Why? I mean you have manufacturer A with business model X, and there is manufacturer B with business model Y. Why do supporters of business model X feel they have to attack those that choose company B's products?
Go buy your android phones and be happy about it instead of apparently moping because not everyone shares your religion.
Also, for mobiles you really do not have more "decisions" than the operators allow you anyway. A device that relies on a third party's services to really be of any use is never fully "owned".
The main difference between the DVD-size XBox 360 releases and the BD-size PS3 discs is the presence of uncompressed multichannel audio. It varies how useful that is to users though - someone playing with their TV's stereo speakers will not benefit from that.
What? Then they will just spend even more time there since it takes longer to load. You want the opposite, that Facebook has the highest speed known to man.
Not only that: Let's say some American content provider sends traffic across Comcast and pays them for the bandwidth. Comcast sends traffic further on to BT's customers and the networks involved are supposed to divvy up the cost between them.
Now, if BT demands that the content provider (aka. Comcast's customer) should pay them when BT's customers request content from them, the concent provider is likely to argue that such payments should be deducted from what they pay to Comcast. Would Comcast approve? Me thinks not. But that would be the logical conclusion when a third-party asks for such "protection money".
Or they would report BT to the feds for extortion. Which is what it would look like.
westlake is pointing out it is NOT just about the HTML5 video (not image) tag. It is about video formats in general. Even the PSP has a chip dedicated to H.264 decoding.
Ask yourself instead: Why didn't Google rally around Theora? Is that too open for their liking?
A patent challenge against H.264 would have to come from someone outside of the patent pool members, and I am sure the combined weight of the legal depts of those industry players would be enough to crush any small upstart claiming any violation.
Heck, Apple alone could solve any such dispute by just buying up the challenger...
the US government should claim eminent domain on all patents involving the h.264 technology
... and thus set up a WTO and WIPO shit-storm as other countries will use that (using eminient domain over something as trivial as a video codec) as precedent to use their own little eminent domain over patents involving medicines or food. Bye-bye Monsanto and Pfizer!
Or maybe not.. Software patents are not that recognized world-wide yet, so many of the patents do not apply outside the few countries that recognize them.
Why would they? It is a known patent situation, MPEG-LA being a patent pool organization. They offer a license (at a known cost) to that pool of patents. General users do not pay anything (mostly because they haven't found out how to charge) at least until 2015.
Try looking into how much you pay per megabyte when sending text messages from a cell-phone instead if you want to attach extraordinary pricing of something.
Ironically, the U.S. is one of the FEW countries which recognize software patents: To the rest of the world, copyright in the source code is all you get, the binary program being considered closer to a mathematical expression (non-protected) or (for most code) obvious to a practitioner (since there usually is only so many ways to solve a given problem).
FLV is a container. You do not encode or decode a fucking container. You encode or decode its contents - which often is using H.264.
Dropping native H.264 just means more embedded Flash instead of HTML5 video tags.
And I would like to preserve my iPhone/PSP/etc's battery by delegating to a hardware chip to do what would be slower than necessary if done in software.
You pay for a copy of ALL ISO standards - that is how they organization is financed. That does not mean they are not open.
You can usually get "non-branded" version of the same specifications from other member bodies, e.g. instead of shelling out for ISO-MOTIS you can get X.400 from ITU-T for a smaller sum if memory serves. They even point out helpfully where their spec differs from the ISO version.
Patents also encumber USB and HDMI, I haven't seen Google on the barricades against those technologies used in Android phones and Google TVs respectively.
And what about Wikipedia's closedness? There was a time when anyone could edit anything there, now a "cabal" seems to restrict a lot of what can be edited, especially for "important" subjects...
Give a little more time for HTML5 to become common, and you'll see whole sites popping up to provide web-delivered "Apps" which cache and remain local via HTML5
Come, now: It's not like last year's model will stop working.
At least it is just one: I have a bigger problem with e.g. Nokia, releasing ten phone models a year, how many of them are they actually backing, how many will meet with success, how cheap and flimsy are they making them in order to spread their total market share between so many different devices?
Slashdot Mirror
ISO/IEC 14496-10 - MPEG-4 Part 10, Advanced Video Coding
Sounds like a formal standard to me.
Unlike, say, a spec made by a small company that Google bought.
Sounds like a half-decent pun. Are you related to the deceased General?
Why? I mean you have manufacturer A with business model X, and there is manufacturer B with business model Y. Why do supporters of business model X feel they have to attack those that choose company B's products?
Go buy your android phones and be happy about it instead of apparently moping because not everyone shares your religion.
Also, for mobiles you really do not have more "decisions" than the operators allow you anyway. A device that relies on a third party's services to really be of any use is never fully "owned".
