There's a bit of a difference. Elop probably thinks that Nokia and Microsoft can make a partnership work. If he's right then being the top dog in the Windows world puts Nokia in a much better position than being an also-ran in the Android world.
Personally, I think that an about face is going to be disastrous for both companies. The other handset manufacturers are not going to touch Windows mobile with a 20 foot pole, including those manufacturers that have the misfortune of having phones already on the market. Microsoft is paying Nokia $1 billion U.S. to compete with them. Trying to compete with Nokia using Windows will be suicide. Microsoft has basically thrown existing Windows Mobile 7 users and developers under a bus for the next year or so. Developers are likely to defect to greener pastures, and users are unlikely to be interested in another Windows phone any time soon.
Nokia has already jumped into the WinMo phone camp with both feet, but even so it will probably not have a phone out in time for Christmas. That's quite a long time. Of course, Nokia's Symbian and Meego plays were broken too. It's even possible that Nokia might be able to ship a competitive smart phone faster by ditching its previous plans.
So while I would also have liked to see Nokia make an Android phone, I don't feel like comparing Nokia to Judas Iscariot is really fair to Nokia.
I want to like Mono, I really do, but anyone that believes that Moonlight is a workable replacement for Silverlight has clearly not tried to actually use Moonlight for anything.
Yes, I realise that this is either astroturfing or a troll, but responding to it still makes sense. This post essentially represents both Nokia's and Microsoft's best hopes for success from this partnership, and it is pretty clear that it is a very slim hope.
The major problem with the partnership is that Nokia doesn't have a Windows Phone to sell today. The best that they can do is sell people on the idea of a cool new Windows Phone that *may* be available before Christmas (not likely). Current Windows phones are getting slaughtered by everyone right now, and this announcement is only going to make things worse over the short run.
Think about it. Microsoft's current Windows Phone partners have just found out that Microsoft is willing to pay Nokia over $1 billion U.S. to compete with them. If Windows Phone sales have been poor to this point imagine what they are going to be like over the next year as all of the current Windows phone manufacturers begin their marketing campaign against Windows. Microsoft has just pushed everyone that isn't Nokia into the Android camp. Unless, of course, Microsoft is willing to make similar deals with other handset manufacturers (even less likely).
Not to mention the obvious fact that Apple and Google are both going to widen their developer lead over Microsoft while Nokia gets up to speed. Android and iPhone have tons of developers. Windows phone has almost none in comparison. A year from now the situation is going to be even worse. That means that when Nokia finally does launch its phone it will primarily launch with software Microsoft and Nokia have paid to develop internally, with a few 1.0 ports of popular software titles that Microsoft and Nokia have bribed independents to offer. Even if the hardware is sheer genius Nokia's phone is not going to be competitive on the software side.
Plus, all this assumes that Nokia's first Windows phone won't suck. I think that's a long shot. Microsoft has a long history of sucky phones, and Nokia has no history of dealing with Microsoft's idiosyncrasies. Those consumers brave enough to buy a Nokia-Microsoft phone are going to be beta testers, and if the phone is not flawless the blogosphere is going to crucify it. Not that it really matters. When it comes to phones Microsoft's brand is probably already toxic. The current WinPhones reviewed very well. That did *not* translate into sales. There are simply too many people that wouldn't buy a Windows phone if Microsoft paid them. The early adopters already have a smart phone, and they are happy with it. Heck, they probably have even invested a considerable amount of time and money in the software for their smart phone. Luring these people (and those people that invariably follow their lead) to a new platform is going to be very hard, especially considering Microsoft's history in the mobile sector.
Both Microsoft and Nokia needed to do something to remain relevant. From that perspective this deal makes sense. After all, they could hit the ball out of the park and become an actual contender. Their phone is going to need to be something special, however, or it is just going to be the smart phone without useful applications.
First of all I want to thank you for the discussion, it has been interesting. I will readily admit that I mostly am rooting for WebM on political grounds. I think that a truly open format, that anyone can use without royalties, is going to open up a world of possibilities. It has been educational to discuss this issue with someone who sees the issue in more practical terms.
For the most part I even agree with you. It is annoying that Google has to come out with another incompatible format. It would be much better if all of us lived in countries were software patents were not valid. Then we could all just use H.264 and be happy.
I also agree that MP3, DivX, and MPEG2 are all widely supported, and Ogg and WebM are not hardly supported by hardware at all. I know, I have had to search far and wide (and pay extra) for devices with even mediocre support for Ogg Vorbis. So I am mostly thrilled because I see this as precisely the sort of thing that is likely to break MPEG-LA's grip on media codecs. On the bright side, once we have a viable royalty-free set of codecs with an implementation available as Free Software then we can basically stop worrying about compatibility forever.
So I suppose you could say that I am sympathetic to your plight, but you can't hardly blame Google for doing what is best for their business. You also can not hardly blame me for being excited that a truly free video codec is far more likely to actually win out in the end than I ever anticipated.
And Youtube is considerably less useful if it does not work on iPod.
Youtube is considerably less useful *to you* if it does not work on an iPod.
If/when Google drops h264 support from Youtube, we'll see if it's the iPod or the Youtube that suffers.
