I'm surprised no one has mentioned that 4.2 gives the iPhone/iPad native MIDI support. As a musician, this is huge.
Really? My only exposure to MIDI has been really annoying sound-tracks on badly designed web pages that blare a badly representation of an instrument at deafening volumes.
That's not true. What it is is your only exposure that you're aware of. You've heard a lot of MIDI-involved music, just no one ever told you that's what it was. Turn on your radio.
I was wondering if anybody actually used it for anything that didn't sound like a cheap Casio keyboard (ie. Complete Crap).
MIDI doesn't mean the sounds, it means the protocol for interfacing electronic musical equipment. Turn on your radio, you will find no shortage of non-"Complete Crap" MIDI music.
What does this do for me as a user? Will it make games better?
No, it won't make games better, and for you specifically, it will probably have no real impact. If you were a musician, however, this is *HUGE*. Imagine being able to control your entire musical setup from an iPad or iPhone. Or go the other way and record from your keyboard directly to an iOS device.
I don't care personally, I don't own apple devices or buy apple products.
I'm just saying that this whole "we don't like task managers" and just implemented the framework for one, is quite a bit disingenuous.
Disingenuous is saying you don't care, but then railing about it. Another form of disingenuousness is claiming that the iOS multitasking UI is a task manager. Specifically, it lacks any form of CPU load and memory usage info which is what the whole context was referring to.
Steve's statement was that the user shouldn't have to manage tasks, and iOS's multitasking does not violate that idea.
No, because I never said it was 45 minutes. In fact, if you paid any attention at all, you'd notice:
1. The OP already used GPS to navigate before the 45 minutes came up 2. He didn't say it was out of power at that point (probably just in the red, which is at 20%). 3. He didn't say it was from a full charge.
Additionally, I wrote "maybe not 45 minutes". Context should have made it clear I meant "it shouldn't be that bad", but I can see how one might not catch that.
To quit an app, you must double-tap the home button to display the task bar where you can close apps
"In multitasking, if you see a task manager... they blew it" - Steve Jobs.
Unlike what the OP said, it's not a task manager (and I don't mean, "it's a task bar, haha"). It's very clear he meant if you have to manage your tasks by keeping track of memory usage and cpu load, you're doing it wrong. On iOS, you not only don't need to do these things, but you can't do these things. The icons in the double-tap dock that comes up is just your recent apps, running or not.
Yes, it's normal. Well, maybe not 45 minutes, but it does eat through battery power.
iOS 4.x supports two types of background navigation. For apps that don't need exact locations, they can use cell tower triangulation. This has very minimal battery impact. For those that need more precise info, they can use the GPS system, but it causes a significant battery drain. Navigation apps tend to suggest you use a car power adaptor.
Re:Still not available to everbody ...
on
Apple iOS 4.2 Hands-On
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Beware that the user agreement for iTunes gives Apple permissions you probably don't expect, like gathering data on how you use you machine. Expect that they see app log files. Many of the disc ripping and burning utilities, as well as video conversion utilities such as HandBrake log the files or disks processed. ClamX AV keeps a log of files scanned. Note the use of "verfiy compliance" below:
It's absolutely absurd to think Apple is reading your Handbrake or ClamAV logs. This sort of wording is about how iTunes tells Apple what kind of iPhone you have and what apps you have so it can tell you what updates are available.
Apple is very keen on privacy. I'd be extremely surprised if they did anything even remotely as far-reaching as you are implying.
What's so objectionable about the scanners? From what I can tell, the radiation they give off is infinitesimal, the pictures they make are barely more detailed than silhouettes, and going through them is a quick and painless procedure. Maybe there are details I don't know, but I've been surprised at the outrage over the full-body scanners.
First off, you're using "infinitesimal" wrong. Regardless, there are numerous stories about how it's not as benign as it's being portrayed as. No matter the dose, people should not be forced into exposure.
But what it boils down to is that:
1. Citizens in a free nation should not be forcibly and deliberately exposed to radiation. 2. Citizens in a free nation should not have nude images taken of their bodies without their explicit permission. 3. Citizens in a free nation should not be have their bodies, including their genitalia, groped by strangers without explicit permission.
Specifically, this should not be a standard practice used on innocent citizens in a free country. Especially not as a prerequisite for something as common as air travel.
