Let the Set D = {s|s is an article of software requiring maintenance}. O = {s|s is an article of open source software}. OP claims that the cardinality of D \ O is some number greater than zero. Duh?
Of course there's a big agency problem with the business models of open source, namely, if you make all your money off support, you have a vested interest in keeping your software difficult to use for non-technical users -- you need people to keep buying support contracts. In a growing market you can make old features easier to use while making new features hard to use, but if there's a strong demand for stability over new features, you're biggest enemy is the guy writing three-step customizer wizard that sets up Nginx for the 99% of use cases. In the long term it sorta locks OSS out of huge consumer and retail markets, because these consumers want "just works" and it's difficult to scale for-pay support to millions of subscribers, each wanting the individual attention they're paying for; the OSS support trade, at least by the evidence, is B2B and B2B only.
B2B doesn't have the sort of employment multiplier that retail service does, so maybe you lose jobs in total, but obviously you'll make a lot more money at your nail salon if you're able to use an open source POS terminal, right?:) This is a big problem with the whole technology-breeds-productivity-and-prosperity argument: technology doesn't have to eliminate jobs in the aggregate, and it usually doesn't, but the jobs that are created are often undesirable and unstable. Machines free us to be creative, but they also free us to do other people's nails and clean their toilets.
Take Lord of the Rings for example. Did you know that you can watch The Two Towers online, but not the first or third movies? Now what in the world is that about???
The Two Towers was released in that tiny window when New Line Cinema was under AOL-Time Warner's corporate umbrella instead of Time Warner proper, which controlled New Line when the first and third movie were released. During the time AOLTW ran the distribution for Warner Bros and New Line, they were much more aggressive about getting the production people and rightsholders to agree to online distribution, and at the time the terms they could get for this were much more favorable, because nobody knew how much money was involved
On the first film, nobody probably thought to ink an online distribution agreement with the producers; on the second, it was easy to get one that didn't pay New Line and Wingnut much at all, so it's still economical to rent it on Netflix; on the third, Peter Jackson knew what the game was and probably refused to take a cheap deal, the sort of deal that would allow TW to show the film on Instant Queue profitably.
It's not that it would have cost more necessarily, it's that Starz wanted to be a premium service for for which the subscriber paid more, at their option. Netfilx, probably correctly, saw this was unworkable and would have ruined the Instant Queue user experience, and Starz/Liberty Media, probably correctly, saw that their content was being sold at a discount to it's value, give what people are willing to spend on Starz content on pay cable, even though it's less convenient. But now Starz is starting its own streaming service, which will probably be better for everybody -- Starz can charge whatever price it pleases, and reap the rewards (or endure the consequences) of that, and Netflix doesn't have to change its pricing.
They're becoming unprofitable right now because the MPAA decided to charge more.
They're unprofitable because their business is a pure middleman strategy, and the content creators are discovering ways that don't go through Netflix to get people to watch their movies, and Netflix distribution is a losing proposition from the perspective of for most commercial producers.
The only people that made real money off instant queue -- people who made streaming sales that didn't replace a DVD sale or rental passthru revenue -- were people who owned the rights to long-tail content that required no advertising and had zero marginal cost (like Criterion and the studios' various classic TV franchises, or my personal favorite, cable series that had zero DVD viability, like "How it's Made".) Distributors like Starz, who made expensive original content, called Netflix what it was, a gyp.
I work with a lot of independent filmmakers and they consider the Netflix distribution process a joke, there's no money in it, but they're obliged to give it a try if only to catch the occasional random viewer, in effect using Instant Queue as a marketing channel.
Wave was a cool idea that desperately needed a desktop client and more partners. It needed an Open Rich Mail Alliance a-la Android to sell servers, integrate with for-pay and for-free services, and actually use the protocol for real work.
As long as you had to go to the Google website to read a Wave it suffered from the perception that it was a Google service and was only useful in that way.
(On the other hand you could go totally conspiracy-minded and say that Wave was intended to fail, and Google was attempting to use it as a pilot plant for various Google+ features, at a time when the Diaspora was all the rage and people were casting about for open source alternatives to Facebook.)
Probably because the concept of privacy wasn't as fully formed in the late 1700's as it is now. Life was a wee bit simpler and more open.
You always have to be careful about historicism.