Well, to be fair it is an optional install; X11 programs still look "alien" on a Mac.
Really? Have you checked Windows Phone 7 Series lately?
Are you comparing mobile OS to mobile OS, or desktop OS to desktop OS? Oh, you are comparing desktop OS to mobile OS.
The main difference between the DVD-size XBox 360 releases and the BD-size PS3 discs is the presence of uncompressed multichannel audio. It varies how useful that is to users though - someone playing with their TV's stereo speakers will not benefit from that.
But unlike the XBox Live case, using PSN services for mulitplayer is not mandatory on the PS3. Badlands for instance uses Gamespy instead.
What? Then they will just spend even more time there since it takes longer to load. You want the opposite, that Facebook has the highest speed known to man.
Not only that: Let's say some American content provider sends traffic across Comcast and pays them for the bandwidth. Comcast sends traffic further on to BT's customers and the networks involved are supposed to divvy up the cost between them.
Now, if BT demands that the content provider (aka. Comcast's customer) should pay them when BT's customers request content from them, the concent provider is likely to argue that such payments should be deducted from what they pay to Comcast. Would Comcast approve? Me thinks not. But that would be the logical conclusion when a third-party asks for such "protection money".
Or they would report BT to the feds for extortion. Which is what it would look like.
Unit tests in Java use Junit
"*whimper*"
"Don't listen to the bad man, little TestNG."
Not everything slapped with an Apache license is from Apache. Just like not everything slapped with a GPL is from Gnu.
westlake is pointing out it is NOT just about the HTML5 video (not image) tag. It is about video formats in general. Even the PSP has a chip dedicated to H.264 decoding.
Ask yourself instead: Why didn't Google rally around Theora? Is that too open for their liking?
A patent challenge against H.264 would have to come from someone outside of the patent pool members, and I am sure the combined weight of the legal depts of those industry players would be enough to crush any small upstart claiming any violation.
Heck, Apple alone could solve any such dispute by just buying up the challenger...
the US government should claim eminent domain on all patents involving the h.264 technology
... and thus set up a WTO and WIPO shit-storm as other countries will use that (using eminient domain over something as trivial as a video codec) as precedent to use their own little eminent domain over patents involving medicines or food. Bye-bye Monsanto and Pfizer!
Or maybe not.. Software patents are not that recognized world-wide yet, so many of the patents do not apply outside the few countries that recognize them.
Why would they? It is a known patent situation, MPEG-LA being a patent pool organization. They offer a license (at a known cost) to that pool of patents. General users do not pay anything (mostly because they haven't found out how to charge) at least until 2015.
Try looking into how much you pay per megabyte when sending text messages from a cell-phone instead if you want to attach extraordinary pricing of something.
Ironically, the U.S. is one of the FEW countries which recognize software patents: To the rest of the world, copyright in the source code is all you get, the binary program being considered closer to a mathematical expression (non-protected) or (for most code) obvious to a practitioner (since there usually is only so many ways to solve a given problem).
FLV is a container. You do not encode or decode a fucking container. You encode or decode its contents - which often is using H.264.
Dropping native H.264 just means more embedded Flash instead of HTML5 video tags.
And I would like to preserve my iPhone/PSP/etc's battery by delegating to a hardware chip to do what would be slower than necessary if done in software.
You pay for a copy of ALL ISO standards - that is how they organization is financed. That does not mean they are not open.
You can usually get "non-branded" version of the same specifications from other member bodies, e.g. instead of shelling out for ISO-MOTIS you can get X.400 from ITU-T for a smaller sum if memory serves. They even point out helpfully where their spec differs from the ISO version.
Patents also encumber USB and HDMI, I haven't seen Google on the barricades against those technologies used in Android phones and Google TVs respectively.
Does breaking a lock make sense when you instead hand the new keys to Google? At least H.264 was owned by more than one market actor.
Remember HD-DVD (in practice Toshiba, alone) versus Blu-Ray (everyone else).
And what about Wikipedia's closedness? There was a time when anyone could edit anything there, now a "cabal" seems to restrict a lot of what can be edited, especially for "important" subjects...
... and we do not allow apples to be mixed with oranges either.
Give a little more time for HTML5 to become common, and you'll see whole sites popping up to provide web-delivered "Apps" which cache and remain local via HTML5
... or institute Muslim Sharia criminal law. Same thing.
Come, now: It's not like last year's model will stop working.
At least it is just one: I have a bigger problem with e.g. Nokia, releasing ten phone models a year, how many of them are they actually backing, how many will meet with success, how cheap and flimsy are they making them in order to spread their total market share between so many different devices?