I commanded it to not let me skip? Total nonsense. I "command" my DVD player not to let me skip in the same way a girl that wears a short skirt "commands" me to rape her.
What. The. Fuck.
Inherent with the "Play" command on your DVD player is that it will honor flags that mark a track as unskippable. By commanding it to play, you command it to do everything that play button entails. This is nothing like raping someone (seriously, your example is completely fucked up), and everything like when you click the "Print" button, you are commanding your program to bring up a print dialog, with everything that entails.
The movie studio commanded it to not let me skip. I obviously commanded it to let me skip when I pushed the skip button. DVDs do not and cannot enforce anything. They are not machines that follow commands. Only the player can try and do that and the player is mine, not the movie studios'.
When you hit "play", you told it, "play this disc, and if there is a track marked as 'unskippable', don't let me skip it, even if I ask you to."
Correct. My definition of "inferior" refers to the actual quality of the codec itself. Your definition is meta. It has absolutely no bearing on whether the codec, as a codec, is better or not.
What matters is whether the loss in quality, among many other benefits of H.264, is worth the gain "freedom" offered by WebM. For well over 99% of the people out there, it's not.
The problem is your scenario is irrational. H.264 is not, and in fact, cannot, turn the web into a "'TV-with-buy-button' arm of big media". Not literally, not metaphorically, not in any way whatsoever. It's a false dichotomy to present it as being either a completely locked-down, corporate controlled web and a completely open and democratic web.
They're doing that in cooperation with the majority of major browser vendors, not on their own.
It doesn't matter if they have the support of a majority of web browser vendors. What matters is if they have the support of a sufficient number of web browser users, and at this point, they don't.
That's why WebM will become the dominant video format on the Web.
That's fantasy. Ideology aside, the actual, practical effects of the patents on H.264 are insufficient to drive consumers and corporations away from it to an inferior codec. We saw the same thing with Theora and Vorbis (and Vorbis may even be superior to MP3).
Anyone who stays with Chrome and Firefox will just use plugins like Flash to play video. H.264 is an established codec and will be pretty much required forever, just like jpeg.
The vast majority of people just don't care. They pay their small license fee when they buy their hardware. Corporations don't care, they just pay the fee. If you want a codec to supplant H.264, you'll either need to get a lot of people to care (and I can't see how that's going to happen) or create a new codec that is significantly superior to H.264 (and WebM is not only not sufficiently superior, it's inferior. Good luck trying to convince people to switch to that!).
First, I'd like to point out the complete lack of any actual content in your reply beyond ad hominem and a bit of self-aggrandizement.
However, it's a bit odd to peg H.264 as being in a desperate state or it's support a form of zealotry. It's the dominant web codec, it's the dominant portable device codec, and it's superior to WebM. These are factual statements.
Zealotry is pushing an inferior technology for ideological reasons. Desperation is resorting to flaming/trolling in an effort to advance one's zealotry.
Meanwhile, the rest of us will get on with building a better Web.
If you want to build a better web, pushing an inferior codec is a strange way to go about it.
it is the change in the ultimate controller of the system...
You are in ultimate control over your system. DRM's existence doesn't change this. You can avoid this entirely by avoiding DRM entirely. However, even if you do choose to use DRM'd software and media, you are still in ultimate control over your system. You are the one telling it to run the DRM'd content.
... that is the inevitable and unacceptable consequence
It has been deemed acceptable by significantly more people than have deemed it unacceptable.
Engaging in hyperbole like calling DRM "evil" and making grand claims about censorship, ultimate control, and calling it "unacceptable" only strengthens your case with people already on your side, and weakens your case with everyone else. It makes you look like a raving loon.
Their existence single-handedly overturned IE's once seemingly invulnerable dominance, hence they've already somewhat accomplished their mission.
"Overturned"? IE is not longer "seemingly invulnerable", but it's still the dominant browser. And WebKit is more widely used than Gecko. Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox was the first to put a notable dent in IE's market share, and is now a major player in the browser realm, but that's about it.