In the 18th century, mail often formed the sole form of communication between parties. Nobody for a moment questioned why the constitution was negotiated in secret, and nobody demanded financial disclosures or transparency from the participants -- all of these things were considered private matters. Social mores were quite a bit more prudish and you were more likely to know a woman's pedigree for three generations and the names of her brothers and her husband, than what her bare ankle looked like. People definitely had specific ideas about what privacy was, it was just very different. You shouldn't imply teleological progress (e.g. "fully formed") when people in fact had very specific ideas for what it meant to be private. Things like that merely change with fashion, they don't get better or worse, clearer or muddier.
There was also a lot of diversity at the time. In Rhode Islands there was no established church, but in Massachusetts you could be thrown in jail if you didn't belong to a church and tithe to it; in Mass it was considered a state responsibility to regulate church membership up until the federal era. There were large cities in the colonies in the 1780s, greater Boston had 100k people living in it at the time of the constitution. There was almost certainly a broad difference of opinion on what it meant to have "privacy" between someone who lived on Boston harbor and someone that lived in Natick, and the guy that lived on Boston harbor would probably hold opinions on privacy that would be quite recognizable to a modern.
They are wrong. At least in the US, it is supposed to be that...the constitution does NOT grant you rights. You have the rights born to you inately....and keep them all unless limited by law. That law should come primarily from your state/local laws.
The natural right/positive right debate has been going hard and heavy for three hundred years now, and while the founders had a diversity of opinions on the issue, they had the good sense to keep ideology out of the constitution. The first amendment is a proscription on the power of congress to make certain kinds of laws, nothing more or less. You can believe that you have a natural right or the right is granted, neither interpretation conflicts with the text of the constitution and both theories had adherents among the writers. Getting them to all agree on one theoretical interpretation or the other would have guaranteed the language of the amendment would never have passed.
Either way as pertains to privacy, it's most parsimonious to say US constitution does neither "recognize" nor "respect" a simple, holistic right to privacy. That the fourth amendment manages to spell out what it means without using the word "privacy" should be instructive, they probably left it out for a reason.
it does, however grant a FEW enumerated rights/responsibilities to the Federal govt.
You can ask Hamilton, Washington and Adams about how they felt about the interpretation and limitations of enumerated powers.
The problem is that as long as it isn't explicitly stated in the constitution you'll find people like Thomas and Scalia that pretend that it doesn't exist.
Their real problem is that their theory of constitutional interpretation is based on idea that their understanding what James Madison "meant" when he wrote something down in 1782 is superior and more valid than how a modern, reasonable person interprets the plain language in the time they're actually living in. Scalia has been very specific about the fact that he "doesn't understand" modern culture enough to apply 18th-century constitutional rights to modern situations in the manner of a "living document" constitutionalist, but he's quite certain he understands the culture of the late Georgian period enough to come to all kinds of precise conclusions about things like eminent domain in Kelo or corporate personhood.
"Strict construction" is about embedding the terms and significations of the constitution in an historical-revisionist mythology and hermeneutic, with the objective of re-defining the law in minarchist terms (and guess who makes all the money when that happens).
They'll probably tone-down the final SOPA bill, at least preserving the old DMCA safe harbor. On the other hand it's pretty clear that you'd never be able to shut down an average forum site this way unless you were able to actually upload the real manifestation of the copyrighted content to the forum. Just a link to another site with the material wouldn't count. Under the definitions in SOPA:
(i) the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates— (I) a violation of section 501 of title 17, United States Code;
OR (ii) the operator of the U.S.-directed site— (I) is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or (II) operates the U.S.-directed site with the object of promoting, has promoted, its use to carry out acts that constitute a violation of sec22 tion 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code, as shown by clear ex24 pression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement.
Your site isn't subject to enforcement of the ad-network provisions unless your site is "primarily" used for infringement, or you take "affirmative" or "deliberate" steps to distribute infringing content. Inaction won't get you taken down, and anyone who says otherwise, like Google, is a FUD-ster.
The fact is that "creators" are pretty passive about this law, hovering from moderately for to moderately against, but they have nothing like the sort of passion you see around these parts. Here's a forum I read, everyone here is a recording engineer or sound designer in feature film, television and ads -- the original poster is a professional associate of mine. Most are pro-SOPA, because they see anyone who's vocally against it as objectively pro-turnstyle-jumping, and the people that are against are pretty measured, they never invoke fundamental human rights, and the focus on the practicality.
The fact is, if SOPA passes, the winners are Sony Pictures Distribution, Buena Vista Entertainment, and MTV Networks. If SOPA fails, the winners are Google, Facebook and Yahoo; either way, the biggest winners are middlemen. The anti-SOPA corporations would have you believe that SOPA is about squelching new art forms and creative channels, but it's really about making the advertising, aggregation, and monetization of new channels more or less practical, nothing more or less.
