Yeah. And I was just pointing out that virtually identical reporting is done by several allegedly reputable and competent news organizations also. So the distinction was that when Fox did it, it was an ignorantly backwards news organization, but when, for example, CNN did it, it was at worst an honest mistake?
Um, no, because using the words "Pixie Dust" isn't a problem.
I don't know about you but I was in direct contact with MPEG-LA lawyers recently about their licensing terms (confusion over what constituted commercial use,) and given the terms of their licensing as stated and clarified directly to me, I'll not be surprised to see many, many sites ditching H.264 in favor of something free.
H.264 is not going away. Those that make money from it can afford the license. For those that don't, it is free. There's no way at all that any major commercial site is going to ditch H.264 for Theora. None. At. All.
You may think theora's a non-starter but you know what, you're all focused on technical limitations and other bullshit
Not technical limitations. Quality. Theora just doesn't have it.
when you should worry about "DOES IT FUCKING WORK OR NOT?" That answer is yes, and since it does work, it's viable enough.
But it doesn't "fucking work". Well over 99% of computers in use today cannot play Theora over the web. If you ditch H.264 in favor of Theora, congratulations, you just ensured that the overwhelming majority of users can not use your site. That would have to be the single most idiotic business move imaginable. While you're at it, you might as well only offer your content in Klingon.
Open source represents a freedom to use and create derivative works.
...
If Ubuntu has to worry about being SUED for including something then it really isn't Free Software.
Those two terms aren't interchangeable. What you mention in the first sentence is not a defining aspect of Open Source, but is a defining aspect of Free Software.
Since TFS is so suckily misleading, I actually RTFA this time. Everybody's been saying it's legally impossible for Mozilla to license H.264 for Firefox, because MPEG LA requires a limit on the number of installs or something. Of course since Ubuntu is freely distributable, all the same arguments would apply. So WTF?
To answer your "WTF?", the problem is that everybody's been lying about Firefox. There are absolutely no legal reasons why they can't license H.264, just as there are no legal reasons Canonical can't. Which is why they were able to do it. WTF averted, problem solved.
Will be interesting to see how iPad sales change once HP and Microsoft next-gen tablets hit the ground.
Next gen? iPad is next gen.
It will be interesting to see what HP, Dell and ASUS come up with (MS never had a tablet). I don't think they'll have much success against the iPad. Windows 7 is a dead-end tablet OS, and Chrome is a cloud netbook OS that hasn't even gotten off the ground, so that basically leaves WebOS and Android. I just don't see how a tablet based on either of those is going to gain much traction.
By the time HP is able to come up with a WebOS slate, the iPad will be at, or very close to, revision 2.
Why on earth would you want to use an iPad to browse the internet if you have a laptop?
The laptop limits you more than the iPad does. Web browsing on a laptop is still fundamentally stationary. With the iPad, you don't give a second thought about just carrying it with you wherever you want.
Tiny screen
The screen is huge, being coupled with very smooth zooming and scrolling.
no Flash support
Hahaha...
no keyboard
Bullshit.
when did it become hip to use crippled devices?
It didn't. The idea that the iPad is crippled is absurd.
The fact that "I prefer web browsing on my iPad over my notebook" is a such a common sentiment makes a strong case that your inability to grasp that is not due to people just trying to be "hip by using crippled devices". It suggest a fundamental flaw in your assessment of the entire situation.
Um, no. He wasn't talking about that specific story, just the idea of a "news" organization so ignorantly backwards as Fox News reporting on science, is like McDonald's putting out a healthy recipes cookbook. In a word, ironic.
The funniest thing about defense of Fox News (or Bush or whatever) is almost always to point out a way in which, superficially, some non-conservative agency has done the same thing. "Bush lied about war? Clinton lied about sex!" or in this case, "Fox used the term 'pixie dust'? So did CNN!"
From what I've seen, the usual sentiment was that it would sell hugely like every other Apple product. They themselves being giant nerds didn't need or want it, but plenty of casual users would.
Not true. The anti-iPad crowd did not generally say, "plenty of casual users would". They were, "at launch, a bunch of fanboys will, but then it will die off".
They're still on track to sell more than 20 million netbooks this year. 1 million iPads displacing 1 million units of netbooks isn't an enormous drop - it's about 5% of sales. Tops.