I can't fathom how anyone can find this ok. I find that to be one of the most disturbing aspects of this whole mess and it serves as a good reminder of why it's so important to stop these things early on. There are just far too many citizens can be relied upon to cry for more oppression by the state.
Maybe they're going to focus on local apps written in html+css+js?
Problem is, they can't do that for iPhone, but they certainly could for Android.
What are you talking about? That's how Apple originally addressed the desire people had for third-party apps. It's still a perfectly valid and explicitly permitted method for running software on the iPhone.
Early on doesn't really mean much, I'm talking about now that both markets are relatively mature. The G1 was really more of a publicly available prototype than it was an actual polished product.
Now, however, HTC, Motorola, etc., have all put their best efforts forth. There's no reason to believe that Apple cannot continue to beat the current crop of Android handsets each release cycle. What remains to be seen is if they can launch so far ahead of the competition that they can wait a year between releases without lagging behind.
Yes, the iPhone 4 puts the iPhone at the head of the game again, and it really needed to, because it was seriously falling behind.
It was only a few months before iPhone 4 that Android phones were even catching up with the 3GS.
I don't think it'll be long before there are Android phones that can do all of that and more.
It's been almost half a year, and there still aren't any truly competitive Android handsets in terms of overall hardware.
The main problem is there are no other companies with the expertise and resources to keep up.
But the advantage to this, is that Android phones are moving at a much faster pace than the Iphone, with newer gadgets coming out with a new model every 3 months, instead of once a year.
Not really. There are more Android phone models per year than iOS phone models per year, but in terms of rate of technological progress, iPhone tends to outpace the industry. Comparing top iPhones one year apart and top Android phones one year apart, the iPhone makes more progress.
Also, Android phones tend to just be catching up or surpassing iPhones just as the new iPhone comes out, leaping ahead of Android by another year. Retina display and gyroscope are examples that come to mind.
The main thing that Android has over iPhone is in the areas that Apple just simply won't address, like built-in physical keyboards and system hacks like lock-screen utilities.
He's probably talking about the free Android phones.
Here's a thought experiment: Take the best Android phone and the best iPhone. Lock them to the same carrier, charge the same for the service plans, and offer them for free to anyone who wants one. Which do you think will be chosen the most?
As for "cheap hardware quality", I fail to see what an old PowerBook has to do with Android vs iPhone hardware. Purely in terms of the design and build physical hardware alone, the iPhone 4 is one of the most impressive devices I've ever encountered.
You really drank the Apple cool-aid, huh? Maybe you should actually pick up an Android and see that they are almost identical in every way
There's an example of the pot calling the kettle black. Just because your kool-aid didn't come from Apple doesn't make it any better. The notion that Android is "almost identical in every way" to iOS is quite humorous.
So you're willing to trust Lord Jobs to always be benevolent and allow you to install the same applications on his device? I have a bridge for sale too if you're interested...
This is one of the most brain-damaged aspects of anti-Apple Android fanboy ethos. Steve Jobs isn't an evil overlord hell-bent on controlling all aspects of the world's computing (or even smart phone) hardware and software. Except for a few reasonable exceptions, you can sell anything you want on Apple's App Store. And if you have something that's disallowed, there are 100% Apple-approved ways of obtaining software outside of the App Store.
The limitations on what Apple will carry has absolutely nothing to do with Steve Jobs not wanting certain types of software to be available and everything to do with him wanting a certain level of quality, legitimacy, and legality on the App Store itself.
The App Store, and the iPhone in general, has been becoming more open over time, not less (like you are claiming is a forgone conclusion). This perfectly aligns with the idea that Apple's policies aren't about exerting ever more control, but about making a quality service to add to the appeal of their device. If you want to get something as perfect as you can make it, it's prudent to be conservative about aspects that are very easy to get wrong and very difficult to rectify after the fact. Whether you agree with Apple's choices on their App Store or not, and whether you think they've done well or poorly with it, two things are clear:
1. They are trying really hard to get it right. 2. Their attempt has been very successful.
The notion that this is about control is outright absurd.
Android as a phone platform is outselling iOS as a phone platform.
Except it's not. iOS outsells Android.
If you don't think iPhone will become a niche product like the Mac (or even worse), you're the fool.
The idea that iPhone will become a niche product any time soon is laughable. Say what you will about Apple fanboys, but Android fanboys have them completely beat in the "delusions of grandeur" department.
If WebM was more of a real patent risk, h264 would have already been adopted.