I think that it is safe to say that Youtube will probably lose some customers when it turns off H.264. But, realistically, where are these customers going to go? Heck, Google can even market the move as a move towards openness, and make it look (and quite credibly as well) that Apple is to blame for the interoperability. After all, it is not like iPhones *couldn't* support WebM. They just don't.
Since a lot of people paid money for their iPods (and similar devices), also some of them would not buy a non-Apple phone, I think that they will move to another video site rather than buying another very expensive device.
I suppose that it is possible that some other video site might use this as an opportunity to usurp Youtube's position, but I see that as a long shot. Besides, unless the video site is run by an MPEG-LA member the new site is also going to be inclined to follow Google's lead on WebM. If you are streaming video, and you aren't Apple or Microsoft, then you almost certainly want WebM to win out.
Besides, why should Google care about customers that aren't likely to buy Android devices?
Now, if they didn't have the devices already, then they would choose a device that (probably) works with Youtube, but as they have the devices now, it's going to be different.
That's essentially the reason that I think that Google's move to WebM is so genius. Apple (and Microsoft) really want H.264 to become the de-facto standard for web video, and Apple, in particular, seems willing to sacrifice its customers experience in order to drive the market in the direction it likes. It's refusal to allow flash is a prime example of this. I think that it is quite likely that Apple will drag its heels on WebM long enough that Google will be able to use this as a definite competitive advantage. As you say, given the choice between two similar devices, one that plays Youtube videos, and one that doesn't most people are going to buy the one that plays Youtube videos.
Neither Google or Apple really care about people that already have purchased devices. Obviously Apple wants to keep you happy enough so that you would consider buying from them again, but Google is actively trying to change the game so that you don't buy from Apple again. Google wants to do to Apple on the phone what Microsoft did to Apple on the PC. Making the iPhone feel like a special island of incompatibility is part of that strategy.
Of course, in this particular case, if Apple refuses to support WebM it is hard to blame anyone but Apple. Google has gone out of their way to make it easy to support WebM.
For example, in 2006, I paid ~720EUR for my cell phone, new phones (that I would want - that is, a phone must have a keypad with not-too-small buttons, preferably made by Nokia) cost about the same. 700EUR is a lot of money, the other phone must be that much better to convince me to part with another 700 Euros, since I already have a phone.
I certainly agree that 720EUR is a lot of money. I can see why you are upset. I am sure that, when you bought it, you did not envision that it would become less useful with time either.
If anything, however, that just goes to show why a truly open codec for web video is so important. No one worries that HTML, HTTP, or any of the other web standards are going to disappear any time soon. The reason for this is simple. These standards, and many of them are just de-facto standards, are both open and not patent encumbered. Anyone can implement these standards without having to pay money, and so they are widely supported.
As for H.264 being better, well, that's probably true, but the difference is slight, at best. It's certainly well within the realm of being fixable by marketing. Twenty years from now most people will probably think WebM won because it was better.
As for old devices, well, people don't expect to be able to stream Youtube from their old devices, and if they do, well then they'd better hope that they can upgrade the software.
Anime fansubbers can do whatever at it isn't going to matter. TV show rippers are as likely to follow Google's lead as anything else. Heck, most of these people use Free Software tools as it is, and there is no question which way the Free Software people are going to break. As soon as their is hardware support for WebM, it is likely to get the nod.
The real reason that people are going to end up using WebM though, is because that is what Google is going to do, and Google does the lion's share of video streaming.
Linux might have a codec system, but that doesn't mean Linux users have access to H.264.
Heck, for that matter, *you* might have access to H.264, but that doesn't mean that Google and Mozilla have to support it. On the bright side, if you really care about this issue you can always build your own Chrome or Firefox browser with H.264 support. You have the source, after all.
Well, it just so happens that when I pay a lot of money for a device I am not very happy when I need to pay money again to get another device just so some Linux user can have his freedom of modifying the source code of the decoder.
Complain to the folks at MPEG-LA. They are the ones that set the terms for H.264. If it makes you feel better Google's decision probably has way more to do with not wanting to pay royalties to MPEG-LA than any sort of affection for Linux users. Google is happy to use Linux users (and other Free Software types) to help market WebM, but the *real* reason that Google is pushing WebM is because it has to pay to license H.264 for Youtube, and, as the creator of Android it also needs a patent free way to play video on Linux devices.
Personally, I think that the folks at both Microsoft and Apple are stupid. Both of these companies are hoping that they can lure Google into streaming its piles of video in a format that they can implement without having to pay fees, and that Google can not. Heck, Apple in particular has made billions selling devices that support H.264, and now, thanks to their heavy-handedness Google is going to yank the content right out from under them. An iPod is considerably less useful if it doesn't work with Youtube.
You can't blame Google though, even though it probably is going to work in Android's favor.
Mozilla can avoid that by using system codecs and they know it. They do not do it because of political reasons. I hope that Microsoft (or someone else) makes a h264 plugin for Firefox.
Mozilla can use the system codec on "some" systems. It can ship WebM codecs on all platforms.
Well, as long as someone releases a pin-compatible WebM decoder that I can just solder in the place of the h264 decoder chip.
It just so happens that about the time you start actually caring about WebM compatibility that Google will have a device to sell you that will decode WebM in hardware. Which is going to be handy, because by then the Youtube videos that you want to watch won't be available in H.264. Until then, you are right, H.264 makes more sense if you don't have a political ax to grind (an you aren't trying to stream video yourself).