Content creators just sell there stuff one way or the other, and the practical ways off containing illicit copying are evolving. I'd personally much rather content creators continue to get their share of the box office, and they get a cut of all the ad and anciliary revenues as they do now. If Google and Facebook win, the ad revenues all walk out the door through the new middlemen, and maybe Google will give artists a 70% cut of some first (and really last) sale, but Google's going to use their data and aggregations thereof a hundred times over to make new applications, offer new services and SELL ADS, all of which will make them money. At least when somebody like Peter Jackson does a deal with New Line, New Line doesn't cut him off at a share of the box office, and then take no action to prevent people from xeroxing their ticket stubs.
Whoosh. Forget adoption, it'll require Herculean effort to keep the usual suspects from torpedoing the whole proposition.
Watch for the press release: "We were working with the committee to make sure our customers needs were met and that a balance was found between privacy and ease-of-use but ultimately we felt we had to abandon the effort because the standard was unworkable (because of our poison-pill amendment, bwa ha ha!)"
If they invite Microsoft to the ISO open document standardization meetings, it's only fair they invite Facebook and Google to the privacy standardization meetings.
Elite ran in 14k of memory (which should have been enough for anybody, wokka wokka). This blob is 16 megs. That's a 1,170 11-year-olds; if they went about it with your methodology, they'd be printing out one disassembled line a second for about twelve weeks... And then they gotta figure out what it DOES. And all of this before Raspberry Pi changes CPU revs and the disassembling must start all over.
Clearly a wise idea, but I wonder how he would have run a cell company different. How would rates be structured? Would the incumbents let iPhones roam on their networks or would they try to freeze-out the interloper? The mind boggles...
One of the more profound ways that the iPhone changed the mobile industry was the fact that it upended the relationship between the handset maker and the wireless carrier
It really only upended the relationship between Apple and its wireless carriers. Most phones are still marketed and sold the old-fashioned way, and Google doesn't have magic open-source-fairy dust that prevents carriers from selling crappy phones on very carrier-friendly terms.
:/ When did I single it out? I didn't make any special pleading against it.
Or is it impossible to observe fanboyism unless one also instantly inoculates oneself with the lame and rather Politically Correct "...of course all side have their fanboys..."
(I will here, though, make the specific observation that Android fanboys seem the be extremely defensive and intent on policing fanboy debate and expression, the terms and definitions used, and the socially valid and invalid forms of that expression, in order to obtain a sort of priority over other fanboy expression. Fandroids recognize the earlier Apple and Microsoft fanboy discourses and the sort of abuse their practitioners encountered, and want to obtain special treatment and greater respectability.)
(Most objective observers would consider fanboy discourse disruptive and unacceptable public expression, and Android fanboys are satisfied with this norm as it pertains to their enemies -- and in situations where fannboy expression is tolerated, tuquoue justification seems to be the order of the day. Android fanboys themselves have tried, more or less successfully, to create a narrative of respectability around their fanboy expression, mainly by using certain shibboleths, like "openness" and "freedom," to form a coded discourse with other groups.)
That problem exists regardless of how your codec's source is published or its patents are licensed. Lock in is created by what the broser vendors agree to support, not by how something is licensed.
Open Source doesn't need more code, it needs more coders and users. If they were going to run the thing, champion it and market it, sell support for it and guide its development, that'd be one thing. When Google bought Android they went to the trouble of setting up the OHA, starting a business, doing big deals and making sure the project would actually work for real-world users and developers. They continue to shepherd its development and its now probably the most widely-installed open-source OS on earth
Adobe is just pulling the abort handle here. It's nice that the code will be out there, but it's just of academic interest at this point.
Could you please tone it down and say why you feel WebM is inferior?
It's redundant? It's no better than H.264, it's Johnny-come-lately, and exists only because Google is trying to play 11-dimensional chess with MPEG-LA pool members.
If you want to send people a video in WebM you have to get them to install software. That alone is pretty fatal. Even if it did have a higher picture quality, picture quality isn't as important a factor for a codec as availability.
They don't have AAC. AAC is an MPEG-4 standard invented and licensed to MPEG-LA by the only company that could ever out-Apple Apple on IP, Dolby Laboratories.
How long until they figure out how to clone a phone? They already can do this:)
Besides, why would an Android user want to goto the trouble? I'm informed (rabidly and often) that Android phones already have superior features and that Siri is merely a clone with fancy marketing.