1 million iPads displaced in one month. That's 12 million per year (perhaps less, as initial demand dies down, perhaps more, as production meets demand and international sales begin). That's greater than 50%, not "5% tops".
All the graph in the article does is illustrate a decline in growth of an established product.
It shows growth has flatlined (5% for April). One thing this graph shows for certain is that the iPad is undeniably having a negative impact on the netbook.
iPod sales growth has been declining too, but that's simply because literally everyone and their mother owns one now, and people are simply replacing them or buying their child their first iPod.
The iPod's decline in growth has been offset by the iPod Touch and iPhone. Apple keeps ahead of the game by being the ones who sell the product that replaces their old one.
So the question for the netbook is, what product is going to replace it? Answer: iPad.
Market saturation a la iPod not the reason for the netbook decline. Until the iPad, netbooks were pretty much the only game in town for ultraportable computing beyond a smartphone. Now the iPad fills that role, and it fills it far better than any netbook, because the iPad is designed from the ground up for that very purpose. The netbook is a parody of a real computer. It's an atavistic dead-end.
As far as those numbers go, do you really think that somehow netbooks are approaching an asymptote of 0% YoY growth? Because that doesn't seem terribly likely. It's not like the market is going to fall off so quickly and just stop at "status quo from last year". In the course of less than a year, netbook growth went from over 600%, to just 5%.
The writing is on the wall. Take off the nerd glasses and maybe you'll be able to read it.
So, Google Voice didn't make their quality standards?
Google Voice violated Apple's terms. Specifically, in this case, duplicating core iPhone functionality. Those terms aren't just about the standards of the specific app, but of the iPhone experience itself.
And what about code that is developed originally in another language that affects the quality standard as well?
Same as above. By allowing non-native apps, Apple puts their platform at the mercy of non-native tools.
You are speaking on both sides of your mouth here, and I think, deep down, you know it.
And I don't think you know what the fuck you're talking about. You stated that Apple is using the App Store to limit competition. Please cite one example. (hint: there are none)
The problem with the theories that Apple is using their store to stifle competition is that Apple has been very consistent in doing everything they can to make sure that their platform is as trouble-free and as consistent as possible.
Another problem is that Apple doesn't block apps that compete with theirs, including those that they sell. Unless you have an example to the contrary.
But when they "pushed" IE, they in no way prevented other browsers from being distributed, or from running on Windows.
So? That's not required for anti-trust violation.
What I mind is using that vetting process to squelch fair competition. Microsoft isn't doing anything like that on the Xbox.
Except that's not what Apple is doing. They are vetting apps to ensure a certain level of quality. Which is the exact same thing MS does on the Xbox (and both Sony and Nintendo do on their platforms). There's nothing illegal about it at all.
Would Microsoft have had a right to control the market for applications which could run on Windows?
They do this on Xbox, Zune and Windows Mobile 7.
As for the legality of doing it on Windows, my opinion would be yes. In fact, I'd encourage it, as this would pretty much destroy Windows if they applied the same strictness to Windows as they do to their other systems.
In fact, isn't that exactly what they were slammed for (actually, for far less - for simply bundling a web browser?)
It's ironic that your parenthetical statement disproves the statement preceding it.
Your primary statement is completely false. They did not get in trouble for controlling the Windows software market. They got in trouble for the reason you state in parentheses--for using their PC OS monopoly (which was legal) to push IE.
Interesting. I'll still reserve judgement until I see it in action, but I'm glad they've moved on.
The problem that I suspect will still remain is that UI layout will still look off (even if it functions properly), since a UI designed in Interface Builder will naturally look different from one designed using KDE/Qt tools.
For example, will the apps have their menu bars in the window, or at the top of the screen? And if they are at the top of the screen, will they automatically take on the standard Mac layout? And will Mac OS X services be available in the app?
I'm not saying this to put down Qt or anything. I'm just pointing out that getting a cross-platform toolkit to look native on Mac OS X is really hard and more involved than simply subclassing NSButton, etc., when it's compiled for the Mac.
If you wanted to write for both KDE and Windows, you'd use QT and get Mac for free. No porting necessary. Just recompile. Native apps with native look and feel. Yay!
Not even close. Ported apps look like shit and have all sorts of odd UI quirks.
