And every site that wants to host their own video content. H.264 also requires a license for hosting content. All those sites will probably stick to Flash if other browsers don't support Theora.
Do you work for a living or do you just live of student grants? In the real world, things cost money and companies need to find a way to recoup their investment in developing things in H264. Not every company can live off donations and selling t-shirts or donations from other companies which are "for profit".
If if was not for there being some of those "evil" closed source companies, most open source projects would have never seen the light of day because they would not have had enough resources. Servers and bandwidth are not free.
Open source software should not be "free" to download for people who have not contributed considerable code to the project. I think there should be the option to pay for a license to use the binary, the option to contribute sweat equity to the project in exchange for a binary download and just give the non-paying public a link to the source and let them build the binary themselves.
Support in HD video cameras is irrelevant, unless you plan to post full resolution, un-edited videos from them.
Name some mainstream consumer video editing packages that support Theora encoding. A large proportion of video content on the web is produced on the mac and Apple is one of the major supporters of the H.264 standard.
Most people don't even know what software is out there that allows you to play back Theora let alone encode in that format.
I think the open source community is wasting its time with this battle when they could be concentrating on developing their server service standards like Open Directory to compete with Active directory and develop a robust replacement for Exchange server. I'm all for open source "server" services and open standards for networks but I'm not a fanatic about open source being used everywhere and for everything.
You apparently didn't read the article. The issue is not that Mozilla can't get a license; it can. The issue is that it sees doing so as actively harmful to the web and to users.
Removing Firefox as a viable option by implementing Theora only would do harm to the web and its users. It would remove the ability for users to use Firefox to browse the majority of video websites in the future all in the name of some "holy" crusade for FOSS principles.
Firefox is not developed by the community. It is developed by a small cadre of Mozilla foundation employees. Open source is just a marketing angle for the majority of high profile projects.
Little problem: Even if Mozilla caves in and pays the license fee, that does not cover anyone else distributing Firefox. Canonical would also have to pay the $5 million for Ubuntu's browser. Firefox would effectively no longer be open source as it would be illegal to compile it (with H.264 support) and distribute the resulting binary.
Open source is not necessarily free. The majority of development contributions, like with most successful "open source" products comes from inside of the mozilla foundation staff. This was true with MySQL as well. They could easily have the main "open source tree" and then have a source branch which referenced the main tree and H264 code. The binaries with H264 support would only be available from the Mozzila foundation directly. Firefox could also be dual licensed for inclusion in commercial products to cover the cost of h264 licensing. Another alternative would be to offer H264 as an optional add-on for Firefox for a small fee to cover H264 licensing and support Firefox development. Problem solved.
Where I work, we have some common code shared between source trees of different product groups that show up as "external" in an SVN update so I know that open source source control products like SVN can do what I'm describing.
It's mostly just problem for Mozilla
Only if people insist on using it. I can't see that it would be in YouTube's interest to use H.264 exclusively.
YouTube already encodes everything in H.264 for embedding in Flash and for portable devices like the iPhone which consume the video directly since it does not support Flash. Why should everyone be forced to download or include in their portable device an Theora plug-in just to support yet another format when H264 is already available on all commercial desktop and mobile platforms?
But in any case, it sounds like a misnomer to call it "HTML5 Video", which sort of implies a standard. If the "standard" involves coughing up a whacking great licence fee to use it, lots of people just won't be interested, and H.264 will be consigned to the same back shelves as some of the ogg codecs.
Perhaps you should buy an old fashioned dictionary to look up the word "standard". I'm all for open standards but not when they are obscure or inferior to the industry standards and those standards are available for anyone to implement for a small fee.
I hate to break it to you but almost everyone is already using H.264 to distribute video whether it be directly or embedded within a flash video file. It has wide industry support in both software and hardware (HD Video cameras). To use Theora, you would have to re-encode all of your video in order to use it.
First, let me say I'm probably the most jingoistic dyed in the wool American you will ever come across. I'm so bad, I get a surge of adrenalin when I see a Canadian plate on one of the highways I pay taxes to help fund.