Slashdot Mirror
The ADA has a monopoly on medical practice in America
Four out of five dentists agree, the fifth guy isn't in the cartel.
A monopoly that owns nothing and does not practice price coordination is a strange kind of monopoly. It's much closer to a syndicate or guild.
Double negative working here.
Let the Set D = {s|s is an article of software requiring maintenance}. O = {s|s is an article of open source software}. OP claims that the cardinality of D \ O is some number greater than zero. Duh?
Of course there's a big agency problem with the business models of open source, namely, if you make all your money off support, you have a vested interest in keeping your software difficult to use for non-technical users -- you need people to keep buying support contracts. In a growing market you can make old features easier to use while making new features hard to use, but if there's a strong demand for stability over new features, you're biggest enemy is the guy writing three-step customizer wizard that sets up Nginx for the 99% of use cases. In the long term it sorta locks OSS out of huge consumer and retail markets, because these consumers want "just works" and it's difficult to scale for-pay support to millions of subscribers, each wanting the individual attention they're paying for; the OSS support trade, at least by the evidence, is B2B and B2B only.
B2B doesn't have the sort of employment multiplier that retail service does, so maybe you lose jobs in total, but obviously you'll make a lot more money at your nail salon if you're able to use an open source POS terminal, right? :) This is a big problem with the whole technology-breeds-productivity-and-prosperity argument: technology doesn't have to eliminate jobs in the aggregate, and it usually doesn't, but the jobs that are created are often undesirable and unstable. Machines free us to be creative, but they also free us to do other people's nails and clean their toilets.
Witness the deeply-ingrained UNIX Philosophy thing where if you can't use grep(1), it naturally follows that the thing is impossible to search.
You can't grep a Berkeley DB, yet for some reason you can find stuff in it, too.
The Two Towers was released in that tiny window when New Line Cinema was under AOL-Time Warner's corporate umbrella instead of Time Warner proper, which controlled New Line when the first and third movie were released. During the time AOLTW ran the distribution for Warner Bros and New Line, they were much more aggressive about getting the production people and rightsholders to agree to online distribution, and at the time the terms they could get for this were much more favorable, because nobody knew how much money was involved
On the first film, nobody probably thought to ink an online distribution agreement with the producers; on the second, it was easy to get one that didn't pay New Line and Wingnut much at all, so it's still economical to rent it on Netflix; on the third, Peter Jackson knew what the game was and probably refused to take a cheap deal, the sort of deal that would allow TW to show the film on Instant Queue profitably.
It's not that it would have cost more necessarily, it's that Starz wanted to be a premium service for for which the subscriber paid more, at their option. Netfilx, probably correctly, saw this was unworkable and would have ruined the Instant Queue user experience, and Starz/Liberty Media, probably correctly, saw that their content was being sold at a discount to it's value, give what people are willing to spend on Starz content on pay cable, even though it's less convenient. But now Starz is starting its own streaming service, which will probably be better for everybody -- Starz can charge whatever price it pleases, and reap the rewards (or endure the consequences) of that, and Netflix doesn't have to change its pricing.
They're unprofitable because their business is a pure middleman strategy, and the content creators are discovering ways that don't go through Netflix to get people to watch their movies, and Netflix distribution is a losing proposition from the perspective of for most commercial producers.
The only people that made real money off instant queue -- people who made streaming sales that didn't replace a DVD sale or rental passthru revenue -- were people who owned the rights to long-tail content that required no advertising and had zero marginal cost (like Criterion and the studios' various classic TV franchises, or my personal favorite, cable series that had zero DVD viability, like "How it's Made".) Distributors like Starz, who made expensive original content, called Netflix what it was, a gyp.
I work with a lot of independent filmmakers and they consider the Netflix distribution process a joke, there's no money in it, but they're obliged to give it a try if only to catch the occasional random viewer, in effect using Instant Queue as a marketing channel.
Wave was a cool idea that desperately needed a desktop client and more partners. It needed an Open Rich Mail Alliance a-la Android to sell servers, integrate with for-pay and for-free services, and actually use the protocol for real work.
As long as you had to go to the Google website to read a Wave it suffered from the perception that it was a Google service and was only useful in that way.
(On the other hand you could go totally conspiracy-minded and say that Wave was intended to fail, and Google was attempting to use it as a pilot plant for various Google+ features, at a time when the Diaspora was all the rage and people were casting about for open source alternatives to Facebook.)
