Part of the problem with Microsoft is they dont realize this and think "Windows Mobile was just not Windows Like enough".
I am an iPhone user, and i love my iDevices. Predictably I dislike Android devices (and I have tried them, I just dont like them personally.) I was always thinking Windows Phone 7 was going to be an even bigger disapointment (to me.) Can you imagine my shock when I tested an HTC HD7 at TMobile and almost told the guy to pack the thing and sign me up for two years. Windows Phone 7 is not perfect, but its extremely fun to use. I was shocked how smooth the browser runs compared to both, iOS and Android browsers. Again, has issues, lack of support for HTML5 and not even iOS levels of multitasking, but the thing has a LOT of promise.
Balmer's speech in CES made me hold my horses, though. Balmer went on to say how he wants just core Windows, not derivatives, running on any type of device, be it tablets, desktops, laptops, netbooks, phones, or microwaves. He wants core Windows everywhere. Not sure if its him to blame, but I still will blame him: He does not understand that it's not about portability or technical issues, the OS has to be entirely different for mobile phones and tablets, and despite these two being similar, Apple and Google both have obviously agreed you need a specialized branch of their OS to accommodate the intricacies of a larger screen and take advantage of more usable finger space. I bet it would also have to be different for microwaves.
Anyways, the worst thing here, is right now I feel going into a Windows Phone 7 is like walking into a 4 mile long dead end highway, not because of fear of the platform failing but instead due to Microsoft killing it young.
iOS supports full true multitasking. It does not allow it, but it supports it. Difference? Extremely simple hacks can enable true multitasking throughout the full OS. There are some apps in the apple store (like System Lite) that can expose all running processes. This app shows true multitasking processes, it does not display apps that are just "parked" in the background doing nothing. I just did a quick count and have 26 processes running side to side, this without any hacks. All this can easily take advantage of multi-core chips.
In addition any app can make use of multithreading, any app that does this would automatically take advantage of multi-core chips.
And of course, because of magic, nobody can remember the over-hyped "PS2 emotion engine" and the "PS3 is so powerful it's going to last 10 years" marketing.
If the PSP2 is as powerful as the PS3, why is the PS3 Slim still so big?
Give them time, they are getting ready to release the PS3 Slim-R
This does not force anything on Microsoft. Microsoft is not the patent holder here, and it does not bother them that much to go out and implement WebM (although there is an issue there of jumping into an "open" format that is still owned exclusively by your main competitor.)
For a change, Microsoft is right (although I would not say this is Microsoft as an entity but instead the specific employee that made the comment.) H.264 is a standard defined by the ISO group, not by Microsoft, nor Apple, nor Google. It's not owned by any of the big server, hardware or browser makers. Despite some one making money off it, no one with actual control over some aspect of the web controls or owns it [at this time]. WebM, on the other hand, is Google's property and adopting it, even if they made it Open Source, can result in giving Google more power than they should have.
If Google feels it's important to "force" WebM support into other browsers, they can go ahead and offer Plugins for those browsers themselves, and use all their marketing power to promote the plugins. If they want to change every Youtube video to WebM and then force the user to download a plugin should they be using IE, they would have all IE installed browsers adopting the plugin in no time.
I also have to say it's a bit odd how Google picks it's fights. They say they will remove support for the format, but they still include a Flash plugin out of the box. Why not start flexing their muscles by trying to make people get away from Flash first? Simple: because this is not about openness, it's about control.
I posted this to as a reply to another poster a branch up in the thread but still:
If the small company is not charging the end user for the video (this applies to all YouTube-like services) then they don't have to pay anything until 2016. [streamingl...center.com] At that point the licensing may be revisited and they may have to pay under some new structure or one similar to free TV.
The Free TV license goes like this:
Either a one-time payment of $2,500 “per AVC transmission encoder” or an annual fee based on the following brackets:
$2,500 per calendar year per Broadcast Markets of at least 100,000 but no more than 499,999 television households
$5,000 per calendar year per Broadcast Market which includes at least 500,000 but no more than 999,999 television households
$10,000 per calendar year per Broadcast Market which includes at 1,000,000 or more television households.
If you think your company is so small it can't even afford the 2500 fee, then you are better off simply hosting your video in an existing site like Youtube or Vimeo.