The problem isn't that Apple can set the terms, it is that Apple is setting the terms -only- to prevent people from coding the same app and running it other places, so Apple can have the app exclusively and keeping people tied into the iPhone rather than the cheaper, diverse and more feature filled Android, BlackBerry, and other phones.
Your assumption about Apple's intentions are wrong.
Steve Jobs has an open letter on Apple's site right now (http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/) that covers their intentions. The first five points are about Flash specifically, but the sixth point covers the reason behind the update to the developer agreement.
It's funny, when its in their favor, Apple fanboys here talk about the iPhone outselling every other phone (though it's not)...
No, people say it's the most popular, most in demand, best, etc. Not one person has said the iPhone outsells all other smart phones. It's just biased people like you who read it that way.
they talk about it being so amazingly popular in the market, and of the huge demand...
Exactly.
When it's not, they say "Look around, we're just a little fish in a big pond!"...
No one has ever said that, either. Do you see the world solely in binary? Apple is a big fish in a huge pond. In fact, they are the biggest fish in this pond. Name one handset maker that's larger than Apple. That doesn't put them in monopoly status.
The problem is you seem to have a hard time seeing things as degrees, instead of as absolutes.
No, Apple requires the program to be originally written in the approved languages. This is done deliberately to prevent code being written for multiple languages and provide a disincentive for releasing an application for the Iphone and one of its competitors. Especially since most of their big competitors use Java.
This is to prevent using code translators, which goes back to the primary reason for this whole issue, which is that Apple doesn't want third parties standing between the developers and iPhone OS.
This is not directly to prevent cross-platform apps, it's for them to be able to keep control over the evolution of their system and not having to check in with third party tools for every improvement made to iPhone OS.
If Apple has acted in good faith, then they have nothing to fear about an Anti-Trust investigation.
Half-agreed. Apple has nothing to fear so long as the investigation is done impartially and in earnest (which I believe to be the case). Apple has been fairly straightforward with their intentions. Their intentions are not to harm Adobe or prevent cross-platform apps. Their intention is to maintain control over their own system, which should not trigger any anti-trust litigation, although an investigation is completely understandable.
They don't want anybody developing applications without them being under their thumb.
You've got it exactly backwards. They don't want to be under anyone else's thumb. For example, Adobe's. If Apple allows Flash tools to compile apps for the iPhone, then all future iPhone updates will have to take into account Adobe's Flash tools.
Yes, they can use that control to give a good user experience (see all the quality iPhone fart software, or all that other great stuff), but they want it for purely financial reasons.
Apple doesn't make any significant money from the sales of apps. They make their money from the sales of hardware. So, once again, you have it completely backwards. They want the provide the best user experience, because that means more hardware sales. Apps are a feature of the iPhone, not the other way around where the iPhone is merely a vehicle to sell apps.
Actually, it is plainly obvious from Mr. Jobs' comments that the point of the restriction is to prevent cross-platform applications. Apple wants iPhone apps to be designed for the iPhone, not ported from another platform.
-dZ.
Not quite right. He wants apps that fully support the iPhone OS. That ends up meaning they aren't cross-platform (not with the exact same codebase), but in spite of what so many people here seem to think, that's not the primary goal. The primary goal is to be able to advance their own platform without reliance on, or hinderance from, third party dev tools.
They want all iPhone apps to be written in Objective-C for Cocoa (or a subset thereof, which includes C and C++). This means that as Apple improves Objective-C and Cocoa, all iPhone programmers will have access to those advances. If programmers are instead using something like Flash, then when Apple improves their system, those programmers who use Flash will not have access to those improvements unless and until Adobe makes them available, and some Cocoa-specific APIs (as well as platform-specific APIs for other target platforms) will not be available.
Apple was in this boat before, and they don't intend to make the same mistake again.
Then why'd you add it? Because no where at all in the actual words did it mention Google. Not even indirectly.
Who said anything about Apple being threatened?
The person who I was replying to when you first replied to me.
Oh, btw Apple is a part of MPEG-LA as a licensor of patents (they hold one patent) so I guess part of their revenue is threatened too.
If you're going to complain about me putting words into your mouth, it belies your sincerity to then espouse the exact thing you just objected to.
It does not take any stretch of imagination at all to see why MPEG-LA would want to try and prevent any MPEG-LA-patent-free video codecs from being released for royalty-free use.