You do realize don't you that Canadians pump a lot of money into the American economy through free trade and tourism don't you? Directly or indirectly, those taxes you pay come from money earned because of tourism or cross border trade. If your job is not directly related to tourism or cross border trade, it is indirectly affected by it.
You should consider those highways, especially ones going north to south as capital investments which facilitate the movement of people and capital not only between states but between Canada and the US.
Yes, Apple has a long history of abusing patents and copyrights. Go read up on their history. Jobs also attempted to violate the GPL over the Objective-C extensions to gcc.
I don't think you understand how the GPL works. The GPL cannot take away rights from copyright holders. If Apple contributed all of those Objective-C extensions to gcc, they still own the copyright to that code and they can use that code in another project.
The GPL can grant rights to people other than the original authors to use that code in GCC but it does not prevent Apple from using their own code in another product as long as they are not also using code written by someone else in the gcc project without their permission.
I have 2 iPhones on the same iTunes account.
Apple legally lets me installs app's bought on my first iPhone for free on my second.
My guess is this would trigger piracy flag, as they would now see 2 iPhone unique ids for one purchase.
No. The app would still be signed by your account and still be encrypted. Developer check for a number of things in their code to determine whether a copy is legit or pirated.
1. Is the app still encrypted.
2. Is the app still signed with a valid iTunes account.
3. Does the app's CRC or MD5 check match the expected hash.
Ok, people, the GP is "flamebait". I'm at the most responding to the flamebait. I love how the actual flamebait is modded as "interesting". If you don't agree with someone, post a reply like I did, don't abuse your mod points.
I am honestly curious: What advantage is a "modern RISC architecture" if you are not writing in Assembly anyway?
Your higher level language still has to run on a platform which has to do hide all of the nasty memory address space stuff and sometimes that architecture can come back and bite you in the arse. Take running 32bit X86 apps like VS.NET on X64 Windows Server 2008 for example. That application will come down on you faster than a crack whore if you don't run a wrapper to make it large address space aware and to patch the memory fragmentation problems with WOW (Windows on Windows). Granted, much of that is caused by bugs in Windows on windows but companies like Apple had to work that much harder to make sure that their OS handled 64bit apps running in 32bit OS mode and 32bit apps running in 64bit OS mode of Snow Leopard.
> For the record, I don't see the problem with the one-button mouse.
The problem isn't with the mouse itself, it's with Apple's insistence for YEARS on selling only one-button mice.
Have you ever used a mac? The OS and even third party software is designed around the one button mouse and is the reason why the platform is so much easier for new users to pick up. All functionality is available with one mouse button from the main menu and/or the main interface UI.
Windows and windows software in general is so much harder for a new user to learn because too much functionality is hidden from the user under keyboard shortcuts and right click menus.
That was very entertaining but completely devoid of any information. You are accepting dogma because it makes you feel comfortable. The unknown or admitting that you don't know causes anxiety for people.
If you read my other response, I'm suggesting that the dates are not based on anything other than a very limited time period of observation and scientists have extrapolated from that limited data set a rate of impacts. They then used that to provide an educated guess on the age.
The problem with this is that is is very likely to be as accurate as a random guess. It has no basis in "fact".
The device will be verrry thin - think top half of a macbook air thin. I also can't imagine Apple/Jobs marketing a tablet device without ubiquitous internet access, probably provided by Verizon.
Verizon eh? That would work really well outside of the US.... oh wait. Not only would they not sell Verizon devices outside of the US but even if it was "world enabled", Verizon would never sign up non-US citizens.
I'm probably going to get modded down or flamed for being a heretic for daring to question modern scientific orthodoxy but here is goes. How are these dates determined? What the the reference point? In the classic scientific method, you have to have a known value as a reference or control. What is this reference or control used to calculate these date? Has this reference point/control been verified through the scientific method or is it based on supposition to support a hypothesis?
Contrary to what the "internet" likes to tell you, many people question what scientists say because they want to see actual proof to support the claims rather than just additional layers of theories and educated "guesses".
Simple, a cellular network card slot so that you can choose your carrier.