Here's the bottom line. A year from now WebM support will be everywhere and the problems you have with it will go away. Sure, the device you happen to own now won't play WebM well, but that's what you get for being an early adopter.
You'd be surprised. The folks at Google obviously feel strongly enough about the issue that they paid piles and piles of good money so that they could buy the WebM developers and then give the source (and patent licenses) away. Of course, you would likely feel differently too if you owned Youtube.com or a similar service and the alternative was to pay licensing fees to your competitors for the privilege of using software that you had written yourself.
Not to mention the fact that to some people being able to hack the code is important enough that they are willing to make sacrifices. This might seem crazy to you, but it is a singularly effective tactic. You might tend to agree more with Linus Torvald's pragmatic "open source" view of the world, but even he recognizes that Linux would not exist if the folks writing GNU had not built a ton of Free Software tools first.
Get enough crazy people (that happen to like writing code) together, and you can shift the world a bit.
Besides. With Google backing WebM in a two years WebM is going to be ubiquitous on devices, and then your stated problems with the format disappear. At that point the content people will be falling all over themselves to stop paying MPEG LA licensing fees.
If you are using a Linux version of OO.org then chances are very high that you are already using the go-oo.org patches that make up the bulk of the new LibreOffice changes. The fact of the matter is that the go-oo.org people basically just gave up trying to push patches upstream and became LibreOffice.
If you were using OpenOffice.org on Windows then you probably got it from Sun, in which case the reason to switch to LibreOffice is that LibreOffice is better than Sun's version of OpenOffice.org. Whether it is little things like SVG import, or bigger things like much better OOXML support LibreOffice is what OpenOffice.org could have been if Sun/Oracle would have been more willing to accept code from outside sources.
LibreOffice is already substantially better than OpenOffice.org, and the difference is probably only going to accelerate. After all, LibreOffice can still poach code from OpenOffice.org, but OpenOffice.org can not poach code from LibreOffice and still re-license it for use in its proprietary OpenOffice.org products. There was a pretty large pent up demand for changes to OpenOffice.org, and LibreOffice has already received far more developer support than was anticipated.
In short, while it might be a little premature to switch all of your OpenOffice.org installs today, chances are very good that when you do upgrade the version you want will come from the folks working on LIbreOffice. You are probably going to switch to LibreOffice eventually, so why not start now?
This just goes to show that open standards are not enough to provide for competition when it comes to software procurement. Microsoft has created a standard (of sorts) and it has even managed to ram it through the ISO. This does not, however, guarantee any actual interoperability. In point of fact there are precisely zero applications that implement the ISO standard. Even Microsoft fails in this regard.
Australia would have been better off to standardize on the old binary file formats. These are at least fairly well understood, and Microsoft is in no hurry to break backwards compatibility on these legacy formats.
WebM, on the other hand, is not really a standard at all. At beast it is a file format that Google hopes will become a de-facto standard. The difference, of course, is that Google does provide source code that will read and write the format. In the end this is clearly more useful in providing true interoperability. A year from now you probably won't be able to buy a device (with a screen anyway) that won't play WebM files, and some will probably record in the format as well. Meanwhile reading Word documents will still be the crapshoot that it is today. If you have the exact same version of the software, with the same fonts, and the same print driver you might (theoretically) get the same print output as the person that created the document.
Video streaming services are going to have to stick with flash for the near term, no matter what Google does. Google could drop flash support in their browser, but that won't kill flash, it would simply kill Google's browser.
That does not change the fact that promoting WebM over H.264 for HTML5 video streaming represents a definite step in the right direction. Right now the HTML5 video tag is completely broken because there are two competing standards, neither of which is supported by all browsers. With Google's current browser market share supporting both standards simply makes things worse.
Throwing its weight behind WebM, on the other hand, increases the chances of WebM beating H.264 significantly. Between Firefox and Chrome it is even possible that the WebM format can gain enough momentum that Microsoft will forced to jump on board as well. Especially since Google looks poised to push WebM heavily at Youtube.com. At that point H.264 will be doomed, and one of the biggest advantages to flash disappears completely.
Google would almost certainly like to stop doing this, but they are practical enough to know that this isn't feasible quite yet. However, if WebM became the de-facto standard for web video then Google would be much closer to being able to realistically ditch Flash. In short, this is clearly a step in the right direction. Unless, of course, you happen to believe that we'd all be better off using H.264 to stream video.
I suppose that it is possible that Microsoft is simply waiting for.NET to become even more popular before they swoop in on the unsuspecting Mono users (all 12 of them). Still, Microsoft has already put patent guarantees in place that would make an Oracle-style assault on Mono much more difficult. I understand that Microsoft's promises are not complete, but they would probably be complete enough for what Google is doing with Android.
Besides, your argument still basically proves my point. Apparently the worst that Microsoft could do to Mono is what Oracle *has already done* to Harmony.
Actually, that's not really a fair comparison. A huge part of the reason that Java has become so popular is thanks to the large repository of quality Free Software libraries, licensed under very permissive licenses, that the Apache Foundation shepherds. I would bet that you can not find a single Java application, more complicated than "Hello World" that does not use an Apache library or tool. The Apache Foundation is a big deal in the Java world, and Oracle is basically telling the Java community that Apache code is not safe to use.