I never said otherwise. In fact, it was rather strongly implied that it's the MPEG-LA who is getting ready to sue (they are the most likely candidate).
While Apple is a member of the MPEG-LA, the MPEG-LA's interests are not necessarily Apple's interests. Whether the MPEG-LA makes profit or not isn't all that important to Apple. What is important to Apple is that they have access to a high-quality, industry standard codec.
"Vastly"? How can you just make a sweeping claim like that without anything to back it up?
Oh please complain about something I wrote, then immediately do exactly that yourself.
I would say MPEG-2 is vastly inferior to MPEG-4;
Thanks!
but Theora is somewhere in the middle.
In other words, it's inferior to H.264. By "vastly", I was referring to both breadth and depth. Quality and bitrate, hardware support and battery life, wide adoption, industry standard, openly licensed. The only thing Theora has in its favor is the codec is fully open source.
So, yeah, vastly inferior.
The only real advantage of Theora is that it's (presently) free and open.
And that isn't enough? Of course, we still have till 2016 to avert this disaster.
No, it's not enough. If you want me to support a "free" codec, make one better than H.264!
I don't want to watch video in shittier quality, I don't want to store my family videos in shittier quality, I don't want my portable devices to run hotter and have lower battery lives, just so that my codec is "free".
Why would I want any of that when I don't have to accept such crap? I don't give a shit that my computer costs $0.05 more (or whatever) for this. The whole point of buying computers is for what they can do. You pay for functionality. If I can have the option for the superior codec at an acceptable price, why should I settle for the inferior one?
No FUD there: h.264 is proprietary and it's unnecessary since there are good and free alternatives.
No there aren't. But regardless, the FUD is that Mozilla can't support H.264 and that the MPEG-LA will sue everyone who offers H.264 content in a few years.
That they can't support H.264, and that even if they did, in a few years MPEG-LA will probably start suing every website that offers content in H.264. This is the very definition of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. Somehow I completely forgot about Firefox. Still, the vast majority of computers can't play Theora via the web.
Yeah. And I was just pointing out that virtually identical reporting is done by several allegedly reputable and competent news organizations also. So the distinction was that when Fox did it, it was an ignorantly backwards news organization, but when, for example, CNN did it, it was at worst an honest mistake?
Um, no, because using the words "Pixie Dust" isn't a problem.
I don't know about you but I was in direct contact with MPEG-LA lawyers recently about their licensing terms (confusion over what constituted commercial use,) and given the terms of their licensing as stated and clarified directly to me, I'll not be surprised to see many, many sites ditching H.264 in favor of something free.
H.264 is not going away. Those that make money from it can afford the license. For those that don't, it is free. There's no way at all that any major commercial site is going to ditch H.264 for Theora. None. At. All.
You may think theora's a non-starter but you know what, you're all focused on technical limitations and other bullshit
Not technical limitations. Quality. Theora just doesn't have it.
when you should worry about "DOES IT FUCKING WORK OR NOT?" That answer is yes, and since it does work, it's viable enough.
But it doesn't "fucking work". Well over 99% of computers in use today cannot play Theora over the web. If you ditch H.264 in favor of Theora, congratulations, you just ensured that the overwhelming majority of users can not use your site. That would have to be the single most idiotic business move imaginable. While you're at it, you might as well only offer your content in Klingon.
Open source represents a freedom to use and create derivative works.
...
If Ubuntu has to worry about being SUED for including something then it really isn't Free Software.
Those two terms aren't interchangeable. What you mention in the first sentence is not a defining aspect of Open Source, but is a defining aspect of Free Software.
Since TFS is so suckily misleading, I actually RTFA this time. Everybody's been saying it's legally impossible for Mozilla to license H.264 for Firefox, because MPEG LA requires a limit on the number of installs or something. Of course since Ubuntu is freely distributable, all the same arguments would apply. So WTF?
To answer your "WTF?", the problem is that everybody's been lying about Firefox. There are absolutely no legal reasons why they can't license H.264, just as there are no legal reasons Canonical can't. Which is why they were able to do it. WTF averted, problem solved.
Will be interesting to see how iPad sales change once HP and Microsoft next-gen tablets hit the ground.
Next gen? iPad is next gen.