H.264 isn't a patent risk at all. All they have to do is license it! If they don't want to license it, they can use the user's codec, and/or allow for means of installing one from a third party.
This is exactly what happens with browsers based on the open source WebKit. Firefox even does this to a very minimal extent by having a means for something like the Flash player to play H.264 video. Unfortunately, they are too bull-headed to allow for a native HTML5-based method for playing H.264.
Right. So the patent situation with WebM and Theora is worse than with H.264. If this is truly about patents, it's strange to go with something that is even more risky.
MPEG-LA has every financial incentive under the sun to sue implementers of WebM if they can, squashing the competition nice and cleanly. Yet.. they haven't? This time you're talking about a potential patent threat that has not appeared.
And so did you. In your very next sentence:
MPEG-LA are known to be sue happy and wanting money for licenses, regardless of any current good deals, is it not better to avoid them if possible?
Citations would help. Being "known" for something and actually doing something are two different things.
H.264 is technologically superior, is legally safer, and is fairly licensable to anyone. The only aspect in which H.264 is inferior to either Theora or WebM is in terms of ideology.
So instead of supporting a codec that is openly and cheaply licensable, and which has a significant level of confidence in not being vulnerable to submarine patents, they are rallying around two codecs which infringe upon the very organization's patents which they are avoiding?
In other words, instead of licensing H.264 from the MPEG-LA, or even just infringing upon their patents but still using H.264 (like VLC does), they are choosing alternative codecs which use those patents, but haven't licensed them?
Yeah, you're right, OSS folks do think long term.../s
This idea that they can't is an outright lie. They just won't. It's as simple as that. What's your motive for continually promoting this lie?
And I could seed hundreds of illegal movies, just because I can do something doesn't make it legal (and distributing something that can decode it freely would be illegal).
The whole point of the mozilla project is to make an open source browser that is freely distributable. Saying 'oh they could if they went back on the projects goals, they just don't want to' is like saying ferrari could make an enzo with a bull bar. Sure they COULD, but it defeats the purpose and aims of the thing entirely (in ferrari's case making a fast car, in mozillas making an open source browser).
Um, no. They can completely legally support H.264 without changing a single thing about how their software is redistributed, licensed, or the availability of their source code.
Not one single fucking thing.
They won't support H.264 because they believe it should not be a standard, and they believe this not for any technological aspect of the codec itself, but solely for ideological reasons. They are backing a technologically inferior codec, and by doing so only harming their appeal to the general market.
Bullshit flash has severe overhead it can't get around by default. Playing videos in a regular program is far more efficient.
I'm pretty sure I never said it was as efficient as a native player. In fact, I outlined an example to the contrary in the part of my post that you conveniently omitted.
As for h264 itself, most of the animosity to it would be gone the moment software patents are deemed invalid in the US (that whole, you shouldn't be able to patent math business).
True, but the patents are sanely licensed in this case, so it's not an actual problem, just a theoretical one. Pretty much all animosity towards H.264 is ideologically based, and not based on how things actually are.
How does WebKit support H.264? Is the decoder in the source tree of WebKit itself (not necessarily Safari or Chrome), or does it rely on operating system components?
It uses the system-provided decoder. Firefox does not do this. This is exactly my point.
WebKit-based browsers, like Safari, automatically get H.264 support if the system supports it, and 99+% of users have an operating system that either supports or can be made to easily support H.264.
Again, Firefox does not do this. It's not because it can't, it's not because it's open source, it's not because it would stop it from being redistributable. It's 100% because those in charge at Mozilla have explicitly decided to not support it, even though there are multiple ways they could without any legal hassle whatsoever.
Ubuntu does not ship the H.264 decoder for gstreamer in the default install, and it presents a scary legal notice (to the effect "if you live in the USA click Cancel") when installing it from the repository.
So what? Firefox can use system-provided decoders. If a decoder is illegal to download for free, Linux users can buy a license (or just ignore the warnings and click "download" anyway). Mozilla can even provide a plugin that they license from MPEG-LA, if having Linux users acquire one themselves is too difficult.
But they've *chosen* not to. Any claim that they simply *can't* support H.264 is a lie.
Slashdot Mirror
Haven't you heard? They're made of aluminum and glass now.
iOS 42. is totally useless for iPhone users until it gets jailbroken. Stay away like the plague until it's jailbroken and stick with 4.1
Amazing, it's "totally useless" until jailbroken? That's a pretty bold statement. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's completely wrong.
