unfortunatly many of the simple techniques that they could use to get better quality w/ the same framework (predictive motion-compensated transformed block encoding), would likely tread on the patent portfolio of H.264.
Technically, WebM is good enough anyway, and being free makes it way better.
What about, for example, wanting to show a video with certain mandatory commercial points during the main video, which the user cannot skip? Not that I'm a big fan of this, but at the same time I can respect that a company might still find this sort of thing desirable.
The company should find another business model because nobody wants that except them.
License requires DRM to be implemented with a straight handshaked path all the way from the video card to the output device
That's the Blu-Ray license requirement, not H.264.
Ah, Blu-Ray. A great example of a standard so evil it defeats itself. Though enjoying a brief ascendancy in that it is the predominant way to play content on an HD TV today, the delivery is so awkward and ad-infested that Blu-Ray will soon be supplanted by USB flash, micro SD, and other storage methods. Goodbye Blu-Ray, and hello lots of recovered shelf space in my living room. Plus no more skipping disks. And no more endless, forced previews, or two minute startup times for a movie. You don't realize how much it hurts hitting yourself continuously on the head with a hammer until you stop.
This was just Google's play to push a standard they define over a standard defined by their competitors.
Utter nonsense. WebM/VP8 are fully open and free of patent license fees. Defined by Google perhaps, but controlled by Google, no, that is the whole point of a patent-free standard.
As a long time Firefox user I don't understand how Chrome can be that much better.
It's not, it's more similar than different. I use both of them more or less interchangably, except for two things: 1) Chrome insists on copying every file to a my download directory before opening it, a behavior that is more than a little irritating because of littering my download directory with files I don't know whether I want or not before I look at them, and also the pointless extra interface action. 2) Chrome sometimes forgets all the open tabs after a crash. Since both Firefox and Chrome still crash regularly - often due to resource leakage it seems - it is essential they never forget their state. Firefox always remembers, Chrome sometimes forgets.
I'm not going to call Motorola a patent troll because they're not, per se. But they watched competitors (Samsung and Apple) overtake them, they watched their revenue dry up and the red ink flow. And they turned to the dark side.
How poetic. But in my view of the universe. Motorola had to defend its stake from claim jumpers.
Because Motorola is suing Apple and Microsoft over standards essential patents with exorbitant fees, in the classic way of bait-and-switch once the standard is in place.
Um, I thought it was tit for tat versus Apple and Microsoft abusing their software patents against Android.
OK, you get busy blaming everybody else. I do not deny there is likely more than one perp.[1] I prefer to concentrate on blaming the one making the most money from the abuse and in the best position to do something about it. And which appears to be a little less than sincere in its efforts so far, while spinning the situation to the contrary. So you do your work and I will do mine, ok?
[1] Perhaps you know of other aluminum dust explosions in China?
What evidence do we have that Foxconn dutifully reports every suicide amonst its workforce, and that the totals are reported accurately? It seems to me it would be quite in the interest of both Foxconn and the local government to do otherwise. Reporting a rate lower than the general population raises a big red flag for me.
despite Apple's best efforts the rules continue to be broken
How do we know that Apple has made its best efforts to improve the situation at Foxconn, as opposed to merely making its best efforts to spin the story in its favor? There are persistent and credible reports that the latter may be closer to the truth.
As far as I could tell, your post was completely content free. However, this, "sales of Android devices doesn't tell the true picture" at least was a little bit amusing. No of course not, it's not about sales. Apple doesn't need sales because it can just pass a collection plate around and all its cultists will happily donate.
Not really, there are a bunch of true quad processor Android tablets nigh upon us. I also wonder why Apple (read: Tim Cook) decided to bet the farm on higher-than-necessary screen resolution. Leaving Apple open on the battery weight-vs-life front and considerably reducing his room to maneuver on price. And Apple does not seem to have an answer to the Kindle Fire attack, other than bluster.
You Apple bots are really something. LG Q4 2011 Results Finally Show Phone Division Profit. I just thought I would check your links, and surprise surprise. You also failed to mention that Samsung sold more smartphones by itself than Apple, and made money doing it.
You'd be better off asking yourself, how much will Apple be forced to cut its margin keep hang on to market share and what will that do to its stock price?
And keep in mind that Apple has already cut its margins, so the "doesn't care about market share" talking point does not apply.
"According to the latest number by IDC, Android gained significant market share in 2011 and is expected to gradually increase its dominance in the tablet sector over the next few years. IDC predicts that Android tablets will overtake iOS by 2015"
This IDC prediction really has me scratching my head because with Apple's tablet share already in the mid 50%'s having slipped 5% last quarter, an naive person would think Apple is due to fall below 50% one or two quarters from now. Where does IDC get that two year prediction from? (Read as: which crack did they pull it out of)
Indeed. I hope Apple makes it even more closed. And while they're at it, Apple should squeeze even more money out of its overextended customers. Then maybe some of them will get the idea.
No wonder Elsevier seems worried about the future of its business model.
If they had any brains they would be busy turning themselves into a publication database and a network for free and open publishing of peer reviewed articles.
Slashdot Mirror
I heard WebM isn't as good as H.264.
I heard WebM is roughly equivalent to H.264. Who is right?
Excuse me, but that was no troll.
unfortunatly many of the simple techniques that they could use to get better quality w/ the same framework (predictive motion-compensated transformed block encoding), would likely tread on the patent portfolio of H.264.
Technically, WebM is good enough anyway, and being free makes it way better.