It will be interesting to see what HP, Dell and ASUS come up with (MS never had a tablet). I don't think they'll have much success against the iPad. Windows 7 is a dead-end tablet OS, and Chrome is a cloud netbook OS that hasn't even gotten off the ground, so that basically leaves WebOS and Android. I just don't see how a tablet based on either of those is going to gain much traction.
By the time HP is able to come up with a WebOS slate, the iPad will be at, or very close to, revision 2.
If you had bothered the read the part you quoted, you'd have noticed I said exactly that.
Why on earth would you want to use an iPad to browse the internet if you have a laptop?
The laptop limits you more than the iPad does. Web browsing on a laptop is still fundamentally stationary. With the iPad, you don't give a second thought about just carrying it with you wherever you want.
Tiny screen
The screen is huge, being coupled with very smooth zooming and scrolling.
no Flash support
Hahaha...
no keyboard
Bullshit.
when did it become hip to use crippled devices?
It didn't. The idea that the iPad is crippled is absurd.
The fact that "I prefer web browsing on my iPad over my notebook" is a such a common sentiment makes a strong case that your inability to grasp that is not due to people just trying to be "hip by using crippled devices". It suggest a fundamental flaw in your assessment of the entire situation.
Um, no. He wasn't talking about that specific story, just the idea of a "news" organization so ignorantly backwards as Fox News reporting on science, is like McDonald's putting out a healthy recipes cookbook. In a word, ironic.
The funniest thing about defense of Fox News (or Bush or whatever) is almost always to point out a way in which, superficially, some non-conservative agency has done the same thing. "Bush lied about war? Clinton lied about sex!" or in this case, "Fox used the term 'pixie dust'? So did CNN!"
From what I've seen, the usual sentiment was that it would sell hugely like every other Apple product. They themselves being giant nerds didn't need or want it, but plenty of casual users would.
Not true. The anti-iPad crowd did not generally say, "plenty of casual users would". They were, "at launch, a bunch of fanboys will, but then it will die off".
They're still on track to sell more than 20 million netbooks this year. 1 million iPads displacing 1 million units of netbooks isn't an enormous drop - it's about 5% of sales. Tops.
1 million iPads displaced in one month. That's 12 million per year (perhaps less, as initial demand dies down, perhaps more, as production meets demand and international sales begin). That's greater than 50%, not "5% tops".
All the graph in the article does is illustrate a decline in growth of an established product.
It shows growth has flatlined (5% for April). One thing this graph shows for certain is that the iPad is undeniably having a negative impact on the netbook.
iPod sales growth has been declining too, but that's simply because literally everyone and their mother owns one now, and people are simply replacing them or buying their child their first iPod.
The iPod's decline in growth has been offset by the iPod Touch and iPhone. Apple keeps ahead of the game by being the ones who sell the product that replaces their old one.
So the question for the netbook is, what product is going to replace it? Answer: iPad.
Market saturation a la iPod not the reason for the netbook decline. Until the iPad, netbooks were pretty much the only game in town for ultraportable computing beyond a smartphone. Now the iPad fills that role, and it fills it far better than any netbook, because the iPad is designed from the ground up for that very purpose. The netbook is a parody of a real computer. It's an atavistic dead-end.
As far as those numbers go, do you really think that somehow netbooks are approaching an asymptote of 0% YoY growth? Because that doesn't seem terribly likely. It's not like the market is going to fall off so quickly and just stop at "status quo from last year". In the course of less than a year, netbook growth went from over 600%, to just 5%.
The writing is on the wall. Take off the nerd glasses and maybe you'll be able to read it.
So, Google Voice didn't make their quality standards?
Google Voice violated Apple's terms. Specifically, in this case, duplicating core iPhone functionality. Those terms aren't just about the standards of the specific app, but of the iPhone experience itself.
And what about code that is developed originally in another language that affects the quality standard as well?
Same as above. By allowing non-native apps, Apple puts their platform at the mercy of non-native tools.
You are speaking on both sides of your mouth here, and I think, deep down, you know it.
And I don't think you know what the fuck you're talking about. You stated that Apple is using the App Store to limit competition. Please cite one example. (hint: there are none)
The problem with the theories that Apple is using their store to stifle competition is that Apple has been very consistent in doing everything they can to make sure that their platform is as trouble-free and as consistent as possible.