We do have to keep in mind this is a likely case, not a sure one, and again something that is a non-issue until 2016.
And to add something new to this post: if a start-up wants to charge, (like Netflix does) then money is not a [big] issue, since the economics would be based around the fees.
If the small company is not charging the end user for the video (this applies to all YouTube-like services) then they don't have to pay anything until 2016. At that point the licensing may be revisited and they may have to pay under some new structure or one similar to free TV.
The Free TV license goes like this:
Either a one-time payment of $2,500 “per AVC transmission encoder” or an annual fee based on the following brackets:
$2,500 per calendar year per Broadcast Markets of at least 100,000 but no more than 499,999 television households
$5,000 per calendar year per Broadcast Market which includes at least 500,000 but no more than 999,999 television households
$10,000 per calendar year per Broadcast Market which includes at 1,000,000 or more television households.
If you think your company is so small it can't even afford the 2500 fee, then you are better off simply hosting your video in an existing site like Youtube or Vimeo.
We do have to keep in mind this is a likely case, not a sure one, and again something that is a non-issue until 2016.
The biggest issue we have now with the abandonment of H.264 is with mobile devices. All iOS and [for what i know] all Android devices currently have hardware H.264 decoding but not WebM. If they want to decode WebM they have to go pure soft-decoder. This means playing simple videos may drain the battery of your device rather fast.
At the end of the day, the ones that suffer the most are Android users. iOS may eventually support the format (if Apple is convinced the world adopts it as HTML5 and everyone uses it.) The iPad's battery life is something that borders insanity, and future iDevices can simply add the format in. However, we all know how slow most Android manufacturers are at pushing out software updates, and some of these devices (notably the HTC Evo) just gobble up the battery as it is, imagine if it had to run software decoded video.
Repeat here: When people have been already convinced/sold/brainwashed/decided what they want, though, specs don't matter.
If you are watching an ad you are only looking at one product and being brainwashed/convinced/persuaded to like it. When you go to the store and you see 10 different phones you never heard off, though, specs are the easiest way to decide.
When some one has not even heard the name of a phone, specs are the only way they are going to sell. When people have been already convinced/sold/brainwashed/decided what they want, though, specs don't matter.
other on line shopping sites had software downloads before apple had the app store.
This is not a patent fight, it's a trademark fight. None of those software download stores decided to brand themselves App Store. Heck, I never heard anyone refer to software as Apps until the iPhone made the term popular. Everyone called it Software or Programs before.
I'd double check that (if you have checked on it at all.)
That's what they told me when I called AT&T prior to purchasing the iPhone4, because I had the unlimited data with my 3GS. I can upgrade my phone and keep the unlimited data, but I can't make any changes to the plan at all.
Go to a store, talk to some one there. And if you have not upgraded yet to your iPhone 4, read this article about Haggling for your next cellphone. If you already have the iPhone 4 and want to change something, you can still use that article to get yourself the change you want. Key is to remain cool and be polite and friendly, even if you are enraged.
Demand the same from AT&T. I'm still on my unlimited plan but I cannot change ANYTHING else I will lose it; I can't change my phone number (which I want to do because clients keep calling me directly), I can't upgrade or downgrade minutes, add tethering, or change any other plan features or I will lose my unlimited data. I'm hoping AT&T will get a clue and bring back their unlimited plan and also allow the phone to be used as a wifi hotspot.
I'd double check that (if you have checked on it at all.) My best friend has AT&T and changed his phone number (due to a stalking ex) and he didn't loose anything on his contract, nor was he forced to renew or extend his contract. He did had to pay a fee to do the change, I don't remember but think it was around 29.99 (or something like that.) On a similar note he has changed some services over time without having his contract affected. Things like switching from a local state only unlimited call plan (that charged roaming charges out of state) to a more expensive national call service, to plainly upgrading from iPhone 3G to iPhone 4 with a contract renewal that didn't change the unlimited terms.
Time for a rude awakening: all carriers will give you very similar treatments in such cases. I have AT&T. My younger brother had Sprint (temporarily, got so sick he paid the cancellation fee and moved back to AT&T). Older brother has Verizon. My wife has TMobile. We all had hell at one time or another with customer service, and Verizon seems to have the worse (or my older brother really knows how to use hyperbole effectively.)
