True, but neither of those (and video came from Opera, no?) generally had incompatible implementations that needed to be reconciled (not that reconciliation isn't possible, but just dropping one implementation in favor of another is not unheard of, like IndexedDB vs Web SQL), they just tend to get tweaked (or not) and adapted as is if they work well. I think that is what jpmorgan was trying to make: generally ISO relies on working groups that try to make their stuff work together and generally IETF tends to document existing stuff so that other people can adopt it as is.
Not in context of web standards, W3C says patent encumbered isn't open enough for the web. H.264 might be open as far as ISO goes (not very far, but whatever) but the web has it's own ecosystem.
So the moment that somebody files a suit or have a valid claim you are in the same licensing pool bed as h.264 with the only difference that this format is controlled by a single company.
The moment you, not "somebody", files a suit against a VP8 user, over VP8. Troll or just failed to parse the rather clear language used?
WebM is backed by a sizeable chunk of companies, thank you very much. Control? Show it, don't suggest it's there, how do they control it. MPEG LA controls H.264 to a large extent (e.g. camera manufacturers aren't given proper licenses, so you have to negotiate your own terms, even though you bought licensed hardware). But hey, it's not that kind of control that you care about. W3C is the authority on web standards, they say H.264 isn't open enough, what do they know anyway?
That is not the case here, Amazon sets the price and the dev has very little input (besides the obvious inflation of MSRP, totally destroying it's concept).
I really don't see what the problem with the seller charging their own price for it. It's normal business practice to anyone who's ever shopped, online or otherwise.
It isn't normal practice for them to effectively set the wholesale price as well (70% of retail in this case).
They haven't yet, but then again, we have an article here about someone who did. I wasn't suggesting everyone should start doing it right now, just that it should be an option, probably by the time the first hardware is rolled out as well. They didn't specify implementing WebM, but the announcement is pretty clear that VP8 will be implemented to support it, it's probably the bulk of the WebM package.
Now for browsers *currently* the only browsers ignoring beta's that support the video tag are chrome and safari...
And proceeded with:
and YouTube serving its videos in H.264 format.
If you are going to ignore betas, then ignore the fucking betas, YouTube only serves HTML5 video in beta. Furthermore, it serves both H.264 and WebM there, so....
Ah, revisionism. The video tag was at no point "Theora only", as you claim, Theora was suggested as a baseline. That is you could use H.264 or whatever else as you please, just as long as you had the ability to play Theora at all. Apple basically said, "we are not doing that no matter what", and it was dropped because an unimplemented standard is pointless.
And yet JPEG is good enough (that and JPEG2000 blurs like no tomorrow) to the extent that none of the propositions have been given a second look for widespread web usage. And this is the biggest evidence for why quality is not that critical when picking what to use for web video.
It's not a tear down, it's a "this is how it's similar, but worse than H.264". This little gem makes it quite clear:
Update: Alt-ref frames can apparently be used to partially replicate the lack of B-frames. It’s not nearly as good, but it can get at least some of the benefit without actual B-frames.
AKA, I didn't look at them or pondered what they might be fore and now that I've been pointed out that they exist I won't consider them on their own merits, but just as an inferior B-frame.
A dictionary attack is not brute forcing anything. Unless they have a flaw in WPA2 that reduces a supposedly large number of possibilities in a component to a manageable list a dictionary attack would only be useful against the password. The exact mechanism of executing the attack might not be repeated authentication attempts but the nature of the attack doesn't lend to attack a lot of things.
The GPL (among with other copyleft licenses) is also a widely used open source license. Any critique of it reflects on all of FLOSS, and is in no way unique to the FSF. In fact, you can just observe that GPL (or at least LGPL) is used in Chromium and leave the thread on that, because it's pointless to argue about H.264 if it is by definition as restrictive as the FSF.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but neither of those (and video came from Opera, no?) generally had incompatible implementations that needed to be reconciled (not that reconciliation isn't possible, but just dropping one implementation in favor of another is not unheard of, like IndexedDB vs Web SQL), they just tend to get tweaked (or not) and adapted as is if they work well. I think that is what jpmorgan was trying to make: generally ISO relies on working groups that try to make their stuff work together and generally IETF tends to document existing stuff so that other people can adopt it as is.
