If they can create the perception that their products will remain on the market and supported (because they have or can get licenses to any component that is open to a patent suit) while the open source alternatives might expose their users to lawsuits, they can drive users away from those alternatives.
Apple's products are hardware. There aren't any "open-source alternatives" to those, so this argument makes little sense.
Youtube was going to convert to h.264 anyway. If they hadn't, they would have been left in the dust by the other video services. The iPhone app was probably a good opportunity to experiment with the technology before launching it on the actual website.
(And an experiment it clearly was, since the original h.264 encodings were kind of really bad.)
Apple doesn't have anything in particular to gain from pushing h.264 on others. They don't own it, and they own a single patent out of hundreds and hundreds in the patent pool. They are only interested in using it for themselves.
Yes, let's trust the legal opinion of the lawyer who apparently thought it was a great idea for a newspaper to buy stolen property and announce it all over the internet.
One-time pad isn't a DRM scheme. His generalization is true for DRM, which is what he was talking about.
It's defective by design, after all - they want to create an encryption scheme such that Alice can securely send a game to Bob and Bob cannot create copies of it, but Eve has electrodes in Bob's brain and knows everything he does or thinks or sees or hears. It's just not possible unless you remove the electrodes.
You are only correct as long as you make the assumption the game has to run completely isolated on Bob's system. The DRM scheme being discussed currently is not limited in this way.
Slashdot Mirror
If they can create the perception that their products will remain on the market and supported (because they have or can get licenses to any component that is open to a patent suit) while the open source alternatives might expose their users to lawsuits, they can drive users away from those alternatives.
Apple's products are hardware. There aren't any "open-source alternatives" to those, so this argument makes little sense.
Youtube was going to convert to h.264 anyway. If they hadn't, they would have been left in the dust by the other video services. The iPhone app was probably a good opportunity to experiment with the technology before launching it on the actual website.
(And an experiment it clearly was, since the original h.264 encodings were kind of really bad.)
That plan just happened to slip his mind when he shipped iPhones and iPads with built-in Youtube support, then?
Apple doesn't have anything in particular to gain from pushing h.264 on others. They don't own it, and they own a single patent out of hundreds and hundreds in the patent pool. They are only interested in using it for themselves.
And Apple pays to use the patents that cover it, just the same as everyone else. So?
I don't think Apple is somehow directly planning to sue Xiph or other open source codecs personally.
Especially not since Apple doesn't really hold many patents on video encoding in the first place.
He did not say that "we" or "Apple" are doing anything, you know. He's talking about someone else.
Courier wasn't just going to be the iPad killer. It was going to be a computing OS that wasn't the hideous bloatware that we've come to know and hate.
This alone should have tipped you off that it'd never happen.
Flash uses mp4 files for h.264 already, not flv.
Kids shouldn't have a say.
Are you sure you would have agreed with that when you were a kid?
Once FF works on Android, we can use its superior plugins like AdBlock and NoScript.
Maybe. If the mobile version supports plugins, and those plugins are in the same format as the desktop ones. There's no guarantee of either, though.
Because he will likely be charged with a felony. There's no shield law that protects you from that.
apparently illegal warrant
Yes, let's trust the legal opinion of the lawyer who apparently thought it was a great idea for a newspaper to buy stolen property and announce it all over the internet.
You mean the creator of a file format thinks that his file format is good? This certainly is newsworthy!
Yes, which is why I did not say "hard", I said "impossible", and I meant it.
"Can sometimes", not "can always".
One-time pad isn't a DRM scheme. His generalization is true for DRM, which is what he was talking about.
It's defective by design, after all - they want to create an encryption scheme such that Alice can securely send a game to Bob and Bob cannot create copies of it, but Eve has electrodes in Bob's brain and knows everything he does or thinks or sees or hears. It's just not possible unless you remove the electrodes.
You are only correct as long as you make the assumption the game has to run completely isolated on Bob's system. The DRM scheme being discussed currently is not limited in this way.
I call bullshit, with enough samples anything can be broken.
Incorrect.
Your one-time pad has an algorithm that generates it's key
Incorrect. The whole point of the one-time pad is that this is not the case.
I've done it with 8bit one time keys for old systems on a laptop in 2 hours.
Incorrect. You may well have done that with something, but it was not a one-time pad.
So the examples of why the app store is bad are... Two apps that got approved, one of them just as quickly or slowly as everyone else?
Since it appears that the BD encryption has been hacked
It has not. It has been worked around.
This post was a lot funnier when I thought the second part said "I tried it once when I was incredibly high."
"Troll" is an old Usenet term. It is certainly older than "griefer", but it also meant something quite different.
Man can make a one-time pad, man can not break a one-time pad. Your generalization is false.
Article is trolling.
Article is The Register. But I am repeating myself. Or yourself. Or something.
It's amazing how Slashdot still takes them seriously.
There is no reason for Google to record the MAC addresses of devices.
Of course there is a reason. They would be pretty dumb to do it for no reason.
The reason is to let devices figure out where they are by looking at nearby MAC addresses.
Now, if you read Schmidt's comment...
Which you clearly didn't actually do. You just believed what the internet told you that he said, without bothering to check for yourself.