As for JavaScript... almost every single site these days uses it extensively. I just had to enable it to even be able to look at Verizon Wireless main page.
I never had an issue with late or un-received payments, from anyone. But then again, I no longer use checks. That's why banks websites allow me to do online payments. Handwritten checks not only have a higher chance of getting lost in the mail (due to handwriting sometimes being interpreted wrong by the postman) but also has a high chance of being illegible to the person that enters the payment in their system. Better let the bank print and mail a nice and legible check instead.
There is no way they are going to disclose what would be really interesting.
What Verizon promised to give up to get iPhone? Most likely dropping or at least hobbling android. But no one would say how soon or how much.
I think its going to be more subtle than that. The iPhone will cost them, as iPhones do are pricey and they still sell them for 200 bucks subsidizing the rest. Depending on how well the phone sells, they may be forced to cut costs somewhere else to be more stable. The most likely cutting department will be Android marketing. The iPhone sells itself, and should it make them enough money they may actually figure the huge amount of money spent on marketing droid is unnecessary. There are two reasons for this. For one, Android marketing from Verizon is not just selling Verizon phones, it's selling Androids on every carrier.
It may not sound like a big deal, but Verizon has been a strong contributor to Android's marketing. If they cut back in that department (be it due to convenience, obsolete need to compete with iPhones, agreements with Apple, or pure whims) it will deal a huge punch to the Android growth, at least in the US.
I think this wont even the playing field, but instead give a the iPhone nitro speed for the race. Up to now things have been very competitive between the two platforms despite the iPhone only having 25% of the market to play with, this will open it's potential market to 52%, more than doubling it's current potential user base. This is not counting any lures that may be willing to leave TMobile or Sprint.
As for the voice/data, if you use VOIP service like Skype, or Google Voice (have not tried, not sure of it's limitations) your voice will be moving through data and therefore you will be able to do both.
Your case is likely to be the most common scenario, carriers have openly stated most users don't ever use that much data. Most months, I don't. But once in a while I must take a long road trip and depend exclusively on my phone for internet connection. Some situations also can force me to depend on cellphone exclusively, like moving to a new place and waiting for incompetent comcast to take 3 weeks to finally install your internet.
There are many cases that can force you, a couple times a year, to go way over the limit. If you are remotely likely to encounter these twice a year, it's very likely the light difference in monthly fee is more than worth it, as should it happen with a capped plan, you will be sodomized with a big fat bill.
True. But if you're on the phone and they say "Sending you the email now", you're boned. You'll have to hang up, allow the data transmission, and then call them back.
And if there is a wifi network around, more likely I'm using a laptop and not my phone.
If you use Skype to handle your voice calls, though, you will always be running under "data" and be able to go to your email without hanging. I know it's an extra cost but I already pay it to have "home phone" off sorts in my computer. I think Google Voice is now offering a similar tool completely free, have not bothered to try it out.
Also take a look at OPlayer (noted somewhere else in this.) Have not tried it yet but seems to do all Air Video does plus is extended to audio streaming, and the ability to load files into the iOS device either via iTunes or wireless. Both seem to cost the same. I would say OPlayer seems to be superior but have not tested it.
I love the fact that Air Video supports multiple audio tracks and subtitle tracks (either embedded in the file or as.srt files.)
As many have said throughout the article comments, the VLC removal is a sad story of a one-man grudge against Apple, but VLC for the iOS was far from being the best media player available.
You have at least two options to do this. One is the obvious jailbreak, the other is the apple approved dev program that allows you to install your compiled applications into your iPhone.
With the later you can be less selfish and just put it up in the App store for anyone to download.
Pretend you are the average iPhone owner, you would rest much more easy if you didn't had to worry about what antivirus to run. Apple's approval process do it's best to make sure nothing like that gets into their App Store. But that's hard to pretend, few people have enough open mind to realize what the non-technical masses actually want.
First, bullshit. Its only on one carrier in the U.S. Its on every carrier in England, and still getting demolished on sales over its INSANELY high price. Its just a smart phone--it doesn't split the fucking atom.