Really? My only exposure to MIDI has been really annoying sound-tracks on badly designed web pages that blare a badly representation of an instrument at deafening volumes.
That's not true. What it is is your only exposure that you're aware of. You've heard a lot of MIDI-involved music, just no one ever told you that's what it was. Turn on your radio.
I was wondering if anybody actually used it for anything that didn't sound like a cheap Casio keyboard (ie. Complete Crap).
MIDI doesn't mean the sounds, it means the protocol for interfacing electronic musical equipment. Turn on your radio, you will find no shortage of non-"Complete Crap" MIDI music.
What does this do for me as a user? Will it make games better?
No, it won't make games better, and for you specifically, it will probably have no real impact. If you were a musician, however, this is *HUGE*. Imagine being able to control your entire musical setup from an iPad or iPhone. Or go the other way and record from your keyboard directly to an iOS device.
I don't care personally, I don't own apple devices or buy apple products.
I'm just saying that this whole "we don't like task managers" and just implemented the framework for one, is quite a bit disingenuous.
Disingenuous is saying you don't care, but then railing about it. Another form of disingenuousness is claiming that the iOS multitasking UI is a task manager. Specifically, it lacks any form of CPU load and memory usage info which is what the whole context was referring to.
Steve's statement was that the user shouldn't have to manage tasks, and iOS's multitasking does not violate that idea.
Set the bar pretty high, that is... Fantastic case of me the whole word.
45 mins - are you kidding me...?
No, because I never said it was 45 minutes. In fact, if you paid any attention at all, you'd notice:
1. The OP already used GPS to navigate before the 45 minutes came up
2. He didn't say it was out of power at that point (probably just in the red, which is at 20%).
3. He didn't say it was from a full charge.
Additionally, I wrote "maybe not 45 minutes". Context should have made it clear I meant "it shouldn't be that bad", but I can see how one might not catch that.
how ridiculous can you get!
I don't know. You set the pretty high.
"In multitasking, if you see a task manager... they blew it" - Steve Jobs.
Unlike what the OP said, it's not a task manager (and I don't mean, "it's a task bar, haha"). It's very clear he meant if you have to manage your tasks by keeping track of memory usage and cpu load, you're doing it wrong. On iOS, you not only don't need to do these things, but you can't do these things. The icons in the double-tap dock that comes up is just your recent apps, running or not.
Yes, it's normal. Well, maybe not 45 minutes, but it does eat through battery power.
iOS 4.x supports two types of background navigation. For apps that don't need exact locations, they can use cell tower triangulation. This has very minimal battery impact. For those that need more precise info, they can use the GPS system, but it causes a significant battery drain. Navigation apps tend to suggest you use a car power adaptor.
Beware that the user agreement for iTunes gives Apple permissions you probably don't expect, like gathering data on how you use you machine. Expect that they see app log files. Many of the disc ripping and burning utilities, as well as video conversion utilities such as HandBrake log the files or disks processed. ClamX AV keeps a log of files scanned. Note the use of "verfiy compliance" below:
It's absolutely absurd to think Apple is reading your Handbrake or ClamAV logs. This sort of wording is about how iTunes tells Apple what kind of iPhone you have and what apps you have so it can tell you what updates are available.
Apple is very keen on privacy. I'd be extremely surprised if they did anything even remotely as far-reaching as you are implying.
Voyeurism and power over everyone they encounter.
What's so objectionable about the scanners? From what I can tell, the radiation they give off is infinitesimal, the pictures they make are barely more detailed than silhouettes, and going through them is a quick and painless procedure. Maybe there are details I don't know, but I've been surprised at the outrage over the full-body scanners.
First off, you're using "infinitesimal" wrong. Regardless, there are numerous stories about how it's not as benign as it's being portrayed as. No matter the dose, people should not be forced into exposure.
But what it boils down to is that:
1. Citizens in a free nation should not be forcibly and deliberately exposed to radiation.
2. Citizens in a free nation should not have nude images taken of their bodies without their explicit permission.
3. Citizens in a free nation should not be have their bodies, including their genitalia, groped by strangers without explicit permission.
Specifically, this should not be a standard practice used on innocent citizens in a free country. Especially not as a prerequisite for something as common as air travel.
