Sure they can. They can just buy a licence. They quite demonstrably *can* include it if they wanted.
The Mozilla folks are *also* making a choice - for different reasons to Apple, but it is very definitely a choice, not a legal blockage that is giving them no options. They are in exactly the same position as Apple.
They can pass off the video handling to a plugin, or to the underlying OS. If only Firefox had some built in way of doing that, that would make it possible....
"literally" - I don't think that word means what you think it means.
So, the farm is there and is easy to buy from, but there's a whole other market out there of rolling fields. The gates to these fields have standard latches that require standard protocols to open. The fridge can do this and get chicken from other sources.
Although, Adobe farms has some sort of impassible chasm, and the fridge does not have the necessary instructions to operate the drawbridge. I think Adobe chickens might make the fridge bloated and slow, however.
There are already facebook and popular flash games on the app store - Bejeweled 2 is probably one of the biggest. It even links back directly to facebook from the iPhone.
It was definitely an app "suggestion" that had two buttons on the dialog box: "install" or "cancel".
I have just gone back to see what it does now, and it is taking me right to the java applet, so what has happened to the advanced shiny app they were pushing, I do not know.
Now, that box strongly implies that the new plug in (no, let me rephrase: it states categorically) is required to be able to upload photos.
If you click "cancel" it takes you to another page that says "are you sure? this plugin is the best way to upload photos!" and you click cancel again, and then it drops you to a page with the link to the simple uploader.
I went to upload some photos and it told me that the only way to do this way to use the new shiny facebook photo uploader app, and asked me to install it. I said no (no way, in fact) and cancelled out of it, only to be directed to a page that said "you will have to use the simple uploader but it's not as good". Wait, what? Didn't you just tell me that the new app was the only way to upload photos now (yes, yes it did)?
It's things like that - tricking people into installing facebook apps - that make me question their motives.
I don't think they were ever in the situation where they were "unable" to develop their own engine - but why reinvent the wheel when you don't have to?
Their design brief was a small, fast engine and the KHTML project fit the bill perfectly.
So why add it to Webkit? They could have kept their new, faster JS engine to themselves for Safari only and left the original JS engine in Webkit, but they didn't - they released it for everyone.
I'm not saying they're entirely golden apples - they have clearly done some questionable things in the past, but their record with open source is pretty good. They know they can benefit from it, and they know that open source is stronger with their input (but again, don;t read this as "they'd be nothing without us", just that OSS can benefit from contribution from large companies like Apple, Google etc).
They also can't "de-open source" code - the code is out there already. If they choose to continue development of a particular project in a closed manner, that's the nature of the BSD licence. The code itself up to that point is open and remains so. I'm curious - which parts of the kernel did this apply to? (I'm genuinely curious, since it seems counter to what they have been doing with Darwin otherwise).
Yes, but they did have a choice with all of the other code that goes with it that was not covered by the GPL - the totally rewritten JS engine, for example, and various other pieces that help to link it together - all released as open source, designed to make Webkit an excellent alternative to Gecko and Trident. They have done far, far more than they were legally obliged to do so by the GPL.
They have a history of promoting open source since the move to OS X - they continue to release projects as open source when they really have no "obligation" to, like libdispatch as the biggest high profile example. They are well aware that promoting OSS is mutually beneficial to both parties - Apple and the community has benefited enormously from each other, and will continue to do so.
It is indeed - it shipped with the original iPhone and was also part of the alpha iPhone OS.
Like I said, I don't know either way whether or not Apple was the catalyst for the change in Youtube's backend or if it was in the plans anyway. Android can benefit from the changes to Youtube too, even if it can run flash - why do so if you don't have to?
I know that Android wasn't even a blink in Google's eye at that time (at least not publicly), I have to believe there was a roadmap for their mobile OS. Google bought youtube before the iPhone came out, so could have been planning to change the backend anyway.
It was part of their contract with the big labels.
Your paranoia and pre-judgement is clouding the issue, that somehow Steve Jobs is some sort of Machiavellian character with a villainous moustache, an evil laugh with echo sound effect and a long black cape.
As soon as the contract was renegotiated, the DRM was gone - from everyone.
It wasn't the labels "allowing" DRM free - it was negotiated with them. They were quite happy to continue the status quo, but they did want variable pricing. The compromise was variable pricing structures for DRM removal.
As a whole, Apple are pretty anti-DRM - their install DVD is completely devoid of it, there's no phone home, no online activation, no serial number. It just contains a text file that says "please do not steal OS X" that you can remove and then reburn the image to a DVD to create an installer that works on a hackintosh.