It stops "just being a smartphone" when anyone attempts to compare the entire smartphone industry to it. That being told, if you quote England market share, can you actually list numbers and link references? Also, I would politely insist on more countries than just England. I also am curious how much it costs there, any single Android phone in any carrier here wants 200 out of my pocket and a 2 year contract, the same ATT wants for the iPhone.
Secondly, that "restriction" to one carrier was Apples choice, not mine. I think its sad that Apple miscalculated so heinously by going AT&T exclusive.
It was not Apple's choice. Only Cingular accepted Apple's terms (no other carrier accepted an app store that would not be controlled by themselves.) Actually, had Apple not accepted this only alternative, Android would not exist (nor would the iPhone be that popular) because no carrier would had accepted any phone to include non-carrier controlled app stores.
Ultimately, that choice is what made Android viable.
Nice, we agree! Android only succeeds because of the ATT lockdown!!! Now lets see what happens when it arrives to Verizon:D
But now Android is out there, in the wild, with millions of people talking texting and emailing on it every day.
Hope they double and triple check who got those texts!!!:P
Apple essentially made its own worst-nightmare come true: A phone that works just as well, in some cases better, than the iPhone that is on every single carrier
Yet AT&T is selling more smarthphones than Verizon (almost every one of them iPhones) despite having such a horrid service and lesser market share than Verizon.
I have [some] faith that [some] websites will soon start bringing up the more adequate "Nokia developer makes Apple take down Open Source VLC software." Both, Nokia and the Videolan project are looking bad in the eyes of anyone that has bother to look at the guy's page. Was Nokia pulling his strings?
I'm sure this is just one guy acting individually, but any article that just lists the facts [shame true journalism is dead] would make Videolan look guilty of corporate bias and Nokia of anti-competitive behavior.
If Nokia got enough negative press I can see them easily dismissing the guy. I can see the team also rejecting any further contribution from him, but I admit I am not that familiar with open source groups behaviors when it come to this kind of corporate bias.
Tell your non-geek mother to download Air Video, you set her download folder in her PC as the streaming directory and it will be easier for her than having to transfer movies into her iPad/iPod/iPhone to play in VLC.
Get it? The GPL lovers are hypocrites. They don't want to give people freedom. They simply want everyone else to be forced to make the same choices that THEY do.
This is one of the most layman ways to describe the GPL. I would use more tact, but this delivers the message best than tact would.
Slashdot Mirror
Part of the problem with Microsoft is they dont realize this and think "Windows Mobile was just not Windows Like enough".
I am an iPhone user, and i love my iDevices. Predictably I dislike Android devices (and I have tried them, I just dont like them personally.) I was always thinking Windows Phone 7 was going to be an even bigger disapointment (to me.) Can you imagine my shock when I tested an HTC HD7 at TMobile and almost told the guy to pack the thing and sign me up for two years. Windows Phone 7 is not perfect, but its extremely fun to use. I was shocked how smooth the browser runs compared to both, iOS and Android browsers. Again, has issues, lack of support for HTML5 and not even iOS levels of multitasking, but the thing has a LOT of promise.
Balmer's speech in CES made me hold my horses, though. Balmer went on to say how he wants just core Windows, not derivatives, running on any type of device, be it tablets, desktops, laptops, netbooks, phones, or microwaves. He wants core Windows everywhere. Not sure if its him to blame, but I still will blame him: He does not understand that it's not about portability or technical issues, the OS has to be entirely different for mobile phones and tablets, and despite these two being similar, Apple and Google both have obviously agreed you need a specialized branch of their OS to accommodate the intricacies of a larger screen and take advantage of more usable finger space. I bet it would also have to be different for microwaves.
Anyways, the worst thing here, is right now I feel going into a Windows Phone 7 is like walking into a 4 mile long dead end highway, not because of fear of the platform failing but instead due to Microsoft killing it young.
iOS supports full true multitasking. It does not allow it, but it supports it. Difference? Extremely simple hacks can enable true multitasking throughout the full OS. There are some apps in the apple store (like System Lite) that can expose all running processes. This app shows true multitasking processes, it does not display apps that are just "parked" in the background doing nothing. I just did a quick count and have 26 processes running side to side, this without any hacks. All this can easily take advantage of multi-core chips.
In addition any app can make use of multithreading, any app that does this would automatically take advantage of multi-core chips.