ECMA is known to rubber-stamp stuff coming from Microsoft (probably others as well), OOXML went to ECMA first.
"Fairly well known", is known for a fact to be horrible weasel wording, patents or shut up about it.
Not in context of web standards, W3C says patent encumbered isn't open enough for the web. H.264 might be open as far as ISO goes (not very far, but whatever) but the web has it's own ecosystem.
x264, licensed? No! Case closed on that part.
So the moment that somebody files a suit or have a valid claim you are in the same licensing pool bed as h.264 with the only difference that this format is controlled by a single company. The moment you, not "somebody", files a suit against a VP8 user, over VP8. Troll or just failed to parse the rather clear language used?
WebM is backed by a sizeable chunk of companies, thank you very much. Control? Show it, don't suggest it's there, how do they control it. MPEG LA controls H.264 to a large extent (e.g. camera manufacturers aren't given proper licenses, so you have to negotiate your own terms, even though you bought licensed hardware). But hey, it's not that kind of control that you care about. W3C is the authority on web standards, they say H.264 isn't open enough, what do they know anyway?
Right here. More to come for further crow dinners.
Are you dropping TCP/IP in favor of the OSI model yet?
That is not the case here, Amazon sets the price and the dev has very little input (besides the obvious inflation of MSRP, totally destroying it's concept).
Serving as a "list price" inflation for amazon to strike through. Let them set MSRP and wholesale.
It isn't normal practice for them to effectively set the wholesale price as well (70% of retail in this case).
Yeah, just look at awesomebar, people hated it, people still hate it.
Extension to chop out the middle instead of chopping off the end in 3...2...
They haven't yet, but then again, we have an article here about someone who did. I wasn't suggesting everyone should start doing it right now, just that it should be an option, probably by the time the first hardware is rolled out as well. They didn't specify implementing WebM, but the announcement is pretty clear that VP8 will be implemented to support it, it's probably the bulk of the WebM package.
And proceeded with:
If you are going to ignore betas, then ignore the fucking betas, YouTube only serves HTML5 video in beta. Furthermore, it serves both H.264 and WebM there, so....
Ah, revisionism. The video tag was at no point "Theora only", as you claim, Theora was suggested as a baseline. That is you could use H.264 or whatever else as you please, just as long as you had the ability to play Theora at all. Apple basically said, "we are not doing that no matter what", and it was dropped because an unimplemented standard is pointless.
And yet JPEG is good enough (that and JPEG2000 blurs like no tomorrow) to the extent that none of the propositions have been given a second look for widespread web usage. And this is the biggest evidence for why quality is not that critical when picking what to use for web video.
AKA, I didn't look at them or pondered what they might be fore and now that I've been pointed out that they exist I won't consider them on their own merits, but just as an inferior B-frame.
Why not serve WebM over Flash or Theora via Java to people who don't care about such things?
What is your take on Tetris and Super Mario clones then? Furthermore, what about the derivatives?
A dictionary attack is not brute forcing anything. Unless they have a flaw in WPA2 that reduces a supposedly large number of possibilities in a component to a manageable list a dictionary attack would only be useful against the password. The exact mechanism of executing the attack might not be repeated authentication attempts but the nature of the attack doesn't lend to attack a lot of things.
Everything that uses passwords is "vulnerable" to dictionary attacks. That doesn't really say anything.
Also, has been there since just about forever. Is there a GUI OS that did/does not have icon grids somewhere?
The GPL (among with other copyleft licenses) is also a widely used open source license. Any critique of it reflects on all of FLOSS, and is in no way unique to the FSF. In fact, you can just observe that GPL (or at least LGPL) is used in Chromium and leave the thread on that, because it's pointless to argue about H.264 if it is by definition as restrictive as the FSF.