In Apple's home country, the carriers with decent coverage (Verizon and Sprint) use the CDMA2000 stack instead of GSM. Like GSM/UMTS, CDMA2000 allows carriers to put the account info on a removable card. But unlike GSM/UMTS, CDMA2000 doesn't require a removable CSIM, so the carriers just tie the account to the internal memory of the handset.
Try reading more slowly. The GP said "cellular network card slot". What that means is that you could buy a cellular data network card from your carrier of choice be it GSM or CDMA and plug it into the device. Carriers currently sell cards like that for laptops. Another alternative would be to simply offer a USB port that could be recessed to take in the USB cellular modem dongle. Both CDMA and and GSM carriers sell such USB dongles with a data plan.
Your POTS phone will stop working if your local switching station is digital and the power goes out there for a longer period of time than their backup power lasts.
Dude, get a life. Apple gave Xerox Apple shares in exchange for access to PARC. Xerox did not see the value of the GUI until later and they already sued Apple and lost the case.
Uh, dude. Sony Ericsson and Motorola are part of the cartel with Nokia so of course they would back Nokia. They also do not pay as much as other companies that are not part of the cartel. Google is not a handset maker and they use HTC as well as Motorola as their OEM. Cross licensing is common when both parties agree to it. Do you comprehend that an agreement requires both parties to agree? If you are told that you must give access to patents or pay triple the normal fee that everyone else pays would you not consider that illegal extortion?
Nokia wanted three times "that" amount only after Apple declined cross-licensing deal.
Now think for a second; surely deal of other phone tech manufacturers with Nokia (those that are "three times less") must include cross licensing.
Apple is the one who demands non-RAND treating for itself.
RAND treatment means fair and non-discriminatory licensing. It does not mean, "cross license or pay three times as much as Sony Ericsson". How can you not consider that anything but extortion and abuse of monopoly power?
Actually, Apple is willing to pay the fair licensing fees established under RAND. What Nokia is demanding is three times that amount as well as access to Apple's patent portfolio.
Nokia is attempting to use their monopoly position to unfairly keep out competition from the handset market.
Slashdot Mirror
It's mostly just problem for Mozilla
And every site that wants to host their own video content. H.264 also requires a license for hosting content. All those sites will probably stick to Flash if other browsers don't support Theora.
Do you work for a living or do you just live of student grants? In the real world, things cost money and companies need to find a way to recoup their investment in developing things in H264. Not every company can live off donations and selling t-shirts or donations from other companies which are "for profit".
If if was not for there being some of those "evil" closed source companies, most open source projects would have never seen the light of day because they would not have had enough resources. Servers and bandwidth are not free.
Open source software should not be "free" to download for people who have not contributed considerable code to the project. I think there should be the option to pay for a license to use the binary, the option to contribute sweat equity to the project in exchange for a binary download and just give the non-paying public a link to the source and let them build the binary themselves.
Support in HD video cameras is irrelevant, unless you plan to post full resolution, un-edited videos from them.
Name some mainstream consumer video editing packages that support Theora encoding. A large proportion of video content on the web is produced on the mac and Apple is one of the major supporters of the H.264 standard.
Most people don't even know what software is out there that allows you to play back Theora let alone encode in that format.
I think the open source community is wasting its time with this battle when they could be concentrating on developing their server service standards like Open Directory to compete with Active directory and develop a robust replacement for Exchange server. I'm all for open source "server" services and open standards for networks but I'm not a fanatic about open source being used everywhere and for everything.
You apparently didn't read the article. The issue is not that Mozilla can't get a license; it can. The issue is that it sees doing so as actively harmful to the web and to users.
Removing Firefox as a viable option by implementing Theora only would do harm to the web and its users. It would remove the ability for users to use Firefox to browse the majority of video websites in the future all in the name of some "holy" crusade for FOSS principles.
Firefox is not developed by the community. It is developed by a small cadre of Mozilla foundation employees. Open source is just a marketing angle for the majority of high profile projects.
Little problem: Even if Mozilla caves in and pays the license fee, that does not cover anyone else distributing Firefox. Canonical would also have to pay the $5 million for Ubuntu's browser. Firefox would effectively no longer be open source as it would be illegal to compile it (with H.264 support) and distribute the resulting binary.