Another problem is that Apple doesn't block apps that compete with theirs, including those that they sell. Unless you have an example to the contrary.
But when they "pushed" IE, they in no way prevented other browsers from being distributed, or from running on Windows.
So? That's not required for anti-trust violation.
What I mind is using that vetting process to squelch fair competition. Microsoft isn't doing anything like that on the Xbox.
Except that's not what Apple is doing. They are vetting apps to ensure a certain level of quality. Which is the exact same thing MS does on the Xbox (and both Sony and Nintendo do on their platforms). There's nothing illegal about it at all.
Would Microsoft have had a right to control the market for applications which could run on Windows?
They do this on Xbox, Zune and Windows Mobile 7.
As for the legality of doing it on Windows, my opinion would be yes. In fact, I'd encourage it, as this would pretty much destroy Windows if they applied the same strictness to Windows as they do to their other systems.
In fact, isn't that exactly what they were slammed for (actually, for far less - for simply bundling a web browser?)
It's ironic that your parenthetical statement disproves the statement preceding it.
Your primary statement is completely false. They did not get in trouble for controlling the Windows software market. They got in trouble for the reason you state in parentheses--for using their PC OS monopoly (which was legal) to push IE.
Interesting. I'll still reserve judgement until I see it in action, but I'm glad they've moved on.
The problem that I suspect will still remain is that UI layout will still look off (even if it functions properly), since a UI designed in Interface Builder will naturally look different from one designed using KDE/Qt tools.
For example, will the apps have their menu bars in the window, or at the top of the screen? And if they are at the top of the screen, will they automatically take on the standard Mac layout? And will Mac OS X services be available in the app?
I'm not saying this to put down Qt or anything. I'm just pointing out that getting a cross-platform toolkit to look native on Mac OS X is really hard and more involved than simply subclassing NSButton, etc., when it's compiled for the Mac.
If you wanted to write for both KDE and Windows, you'd use QT and get Mac for free. No porting necessary. Just recompile. Native apps with native look and feel. Yay!
Not even close. Ported apps look like shit and have all sorts of odd UI quirks.
The problem isn't that Apple can set the terms, it is that Apple is setting the terms -only- to prevent people from coding the same app and running it other places, so Apple can have the app exclusively and keeping people tied into the iPhone rather than the cheaper, diverse and more feature filled Android, BlackBerry, and other phones.
Your assumption about Apple's intentions are wrong.
Steve Jobs has an open letter on Apple's site right now (http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/) that covers their intentions. The first five points are about Flash specifically, but the sixth point covers the reason behind the update to the developer agreement.
They are controlling the market for applications which can run on iPhones.
But that's a market they have the right to control.
It's funny, when its in their favor, Apple fanboys here talk about the iPhone outselling every other phone (though it's not)...
No, people say it's the most popular, most in demand, best, etc. Not one person has said the iPhone outsells all other smart phones. It's just biased people like you who read it that way.
they talk about it being so amazingly popular in the market, and of the huge demand...
Exactly.
When it's not, they say "Look around, we're just a little fish in a big pond!"...
No one has ever said that, either. Do you see the world solely in binary? Apple is a big fish in a huge pond. In fact, they are the biggest fish in this pond. Name one handset maker that's larger than Apple. That doesn't put them in monopoly status.
The problem is you seem to have a hard time seeing things as degrees, instead of as absolutes.
No, Apple requires the program to be originally written in the approved languages. This is done deliberately to prevent code being written for multiple languages and provide a disincentive for releasing an application for the Iphone and one of its competitors. Especially since most of their big competitors use Java.
This is to prevent using code translators, which goes back to the primary reason for this whole issue, which is that Apple doesn't want third parties standing between the developers and iPhone OS.
This is not directly to prevent cross-platform apps, it's for them to be able to keep control over the evolution of their system and not having to check in with third party tools for every improvement made to iPhone OS.
If Apple has acted in good faith, then they have nothing to fear about an Anti-Trust investigation.
Half-agreed. Apple has nothing to fear so long as the investigation is done impartially and in earnest (which I believe to be the case). Apple has been fairly straightforward with their intentions. Their intentions are not to harm Adobe or prevent cross-platform apps. Their intention is to maintain control over their own system, which should not trigger any anti-trust litigation, although an investigation is completely understandable.