What about, for example, wanting to show a video with certain mandatory commercial points during the main video, which the user cannot skip? Not that I'm a big fan of this, but at the same time I can respect that a company might still find this sort of thing desirable.
The company should find another business model because nobody wants that except them.
License requires DRM to be implemented with a straight handshaked path all the way from the video card to the output device
That's the Blu-Ray license requirement, not H.264.
Ah, Blu-Ray. A great example of a standard so evil it defeats itself. Though enjoying a brief ascendancy in that it is the predominant way to play content on an HD TV today, the delivery is so awkward and ad-infested that Blu-Ray will soon be supplanted by USB flash, micro SD, and other storage methods. Goodbye Blu-Ray, and hello lots of recovered shelf space in my living room. Plus no more skipping disks. And no more endless, forced previews, or two minute startup times for a movie. You don't realize how much it hurts hitting yourself continuously on the head with a hammer until you stop.
This was just Google's play to push a standard they define over a standard defined by their competitors.
Utter nonsense. WebM/VP8 are fully open and free of patent license fees. Defined by Google perhaps, but controlled by Google, no, that is the whole point of a patent-free standard.
As a long time Firefox user I don't understand how Chrome can be that much better.
It's not, it's more similar than different. I use both of them more or less interchangably, except for two things: 1) Chrome insists on copying every file to a my download directory before opening it, a behavior that is more than a little irritating because of littering my download directory with files I don't know whether I want or not before I look at them, and also the pointless extra interface action. 2) Chrome sometimes forgets all the open tabs after a crash. Since both Firefox and Chrome still crash regularly - often due to resource leakage it seems - it is essential they never forget their state. Firefox always remembers, Chrome sometimes forgets.
I'm not going to call Motorola a patent troll because they're not, per se. But they watched competitors (Samsung and Apple) overtake them, they watched their revenue dry up and the red ink flow. And they turned to the dark side.
How poetic. But in my view of the universe. Motorola had to defend its stake from claim jumpers.
Because Motorola is suing Apple and Microsoft over standards essential patents with exorbitant fees, in the classic way of bait-and-switch once the standard is in place.
Um, I thought it was tit for tat versus Apple and Microsoft abusing their software patents against Android.
I heard WebM isn't as good as H.264.
I heard WebM is roughly equivalent to H.264. Who is right?
OK, you get busy blaming everybody else. I do not deny there is likely more than one perp.[1] I prefer to concentrate on blaming the one making the most money from the abuse and in the best position to do something about it. And which appears to be a little less than sincere in its efforts so far, while spinning the situation to the contrary. So you do your work and I will do mine, ok?
[1] Perhaps you know of other aluminum dust explosions in China?
an MSR was chosen as the base design for the 1960s DoD nuclear aircraft largely because of its great safety advantages
The safety characteristics of nuclear airplanes would appear to be right up there with nuclear hand grenades.
What evidence do we have that Foxconn dutifully reports every suicide amonst its workforce, and that the totals are reported accurately? It seems to me it would be quite in the interest of both Foxconn and the local government to do otherwise. Reporting a rate lower than the general population raises a big red flag for me.
despite Apple's best efforts the rules continue to be broken
How do we know that Apple has made its best efforts to improve the situation at Foxconn, as opposed to merely making its best efforts to spin the story in its favor? There are persistent and credible reports that the latter may be closer to the truth.
Apple apologist much?
As far as I could tell, your post was completely content free. However, this, "sales of Android devices doesn't tell the true picture" at least was a little bit amusing. No of course not, it's not about sales. Apple doesn't need sales because it can just pass a collection plate around and all its cultists will happily donate.
Not really, there are a bunch of true quad processor Android tablets nigh upon us. I also wonder why Apple (read: Tim Cook) decided to bet the farm on higher-than-necessary screen resolution. Leaving Apple open on the battery weight-vs-life front and considerably reducing his room to maneuver on price. And Apple does not seem to have an answer to the Kindle Fire attack, other than bluster.
You Apple bots are really something. LG Q4 2011 Results Finally Show Phone Division Profit. I just thought I would check your links, and surprise surprise. You also failed to mention that Samsung sold more smartphones by itself than Apple, and made money doing it.
Little wonder you posted as a coward.
You'd be better off asking yourself, how much will Apple be forced to cut its margin keep hang on to market share and what will that do to its stock price?
And keep in mind that Apple has already cut its margins, so the "doesn't care about market share" talking point does not apply.
Apple's tablet market share declines
Apple's smartphone market share declines
...Apple just knows its market.
Indeed. They have their sheep and they are expert at shearing them.
The truth is that the tolerances inside these devices is so astoundingly tight
That's the truth is it? In spite of all the counterexamples
"According to the latest number by IDC, Android gained significant market share in 2011 and is expected to gradually increase its dominance in the tablet sector over the next few years. IDC predicts that Android tablets will overtake iOS by 2015"
This IDC prediction really has me scratching my head because with Apple's tablet share already in the mid 50%'s having slipped 5% last quarter, an naive person would think Apple is due to fall below 50% one or two quarters from now. Where does IDC get that two year prediction from? (Read as: which crack did they pull it out of)
Your analogy falls apart in recent years though, when you look at the popularity of the iPad and iPhone.
Nonsense. Both are losing ground to more open Android devices.
Indeed. I hope Apple makes it even more closed. And while they're at it, Apple should squeeze even more money out of its overextended customers. Then maybe some of them will get the idea.
No wonder Elsevier seems worried about the future of its business model.
If they had any brains they would be busy turning themselves into a publication database and a network for free and open publishing of peer reviewed articles.