Mozilla is much smaller than the web. They need to realize this if they wish to remain relevant. Enough normal people were fed up with IE's poor quality, poor security, and lack of features, to make Firefox successful. There aren't enough people upset over H.264 for Mozilla's current crusade to meet with the same success (a success which isn't even market dominance, which is what they are aiming for WebM to achieve over H.264).
How many of you can play content from a DRM limited product from 10 years ago?
Um, everyone with a DVD player? And video game console owners.
In 10 years, you will still be able to play DRM content from iTunes. And I don't expect Steam to go away either.
Other than Apple and Valve, I can't really think of any major companies that offer online DRM purchases which I would put sufficient confidence in supporting their DRM for years to come.
It's theoretically possible to implement DRM with WebM. It's not theoretically possible to implement effective DRM, however.
If that were true, that would imply that DRM is nothing to worry about.
For DRM to be effective, it doesn't have to be unbreakable, it just has to stop some notable amount of copying (or other non-authorized usage it's meant to prevent).
Sony's PS3 DRM, for example, has been completely effective for almost half a decade. Now it is still effective, just not as much.
Giant? iOS is a tiny chunk compared to Windows and Linux.
From the post you replied to "iOS devices are a giant chunk of the mobile market". Windows and Linux are both insignificant in the mobile market.
Even broadly speaking, iOS vastly outnumbers Linux, it's not even funny. If you mean to include Android (which would be disingenuous, but the only way your statement begins to make sense), then it still significantly outnumbers even this combined "Linux", but at least not so laughably.
As for Windows, there are way more than 100 million iOS devices out there. Definitely fewer than there are Windows machines, but not something to scoff at either.
H.264 isn't proprietary. It's an open standard. There are patents, which is a separate matter.
It's just sad that people cannot understand this basic, simple fact -- all they care about is "oh, can my X play Y"?
What's so sad about that? There are no nefarious pitfalls in using H.264, so why should people care beyond whether their X can play Y?
If a device jumped the gun and limited itself to a proprietary technology, that was its mistake, one that Google and Mozilla are trying to correct and push out with WebM. Make devices natively and in hardware decode WebM instead of H.264.
How is using H.264 a mistake? It's highly advanced and wildly successful. As for Google and Mozilla trying to "correct" this, they are not going to be able to "correct" many hundreds of millions of devices, as well as standards used by different industries and markets. To expect all of this to change, in favor of an inferior codec? Really?
Google and Mozilla are effectively marginalizing themselves and propping up Flash. All for an ideological stance that is hindering web progress and promoting an incompatible and inferior technology.
Wherever you want to draw the line, Linux has been mature for well over a decade, and is vastly more open than Windows, yet it has never had more than a sliver of the desktop market share. This completely undermines the notion that "open always wins".
The fee is consistent. Safari (etc.) + iOS streaming costs the same whether you buy it in app or via Safari. That's one package. The other, cheaper package is the just Safari (etc.) package.
Everything is consistent. And the rule isn't that things have to be consistent, just that the in app price can't be higher then otherwise.
Jones argues that music service subscriptions don't operate at margins "anywhere near 30%," and that the dramatic loss in revenue will be tough to survive.
Then price your products accordingly. People are willing to pay for iPads because of the convenience - they will pay for iSubscriptions for exactly the same reason.
According to new stories I've read from other sites on the same subject, Apple forbids them from charging more to iOS users than they do through their own web storefront.
All they have to do is have a separate iOS streaming subscription.
$X for streaming to PCs and Android $X*1.3 for streaming to PCs, Android and iOS
What they *can't* do is offer the same purchase as an in app purchase outside of the app for less than inside. So they can't offer the iOS streaming package for less on their website than they do within their app.
Pundits like to state this, but I always wonder how Windows is an open system?
Compared to many of the alternatives it was
Linux has been around since 1991. Windows did not really take off until 1995. It's success had little to do with openness, and more to do with cheap hardware, an approachable UI and administration model, software, and compatibility with one's workplace.