Comparing that sort of action to what Microsoft might potentially due to Mono, a.NET clone and a set of.NET libraries that hardly anyone cares about, is pretty ridiculous. Even if Microsoft did go after Mono it would not be nearly the story that Apache leaving the Java Community is. Oracle's attack on The Apache Foundation and Harmony is basically a worst case scenario for Java. Microsoft would have to sue the Mono project and start clubbing baby seals to top it.
And remember, that's still assuming that Microsoft would be stupid enough to sue the Mono project. It has not sued Samba or Wine, both of which are arguably more central to Microsoft's real business.
People that think Microsoft is more evil that Oracle simply haven't been paying attention. Oracle is basically suing Google for cloning Java. Microsoft has actually *helped* Novell clone.NET.
Actually, these are USDA users, most of them probably can not tell the difference between a computer and an etch-a-sketch. The ones that can tell the difference are probably thrilled. The alternative is to have government employees running the data center. Microsoft is a huge step up.
Sharepoint *used* to be a wonderful money maker for those who support it. Now it will be the foot in the door that Microsoft uses to sell your CIO on outsourced services. Microsoft will simply promise that they can rid an organization of all if its expensive Sharepoint and Exchange admins.
If you are a Windows admin then I welcome you to the new world where Microsoft is not only your software provider, it is also your chief competitor.
Oracle is a large company, with lots and lots of revenue, and billions in the bank. You are certainly correct to say that it is unlikely to go bankrupt any time soon.
Most companies, especially companies as wildly successful as Oracle, want to actually grow, not simply avoid going bankrupt.
Personally, I think that Oracle has far more to lose in this game of chicken. If Java's reputation gets damaged to the point where developers do not consider it for new projects then no amount of money from Google is going to make up the loss. Worse, Oracle's actions could put a stigma on all of its products. No one is going to want to touch Oracle's technologies if choosing Oracle's tech might trigger a lawsuit.
That's actually part of what makes Oracle's move so odd. Suing Google over the use of Java is the sort of move that you would only expect of a company that is desperate. If Oracle is willing to sue over Java, what other crazy thing will they do next?
Yes, there are a lot of organizations that are stuck on Java. They have made significant investments in this language, and now, despite the fact that Oracle is using its ownership of Java as a weapon against a competitor, these organizations can not do anything about it.
However, there are also plenty of organizations that are just now choosing their tools, or are deciding how they will invest their development funds in the future. For these people, if they have even a lick of sense, Java is off the table. Google has not done anything wrong. Heck, it isn't really even using Java, it has its own VM that just looks like Java, and it is primarily using the Harmony classpath re-implementation. Oracle is suing Google because it thinks that it can game the legal system, and because it wants to damage Android's growing lead in the mobile sector.
Oracle is a big company, and these days most developers compete with Oracle on some level. What's to say that they won't sue you as well?
Android filled a real need. The entire handset industry and all of the major U.S. carriers (besides AT&T) needed a platform that they could use to compete against Apple. Google provided that platform, and they did it in the most developer-friendly manner possible.
Comparing WP7 to Android is ridiculous. For one thing Microsoft is 2 years later than Android. Android would not have a chance if it came out today either. WP7 is not as open as Android, it is not as inexpensive for the handset manufacturers as Android, it is not as flexible as Android (meaning that Microsoft will almost certainly want to control how it is modified).
Heck, Android even comes with free developer tools.
My guess is that Microsoft's real strategy is going to revolve around litigation. It is already offering handset manufacturers indemnification against patent attacks as part of the license fee. It is a short step from there to suing handset manufacturers that don't license their patents.
Windows 7 is certainly better than Windows Vista, and it already has more users. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that the majority of Windows users are on Windows XP. And why not, who needs a fancy new OS when the only application you care about is a web browser, and only a fool uses the web browser that Microsoft installed by default. The operating system matters less and less every year. It has already gotten to the point where millions of the most discerning customers have jumped ship to Apple. It used to be that the network effects kept people tied to Windows. People that switched could not share data reliably with Windows users. These days it seems that the only network effects from the millions of Windows users are the negative ones. Only Windows users have to worry about trojans and viruses.
Windows Phone 7 is almost certainly better than Windows Mobile, but who cares? No one is going to develop for it. Balmer has been right all along, it really is about "Developers Developers Developers." Developers are not likely to start churning out apps for WP7 anytime soon. The pragmatic ones will wait and see if anyone buys a WP7 phone first, which they won't because there aren't any apps.
Right now you have to either pay a significant premium for Apple hardware, or you have to settle for Windows, but how much longer is that likely to be true? The only thing keeping users on Windows is inertia, pure and simple, and while that is a powerful force it is pretty clear that Windows is in decline. Any day now the device could come out that finally encourages most people to move away from their desktop and laptop computers running Windows. One thing is certain, the chances of the next truly innovative change coming from within Microsoft is almost nil.
You'd probably feel differently about the subject if you fully funded your 401K. Getting into the top 10% of wealth holders is basically a function of regular savings and living long enough.
Or you can complain about the current situation and watch the wealthiest people move their investments to countries where they get to keep more of the money they earn.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a bit of a difference. Elop probably thinks that Nokia and Microsoft can make a partnership work. If he's right then being the top dog in the Windows world puts Nokia in a much better position than being an also-ran in the Android world.