They support open formats and standards, especially in interoperability. Their production apps (iWork, iLife) store files in an open and documented XML format (in contrast to the closed.doc,.xls etc MS Office formats) so anyone can write compatible software/converters, they use.mbox for mail, they support NFS for file serving, they store their address book data and calendar information in open formats, and provide open source CalDAV and CardDAV servers, their primary audio and video formats are AAC and H.264, which while patented (like mp3) are open and not controlled by Apple (there's no "lock in" to Apple products by using these codecs).
I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time seeing just how "pro-lock in" and "pro-DRM" they are, other than the fact that the iPhone features a controlled software ecosystem.
I'm not sure either way - some have said the transfers were happening anyway, some have said it was due to Apple. From what I have seen on slashdot, when the talk is about "Apple driving the web away from Flash" then the concensus is "youtube were converting to html5 and changing their codec to h.264 anyway" and when it's "Apple shipped youtube support on the iPhone" it's "apple demanded h.264 delivery of content".
Essentially, whichever way makes Apple look like the bad guy/bandwagon jumper/inconsequential player etc.;)
He's spreading FUD. SL is fine, although there have been some issues with some software in the move to more 64-bit components. My version of Illustrator (CS) crashes when you try to open a dialog box, for example, although the rest of the Creative Suite works just fine.
Other than occasional things like that (and Adobe's response is "buy a newer version of the creative suite"), 10.6 is perfectly fine. It has no more or no fewer bugs than any major OS release, so unless he had the same issues with 10.3, 10.4 and 10.5, he's talking out of his a....nother hole other than his mouth.
Although, "few" changes is putting it lightly - the move to Snow Leopard made quite a few major changes under the hood. Nowhere near as big as the move from PPC to x86, but still pretty big. The transition has been remarkably smooth, considering.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure they can. They can just buy a licence. They quite demonstrably *can* include it if they wanted.
The Mozilla folks are *also* making a choice - for different reasons to Apple, but it is very definitely a choice, not a legal blockage that is giving them no options. They are in exactly the same position as Apple.
They can pass off the video handling to a plugin, or to the underlying OS. If only Firefox had some built in way of doing that, that would make it possible....
"literally" - I don't think that word means what you think it means.
H.264 is not proprietary.
So, the farm is there and is easy to buy from, but there's a whole other market out there of rolling fields. The gates to these fields have standard latches that require standard protocols to open. The fridge can do this and get chicken from other sources.
Although, Adobe farms has some sort of impassible chasm, and the fridge does not have the necessary instructions to operate the drawbridge. I think Adobe chickens might make the fridge bloated and slow, however.
You have to pay Apple a dollar a time to access the internet?
Yes, and the Apple fridge supports the same, except their formats are all pretty open (unlike .doc, .xls etc).
There are already facebook and popular flash games on the app store - Bejeweled 2 is probably one of the biggest. It even links back directly to facebook from the iPhone.
I find it amusing that you consider it "straying" to use free software on the Mac.
I'll let the "flock" thing pass, I realise you're too busy combing the cheeto crumbs out of your neckbeard to worry about generalising.
No, you are the one who does not understand what an open standard is.
If I were you I would look up what the definition is.
GSM is an open standard too, but you need to pay Nokia for licensing - it doesn't change the fact that it is an open standard.
The very first iPhone, and every iPhone since has shipped with a youtube viewing app. It's one of the basic features of the phone.
So is Bejeweled 2, but it still runs on the iPhone.
Not quite - it supports "open" food - so you can put a standard chicken in there, or a standard jug of milk.
Microsoft's fridge requires you to buy special milk bottles that have a unique shape.
The Linux fridge sells you a cow and you have to milk it yourself, but you are free to do so at any time.
minus one, wrong.
You still got modded up though. Bizarre.
More threads!
More threads means more entropy!
Get a big enough T x deltaS and the server will cool itself!
I think it's going too far though, if you start trying to work out Gibbs Free Energy change for your server room.
It was definitely an app "suggestion" that had two buttons on the dialog box: "install" or "cancel".
I have just gone back to see what it does now, and it is taking me right to the java applet, so what has happened to the advanced shiny app they were pushing, I do not know.
Aha! This page has the actual dialog box:
http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=206178097130
Now, that box strongly implies that the new plug in (no, let me rephrase: it states categorically) is required to be able to upload photos.
If you click "cancel" it takes you to another page that says "are you sure? this plugin is the best way to upload photos!" and you click cancel again, and then it drops you to a page with the link to the simple uploader.
I did not imagine it, trust me.
How about the deceptive photo uploader?
I went to upload some photos and it told me that the only way to do this way to use the new shiny facebook photo uploader app, and asked me to install it. I said no (no way, in fact) and cancelled out of it, only to be directed to a page that said "you will have to use the simple uploader but it's not as good". Wait, what? Didn't you just tell me that the new app was the only way to upload photos now (yes, yes it did)?