The level of "openness" has some effect on a system's success, but the claim that "open systems always win" is pure fantasy.
Price isn't an inherent aspect of Android. There are some shit tablets that are cheap, but that has nothing to do with the OS, and everything to do with hardware choice, which I mentioned. All Android tablets that are even remotely close to being similar in terms of hardware are far more expensive than the iPad. But like I said, that has nothing to do with Android itself.
As for Windows, in what way is Windows similar to Android in terms of consumer interest that isn't covered by hardware choice? People primarily bought Windows PCs because they used them at work, because they were cheaper than Mac, and because all their software worked with it. iOS integrates with people's works just fine, has the lion's share of software, and is not significantly more expensive than Android phones.
So, keep living in this pretend world where everyone other than 'geeks' is secretly in love with the iPhone but won't buy one. It doesn't matter. In the real world, people are choosing Android. It's not even close right now - it's 2:1.
iOS outsells Android. And quit with the "fanboy" bullshit. Android fanboys are far worse than any iOS fanboys. If you think iOS is in any risk of losing its status as the premier handheld OS, you are engaging in the very fanboyism you project onto others.
On the other hand, when actual reality backs up one's position, you can't really call them a fanboy. And reality backs up iOS, not Android.
who cares about this 'reality' thing people are talking about, right?
Apple is fantastically successful. That's reality. iOS is also fantastically successful (more so than Android). That too is reality. The App Store is fantastically successful, far more than the Android Marketplace. Reality.
I'm talking about actual reality. You're the one engaging in fantasy and projecting your wishes into the future.
Slashdot Mirror
I commanded it to not let me skip? Total nonsense. I "command" my DVD player not to let me skip in the same way a girl that wears a short skirt "commands" me to rape her.
What. The. Fuck.
Inherent with the "Play" command on your DVD player is that it will honor flags that mark a track as unskippable. By commanding it to play, you command it to do everything that play button entails. This is nothing like raping someone (seriously, your example is completely fucked up), and everything like when you click the "Print" button, you are commanding your program to bring up a print dialog, with everything that entails.
The movie studio commanded it to not let me skip. I obviously commanded it to let me skip when I pushed the skip button. DVDs do not and cannot enforce anything. They are not machines that follow commands. Only the player can try and do that and the player is mine, not the movie studios'.
When you hit "play", you told it, "play this disc, and if there is a track marked as 'unskippable', don't let me skip it, even if I ask you to."
Correct. My definition of "inferior" refers to the actual quality of the codec itself. Your definition is meta. It has absolutely no bearing on whether the codec, as a codec, is better or not.
What matters is whether the loss in quality, among many other benefits of H.264, is worth the gain "freedom" offered by WebM. For well over 99% of the people out there, it's not.
The problem is your scenario is irrational. H.264 is not, and in fact, cannot, turn the web into a "'TV-with-buy-button' arm of big media". Not literally, not metaphorically, not in any way whatsoever. It's a false dichotomy to present it as being either a completely locked-down, corporate controlled web and a completely open and democratic web.
They're doing that in cooperation with the majority of major browser vendors, not on their own.
It doesn't matter if they have the support of a majority of web browser vendors. What matters is if they have the support of a sufficient number of web browser users, and at this point, they don't.
That's why WebM will become the dominant video format on the Web.
That's fantasy. Ideology aside, the actual, practical effects of the patents on H.264 are insufficient to drive consumers and corporations away from it to an inferior codec. We saw the same thing with Theora and Vorbis (and Vorbis may even be superior to MP3).
Anyone who stays with Chrome and Firefox will just use plugins like Flash to play video. H.264 is an established codec and will be pretty much required forever, just like jpeg.
The vast majority of people just don't care. They pay their small license fee when they buy their hardware. Corporations don't care, they just pay the fee. If you want a codec to supplant H.264, you'll either need to get a lot of people to care (and I can't see how that's going to happen) or create a new codec that is significantly superior to H.264 (and WebM is not only not sufficiently superior, it's inferior. Good luck trying to convince people to switch to that!).