They don't want anybody developing applications without them being under their thumb.
You've got it exactly backwards. They don't want to be under anyone else's thumb. For example, Adobe's. If Apple allows Flash tools to compile apps for the iPhone, then all future iPhone updates will have to take into account Adobe's Flash tools.
Yes, they can use that control to give a good user experience (see all the quality iPhone fart software, or all that other great stuff), but they want it for purely financial reasons.
Apple doesn't make any significant money from the sales of apps. They make their money from the sales of hardware. So, once again, you have it completely backwards. They want the provide the best user experience, because that means more hardware sales. Apps are a feature of the iPhone, not the other way around where the iPhone is merely a vehicle to sell apps.
Actually, it is plainly obvious from Mr. Jobs' comments that the point of the restriction is to prevent cross-platform applications. Apple wants iPhone apps to be designed for the iPhone, not ported from another platform.
-dZ.
Not quite right. He wants apps that fully support the iPhone OS. That ends up meaning they aren't cross-platform (not with the exact same codebase), but in spite of what so many people here seem to think, that's not the primary goal. The primary goal is to be able to advance their own platform without reliance on, or hinderance from, third party dev tools.
They want all iPhone apps to be written in Objective-C for Cocoa (or a subset thereof, which includes C and C++). This means that as Apple improves Objective-C and Cocoa, all iPhone programmers will have access to those advances. If programmers are instead using something like Flash, then when Apple improves their system, those programmers who use Flash will not have access to those improvements unless and until Adobe makes them available, and some Cocoa-specific APIs (as well as platform-specific APIs for other target platforms) will not be available.
Apple was in this boat before, and they don't intend to make the same mistake again.
Things read the same with and without emphasis.
Then why'd you add it? Because no where at all in the actual words did it mention Google. Not even indirectly.
Who said anything about Apple being threatened?
The person who I was replying to when you first replied to me.
Oh, btw Apple is a part of MPEG-LA as a licensor of patents (they hold one patent) so I guess part of their revenue is threatened too.
If you're going to complain about me putting words into your mouth, it belies your sincerity to then espouse the exact thing you just objected to.
It does not take any stretch of imagination at all to see why MPEG-LA would want to try and prevent any MPEG-LA-patent-free video codecs from being released for royalty-free use.
I never said otherwise. In fact, it was rather strongly implied that it's the MPEG-LA who is getting ready to sue (they are the most likely candidate).
While Apple is a member of the MPEG-LA, the MPEG-LA's interests are not necessarily Apple's interests. Whether the MPEG-LA makes profit or not isn't all that important to Apple. What is important to Apple is that they have access to a high-quality, industry standard codec.
"Vastly"? How can you just make a sweeping claim like that without anything to back it up?
Oh please complain about something I wrote, then immediately do exactly that yourself.
I would say MPEG-2 is vastly inferior to MPEG-4;
Thanks!
but Theora is somewhere in the middle.
In other words, it's inferior to H.264. By "vastly", I was referring to both breadth and depth. Quality and bitrate, hardware support and battery life, wide adoption, industry standard, openly licensed. The only thing Theora has in its favor is the codec is fully open source.
So, yeah, vastly inferior.
The only real advantage of Theora is that it's (presently) free and open.
And that isn't enough? Of course, we still have till 2016 to avert this disaster.
No, it's not enough. If you want me to support a "free" codec, make one better than H.264!
I don't want to watch video in shittier quality, I don't want to store my family videos in shittier quality, I don't want my portable devices to run hotter and have lower battery lives, just so that my codec is "free".
Why would I want any of that when I don't have to accept such crap? I don't give a shit that my computer costs $0.05 more (or whatever) for this. The whole point of buying computers is for what they can do. You pay for functionality. If I can have the option for the superior codec at an acceptable price, why should I settle for the inferior one?
Apple is no underdog; they are a luxury brand.
I made no claim either way.
No FUD there: h.264 is proprietary and it's unnecessary since there are good and free alternatives.
No there aren't. But regardless, the FUD is that Mozilla can't support H.264 and that the MPEG-LA will sue everyone who offers H.264 content in a few years.
That they can't support H.264, and that even if they did, in a few years MPEG-LA will probably start suing every website that offers content in H.264. This is the very definition of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.