I can't fathom how anyone can find this ok. I find that to be one of the most disturbing aspects of this whole mess and it serves as a good reminder of why it's so important to stop these things early on. There are just far too many citizens can be relied upon to cry for more oppression by the state.
Problem is, they can't do that for iPhone, but they certainly could for Android.
What are you talking about? That's how Apple originally addressed the desire people had for third-party apps. It's still a perfectly valid and explicitly permitted method for running software on the iPhone.
Early on doesn't really mean much, I'm talking about now that both markets are relatively mature. The G1 was really more of a publicly available prototype than it was an actual polished product.
Now, however, HTC, Motorola, etc., have all put their best efforts forth. There's no reason to believe that Apple cannot continue to beat the current crop of Android handsets each release cycle. What remains to be seen is if they can launch so far ahead of the competition that they can wait a year between releases without lagging behind.
Yes, the iPhone 4 puts the iPhone at the head of the game again, and it really needed to, because it was seriously falling behind.
It was only a few months before iPhone 4 that Android phones were even catching up with the 3GS.
I don't think it'll be long before there are Android phones that can do all of that and more.
It's been almost half a year, and there still aren't any truly competitive Android handsets in terms of overall hardware.
The main problem is there are no other companies with the expertise and resources to keep up.
But the advantage to this, is that Android phones are moving at a much faster pace than the Iphone, with newer gadgets coming out with a new model every 3 months, instead of once a year.
Not really. There are more Android phone models per year than iOS phone models per year, but in terms of rate of technological progress, iPhone tends to outpace the industry. Comparing top iPhones one year apart and top Android phones one year apart, the iPhone makes more progress.
Also, Android phones tend to just be catching up or surpassing iPhones just as the new iPhone comes out, leaping ahead of Android by another year. Retina display and gyroscope are examples that come to mind.
The main thing that Android has over iPhone is in the areas that Apple just simply won't address, like built-in physical keyboards and system hacks like lock-screen utilities.
Rockets? Warp drive? Don't keep me in suspense!!!
He's probably talking about the free Android phones.
Here's a thought experiment: Take the best Android phone and the best iPhone. Lock them to the same carrier, charge the same for the service plans, and offer them for free to anyone who wants one. Which do you think will be chosen the most?
As for "cheap hardware quality", I fail to see what an old PowerBook has to do with Android vs iPhone hardware. Purely in terms of the design and build physical hardware alone, the iPhone 4 is one of the most impressive devices I've ever encountered.
You really drank the Apple cool-aid, huh? Maybe you should actually pick up an Android and see that they are almost identical in every way
There's an example of the pot calling the kettle black. Just because your kool-aid didn't come from Apple doesn't make it any better. The notion that Android is "almost identical in every way" to iOS is quite humorous.
So you're willing to trust Lord Jobs to always be benevolent and allow you to install the same applications on his device? I have a bridge for sale too if you're interested...
This is one of the most brain-damaged aspects of anti-Apple Android fanboy ethos. Steve Jobs isn't an evil overlord hell-bent on controlling all aspects of the world's computing (or even smart phone) hardware and software. Except for a few reasonable exceptions, you can sell anything you want on Apple's App Store. And if you have something that's disallowed, there are 100% Apple-approved ways of obtaining software outside of the App Store.
The limitations on what Apple will carry has absolutely nothing to do with Steve Jobs not wanting certain types of software to be available and everything to do with him wanting a certain level of quality, legitimacy, and legality on the App Store itself.
The App Store, and the iPhone in general, has been becoming more open over time, not less (like you are claiming is a forgone conclusion). This perfectly aligns with the idea that Apple's policies aren't about exerting ever more control, but about making a quality service to add to the appeal of their device. If you want to get something as perfect as you can make it, it's prudent to be conservative about aspects that are very easy to get wrong and very difficult to rectify after the fact. Whether you agree with Apple's choices on their App Store or not, and whether you think they've done well or poorly with it, two things are clear:
1. They are trying really hard to get it right.
2. Their attempt has been very successful.
The notion that this is about control is outright absurd.
Android as a phone platform is outselling iOS as a phone platform.
Except it's not. iOS outsells Android.
If you don't think iPhone will become a niche product like the Mac (or even worse), you're the fool.
The idea that iPhone will become a niche product any time soon is laughable. Say what you will about Apple fanboys, but Android fanboys have them completely beat in the "delusions of grandeur" department.