You are the one that commanded it to not let you skip parts of a DVD when you commanded it to run a DVD player which enforces this.
You are never required to play a DVD as a result of owning a computer.
What, exactly, do you think that proves? It definitely doesn't prove the statement "broadcasting and DRM are mutually exclusively incompatible".
First, I'd like to point out the complete lack of any actual content in your reply beyond ad hominem and a bit of self-aggrandizement.
However, it's a bit odd to peg H.264 as being in a desperate state or it's support a form of zealotry. It's the dominant web codec, it's the dominant portable device codec, and it's superior to WebM. These are factual statements.
Zealotry is pushing an inferior technology for ideological reasons. Desperation is resorting to flaming/trolling in an effort to advance one's zealotry.
Meanwhile, the rest of us will get on with building a better Web.
If you want to build a better web, pushing an inferior codec is a strange way to go about it.
it is the change in the ultimate controller of the system ...
You are in ultimate control over your system. DRM's existence doesn't change this. You can avoid this entirely by avoiding DRM entirely. However, even if you do choose to use DRM'd software and media, you are still in ultimate control over your system. You are the one telling it to run the DRM'd content.
... that is the inevitable and unacceptable consequence
It has been deemed acceptable by significantly more people than have deemed it unacceptable.
Engaging in hyperbole like calling DRM "evil" and making grand claims about censorship, ultimate control, and calling it "unacceptable" only strengthens your case with people already on your side, and weakens your case with everyone else. It makes you look like a raving loon.
i keep having to point this out to people, time and time again: broadcasting and DRM are mutually exclusively incompatible.
That's a nice theory, but it's completely contradicted by reality.
Free Software people recognise this,
Which brings into question their overall judgement.
and anyone who fails to recognise it is just plain dumb.
Dumb for accepting reality over theory?
Their existence single-handedly overturned IE's once seemingly invulnerable dominance, hence they've already somewhat accomplished their mission.
"Overturned"? IE is not longer "seemingly invulnerable", but it's still the dominant browser. And WebKit is more widely used than Gecko. Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox was the first to put a notable dent in IE's market share, and is now a major player in the browser realm, but that's about it.
Mozilla is much smaller than the web. They need to realize this if they wish to remain relevant. Enough normal people were fed up with IE's poor quality, poor security, and lack of features, to make Firefox successful. There aren't enough people upset over H.264 for Mozilla's current crusade to meet with the same success (a success which isn't even market dominance, which is what they are aiming for WebM to achieve over H.264).
How many of you can play content from a DRM limited product from 10 years ago?
Um, everyone with a DVD player? And video game console owners.
In 10 years, you will still be able to play DRM content from iTunes. And I don't expect Steam to go away either.
Other than Apple and Valve, I can't really think of any major companies that offer online DRM purchases which I would put sufficient confidence in supporting their DRM for years to come.
It's theoretically possible to implement DRM with WebM. It's not theoretically possible to implement effective DRM, however.
If that were true, that would imply that DRM is nothing to worry about.
For DRM to be effective, it doesn't have to be unbreakable, it just has to stop some notable amount of copying (or other non-authorized usage it's meant to prevent).
Sony's PS3 DRM, for example, has been completely effective for almost half a decade. Now it is still effective, just not as much.
You are confusing MPEG-LA with MPEG. They are different groups.
H.264 cannot be the standard for HTML5 video because it is not royalty-free.
That is not a true statement.
Giant? iOS is a tiny chunk compared to Windows and Linux.
From the post you replied to "iOS devices are a giant chunk of the mobile market". Windows and Linux are both insignificant in the mobile market.
Even broadly speaking, iOS vastly outnumbers Linux, it's not even funny. If you mean to include Android (which would be disingenuous, but the only way your statement begins to make sense), then it still significantly outnumbers even this combined "Linux", but at least not so laughably.