Open source is not necessarily free. The majority of development contributions, like with most successful "open source" products comes from inside of the mozilla foundation staff. This was true with MySQL as well. They could easily have the main "open source tree" and then have a source branch which referenced the main tree and H264 code. The binaries with H264 support would only be available from the Mozzila foundation directly. Firefox could also be dual licensed for inclusion in commercial products to cover the cost of h264 licensing. Another alternative would be to offer H264 as an optional add-on for Firefox for a small fee to cover H264 licensing and support Firefox development. Problem solved.
Where I work, we have some common code shared between source trees of different product groups that show up as "external" in an SVN update so I know that open source source control products like SVN can do what I'm describing.
It's mostly just problem for Mozilla Only if people insist on using it. I can't see that it would be in YouTube's interest to use H.264 exclusively.
YouTube already encodes everything in H.264 for embedding in Flash and for portable devices like the iPhone which consume the video directly since it does not support Flash. Why should everyone be forced to download or include in their portable device an Theora plug-in just to support yet another format when H264 is already available on all commercial desktop and mobile platforms?
But in any case, it sounds like a misnomer to call it "HTML5 Video", which sort of implies a standard. If the "standard" involves coughing up a whacking great licence fee to use it, lots of people just won't be interested, and H.264 will be consigned to the same back shelves as some of the ogg codecs.
Perhaps you should buy an old fashioned dictionary to look up the word "standard". I'm all for open standards but not when they are obscure or inferior to the industry standards and those standards are available for anyone to implement for a small fee.
I hate to break it to you but almost everyone is already using H.264 to distribute video whether it be directly or embedded within a flash video file. It has wide industry support in both software and hardware (HD Video cameras). To use Theora, you would have to re-encode all of your video in order to use it.
First, let me say I'm probably the most jingoistic dyed in the wool American you will ever come across. I'm so bad, I get a surge of adrenalin when I see a Canadian plate on one of the highways I pay taxes to help fund.
You do realize don't you that Canadians pump a lot of money into the American economy through free trade and tourism don't you? Directly or indirectly, those taxes you pay come from money earned because of tourism or cross border trade. If your job is not directly related to tourism or cross border trade, it is indirectly affected by it.
You should consider those highways, especially ones going north to south as capital investments which facilitate the movement of people and capital not only between states but between Canada and the US.
Yes, Apple has a long history of abusing patents and copyrights. Go read up on their history. Jobs also attempted to violate the GPL over the Objective-C extensions to gcc.
I don't think you understand how the GPL works. The GPL cannot take away rights from copyright holders. If Apple contributed all of those Objective-C extensions to gcc, they still own the copyright to that code and they can use that code in another project.
The GPL can grant rights to people other than the original authors to use that code in GCC but it does not prevent Apple from using their own code in another product as long as they are not also using code written by someone else in the gcc project without their permission.
I have 2 iPhones on the same iTunes account. Apple legally lets me installs app's bought on my first iPhone for free on my second. My guess is this would trigger piracy flag, as they would now see 2 iPhone unique ids for one purchase.
No. The app would still be signed by your account and still be encrypted. Developer check for a number of things in their code to determine whether a copy is legit or pirated.
1. Is the app still encrypted.
2. Is the app still signed with a valid iTunes account.
3. Does the app's CRC or MD5 check match the expected hash.
MSFT has been paying companies like Verizon to make Bing the default search on their devices.
Ok, people, the GP is "flamebait". I'm at the most responding to the flamebait. I love how the actual flamebait is modded as "interesting". If you don't agree with someone, post a reply like I did, don't abuse your mod points.
How is this not Idle material? Or better yet trash can material. Who cares what some inane irrelevant church is doing in whatever part of the world.
If you don't care, why did you post? Take your hateful bullshit elsewhere.
I am honestly curious: What advantage is a "modern RISC architecture" if you are not writing in Assembly anyway?