If WebM was more of a real patent risk, h264 would have already been adopted.
H.264 isn't a patent risk at all. All they have to do is license it! If they don't want to license it, they can use the user's codec, and/or allow for means of installing one from a third party.
This is exactly what happens with browsers based on the open source WebKit. Firefox even does this to a very minimal extent by having a means for something like the Flash player to play H.264 video. Unfortunately, they are too bull-headed to allow for a native HTML5-based method for playing H.264.
Avoiding all patents is nearly impossible but only avoiding the ones you don't know about is slightly better.
Right. So the patent situation with WebM and Theora is worse than with H.264. If this is truly about patents, it's strange to go with something that is even more risky.
MPEG-LA has every financial incentive under the sun to sue implementers of WebM if they can, squashing the competition nice and cleanly. Yet.. they haven't? This time you're talking about a potential patent threat that has not appeared.
And so did you. In your very next sentence:
MPEG-LA are known to be sue happy and wanting money for licenses, regardless of any current good deals, is it not better to avoid them if possible?
Citations would help. Being "known" for something and actually doing something are two different things.
H.264 is technologically superior, is legally safer, and is fairly licensable to anyone. The only aspect in which H.264 is inferior to either Theora or WebM is in terms of ideology.
So instead of supporting a codec that is openly and cheaply licensable, and which has a significant level of confidence in not being vulnerable to submarine patents, they are rallying around two codecs which infringe upon the very organization's patents which they are avoiding?
In other words, instead of licensing H.264 from the MPEG-LA, or even just infringing upon their patents but still using H.264 (like VLC does), they are choosing alternative codecs which use those patents, but haven't licensed them?
Yeah, you're right, OSS folks do think long term... /s
This idea that they can't is an outright lie. They just won't. It's as simple as that. What's your motive for continually promoting this lie?
And I could seed hundreds of illegal movies, just because I can do something doesn't make it legal (and distributing something that can decode it freely would be illegal).
The whole point of the mozilla project is to make an open source browser that is freely distributable. Saying 'oh they could if they went back on the projects goals, they just don't want to' is like saying ferrari could make an enzo with a bull bar. Sure they COULD, but it defeats the purpose and aims of the thing entirely (in ferrari's case making a fast car, in mozillas making an open source browser).
Um, no. They can completely legally support H.264 without changing a single thing about how their software is redistributed, licensed, or the availability of their source code.
Not one single fucking thing.
They won't support H.264 because they believe it should not be a standard, and they believe this not for any technological aspect of the codec itself, but solely for ideological reasons. They are backing a technologically inferior codec, and by doing so only harming their appeal to the general market.
Rubbish. Flash with H.264 is fucking fantastic.
Bullshit flash has severe overhead it can't get around by default. Playing videos in a regular program is far more efficient.
I'm pretty sure I never said it was as efficient as a native player. In fact, I outlined an example to the contrary in the part of my post that you conveniently omitted.
As for h264 itself, most of the animosity to it would be gone the moment software patents are deemed invalid in the US (that whole, you shouldn't be able to patent math business).
True, but the patents are sanely licensed in this case, so it's not an actual problem, just a theoretical one. Pretty much all animosity towards H.264 is ideologically based, and not based on how things actually are.
How does WebKit support H.264? Is the decoder in the source tree of WebKit itself (not necessarily Safari or Chrome), or does it rely on operating system components?
It uses the system-provided decoder. Firefox does not do this. This is exactly my point.
WebKit-based browsers, like Safari, automatically get H.264 support if the system supports it, and 99+% of users have an operating system that either supports or can be made to easily support H.264.
Again, Firefox does not do this. It's not because it can't, it's not because it's open source, it's not because it would stop it from being redistributable. It's 100% because those in charge at Mozilla have explicitly decided to not support it, even though there are multiple ways they could without any legal hassle whatsoever.
Ubuntu does not ship the H.264 decoder for gstreamer in the default install, and it presents a scary legal notice (to the effect "if you live in the USA click Cancel") when installing it from the repository.
So what? Firefox can use system-provided decoders. If a decoder is illegal to download for free, Linux users can buy a license (or just ignore the warnings and click "download" anyway). Mozilla can even provide a plugin that they license from MPEG-LA, if having Linux users acquire one themselves is too difficult.
But they've *chosen* not to. Any claim that they simply *can't* support H.264 is a lie.