As for Windows, there are way more than 100 million iOS devices out there. Definitely fewer than there are Windows machines, but not something to scoff at either.
H.264 isn't proprietary. It's an open standard. There are patents, which is a separate matter.
It's just sad that people cannot understand this basic, simple fact -- all they care about is "oh, can my X play Y"?
What's so sad about that? There are no nefarious pitfalls in using H.264, so why should people care beyond whether their X can play Y?
If a device jumped the gun and limited itself to a proprietary technology, that was its mistake, one that Google and Mozilla are trying to correct and push out with WebM. Make devices natively and in hardware decode WebM instead of H.264.
How is using H.264 a mistake? It's highly advanced and wildly successful. As for Google and Mozilla trying to "correct" this, they are not going to be able to "correct" many hundreds of millions of devices, as well as standards used by different industries and markets. To expect all of this to change, in favor of an inferior codec? Really?
Google and Mozilla are effectively marginalizing themselves and propping up Flash. All for an ideological stance that is hindering web progress and promoting an incompatible and inferior technology.
Wherever you want to draw the line, Linux has been mature for well over a decade, and is vastly more open than Windows, yet it has never had more than a sliver of the desktop market share. This completely undermines the notion that "open always wins".
The fee is consistent. Safari (etc.) + iOS streaming costs the same whether you buy it in app or via Safari. That's one package. The other, cheaper package is the just Safari (etc.) package.
Everything is consistent. And the rule isn't that things have to be consistent, just that the in app price can't be higher then otherwise.
You're right. The idea stays the same, though.
Or something that accepts bluetooth and USB keyboards, like the iPad (and presumably Android tablets).
Few people actually *want* a keyboard. That's why it's an add on, and not built in.
According to new stories I've read from other sites on the same subject, Apple forbids them from charging more to iOS users than they do through their own web storefront.
All they have to do is have a separate iOS streaming subscription.
$X for streaming to PCs and Android
$X*1.3 for streaming to PCs, Android and iOS
What they *can't* do is offer the same purchase as an in app purchase outside of the app for less than inside. So they can't offer the iOS streaming package for less on their website than they do within their app.
In other words, this is a non-issue.
Pundits like to state this, but I always wonder how Windows is an open system?
Compared to many of the alternatives it was
Linux has been around since 1991. Windows did not really take off until 1995. It's success had little to do with openness, and more to do with cheap hardware, an approachable UI and administration model, software, and compatibility with one's workplace.
The level of "openness" has some effect on a system's success, but the claim that "open systems always win" is pure fantasy.
Price isn't an inherent aspect of Android. There are some shit tablets that are cheap, but that has nothing to do with the OS, and everything to do with hardware choice, which I mentioned. All Android tablets that are even remotely close to being similar in terms of hardware are far more expensive than the iPad. But like I said, that has nothing to do with Android itself.
As for Windows, in what way is Windows similar to Android in terms of consumer interest that isn't covered by hardware choice? People primarily bought Windows PCs because they used them at work, because they were cheaper than Mac, and because all their software worked with it. iOS integrates with people's works just fine, has the lion's share of software, and is not significantly more expensive than Android phones.
So, keep living in this pretend world where everyone other than 'geeks' is secretly in love with the iPhone but won't buy one. It doesn't matter. In the real world, people are choosing Android. It's not even close right now - it's 2:1.
iOS outsells Android. And quit with the "fanboy" bullshit. Android fanboys are far worse than any iOS fanboys. If you think iOS is in any risk of losing its status as the premier handheld OS, you are engaging in the very fanboyism you project onto others.
On the other hand, when actual reality backs up one's position, you can't really call them a fanboy. And reality backs up iOS, not Android.
who cares about this 'reality' thing people are talking about, right?
Apple is fantastically successful. That's reality. iOS is also fantastically successful (more so than Android). That too is reality. The App Store is fantastically successful, far more than the Android Marketplace. Reality.
I'm talking about actual reality. You're the one engaging in fantasy and projecting your wishes into the future.