Personally, I think that an about face is going to be disastrous for both companies. The other handset manufacturers are not going to touch Windows mobile with a 20 foot pole, including those manufacturers that have the misfortune of having phones already on the market. Microsoft is paying Nokia $1 billion U.S. to compete with them. Trying to compete with Nokia using Windows will be suicide. Microsoft has basically thrown existing Windows Mobile 7 users and developers under a bus for the next year or so. Developers are likely to defect to greener pastures, and users are unlikely to be interested in another Windows phone any time soon.
Nokia has already jumped into the WinMo phone camp with both feet, but even so it will probably not have a phone out in time for Christmas. That's quite a long time. Of course, Nokia's Symbian and Meego plays were broken too. It's even possible that Nokia might be able to ship a competitive smart phone faster by ditching its previous plans.
So while I would also have liked to see Nokia make an Android phone, I don't feel like comparing Nokia to Judas Iscariot is really fair to Nokia.
I want to like Mono, I really do, but anyone that believes that Moonlight is a workable replacement for Silverlight has clearly not tried to actually use Moonlight for anything.
Yes, I realise that this is either astroturfing or a troll, but responding to it still makes sense. This post essentially represents both Nokia's and Microsoft's best hopes for success from this partnership, and it is pretty clear that it is a very slim hope.
The major problem with the partnership is that Nokia doesn't have a Windows Phone to sell today. The best that they can do is sell people on the idea of a cool new Windows Phone that *may* be available before Christmas (not likely). Current Windows phones are getting slaughtered by everyone right now, and this announcement is only going to make things worse over the short run.
Think about it. Microsoft's current Windows Phone partners have just found out that Microsoft is willing to pay Nokia over $1 billion U.S. to compete with them. If Windows Phone sales have been poor to this point imagine what they are going to be like over the next year as all of the current Windows phone manufacturers begin their marketing campaign against Windows. Microsoft has just pushed everyone that isn't Nokia into the Android camp. Unless, of course, Microsoft is willing to make similar deals with other handset manufacturers (even less likely).
Not to mention the obvious fact that Apple and Google are both going to widen their developer lead over Microsoft while Nokia gets up to speed. Android and iPhone have tons of developers. Windows phone has almost none in comparison. A year from now the situation is going to be even worse. That means that when Nokia finally does launch its phone it will primarily launch with software Microsoft and Nokia have paid to develop internally, with a few 1.0 ports of popular software titles that Microsoft and Nokia have bribed independents to offer. Even if the hardware is sheer genius Nokia's phone is not going to be competitive on the software side.
Plus, all this assumes that Nokia's first Windows phone won't suck. I think that's a long shot. Microsoft has a long history of sucky phones, and Nokia has no history of dealing with Microsoft's idiosyncrasies. Those consumers brave enough to buy a Nokia-Microsoft phone are going to be beta testers, and if the phone is not flawless the blogosphere is going to crucify it. Not that it really matters. When it comes to phones Microsoft's brand is probably already toxic. The current WinPhones reviewed very well. That did *not* translate into sales. There are simply too many people that wouldn't buy a Windows phone if Microsoft paid them. The early adopters already have a smart phone, and they are happy with it. Heck, they probably have even invested a considerable amount of time and money in the software for their smart phone. Luring these people (and those people that invariably follow their lead) to a new platform is going to be very hard, especially considering Microsoft's history in the mobile sector.
Both Microsoft and Nokia needed to do something to remain relevant. From that perspective this deal makes sense. After all, they could hit the ball out of the park and become an actual contender. Their phone is going to need to be something special, however, or it is just going to be the smart phone without useful applications.
First of all I want to thank you for the discussion, it has been interesting. I will readily admit that I mostly am rooting for WebM on political grounds. I think that a truly open format, that anyone can use without royalties, is going to open up a world of possibilities. It has been educational to discuss this issue with someone who sees the issue in more practical terms.
For the most part I even agree with you. It is annoying that Google has to come out with another incompatible format. It would be much better if all of us lived in countries were software patents were not valid. Then we could all just use H.264 and be happy.
I also agree that MP3, DivX, and MPEG2 are all widely supported, and Ogg and WebM are not hardly supported by hardware at all. I know, I have had to search far and wide (and pay extra) for devices with even mediocre support for Ogg Vorbis. So I am mostly thrilled because I see this as precisely the sort of thing that is likely to break MPEG-LA's grip on media codecs. On the bright side, once we have a viable royalty-free set of codecs with an implementation available as Free Software then we can basically stop worrying about compatibility forever.
So I suppose you could say that I am sympathetic to your plight, but you can't hardly blame Google for doing what is best for their business. You also can not hardly blame me for being excited that a truly free video codec is far more likely to actually win out in the end than I ever anticipated.
And Youtube is considerably less useful if it does not work on iPod.
Youtube is considerably less useful *to you* if it does not work on an iPod.
If/when Google drops h264 support from Youtube, we'll see if it's the iPod or the Youtube that suffers.
I think that it is safe to say that Youtube will probably lose some customers when it turns off H.264. But, realistically, where are these customers going to go? Heck, Google can even market the move as a move towards openness, and make it look (and quite credibly as well) that Apple is to blame for the interoperability. After all, it is not like iPhones *couldn't* support WebM. They just don't.
