After it's compiled, you'll end up with a standalone client and a Firefox add-on. It shouldn't be hard to provide an add-on download. As far as I can see, it's Linux only, however.
They want h264, which is a proprietary format controlled by a consortium they are a major member of.
I'm not sure what you mean by "major" but Apple only has 1 patent in the h264 patent pool that looks like nothing but a placeholder patent to satisfy the membership requirement.
They didn't have any of those things in 2005 - the time period I was referring to in my post.
Just as you said here - (1) they gave source code dumps, (2) they didn't accept any patches, (3) their source code was filled with platform-specific code, (4) they didn't offer any bug repository even to core KHTML devs, (5) they asked KHTML devs to sign NDAs to see source code they added, etc.
Again, that's not a good example on how to collaborate on an open-source project.
All in all - he may still run across a few errors, but its not nearly as bad as say Google Voice Mail, which tries to figure out what you're saying without having any previous knowledge on how that person speaks.
Each Google voicemail transcription has an option for a user to mark whether the transcription was accurate or not. I wouldn't be surprised if they were tying that into the caller-specific profile. So, if you leave a message for friend A and he marks the transcription good, that data may be used when you call not just person A, but everyone else in the future. In fact, it wouldn't make any sense otherwise. Now, how much actual "learning" algorithms they have on the back side, I cannot tell you.
In 2005 Apple open sourced Webkit and released it to the wild. Contrary to common belief, Apple actually gives quite a bit back to the Open Source community.
It's because they legally had to - they forked KHTML which was under LGPL. Now webkit is also under LGPL. In addition, if you go back to the time period you are referring to and read how they released the source back - they made it so that KHTML developers couldn't easily merge the changes back into their project, and offered little to no collaboration with KHTML project. It was Apple's way or highway - yes they are clear legally, but not really a high mark there.
So, Apple may "give quite a bit back" but this is not really a good example.
It's a little more complex with Android. Here it goes:
You can turn on/off GPS and tower/wifi location services separately. If they are both on, any application (or associated ad service) that has appropriate access privileges (presented at the time of installation) can collect your location information. If they are both off, then location data will only be used for 911. In addition, when attempting to turn on the tower/wifi location setting, you get the following message:
Allow Google's location service to collect anonymous location data. Collection will occur even when no applications are running. Agree/Disagree
If you agree, Google will collect the data, whatever "anonymous" means in this context. If you disagree, Google will not collect the data. The setting will be enabled in either case.
In other news, both google.com and bing.com and 10s of thousands of servers behind those domains are scheduled to be voluntarily shut down later today due to the fact that they may have indexed and cached some of the offensive content.
Why would they have to use special hardware/firmware for 'doing the dirty work' in a commercial environment?
You are really overthinking it. Laser or optical mice don't rely on software to calculate movements; they are passed from the hardware via a serial port.
The FCC decision is much more far reaching and frankly will hopefully restore some sense to TV and radio.
That won't happen. The networks are still going to censor themselves. They just won't have to pay multi-million dollar fines to the government if something slips through.
If the Obama administration is smart it will not even try to appeal this.
I'm not defending this but look at it this way - if he doesn't appeal it will likely be used against him during the next elections. The issues are deeper than this.
Judging by the video, it looked like it was implemented in software. The $20 would account for a cheap camera and a cheap laser. Software simply relayed the movement in the camera image. There was also a noticeable (even a split second could be annoying) lag between input movement and result.
If this was to be offered as a commercial product, it would need to be packaged or integrated with the laptops and other devices, and have some hardware/firmware doing the dirty work. Then you'll see the hardware cost rise and then you may need drivers.
What I'm wondering is - now that someone demonstrated it - who will patent it first.
(2) Make better use of small screen real estate. The default should drop window borders and menu borders, etc.
I like what they did in Fennec. I don't know if they were first in doing this or not, but the tabs and menu hidden on the left and right side of the main content section is genius. Then a light horizontal swipe moves the whole screen and reveals those sections. I personally liked it, anyway.
Let people do what they are good at, and give the parts they aren't to someone else.
That's right but remember most (but not all) programmers aren't good at non-programming tasks such as coming up with ideas for unique non-technical apps, games, usability, design, etc. However, that fact doesn't prevent developers from publishing unpolished apps, non-functional games, unfinished ideas, etc. because they hold the keys to writing and compiling code.