And of course, because of magic, nobody can remember the over-hyped "PS2 emotion engine" and the "PS3 is so powerful it's going to last 10 years" marketing.
If the PSP2 is as powerful as the PS3, why is the PS3 Slim still so big?
Give them time, they are getting ready to release the PS3 Slim-R
This does not force anything on Microsoft. Microsoft is not the patent holder here, and it does not bother them that much to go out and implement WebM (although there is an issue there of jumping into an "open" format that is still owned exclusively by your main competitor.)
For a change, Microsoft is right (although I would not say this is Microsoft as an entity but instead the specific employee that made the comment.) H.264 is a standard defined by the ISO group, not by Microsoft, nor Apple, nor Google. It's not owned by any of the big server, hardware or browser makers. Despite some one making money off it, no one with actual control over some aspect of the web controls or owns it [at this time]. WebM, on the other hand, is Google's property and adopting it, even if they made it Open Source, can result in giving Google more power than they should have.
If Google feels it's important to "force" WebM support into other browsers, they can go ahead and offer Plugins for those browsers themselves, and use all their marketing power to promote the plugins. If they want to change every Youtube video to WebM and then force the user to download a plugin should they be using IE, they would have all IE installed browsers adopting the plugin in no time.
I also have to say it's a bit odd how Google picks it's fights. They say they will remove support for the format, but they still include a Flash plugin out of the box. Why not start flexing their muscles by trying to make people get away from Flash first? Simple: because this is not about openness, it's about control.
If the small company is not charging the end user for the video (this applies to all YouTube-like services) then they don't have to pay anything until 2016. [streamingl...center.com] At that point the licensing may be revisited and they may have to pay under some new structure or one similar to free TV.
The Free TV license goes like this:
Either a one-time payment of $2,500 “per AVC transmission encoder” or an annual fee based on the following brackets:
If you think your company is so small it can't even afford the 2500 fee, then you are better off simply hosting your video in an existing site like Youtube or Vimeo.
We do have to keep in mind this is a likely case, not a sure one, and again something that is a non-issue until 2016.
And to add something new to this post: if a start-up wants to charge, (like Netflix does) then money is not a [big] issue, since the economics would be based around the fees.
If the small company is not charging the end user for the video (this applies to all YouTube-like services) then they don't have to pay anything until 2016. At that point the licensing may be revisited and they may have to pay under some new structure or one similar to free TV.
The Free TV license goes like this:
Either a one-time payment of $2,500 “per AVC transmission encoder” or an annual fee based on the following brackets:
If you think your company is so small it can't even afford the 2500 fee, then you are better off simply hosting your video in an existing site like Youtube or Vimeo.
We do have to keep in mind this is a likely case, not a sure one, and again something that is a non-issue until 2016.
The biggest issue we have now with the abandonment of H.264 is with mobile devices. All iOS and [for what i know] all Android devices currently have hardware H.264 decoding but not WebM. If they want to decode WebM they have to go pure soft-decoder. This means playing simple videos may drain the battery of your device rather fast.
At the end of the day, the ones that suffer the most are Android users. iOS may eventually support the format (if Apple is convinced the world adopts it as HTML5 and everyone uses it.) The iPad's battery life is something that borders insanity, and future iDevices can simply add the format in. However, we all know how slow most Android manufacturers are at pushing out software updates, and some of these devices (notably the HTC Evo) just gobble up the battery as it is, imagine if it had to run software decoded video.
Read my whole post, it was not that long.
Repeat here: When people have been already convinced/sold/brainwashed/decided what they want, though, specs don't matter.
If you are watching an ad you are only looking at one product and being brainwashed/convinced/persuaded to like it. When you go to the store and you see 10 different phones you never heard off, though, specs are the easiest way to decide.
When some one has not even heard the name of a phone, specs are the only way they are going to sell. When people have been already convinced/sold/brainwashed/decided what they want, though, specs don't matter.
other on line shopping sites had software downloads before apple had the app store.
This is not a patent fight, it's a trademark fight. None of those software download stores decided to brand themselves App Store. Heck, I never heard anyone refer to software as Apps until the iPhone made the term popular. Everyone called it Software or Programs before.
You can also try any of these replacing App with Soft, Software, Program, Executable (a bit geeky there) and any other App synonym you can think off.