It's things like that - tricking people into installing facebook apps - that make me question their motives.
I don't think they were ever in the situation where they were "unable" to develop their own engine - but why reinvent the wheel when you don't have to?
Their design brief was a small, fast engine and the KHTML project fit the bill perfectly.
So why add it to Webkit? They could have kept their new, faster JS engine to themselves for Safari only and left the original JS engine in Webkit, but they didn't - they released it for everyone.
I'm not saying they're entirely golden apples - they have clearly done some questionable things in the past, but their record with open source is pretty good. They know they can benefit from it, and they know that open source is stronger with their input (but again, don;t read this as "they'd be nothing without us", just that OSS can benefit from contribution from large companies like Apple, Google etc).
They also can't "de-open source" code - the code is out there already. If they choose to continue development of a particular project in a closed manner, that's the nature of the BSD licence. The code itself up to that point is open and remains so. I'm curious - which parts of the kernel did this apply to? (I'm genuinely curious, since it seems counter to what they have been doing with Darwin otherwise).
Yes, but they did have a choice with all of the other code that goes with it that was not covered by the GPL - the totally rewritten JS engine, for example, and various other pieces that help to link it together - all released as open source, designed to make Webkit an excellent alternative to Gecko and Trident. They have done far, far more than they were legally obliged to do so by the GPL.
They have a history of promoting open source since the move to OS X - they continue to release projects as open source when they really have no "obligation" to, like libdispatch as the biggest high profile example. They are well aware that promoting OSS is mutually beneficial to both parties - Apple and the community has benefited enormously from each other, and will continue to do so.
It is indeed - it shipped with the original iPhone and was also part of the alpha iPhone OS.
Like I said, I don't know either way whether or not Apple was the catalyst for the change in Youtube's backend or if it was in the plans anyway. Android can benefit from the changes to Youtube too, even if it can run flash - why do so if you don't have to?
I know that Android wasn't even a blink in Google's eye at that time (at least not publicly), I have to believe there was a roadmap for their mobile OS. Google bought youtube before the iPhone came out, so could have been planning to change the backend anyway.
It was part of their contract with the big labels.
Your paranoia and pre-judgement is clouding the issue, that somehow Steve Jobs is some sort of Machiavellian character with a villainous moustache, an evil laugh with echo sound effect and a long black cape.
As soon as the contract was renegotiated, the DRM was gone - from everyone.
It wasn't the labels "allowing" DRM free - it was negotiated with them. They were quite happy to continue the status quo, but they did want variable pricing. The compromise was variable pricing structures for DRM removal.
As a whole, Apple are pretty anti-DRM - their install DVD is completely devoid of it, there's no phone home, no online activation, no serial number. It just contains a text file that says "please do not steal OS X" that you can remove and then reburn the image to a DVD to create an installer that works on a hackintosh.
They support open formats and standards, especially in interoperability. Their production apps (iWork, iLife) store files in an open and documented XML format (in contrast to the closed .doc, .xls etc MS Office formats) so anyone can write compatible software/converters, they use .mbox for mail, they support NFS for file serving, they store their address book data and calendar information in open formats, and provide open source CalDAV and CardDAV servers, their primary audio and video formats are AAC and H.264, which while patented (like mp3) are open and not controlled by Apple (there's no "lock in" to Apple products by using these codecs).
I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time seeing just how "pro-lock in" and "pro-DRM" they are, other than the fact that the iPhone features a controlled software ecosystem.
Because theora is worse than H.264 at the moment, and they don;t have a decoder for it on the iPhone.
It works fin in Quicktime, though, just not on the iPhone/iPad. Perhaps in the future.
I'm not sure either way - some have said the transfers were happening anyway, some have said it was due to Apple. From what I have seen on slashdot, when the talk is about "Apple driving the web away from Flash" then the concensus is "youtube were converting to html5 and changing their codec to h.264 anyway" and when it's "Apple shipped youtube support on the iPhone" it's "apple demanded h.264 delivery of content".
Essentially, whichever way makes Apple look like the bad guy/bandwagon jumper/inconsequential player etc. ;)
He's spreading FUD. SL is fine, although there have been some issues with some software in the move to more 64-bit components. My version of Illustrator (CS) crashes when you try to open a dialog box, for example, although the rest of the Creative Suite works just fine.
Other than occasional things like that (and Adobe's response is "buy a newer version of the creative suite"), 10.6 is perfectly fine. It has no more or no fewer bugs than any major OS release, so unless he had the same issues with 10.3, 10.4 and 10.5, he's talking out of his a....nother hole other than his mouth.
Although, "few" changes is putting it lightly - the move to Snow Leopard made quite a few major changes under the hood. Nowhere near as big as the move from PPC to x86, but still pretty big. The transition has been remarkably smooth, considering.