This would be like turning the table to see whether people that have more creative abilities/talent, but no inclination or desire to [learn to] write code, can also positively contribute. I, for one, would like to see this go mainstream. As an additional benefit, it may even help more people of different skill sets get together to produce a superior product without a need for a start-up capital and major funding.
It is really easy to point out issues in the independent claims of this type of patent. But when you have to go through several hundred dependent claims it gets reeaaaalllly teeeeeeddddiiiiooooouuusssss.
Sure it does. However, the claim 1 stands on its own as is, and if you are infringing on claim 1, then you are infringing on the patent, regardless of whether there are other dependent or independent claims. If that's not the case, please enlighten me.
The patent application should have been rejected knowing that claim was too broad, and had plenty of prior art.
That's a pretty vague definition. Some of the crappiest feature phones allowed you to download 3rd party software using J2ME and BREW. I don't call those things "smartphones" and then turn around and call iPhone by the same label, effectively putting them in the same "smartphone" category. That's just not right.
Besides, the definition of the term was not my point. I was highlighting the differences in categories. And iOS, Android and Maemo are not the same category as most of the phones you are referring to as smartphones.
Then we have a different understanding of what a "smartphone" means. Pretty much all MOAP phones are feature phones, and if you are going to argue that phones like these are "smartphones" - i.e. in the same category as iOS and Android phones - then I don't know what to tell you.
Apple came out with the iPhone and followed down the same path with respect to both customers and developers.
Google introduced Android and their efforts are just as consistent.
Nokia, on the other hand, bought Symbian which at the time was mostly a feature phone OS, introduced Maemo which used GTK, then acquired Trolltech which was Qt, then ported Qt to Maemo and dropped GTK, then started porting Qt to next version of Symbian, then dropped Maemo and started work on Meego. Now, what next? There are too many moving parts, and too much uncertainty, at least as far as "smartphones" are concerned. Are there politics going on inside the company? If so, someone has to take charge and make some tough technical decisions.
I personally like Qt and find it easy to program with and I hope they use that as their tool in their future phones and tablets; but, in general, Nokia needs to find a clear direction and stick to it.
First of all, there are 665 claims in that patent. Isn't that a little overboard?
But let's look at the first one:
What is claimed is:
1. In a communication system comprising a wireless system which communication system transmits electronic mail inputted to the communication system from an originating device, mobile processors which execute electronic mail programming to function as a destination of electronic mail, and a destination processor to which the electronic mail is transmitted from the originating device and after reception of the electronic mail by the destination processor, information contained in the electronic mail and an identification of a wireless device in the wireless system are transmitted by the wireless system to the wireless device and from the wireless device to one of the mobile processors connected thereto, the originating device comprising:
a programmed processor which executes electronic mail programming to originate the electronic mail, the electronic mail containing an address of the destination processor and the information contained in the electronic mail to be transmitted to the destination processor.
After you parse all this mumbo-jumbo, doesn't it just say e-mail over wireless system? Filed in 1999? Didn't we have e-mail on laptops in 1999? What's wrong with this picture? What if you just remove the word "wireless" from the claim and read it again?
The claim is so broad, it seems to me it covers the pagers too.
Is that a rhetorical question? Because it doesn't help their case that x264 developers have themselves made misleading comments about VP8 since it was introduced by Google.
here we have an independent expert disputing the claim that the VP8 developers made. Why isn't this expert good enough?
No that's not what you have. What you have is an x264 developer complaining about the comment made by a VP8 developer.
The professor replying to the complaining x264 developer agreed with the complaint but let the comments stand.
You just assume that they don't know enough about VP8, when this is his specialty. Why? I'm all for learning as much about a topic as possible before forming an opinion on it, but that doesn't mean you *have* to form an opinion on everything.
I didn't form an opinion about the claims either way, but merely stated the original VP8 comment was not misleading. It did not mislead me into anything.
The original poster of this thread, on the other hand, had actually taken the x264 developer's opinion as statement of fact when there was no evidence presented to support it. And based on that assumption, he formed an opinion that the VP8 comment was untrue.
At some point, you have to allow the specialists to do what they do. And if you have no idea what they are doing or talking about (like here), maybe you shouldn't bother being in the discussion, as you add nothing to it.