That's what they told me when I called AT&T prior to purchasing the iPhone4, because I had the unlimited data with my 3GS. I can upgrade my phone and keep the unlimited data, but I can't make any changes to the plan at all.
Go to a store, talk to some one there. And if you have not upgraded yet to your iPhone 4, read this article about Haggling for your next cellphone. If you already have the iPhone 4 and want to change something, you can still use that article to get yourself the change you want. Key is to remain cool and be polite and friendly, even if you are enraged.
Demand the same from AT&T. I'm still on my unlimited plan but I cannot change ANYTHING else I will lose it; I can't change my phone number (which I want to do because clients keep calling me directly), I can't upgrade or downgrade minutes, add tethering, or change any other plan features or I will lose my unlimited data. I'm hoping AT&T will get a clue and bring back their unlimited plan and also allow the phone to be used as a wifi hotspot.
I'd double check that (if you have checked on it at all.) My best friend has AT&T and changed his phone number (due to a stalking ex) and he didn't loose anything on his contract, nor was he forced to renew or extend his contract. He did had to pay a fee to do the change, I don't remember but think it was around 29.99 (or something like that.) On a similar note he has changed some services over time without having his contract affected. Things like switching from a local state only unlimited call plan (that charged roaming charges out of state) to a more expensive national call service, to plainly upgrading from iPhone 3G to iPhone 4 with a contract renewal that didn't change the unlimited terms.
Time for a rude awakening: all carriers will give you very similar treatments in such cases. I have AT&T. My younger brother had Sprint (temporarily, got so sick he paid the cancellation fee and moved back to AT&T). Older brother has Verizon. My wife has TMobile. We all had hell at one time or another with customer service, and Verizon seems to have the worse (or my older brother really knows how to use hyperbole effectively.)
As for JavaScript... almost every single site these days uses it extensively. I just had to enable it to even be able to look at Verizon Wireless main page.
I never had an issue with late or un-received payments, from anyone. But then again, I no longer use checks. That's why banks websites allow me to do online payments. Handwritten checks not only have a higher chance of getting lost in the mail (due to handwriting sometimes being interpreted wrong by the postman) but also has a high chance of being illegible to the person that enters the payment in their system. Better let the bank print and mail a nice and legible check instead.
There is no way they are going to disclose what would be really interesting.
What Verizon promised to give up to get iPhone? Most likely dropping or at least hobbling android. But no one would say how soon or how much.
I think its going to be more subtle than that. The iPhone will cost them, as iPhones do are pricey and they still sell them for 200 bucks subsidizing the rest. Depending on how well the phone sells, they may be forced to cut costs somewhere else to be more stable. The most likely cutting department will be Android marketing. The iPhone sells itself, and should it make them enough money they may actually figure the huge amount of money spent on marketing droid is unnecessary. There are two reasons for this. For one, Android marketing from Verizon is not just selling Verizon phones, it's selling Androids on every carrier.
It may not sound like a big deal, but Verizon has been a strong contributor to Android's marketing. If they cut back in that department (be it due to convenience, obsolete need to compete with iPhones, agreements with Apple, or pure whims) it will deal a huge punch to the Android growth, at least in the US.
I think this wont even the playing field, but instead give a the iPhone nitro speed for the race. Up to now things have been very competitive between the two platforms despite the iPhone only having 25% of the market to play with, this will open it's potential market to 52%, more than doubling it's current potential user base. This is not counting any lures that may be willing to leave TMobile or Sprint.
As for the voice/data, if you use VOIP service like Skype, or Google Voice (have not tried, not sure of it's limitations) your voice will be moving through data and therefore you will be able to do both.
Your case is likely to be the most common scenario, carriers have openly stated most users don't ever use that much data. Most months, I don't. But once in a while I must take a long road trip and depend exclusively on my phone for internet connection. Some situations also can force me to depend on cellphone exclusively, like moving to a new place and waiting for incompetent comcast to take 3 weeks to finally install your internet.
There are many cases that can force you, a couple times a year, to go way over the limit. If you are remotely likely to encounter these twice a year, it's very likely the light difference in monthly fee is more than worth it, as should it happen with a capped plan, you will be sodomized with a big fat bill.