Since a lot of people paid money for their iPods (and similar devices), also some of them would not buy a non-Apple phone, I think that they will move to another video site rather than buying another very expensive device.
I suppose that it is possible that some other video site might use this as an opportunity to usurp Youtube's position, but I see that as a long shot. Besides, unless the video site is run by an MPEG-LA member the new site is also going to be inclined to follow Google's lead on WebM. If you are streaming video, and you aren't Apple or Microsoft, then you almost certainly want WebM to win out.
Besides, why should Google care about customers that aren't likely to buy Android devices?
Now, if they didn't have the devices already, then they would choose a device that (probably) works with Youtube, but as they have the devices now, it's going to be different.
That's essentially the reason that I think that Google's move to WebM is so genius. Apple (and Microsoft) really want H.264 to become the de-facto standard for web video, and Apple, in particular, seems willing to sacrifice its customers experience in order to drive the market in the direction it likes. It's refusal to allow flash is a prime example of this. I think that it is quite likely that Apple will drag its heels on WebM long enough that Google will be able to use this as a definite competitive advantage. As you say, given the choice between two similar devices, one that plays Youtube videos, and one that doesn't most people are going to buy the one that plays Youtube videos.
Neither Google or Apple really care about people that already have purchased devices. Obviously Apple wants to keep you happy enough so that you would consider buying from them again, but Google is actively trying to change the game so that you don't buy from Apple again. Google wants to do to Apple on the phone what Microsoft did to Apple on the PC. Making the iPhone feel like a special island of incompatibility is part of that strategy.
Of course, in this particular case, if Apple refuses to support WebM it is hard to blame anyone but Apple. Google has gone out of their way to make it easy to support WebM.
For example, in 2006, I paid ~720EUR for my cell phone, new phones (that I would want - that is, a phone must have a keypad with not-too-small buttons, preferably made by Nokia) cost about the same. 700EUR is a lot of money, the other phone must be that much better to convince me to part with another 700 Euros, since I already have a phone.
I certainly agree that 720EUR is a lot of money. I can see why you are upset. I am sure that, when you bought it, you did not envision that it would become less useful with time either.
If anything, however, that just goes to show why a truly open codec for web video is so important. No one worries that HTML, HTTP, or any of the other web standards are going to disappear any time soon. The reason for this is simple. These standards, and many of them are just de-facto standards, are both open and not patent encumbered. Anyone can implement these standards without having to pay money, and so they are widely supported.
As for H.264 being better, well, that's probably true, but the difference is slight, at best. It's certainly well within the realm of being fixable by marketing. Twenty years from now most people will probably think WebM won because it was better.
As for old devices, well, people don't expect to be able to stream Youtube from their old devices, and if they do, well then they'd better hope that they can upgrade the software.
Anime fansubbers can do whatever at it isn't going to matter. TV show rippers are as likely to follow Google's lead as anything else. Heck, most of these people use Free Software tools as it is, and there is no question which way the Free Software people are going to break. As soon as their is hardware support for WebM, it is likely to get the nod.
The real reason that people are going to end up using WebM though, is because that is what Google is going to do, and Google does the lion's share of video streaming.
Linux might have a codec system, but that doesn't mean Linux users have access to H.264.
Heck, for that matter, *you* might have access to H.264, but that doesn't mean that Google and Mozilla have to support it. On the bright side, if you really care about this issue you can always build your own Chrome or Firefox browser with H.264 support. You have the source, after all.
Well, it just so happens that when I pay a lot of money for a device I am not very happy when I need to pay money again to get another device just so some Linux user can have his freedom of modifying the source code of the decoder.
Complain to the folks at MPEG-LA. They are the ones that set the terms for H.264. If it makes you feel better Google's decision probably has way more to do with not wanting to pay royalties to MPEG-LA than any sort of affection for Linux users. Google is happy to use Linux users (and other Free Software types) to help market WebM, but the *real* reason that Google is pushing WebM is because it has to pay to license H.264 for Youtube, and, as the creator of Android it also needs a patent free way to play video on Linux devices.
Personally, I think that the folks at both Microsoft and Apple are stupid. Both of these companies are hoping that they can lure Google into streaming its piles of video in a format that they can implement without having to pay fees, and that Google can not. Heck, Apple in particular has made billions selling devices that support H.264, and now, thanks to their heavy-handedness Google is going to yank the content right out from under them. An iPod is considerably less useful if it doesn't work with Youtube.
You can't blame Google though, even though it probably is going to work in Android's favor.
Mozilla can avoid that by using system codecs and they know it. They do not do it because of political reasons. I hope that Microsoft (or someone else) makes a h264 plugin for Firefox.
Mozilla can use the system codec on "some" systems. It can ship WebM codecs on all platforms.
Well, as long as someone releases a pin-compatible WebM decoder that I can just solder in the place of the h264 decoder chip.
It just so happens that about the time you start actually caring about WebM compatibility that Google will have a device to sell you that will decode WebM in hardware. Which is going to be handy, because by then the Youtube videos that you want to watch won't be available in H.264. Until then, you are right, H.264 makes more sense if you don't have a political ax to grind (an you aren't trying to stream video yourself).