I always "love" these types of remarks where people are asked to shut up because [insert an assumption/generalization here]. If you believe I didn't add anything to the discussion, then you certainly didn't either - so why did you bother replying, or even reading to this point in this thread?
It's a fact that it's his opinion. I saw nothing where he backed up his claim (or counter-claim) with any actual facts. And given the x264 developer hostility against VP8 ever since it was announced by Google, that kind of opinion does not hold much weight with me.
They both use an almost identical transform of any claims of bias against VP8 when it comes to MPEG artifacts is bunk.
Do they? VP8 for me produces artifacts that are visibly different from x264.
Basically all you are doing is being contrarian with no actual facts to back it up.
Really? I merely stated that the original VP8 comment was not misleading. It didn't mislead me into anything, that's for sure.
The comment from WebM said they had just started the work to optimize the VP8 encoder. Given that, and the fact that x264 is at a pretty mature stage, the speed comparisons are not all that surprising. So, no, it's not "competitive" but it's not surprising either.
You mean other than their implication of a bias against VP8 that doesn't exist?
You are implying that the x264 developer's claim is a fact. I am willing to entertain the idea that there could be bias against VP8 in some metrics. However, given no other info, it stands as unsubstantiated in my mind. There's nothing misleading about that.
On the other hand, I don't buy that either x264 developer, or the professor in question, have absolute knowledge of VP8 where they have verified that there is indeed no such "slight advantage."
I don't take anything stated from those 2 comments as fact. And, I certainly don't blindly trust x264 developers' comments about VP8.
Then maybe the VP8 developers need to stop making misleading statements about the capabilities of their codec?
I'm not convinced anything was misleading in the original comment. It was made clear they were not talking about visual quality. But there were no technical details presented on either side, so take it with a grain of salt, that's all.
On the other hand, I've seen more than one misleading claim made by x264 developers against VP8 since it was announced as WebM by Google. It's like they are on a crusade or something. Take it easy guys - your implementation is one of the best, if not the best. Just keep up the good work and try to not make it look like you are on a personal mission to bury VP8.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry then - my timeline is messed up. I was referring to the clashes they had between them prior to straightening [most] things out.
After it's compiled, you'll end up with a standalone client and a Firefox add-on. It shouldn't be hard to provide an add-on download. As far as I can see, it's Linux only, however.
They want h264, which is a proprietary format controlled by a consortium they are a major member of.
I'm not sure what you mean by "major" but Apple only has 1 patent in the h264 patent pool that looks like nothing but a placeholder patent to satisfy the membership requirement.
They didn't have any of those things in 2005 - the time period I was referring to in my post.
Just as you said here - (1) they gave source code dumps, (2) they didn't accept any patches, (3) their source code was filled with platform-specific code, (4) they didn't offer any bug repository even to core KHTML devs, (5) they asked KHTML devs to sign NDAs to see source code they added, etc.
Again, that's not a good example on how to collaborate on an open-source project.
All in all - he may still run across a few errors, but its not nearly as bad as say Google Voice Mail, which tries to figure out what you're saying without having any previous knowledge on how that person speaks.
Each Google voicemail transcription has an option for a user to mark whether the transcription was accurate or not. I wouldn't be surprised if they were tying that into the caller-specific profile. So, if you leave a message for friend A and he marks the transcription good, that data may be used when you call not just person A, but everyone else in the future. In fact, it wouldn't make any sense otherwise. Now, how much actual "learning" algorithms they have on the back side, I cannot tell you.
In 2005 Apple open sourced Webkit and released it to the wild. Contrary to common belief, Apple actually gives quite a bit back to the Open Source community.
It's because they legally had to - they forked KHTML which was under LGPL. Now webkit is also under LGPL. In addition, if you go back to the time period you are referring to and read how they released the source back - they made it so that KHTML developers couldn't easily merge the changes back into their project, and offered little to no collaboration with KHTML project. It was Apple's way or highway - yes they are clear legally, but not really a high mark there.
So, Apple may "give quite a bit back" but this is not really a good example.
It's a little more complex with Android. Here it goes:
You can turn on/off GPS and tower/wifi location services separately. If they are both on, any application (or associated ad service) that has appropriate access privileges (presented at the time of installation) can collect your location information. If they are both off, then location data will only be used for 911. In addition, when attempting to turn on the tower/wifi location setting, you get the following message:
Allow Google's location service to collect anonymous location data. Collection will occur even when no applications are running. Agree/Disagree
If you agree, Google will collect the data, whatever "anonymous" means in this context. If you disagree, Google will not collect the data. The setting will be enabled in either case.