Probably because the concept of privacy wasn't as fully formed in the late 1700's as it is now. Life was a wee bit simpler and more open.
You always have to be careful about historicism.
In the 18th century, mail often formed the sole form of communication between parties. Nobody for a moment questioned why the constitution was negotiated in secret, and nobody demanded financial disclosures or transparency from the participants -- all of these things were considered private matters. Social mores were quite a bit more prudish and you were more likely to know a woman's pedigree for three generations and the names of her brothers and her husband, than what her bare ankle looked like. People definitely had specific ideas about what privacy was, it was just very different. You shouldn't imply teleological progress (e.g. "fully formed") when people in fact had very specific ideas for what it meant to be private. Things like that merely change with fashion, they don't get better or worse, clearer or muddier.
There was also a lot of diversity at the time. In Rhode Islands there was no established church, but in Massachusetts you could be thrown in jail if you didn't belong to a church and tithe to it; in Mass it was considered a state responsibility to regulate church membership up until the federal era. There were large cities in the colonies in the 1780s, greater Boston had 100k people living in it at the time of the constitution. There was almost certainly a broad difference of opinion on what it meant to have "privacy" between someone who lived on Boston harbor and someone that lived in Natick, and the guy that lived on Boston harbor would probably hold opinions on privacy that would be quite recognizable to a modern.
The natural right/positive right debate has been going hard and heavy for three hundred years now, and while the founders had a diversity of opinions on the issue, they had the good sense to keep ideology out of the constitution. The first amendment is a proscription on the power of congress to make certain kinds of laws, nothing more or less. You can believe that you have a natural right or the right is granted, neither interpretation conflicts with the text of the constitution and both theories had adherents among the writers. Getting them to all agree on one theoretical interpretation or the other would have guaranteed the language of the amendment would never have passed.
Either way as pertains to privacy, it's most parsimonious to say US constitution does neither "recognize" nor "respect" a simple, holistic right to privacy. That the fourth amendment manages to spell out what it means without using the word "privacy" should be instructive, they probably left it out for a reason.
You can ask Hamilton, Washington and Adams about how they felt about the interpretation and limitations of enumerated powers.
Their real problem is that their theory of constitutional interpretation is based on idea that their understanding what James Madison "meant" when he wrote something down in 1782 is superior and more valid than how a modern, reasonable person interprets the plain language in the time they're actually living in. Scalia has been very specific about the fact that he "doesn't understand" modern culture enough to apply 18th-century constitutional rights to modern situations in the manner of a "living document" constitutionalist, but he's quite certain he understands the culture of the late Georgian period enough to come to all kinds of precise conclusions about things like eminent domain in Kelo or corporate personhood.
"Strict construction" is about embedding the terms and significations of the constitution in an historical-revisionist mythology and hermeneutic, with the objective of re-defining the law in minarchist terms (and guess who makes all the money when that happens).
They'll probably tone-down the final SOPA bill, at least preserving the old DMCA safe harbor. On the other hand it's pretty clear that you'd never be able to shut down an average forum site this way unless you were able to actually upload the real manifestation of the copyrighted content to the forum. Just a link to another site with the material wouldn't count. Under the definitions in SOPA:
Your site isn't subject to enforcement of the ad-network provisions unless your site is "primarily" used for infringement, or you take "affirmative" or "deliberate" steps to distribute infringing content. Inaction won't get you taken down, and anyone who says otherwise, like Google, is a FUD-ster.
I'm pretty sure they will beat h.264 in the long run because free wins in the end.
Messiah complex.
The fact is that "creators" are pretty passive about this law, hovering from moderately for to moderately against, but they have nothing like the sort of passion you see around these parts. Here's a forum I read, everyone here is a recording engineer or sound designer in feature film, television and ads -- the original poster is a professional associate of mine. Most are pro-SOPA, because they see anyone who's vocally against it as objectively pro-turnstyle-jumping, and the people that are against are pretty measured, they never invoke fundamental human rights, and the focus on the practicality.
The fact is, if SOPA passes, the winners are Sony Pictures Distribution, Buena Vista Entertainment, and MTV Networks. If SOPA fails, the winners are Google, Facebook and Yahoo; either way, the biggest winners are middlemen. The anti-SOPA corporations would have you believe that SOPA is about squelching new art forms and creative channels, but it's really about making the advertising, aggregation, and monetization of new channels more or less practical, nothing more or less.
