have known who work there consider Carly's main interest to be profit, and EVERYTHING else comes second. The idea that HP would push a royalty-free system is a wonderful surprise.
Re:Definately a Surprise
by
firewort
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Carly must have realized that you can't make profits when paying fees to use everyone else's patents!
I'm pleased that Apple chose this route as a customer, and dissapointed that IBM hasn't, as an employee. Not surprised, just disappointed.
Some major companies have enough trouble conforming to free web standards as it is and break and make their own standards. Creating standards that require royalties to use will just make companies do things their own way even more.
What patents do these guys have, anyway?
by
LoveMe2Times
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Can anybody clue me in on what relevant patents HP or Apple has, anyway? Did they stand to benefit, or did they just all of a sudden go, "Hello! These might mean that we would have to pay out the nose too!" and make an abrupt about face? If HP and Apple aren't sitting on patents that might cover current or future web standards, who is? The article mentions that they collaborated with M$ for the original proposal, and I presume that they're sitting on more patents than we'd really like to think about. How does adoption of this proposal relate to the possibility of.Net becoming a web standard (if at all)?
Re:What patents do these guys have, anyway?
by
sv0f
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Can anybody clue me in on what relevant patents HP or Apple has, anyway?
I believe they have a patent on the trash can icon.
So.... Apple's main OS du jour has an OSS core, HP and Apple openly combat Free Software's foes, and IBM (despite helping pen the recent W3 recommendation) dances around waving our flag like a teenybopper at a cheerleading competition.
Is anyone else feeling a certain sense of vertigo, here?:) I mean, this is *Apple* we're talking about. Christ, remember the boycott? And IB-smegging-M. Have I stumbled into +Better Than Life or something? This reality's state has surely become inconsistent. I expect the whole thing to segfault at any moment.
-- - undoware.ca
Re:What about Quicktime?
by
TotallyUseless
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Apple doesnt own Sorenson, it isnt theirs to relicense
Re:Good for them
by
dinotrac
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Corporations aren't usually known for doing the right thing simply because it's, well, the right thing.
Sometimes they do, but I doubt that's the case here, not that it matters.
I have no doubt that a careful re-examination of the issue should have made them realize that each has more to lose than to gain with RAND standards.
First, it's impossible to devise a non-discriminatory standard that imposes a royalty fee. The receiver of the royalties always has the advantage.
Second, such a system, by favoring the biggest players (as they are the ones likely to finagle the largest number of such standards), it would favor the status quo. Not so bad if you're Microsoft or IBM or even Sun. Less wonderful if you're HP or Apple.
More info/links
by
hansk
·
· Score: 5, Informative
There has been some good discussion and links related to this issue over at Dave Winer's scripting.com.
Re:Good for them
by
TheAwfulTruth
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
No, they don't. Ever. HP and Apple obviously think that this change of heart will benefit them. I don't know how it will or won't. But I can assure you that was the only reason for making the descision. Sometimes "People will like us more and maybe buy more X from us" is the reason. Sometimes "It will make us money in royalties" is the reason. Whatever it is, it is always made with what seems to be the best interest of the company at the time. If it happens to be the right thing then they look good, if not, they look evil. But BEING good or evil is NEVER a reason for a company to make a descision. Those traits are thrust upon them by outside watchers.
-- Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
A quick peek at their wallets changed their minds.
by
thesolo
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
This was definitely not a case of public outcry changing their opinion--Apple & HP have both been flamed to death before (think constant lawsuits & layoffs, respectively), with no policies changing. However, once they realized that they would NOT be the top players in this, and that they would probably wind up having to pay MS/Sun/InsertBigNameCompanyHere for their patents, it suddenly didn't look like such a good idea.
And you know what? I don't care about their reasoning. I'm just happy that they backed out of a horrible idea...even if it wasn't for the right reasons.
On Corporations, and The Right Thing (tm).
by
mindstrm
·
· Score: 3, Offtopic
Corporations aren't known for doing the right thing.. becuase it's illegal for them to do so. No, really, it is.
You see, public corporations have a duty to protect the interests of their shareholders. They cannot do something because it's 'right'. IF wha they are doing is legal, and profitable, they cannot go and STOP doing it just because it's not 'right'.
THat's the problem.
Because it's the best
by
cryptochrome
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Quicktime is the first, the oldest, the most developed, and by far the best video architecture around (although the default codecs aren't the best, and the software implementations of the standard sometimes have bugs). Its ability to handle many different types of data is unparalelled - it's almost an operating system unto its own. That's why they picked it as the basis of the MPEG 4 standard. Now if only they'd come out with a linux version.