Your higher level language still has to run on a platform which has to do hide all of the nasty memory address space stuff and sometimes that architecture can come back and bite you in the arse. Take running 32bit X86 apps like VS.NET on X64 Windows Server 2008 for example. That application will come down on you faster than a crack whore if you don't run a wrapper to make it large address space aware and to patch the memory fragmentation problems with WOW (Windows on Windows). Granted, much of that is caused by bugs in Windows on windows but companies like Apple had to work that much harder to make sure that their OS handled 64bit apps running in 32bit OS mode and 32bit apps running in 64bit OS mode of Snow Leopard.
It would be highly improbable for a random universe to create this sort of symmetry.
To believe in a random universe requires a lot more mental gymnastics to reconcile the observed universe with that world view.
> For the record, I don't see the problem with the one-button mouse.
The problem isn't with the mouse itself, it's with Apple's insistence for YEARS on selling only one-button mice.
Have you ever used a mac? The OS and even third party software is designed around the one button mouse and is the reason why the platform is so much easier for new users to pick up. All functionality is available with one mouse button from the main menu and/or the main interface UI.
Windows and windows software in general is so much harder for a new user to learn because too much functionality is hidden from the user under keyboard shortcuts and right click menus.
If you read my other response, I'm suggesting that the dates are not based on anything other than a very limited time period of observation and scientists have extrapolated from that limited data set a rate of impacts. They then used that to provide an educated guess on the age.
The problem with this is that is is very likely to be as accurate as a random guess. It has no basis in "fact".
The device will be verrry thin - think top half of a macbook air thin. I also can't imagine Apple/Jobs marketing a tablet device without ubiquitous internet access, probably provided by Verizon.
Verizon eh? That would work really well outside of the US.... oh wait. Not only would they not sell Verizon devices outside of the US but even if it was "world enabled", Verizon would never sign up non-US citizens.
Contrary to what the "internet" likes to tell you, many people question what scientists say because they want to see actual proof to support the claims rather than just additional layers of theories and educated "guesses".
Simple, a cellular network card slot so that you can choose your carrier.
In Apple's home country, the carriers with decent coverage (Verizon and Sprint) use the CDMA2000 stack instead of GSM. Like GSM/UMTS, CDMA2000 allows carriers to put the account info on a removable card. But unlike GSM/UMTS, CDMA2000 doesn't require a removable CSIM, so the carriers just tie the account to the internal memory of the handset.
Try reading more slowly. The GP said "cellular network card slot". What that means is that you could buy a cellular data network card from your carrier of choice be it GSM or CDMA and plug it into the device. Carriers currently sell cards like that for laptops. Another alternative would be to simply offer a USB port that could be recessed to take in the USB cellular modem dongle. Both CDMA and and GSM carriers sell such USB dongles with a data plan.
Your POTS phone will stop working if your local switching station is digital and the power goes out there for a longer period of time than their backup power lasts.
Dude, get a life. Apple gave Xerox Apple shares in exchange for access to PARC. Xerox did not see the value of the GUI until later and they already sued Apple and lost the case.
Uh, dude. Sony Ericsson and Motorola are part of the cartel with Nokia so of course they would back Nokia. They also do not pay as much as other companies that are not part of the cartel. Google is not a handset maker and they use HTC as well as Motorola as their OEM. Cross licensing is common when both parties agree to it. Do you comprehend that an agreement requires both parties to agree? If you are told that you must give access to patents or pay triple the normal fee that everyone else pays would you not consider that illegal extortion?
Nokia wanted three times "that" amount only after Apple declined cross-licensing deal.
Now think for a second; surely deal of other phone tech manufacturers with Nokia (those that are "three times less") must include cross licensing.
Apple is the one who demands non-RAND treating for itself.
RAND treatment means fair and non-discriminatory licensing. It does not mean, "cross license or pay three times as much as Sony Ericsson". How can you not consider that anything but extortion and abuse of monopoly power?
Your comment is pretty nebulous. Give us solid examples that are relevant to North American "and" European markets.
Nokia is attempting to use their monopoly position to unfairly keep out competition from the handset market.
I hate to break it to you but most of those phones that Nokia sells are "NOT" smartphones. They are talk and text phones with WAP browsers.