True. But if you're on the phone and they say "Sending you the email now", you're boned. You'll have to hang up, allow the data transmission, and then call them back.
And if there is a wifi network around, more likely I'm using a laptop and not my phone.
If you use Skype to handle your voice calls, though, you will always be running under "data" and be able to go to your email without hanging. I know it's an extra cost but I already pay it to have "home phone" off sorts in my computer. I think Google Voice is now offering a similar tool completely free, have not bothered to try it out.
Also take a look at OPlayer (noted somewhere else in this.) Have not tried it yet but seems to do all Air Video does plus is extended to audio streaming, and the ability to load files into the iOS device either via iTunes or wireless. Both seem to cost the same. I would say OPlayer seems to be superior but have not tested it.
I love the fact that Air Video supports multiple audio tracks and subtitle tracks (either embedded in the file or as .srt files.)
As many have said throughout the article comments, the VLC removal is a sad story of a one-man grudge against Apple, but VLC for the iOS was far from being the best media player available.
You have at least two options to do this. One is the obvious jailbreak, the other is the apple approved dev program that allows you to install your compiled applications into your iPhone.
With the later you can be less selfish and just put it up in the App store for anyone to download.
Pretend you are the average iPhone owner, you would rest much more easy if you didn't had to worry about what antivirus to run. Apple's approval process do it's best to make sure nothing like that gets into their App Store. But that's hard to pretend, few people have enough open mind to realize what the non-technical masses actually want.
First, bullshit. Its only on one carrier in the U.S. Its on every carrier in England, and still getting demolished on sales over its INSANELY high price. Its just a smart phone--it doesn't split the fucking atom.
It stops "just being a smartphone" when anyone attempts to compare the entire smartphone industry to it. That being told, if you quote England market share, can you actually list numbers and link references? Also, I would politely insist on more countries than just England. I also am curious how much it costs there, any single Android phone in any carrier here wants 200 out of my pocket and a 2 year contract, the same ATT wants for the iPhone.
Secondly, that "restriction" to one carrier was Apples choice, not mine. I think its sad that Apple miscalculated so heinously by going AT&T exclusive.
It was not Apple's choice. Only Cingular accepted Apple's terms (no other carrier accepted an app store that would not be controlled by themselves.) Actually, had Apple not accepted this only alternative, Android would not exist (nor would the iPhone be that popular) because no carrier would had accepted any phone to include non-carrier controlled app stores.
Ultimately, that choice is what made Android viable.
Nice, we agree! Android only succeeds because of the ATT lockdown!!! Now lets see what happens when it arrives to Verizon :D
But now Android is out there, in the wild, with millions of people talking texting and emailing on it every day.
Hope they double and triple check who got those texts!!! :P
Apple essentially made its own worst-nightmare come true: A phone that works just as well, in some cases better, than the iPhone that is on every single carrier
Yet AT&T is selling more smarthphones than Verizon (almost every one of them iPhones) despite having such a horrid service and lesser market share than Verizon.
I have [some] faith that [some] websites will soon start bringing up the more adequate "Nokia developer makes Apple take down Open Source VLC software." Both, Nokia and the Videolan project are looking bad in the eyes of anyone that has bother to look at the guy's page. Was Nokia pulling his strings?
I'm sure this is just one guy acting individually, but any article that just lists the facts [shame true journalism is dead] would make Videolan look guilty of corporate bias and Nokia of anti-competitive behavior.
If Nokia got enough negative press I can see them easily dismissing the guy. I can see the team also rejecting any further contribution from him, but I admit I am not that familiar with open source groups behaviors when it come to this kind of corporate bias.
Although you would need to subscribe to the Apple Dev program, you CAN redistribute with modifications by submitting your own version of the program.
Tell your non-geek mother to download Air Video, you set her download folder in her PC as the streaming directory and it will be easier for her than having to transfer movies into her iPad/iPod/iPhone to play in VLC.
The proper title should be "Nokia developer pulls VLC from AppStore".
Rémi alone is to blame for this mess.
Agree
Get it? The GPL lovers are hypocrites. They don't want to give people freedom. They simply want everyone else to be forced to make the same choices that THEY do.
This is one of the most layman ways to describe the GPL. I would use more tact, but this delivers the message best than tact would.