--
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Re:Because it's the best
by
gig
·
· Score: 3, Informative
QuickTime is the most complete multimedia there is, which is why MPEG-4 is based on it. Real has a server and a player, and Microsoft has a server, a player, and an OS monopoly, but QuickTime is in cameras, audio apps, music apps, Web authoring apps, animation tools, DVD authoring tools, DV editors, and open source streaming servers on every major platform. It supports almost every image, video, and audio format in existence, along with animated images and Flash movies. It has a built-in software synth with DLS. For $29 you can author with QuickTime Player Pro just by cutting and pasting and exporting. QuickTime is one of the major reasons why creative people use Macs. While Microsoft was trying to get their developers to support a GUI, Apple had their developers integrating their apps with QuickTime, so you can move media back and forth between apps as files or with the clipboard and get great results.
Almost every video you can find on the Web was in QuickTime format at some point in it's life. There aren't any other vendors with this kind of technology. It may be possible to do digital video without Apple, but it's not something you'd do by choice.
If you want to run QuickTime on Linux, here's how.
Guys... file the QuickTime-on-Linux stuff away with the one-button mouse crap and the entire phrase "proprietary hardware". You're only hurting yourselves by regurgitating all the Microsoft FUD we are forced to swallow every day. Shit it out, instead. Go to an Apple Store and touch some of this stuff. Apple is firing on all cylinders right now, and it's something to see. You can make movies and DVD's with drag and drop on a stable UNIX with ridiculous graphics and media support. It's outstanding. You could share one of these computers with your grandmother and both be happy.
Re:Good for them
by
Karl+Cocknozzle
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I wonder what happened to make them change their minds. Corporations aren't usually known for doing the right thing simply because it's, well, the right thing.
Interesting.
Indeed.
In this situation "THE RIGHT THING" and what would provide them with the best competitive advantage happily coincided. After all, MS is several years into developing royalty technology. Do HP and Apple really want to compete in a royalty environment with MS having a headstart on development?
I think they thought about it and realized that they would only be feeding the beast by supporting royalty based standards. After all, MS has the most to gain from this. It's a simple mob tactic.
After all, MS is taxing the OEM hardware/software, software vendor, business software and business OS/hardware markets. The next logical step in their racket is to try and get a stranglehold on the internet.
Simple mob tactic. Identify opportunity. Enter market. Destroy competition, tax everybody you do business with, and make sure to box competitors out of the market, one way or the other.
-- Who did what now?
Response from HP
by
dpol
·
· Score: 5, Informative
There's an interesting interview at NEWS.COM with Jim Bell, director of standards and industry initiatives at Hewlett-Packard, titled "Why the W3C needs to be royalty free".
-- --
David Polberger
Computer Science major, University of Lund, Sweden
Slashdot Mirror
Whatever their real reasons for withdrawing support, I have a feeling that the backlash a lot of people on /. expressed helped change their minds.
-Henry
"Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
Of course, the good question is... Will this be a case where Apple and HP drop support publically and the issue dissapears (And then quietly reappears 6 months later in a different form) or the case where Apple and HP drop support publically and it just goes on as if nothing happened (Like Adobe's dropping support of suing for Acrobat-Crackers) ;)
Gentoo Sucks
The backlash we saw here on /. and elsewhere against the RAND recommendation fromt he W3C, and the subsequent response from HP and Apple says something quite significant--I think-- about who the real customers of web technology are.
Apple and HPs move are PR motivated, and it looks like they were motivated by the response from their 'real' web cutomers -- the web developers and web designers who work with HTML and W3C 'standards' every day.
I find it interesting to note that Microsoft has yet to say anything about the backlash or its current position. Like always I suspect they hold their customers, and developers in nothing less than utter contempt.
Beware the Whyte Wolf.
With a gun barrel between your teeth, you speak only in vowels...
Sounds like both Apple and HP looked at how many standards Microsoft was going to own, and came to their senses.
Either that, or the constant barrage of hostile emails had an effect.
If I had to bet, I'd bet on the former, not the latter....
www.eFax.com are spammers
This definately comes as a surprise given the direction that HP has taken as of late. Many of the people I have known who work there consider Carly's main interest to be profit, and EVERYTHING else comes second. The idea that HP would push a royalty-free system is a wonderful surprise.