In other news, both google.com and bing.com and 10s of thousands of servers behind those domains are scheduled to be voluntarily shut down later today due to the fact that they may have indexed and cached some of the offensive content.
What am I missing?
Why would they have to use special hardware/firmware for 'doing the dirty work' in a commercial environment?
You are really overthinking it. Laser or optical mice don't rely on software to calculate movements; they are passed from the hardware via a serial port.
The FCC decision is much more far reaching and frankly will hopefully restore some sense to TV and radio.
That won't happen. The networks are still going to censor themselves. They just won't have to pay multi-million dollar fines to the government if something slips through.
If the Obama administration is smart it will not even try to appeal this.
I'm not defending this but look at it this way - if he doesn't appeal it will likely be used against him during the next elections. The issues are deeper than this.
And Linux device drivers are, mmm... not software?
Eh? And kernel is, mmm... not software? I didn't say driver was not software. But glad you cleared it up for yourself at the end.
Judging by the video, it looked like it was implemented in software. The $20 would account for a cheap camera and a cheap laser. Software simply relayed the movement in the camera image. There was also a noticeable (even a split second could be annoying) lag between input movement and result.
If this was to be offered as a commercial product, it would need to be packaged or integrated with the laptops and other devices, and have some hardware/firmware doing the dirty work. Then you'll see the hardware cost rise and then you may need drivers.
What I'm wondering is - now that someone demonstrated it - who will patent it first.
(2) Make better use of small screen real estate. The default should drop window borders and menu borders, etc.
I like what they did in Fennec. I don't know if they were first in doing this or not, but the tabs and menu hidden on the left and right side of the main content section is genius. Then a light horizontal swipe moves the whole screen and reveals those sections. I personally liked it, anyway.
Let people do what they are good at, and give the parts they aren't to someone else.
That's right but remember most (but not all) programmers aren't good at non-programming tasks such as coming up with ideas for unique non-technical apps, games, usability, design, etc. However, that fact doesn't prevent developers from publishing unpolished apps, non-functional games, unfinished ideas, etc. because they hold the keys to writing and compiling code.
This would be like turning the table to see whether people that have more creative abilities/talent, but no inclination or desire to [learn to] write code, can also positively contribute. I, for one, would like to see this go mainstream. As an additional benefit, it may even help more people of different skill sets get together to produce a superior product without a need for a start-up capital and major funding.
It is really easy to point out issues in the independent claims of this type of patent. But when you have to go through several hundred dependent claims it gets reeaaaalllly teeeeeeddddiiiiooooouuusssss.
Sure it does. However, the claim 1 stands on its own as is, and if you are infringing on claim 1, then you are infringing on the patent, regardless of whether there are other dependent or independent claims. If that's not the case, please enlighten me.
The patent application should have been rejected knowing that claim was too broad, and had plenty of prior art.
That's a pretty vague definition. Some of the crappiest feature phones allowed you to download 3rd party software using J2ME and BREW. I don't call those things "smartphones" and then turn around and call iPhone by the same label, effectively putting them in the same "smartphone" category. That's just not right.
Besides, the definition of the term was not my point. I was highlighting the differences in categories. And iOS, Android and Maemo are not the same category as most of the phones you are referring to as smartphones.
Then we have a different understanding of what a "smartphone" means. Pretty much all MOAP phones are feature phones, and if you are going to argue that phones like these are "smartphones" - i.e. in the same category as iOS and Android phones - then I don't know what to tell you.
They just can't get their act straight.
Apple came out with the iPhone and followed down the same path with respect to both customers and developers.
Google introduced Android and their efforts are just as consistent.
Nokia, on the other hand, bought Symbian which at the time was mostly a feature phone OS, introduced Maemo which used GTK, then acquired Trolltech which was Qt, then ported Qt to Maemo and dropped GTK, then started porting Qt to next version of Symbian, then dropped Maemo and started work on Meego. Now, what next? There are too many moving parts, and too much uncertainty, at least as far as "smartphones" are concerned. Are there politics going on inside the company? If so, someone has to take charge and make some tough technical decisions.
I personally like Qt and find it easy to program with and I hope they use that as their tool in their future phones and tablets; but, in general, Nokia needs to find a clear direction and stick to it.