Content creators just sell there stuff one way or the other, and the practical ways off containing illicit copying are evolving. I'd personally much rather content creators continue to get their share of the box office, and they get a cut of all the ad and anciliary revenues as they do now. If Google and Facebook win, the ad revenues all walk out the door through the new middlemen, and maybe Google will give artists a 70% cut of some first (and really last) sale, but Google's going to use their data and aggregations thereof a hundred times over to make new applications, offer new services and SELL ADS, all of which will make them money. At least when somebody like Peter Jackson does a deal with New Line, New Line doesn't cut him off at a share of the box office, and then take no action to prevent people from xeroxing their ticket stubs.
Whoosh. Forget adoption, it'll require Herculean effort to keep the usual suspects from torpedoing the whole proposition.
Watch for the press release: "We were working with the committee to make sure our customers needs were met and that a balance was found between privacy and ease-of-use but ultimately we felt we had to abandon the effort because the standard was unworkable (because of our poison-pill amendment, bwa ha ha!)"
If they invite Microsoft to the ISO open document standardization meetings, it's only fair they invite Facebook and Google to the privacy standardization meetings.
Elite ran in 14k of memory (which should have been enough for anybody, wokka wokka). This blob is 16 megs. That's a 1,170 11-year-olds; if they went about it with your methodology, they'd be printing out one disassembled line a second for about twelve weeks... And then they gotta figure out what it DOES. And all of this before Raspberry Pi changes CPU revs and the disassembling must start all over.
Clearly a wise idea, but I wonder how he would have run a cell company different. How would rates be structured? Would the incumbents let iPhones roam on their networks or would they try to freeze-out the interloper? The mind boggles...
One of the more profound ways that the iPhone changed the mobile industry was the fact that it upended the relationship between the handset maker and the wireless carrier
It really only upended the relationship between Apple and its wireless carriers. Most phones are still marketed and sold the old-fashioned way, and Google doesn't have magic open-source-fairy dust that prevents carriers from selling crappy phones on very carrier-friendly terms.
:/ When did I single it out? I didn't make any special pleading against it.
Or is it impossible to observe fanboyism unless one also instantly inoculates oneself with the lame and rather Politically Correct "...of course all side have their fanboys..."
(I will here, though, make the specific observation that Android fanboys seem the be extremely defensive and intent on policing fanboy debate and expression, the terms and definitions used, and the socially valid and invalid forms of that expression, in order to obtain a sort of priority over other fanboy expression. Fandroids recognize the earlier Apple and Microsoft fanboy discourses and the sort of abuse their practitioners encountered, and want to obtain special treatment and greater respectability.)
(Most objective observers would consider fanboy discourse disruptive and unacceptable public expression, and Android fanboys are satisfied with this norm as it pertains to their enemies -- and in situations where fannboy expression is tolerated, tuquoue justification seems to be the order of the day. Android fanboys themselves have tried, more or less successfully, to create a narrative of respectability around their fanboy expression, mainly by using certain shibboleths, like "openness" and "freedom," to form a coded discourse with other groups.)
That problem exists regardless of how your codec's source is published or its patents are licensed. Lock in is created by what the broser vendors agree to support, not by how something is licensed.
Open Source doesn't need more code, it needs more coders and users. If they were going to run the thing, champion it and market it, sell support for it and guide its development, that'd be one thing. When Google bought Android they went to the trouble of setting up the OHA, starting a business, doing big deals and making sure the project would actually work for real-world users and developers. They continue to shepherd its development and its now probably the most widely-installed open-source OS on earth
Adobe is just pulling the abort handle here. It's nice that the code will be out there, but it's just of academic interest at this point.
Could you please tone it down and say why you feel WebM is inferior?
It's redundant? It's no better than H.264, it's Johnny-come-lately, and exists only because Google is trying to play 11-dimensional chess with MPEG-LA pool members.
If you want to send people a video in WebM you have to get them to install software. That alone is pretty fatal. Even if it did have a higher picture quality, picture quality isn't as important a factor for a codec as availability.
I don't think Android users hold any type of monopoly on obnoxious product advocacy.
That really doesn't justify it.
Fire with fire.
Or "Tu quoque" as the Romans would say.
Are you sure that isn't making a positive argument for the benefit of working in the cathedral instead of the bazaar?
They don't have AAC. AAC is an MPEG-4 standard invented and licensed to MPEG-LA by the only company that could ever out-Apple Apple on IP, Dolby Laboratories.
How long until they figure out how to clone a phone? They already can do this :)
Besides, why would an Android user want to goto the trouble? I'm informed (rabidly and often) that Android phones already have superior features and that Siri is merely a clone with fancy marketing.