Here's the bottom line. A year from now WebM support will be everywhere and the problems you have with it will go away. Sure, the device you happen to own now won't play WebM well, but that's what you get for being an early adopter.
You'd be surprised. The folks at Google obviously feel strongly enough about the issue that they paid piles and piles of good money so that they could buy the WebM developers and then give the source (and patent licenses) away. Of course, you would likely feel differently too if you owned Youtube.com or a similar service and the alternative was to pay licensing fees to your competitors for the privilege of using software that you had written yourself.
Not to mention the fact that to some people being able to hack the code is important enough that they are willing to make sacrifices. This might seem crazy to you, but it is a singularly effective tactic. You might tend to agree more with Linus Torvald's pragmatic "open source" view of the world, but even he recognizes that Linux would not exist if the folks writing GNU had not built a ton of Free Software tools first.
Get enough crazy people (that happen to like writing code) together, and you can shift the world a bit.
Besides. With Google backing WebM in a two years WebM is going to be ubiquitous on devices, and then your stated problems with the format disappear. At that point the content people will be falling all over themselves to stop paying MPEG LA licensing fees.
If you are using a Linux version of OO.org then chances are very high that you are already using the go-oo.org patches that make up the bulk of the new LibreOffice changes. The fact of the matter is that the go-oo.org people basically just gave up trying to push patches upstream and became LibreOffice.
If you were using OpenOffice.org on Windows then you probably got it from Sun, in which case the reason to switch to LibreOffice is that LibreOffice is better than Sun's version of OpenOffice.org. Whether it is little things like SVG import, or bigger things like much better OOXML support LibreOffice is what OpenOffice.org could have been if Sun/Oracle would have been more willing to accept code from outside sources.
LibreOffice is already substantially better than OpenOffice.org, and the difference is probably only going to accelerate. After all, LibreOffice can still poach code from OpenOffice.org, but OpenOffice.org can not poach code from LibreOffice and still re-license it for use in its proprietary OpenOffice.org products. There was a pretty large pent up demand for changes to OpenOffice.org, and LibreOffice has already received far more developer support than was anticipated.
In short, while it might be a little premature to switch all of your OpenOffice.org installs today, chances are very good that when you do upgrade the version you want will come from the folks working on LIbreOffice. You are probably going to switch to LibreOffice eventually, so why not start now?
This just goes to show that open standards are not enough to provide for competition when it comes to software procurement. Microsoft has created a standard (of sorts) and it has even managed to ram it through the ISO. This does not, however, guarantee any actual interoperability. In point of fact there are precisely zero applications that implement the ISO standard. Even Microsoft fails in this regard.
Australia would have been better off to standardize on the old binary file formats. These are at least fairly well understood, and Microsoft is in no hurry to break backwards compatibility on these legacy formats.
WebM, on the other hand, is not really a standard at all. At beast it is a file format that Google hopes will become a de-facto standard. The difference, of course, is that Google does provide source code that will read and write the format. In the end this is clearly more useful in providing true interoperability. A year from now you probably won't be able to buy a device (with a screen anyway) that won't play WebM files, and some will probably record in the format as well. Meanwhile reading Word documents will still be the crapshoot that it is today. If you have the exact same version of the software, with the same fonts, and the same print driver you might (theoretically) get the same print output as the person that created the document.
Video streaming services are going to have to stick with flash for the near term, no matter what Google does. Google could drop flash support in their browser, but that won't kill flash, it would simply kill Google's browser.
That does not change the fact that promoting WebM over H.264 for HTML5 video streaming represents a definite step in the right direction. Right now the HTML5 video tag is completely broken because there are two competing standards, neither of which is supported by all browsers. With Google's current browser market share supporting both standards simply makes things worse.
Throwing its weight behind WebM, on the other hand, increases the chances of WebM beating H.264 significantly. Between Firefox and Chrome it is even possible that the WebM format can gain enough momentum that Microsoft will forced to jump on board as well. Especially since Google looks poised to push WebM heavily at Youtube.com. At that point H.264 will be doomed, and one of the biggest advantages to flash disappears completely.
Google would almost certainly like to stop doing this, but they are practical enough to know that this isn't feasible quite yet. However, if WebM became the de-facto standard for web video then Google would be much closer to being able to realistically ditch Flash. In short, this is clearly a step in the right direction. Unless, of course, you happen to believe that we'd all be better off using H.264 to stream video.
I suppose that it is possible that Microsoft is simply waiting for .NET to become even more popular before they swoop in on the unsuspecting Mono users (all 12 of them). Still, Microsoft has already put patent guarantees in place that would make an Oracle-style assault on Mono much more difficult. I understand that Microsoft's promises are not complete, but they would probably be complete enough for what Google is doing with Android.
Besides, your argument still basically proves my point. Apparently the worst that Microsoft could do to Mono is what Oracle *has already done* to Harmony.
Actually, that's not really a fair comparison. A huge part of the reason that Java has become so popular is thanks to the large repository of quality Free Software libraries, licensed under very permissive licenses, that the Apache Foundation shepherds. I would bet that you can not find a single Java application, more complicated than "Hello World" that does not use an Apache library or tool. The Apache Foundation is a big deal in the Java world, and Oracle is basically telling the Java community that Apache code is not safe to use.