First of all, there are 665 claims in that patent. Isn't that a little overboard?
But let's look at the first one:
What is claimed is:
1. In a communication system comprising a wireless system which communication system transmits electronic mail inputted to the communication system from an originating device, mobile processors which execute electronic mail programming to function as a destination of electronic mail, and a destination processor to which the electronic mail is transmitted from the originating device and after reception of the electronic mail by the destination processor, information contained in the electronic mail and an identification of a wireless device in the wireless system are transmitted by the wireless system to the wireless device and from the wireless device to one of the mobile processors connected thereto, the originating device comprising:
a programmed processor which executes electronic mail programming to originate the electronic mail, the electronic mail containing an address of the destination processor and the information contained in the electronic mail to be transmitted to the destination processor.
After you parse all this mumbo-jumbo, doesn't it just say e-mail over wireless system? Filed in 1999? Didn't we have e-mail on laptops in 1999? What's wrong with this picture? What if you just remove the word "wireless" from the claim and read it again?
The claim is so broad, it seems to me it covers the pagers too.
Hmmmm.....how do they taste, breaded and fried?
Oily.
At what point will you "buy" the claims?
Is that a rhetorical question? Because it doesn't help their case that x264 developers have themselves made misleading comments about VP8 since it was introduced by Google.
here we have an independent expert disputing the claim that the VP8 developers made. Why isn't this expert good enough?
No that's not what you have. What you have is an x264 developer complaining about the comment made by a VP8 developer.
The professor replying to the complaining x264 developer agreed with the complaint but let the comments stand.
You just assume that they don't know enough about VP8, when this is his specialty. Why? I'm all for learning as much about a topic as possible before forming an opinion on it, but that doesn't mean you *have* to form an opinion on everything.
I didn't form an opinion about the claims either way, but merely stated the original VP8 comment was not misleading. It did not mislead me into anything.
The original poster of this thread, on the other hand, had actually taken the x264 developer's opinion as statement of fact when there was no evidence presented to support it. And based on that assumption, he formed an opinion that the VP8 comment was untrue.
At some point, you have to allow the specialists to do what they do. And if you have no idea what they are doing or talking about (like here), maybe you shouldn't bother being in the discussion, as you add nothing to it.
I always "love" these types of remarks where people are asked to shut up because [insert an assumption/generalization here]. If you believe I didn't add anything to the discussion, then you certainly didn't either - so why did you bother replying, or even reading to this point in this thread?
In what way is it not fact?
It's a fact that it's his opinion. I saw nothing where he backed up his claim (or counter-claim) with any actual facts. And given the x264 developer hostility against VP8 ever since it was announced by Google, that kind of opinion does not hold much weight with me.
They both use an almost identical transform of any claims of bias against VP8 when it comes to MPEG artifacts is bunk.
Do they? VP8 for me produces artifacts that are visibly different from x264.
Basically all you are doing is being contrarian with no actual facts to back it up.
Really? I merely stated that the original VP8 comment was not misleading. It didn't mislead me into anything, that's for sure.
The comment from WebM said they had just started the work to optimize the VP8 encoder. Given that, and the fact that x264 is at a pretty mature stage, the speed comparisons are not all that surprising. So, no, it's not "competitive" but it's not surprising either.
You mean other than their implication of a bias against VP8 that doesn't exist?
You are implying that the x264 developer's claim is a fact. I am willing to entertain the idea that there could be bias against VP8 in some metrics. However, given no other info, it stands as unsubstantiated in my mind. There's nothing misleading about that.
On the other hand, I don't buy that either x264 developer, or the professor in question, have absolute knowledge of VP8 where they have verified that there is indeed no such "slight advantage."
I don't take anything stated from those 2 comments as fact. And, I certainly don't blindly trust x264 developers' comments about VP8.
Then maybe the VP8 developers need to stop making misleading statements about the capabilities of their codec?
I'm not convinced anything was misleading in the original comment. It was made clear they were not talking about visual quality. But there were no technical details presented on either side, so take it with a grain of salt, that's all.
On the other hand, I've seen more than one misleading claim made by x264 developers against VP8 since it was announced as WebM by Google. It's like they are on a crusade or something. Take it easy guys - your implementation is one of the best, if not the best. Just keep up the good work and try to not make it look like you are on a personal mission to bury VP8.