Some major companies have enough trouble conforming to free web standards as it is and break and make their own standards. Creating standards that require royalties to use will just make companies do things their own way even more.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
Can anybody clue me in on what relevant patents HP or Apple has, anyway? Did they stand to benefit, or did they just all of a sudden go, "Hello! These might mean that we would have to pay out the nose too!" and make an abrupt about face? If HP and Apple aren't sitting on patents that might cover current or future web standards, who is? The article mentions that they collaborated with M$ for the original proposal, and I presume that they're sitting on more patents than we'd really like to think about. How does adoption of this proposal relate to the possibility of .Net becoming a web standard (if at all)?
So.... Apple's main OS du jour has an OSS core, HP and Apple openly combat Free Software's foes, and IBM (despite helping pen the recent W3 recommendation) dances around waving our flag like a teenybopper at a cheerleading competition.
:) I mean, this is *Apple* we're talking about. Christ, remember the boycott? And IB-smegging-M. Have I stumbled into +Better Than Life or something? This reality's state has surely become inconsistent. I expect the whole thing to segfault at any moment.
Is anyone else feeling a certain sense of vertigo, here?
- undoware.ca
Apple doesnt own Sorenson, it isnt theirs to relicense
Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
Corporations aren't usually known for doing the right thing simply because it's, well, the right thing.
Sometimes they do, but I doubt that's the case here, not that it matters.
I have no doubt that a careful re-examination of the issue should have made them realize that each has more to lose than to gain with RAND standards.
First, it's impossible to devise a non-discriminatory standard that imposes a royalty fee. The receiver of the royalties always has the advantage.
Second, such a system, by favoring the biggest players (as they are the ones likely to finagle the largest number of such standards), it would favor the status quo. Not so bad if you're Microsoft or IBM or even Sun. Less wonderful if you're HP or Apple.
There has been some good discussion and links related to this issue over at Dave Winer's scripting.com.
Also, over at Zeldman's www.zeldman.com.
Bruce Perens
Bruce Perens.
No, they don't. Ever. HP and Apple obviously think that this change of heart will benefit them. I don't know how it will or won't. But I can assure you that was the only reason for making the descision. Sometimes "People will like us more and maybe buy more X from us" is the reason. Sometimes "It will make us money in royalties" is the reason. Whatever it is, it is always made with what seems to be the best interest of the company at the time. If it happens to be the right thing then they look good, if not, they look evil. But BEING good or evil is NEVER a reason for a company to make a descision. Those traits are thrust upon them by outside watchers.
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
This was definitely not a case of public outcry changing their opinion--Apple & HP have both been flamed to death before (think constant lawsuits & layoffs, respectively), with no policies changing. However, once they realized that they would NOT be the top players in this, and that they would probably wind up having to pay MS/Sun/InsertBigNameCompanyHere for their patents, it suddenly didn't look like such a good idea.
And you know what? I don't care about their reasoning. I'm just happy that they backed out of a horrible idea...even if it wasn't for the right reasons.
Corporations aren't known for doing the right thing.. becuase it's illegal for them to do so. No, really, it is.
You see, public corporations have a duty to protect the interests of their shareholders. They cannot do something because it's 'right'. IF wha they are doing is legal, and profitable, they cannot go and STOP doing it just because it's not 'right'.
THat's the problem.
Quicktime is the first, the oldest, the most developed, and by far the best video architecture around (although the default codecs aren't the best, and the software implementations of the standard sometimes have bugs). Its ability to handle many different types of data is unparalelled - it's almost an operating system unto its own. That's why they picked it as the basis of the MPEG 4 standard. Now if only they'd come out with a linux version.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Indeed.
In this situation "THE RIGHT THING" and what would provide them with the best competitive advantage happily coincided. After all, MS is several years into developing royalty technology. Do HP and Apple really want to compete in a royalty environment with MS having a headstart on development?
I think they thought about it and realized that they would only be feeding the beast by supporting royalty based standards. After all, MS has the most to gain from this. It's a simple mob tactic.
After all, MS is taxing the OEM hardware/software, software vendor, business software and business OS/hardware markets. The next logical step in their racket is to try and get a stranglehold on the internet.
Simple mob tactic. Identify opportunity. Enter market. Destroy competition, tax everybody you do business with, and make sure to box competitors out of the market, one way or the other.
Who did what now?
There's an interesting interview at NEWS.COM with Jim Bell, director of standards and industry initiatives at Hewlett-Packard, titled "Why the W3C needs to be royalty free".
-- David Polberger Computer Science major, University of Lund, Sweden