Comparing that sort of action to what Microsoft might potentially due to Mono, a .NET clone and a set of .NET libraries that hardly anyone cares about, is pretty ridiculous. Even if Microsoft did go after Mono it would not be nearly the story that Apache leaving the Java Community is. Oracle's attack on The Apache Foundation and Harmony is basically a worst case scenario for Java. Microsoft would have to sue the Mono project and start clubbing baby seals to top it.
And remember, that's still assuming that Microsoft would be stupid enough to sue the Mono project. It has not sued Samba or Wine, both of which are arguably more central to Microsoft's real business.
People that think Microsoft is more evil that Oracle simply haven't been paying attention. Oracle is basically suing Google for cloning Java. Microsoft has actually *helped* Novell clone .NET.
Tricky licensing is Microsoft's forte. Adding up the costs is always more difficult if Microsoft software is involved.
Actually, these are USDA users, most of them probably can not tell the difference between a computer and an etch-a-sketch. The ones that can tell the difference are probably thrilled. The alternative is to have government employees running the data center. Microsoft is a huge step up.
Sharepoint *used* to be a wonderful money maker for those who support it. Now it will be the foot in the door that Microsoft uses to sell your CIO on outsourced services. Microsoft will simply promise that they can rid an organization of all if its expensive Sharepoint and Exchange admins.
If you are a Windows admin then I welcome you to the new world where Microsoft is not only your software provider, it is also your chief competitor.
Oracle is a large company, with lots and lots of revenue, and billions in the bank. You are certainly correct to say that it is unlikely to go bankrupt any time soon.
Most companies, especially companies as wildly successful as Oracle, want to actually grow, not simply avoid going bankrupt.
Personally, I think that Oracle has far more to lose in this game of chicken. If Java's reputation gets damaged to the point where developers do not consider it for new projects then no amount of money from Google is going to make up the loss. Worse, Oracle's actions could put a stigma on all of its products. No one is going to want to touch Oracle's technologies if choosing Oracle's tech might trigger a lawsuit.
That's actually part of what makes Oracle's move so odd. Suing Google over the use of Java is the sort of move that you would only expect of a company that is desperate. If Oracle is willing to sue over Java, what other crazy thing will they do next?
Yes, there are a lot of organizations that are stuck on Java. They have made significant investments in this language, and now, despite the fact that Oracle is using its ownership of Java as a weapon against a competitor, these organizations can not do anything about it.
However, there are also plenty of organizations that are just now choosing their tools, or are deciding how they will invest their development funds in the future. For these people, if they have even a lick of sense, Java is off the table. Google has not done anything wrong. Heck, it isn't really even using Java, it has its own VM that just looks like Java, and it is primarily using the Harmony classpath re-implementation. Oracle is suing Google because it thinks that it can game the legal system, and because it wants to damage Android's growing lead in the mobile sector.
Oracle is a big company, and these days most developers compete with Oracle on some level. What's to say that they won't sue you as well?
Android filled a real need. The entire handset industry and all of the major U.S. carriers (besides AT&T) needed a platform that they could use to compete against Apple. Google provided that platform, and they did it in the most developer-friendly manner possible.
Comparing WP7 to Android is ridiculous. For one thing Microsoft is 2 years later than Android. Android would not have a chance if it came out today either. WP7 is not as open as Android, it is not as inexpensive for the handset manufacturers as Android, it is not as flexible as Android (meaning that Microsoft will almost certainly want to control how it is modified).
Heck, Android even comes with free developer tools.
My guess is that Microsoft's real strategy is going to revolve around litigation. It is already offering handset manufacturers indemnification against patent attacks as part of the license fee. It is a short step from there to suing handset manufacturers that don't license their patents.
Windows 7 is certainly better than Windows Vista, and it already has more users. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that the majority of Windows users are on Windows XP. And why not, who needs a fancy new OS when the only application you care about is a web browser, and only a fool uses the web browser that Microsoft installed by default. The operating system matters less and less every year. It has already gotten to the point where millions of the most discerning customers have jumped ship to Apple. It used to be that the network effects kept people tied to Windows. People that switched could not share data reliably with Windows users. These days it seems that the only network effects from the millions of Windows users are the negative ones. Only Windows users have to worry about trojans and viruses.
Windows Phone 7 is almost certainly better than Windows Mobile, but who cares? No one is going to develop for it. Balmer has been right all along, it really is about "Developers Developers Developers." Developers are not likely to start churning out apps for WP7 anytime soon. The pragmatic ones will wait and see if anyone buys a WP7 phone first, which they won't because there aren't any apps.
Right now you have to either pay a significant premium for Apple hardware, or you have to settle for Windows, but how much longer is that likely to be true? The only thing keeping users on Windows is inertia, pure and simple, and while that is a powerful force it is pretty clear that Windows is in decline. Any day now the device could come out that finally encourages most people to move away from their desktop and laptop computers running Windows. One thing is certain, the chances of the next truly innovative change coming from within Microsoft is almost nil.
You'd probably feel differently about the subject if you fully funded your 401K. Getting into the top 10% of wealth holders is basically a function of regular savings and living long enough.
Or you can complain about the current situation and watch the wealthiest people move their investments to countries where they get to keep more of the money they earn.
Someone needs to mode this up.