but if you look at the marketshare for Windows 7 mobile devices [electronista.com]
Wow, I wonder - were you born this stupid or did your parents have your brain removed after you were born? Really. Truly.
Here is a clue for you. The market share of a product that has not yet been released is usually about 0%. Plus/minus 0% or so. What did you think the market share of Windows Phone 7 devices was going to be on August 12, 2010? Particularly considering the fact that the numbers are 2Q210 numbers, in other words, the numbers talk about Windows Phone 7 market share from April-June of 2010. Windows Phone 7 was released on October 21st of 2010, and it was available in stores three weeks later.
If I was working at another company, I wouldn't hire software engineers that have been stuck in the early 1990s for two decades.
To be less facetious, Nokia needed a huge shake-up. Was it the right shake-up? Time will tell. At least half of the shake-up was absolutely right, Symbian is a joke, a bad joke, and it needed to be taken out back and shot. Sadly, nobody at Nokia has had the guts to do that. Elop did, and for that he should be praised. Then we can debate and speculate on whether WP7 was the correct replacement for Symbian. Just about anything would have been a good replacement for Symbian though. Even an embedded version of Windows 3.11.
I liked every Nokia phone (6310,6310i,E71,E63) i used, because i could 100% rely on it.
Why do you think that will change just because they get a better OS for the phone? From a user perspective, WP7 is heads and shoulders above anything Nokia has ever delivered, and arguably better than any of the current competition from Apple and Google. Got a WP7 phone for various reasons, and it beats the living daylights out of my iOS 4.x iPhone 3GS. I dropped Apple completely and do not look back. My Galaxy Tab, though somewhat fun, is not even close, neither in user experience nor in development experience for business/cloud apps. Not even in the same ballpark.
Having uses Nokia phone for at least the last 15 years my N95 will be the LAST Nokia
Just out of curiosity, why? Nokia makes great phones but CRAP software. WP7 is, from a user perspective, clearly on the forefront of the current market. What is so bad about this?
Issue isn't MS OS (which is a joke, at least now).
Curious as to how you define "a joke" here. I had the iPhone 3G for a year, upgraded to the 3GS when my contract ran out, had that for a year. Got a Windows Phone 7 that I needed for some work related development, and after about a week I stopped using the iPhone completely. What specifically do you feel is a joke with WP7. Just curious.
No, not really. Again, it is not storing your search as such, but ranking certain pages higher based on your search term. There is a difference between priming a search engine based on your searches and storing your personal information.
As it comes to spy-ware, does Google actually make anything else? Have you ever used, for example, GMail?
Probably not, since they didn't do anything at all. Google engineers, using the Bing toolbar, were priming Bing. The Google engineers were just too dumb to realize it.
Actually it is neither sleazy nor underhanded, it is just another evidence of brain-drain at Google. Brain down the drain. If you use the Bing search bar it will, unsurprisingly, prime Bing with the data gathered. The Google geniuses utterly misunderstood what they were seeing. MS wasn't copying Google, the Google engineers were priming Bing (and they were too stupid to realize it).
It doesn't, it just shows that if you use the Bing search bar it will, unsurprisingly, prime Bing with the data gathered. The google geniuses utterly misunderstood what they were seeing. MS wasn't copying Google, the Google engineers were priming Bing (and they were too stupid to realize it.
Have I said H.264 is not encumbered by patents? Nope. Have I said that Microsoft doesn't have patents that are relevant to H.264? No. I know both of these things quite well. I even know a bit about the patents involved, and it is quite possible that some of these patents also cover WebM, though it would take some work and probably legal action to find out.
Neither of these facts are relevant to your dumb-ass comments. Honestely.
If you had a single clue about video and video standards, standards that have "always" been open and that have "always" been governed by international standards bodies, you would know that Microsoft has a favorite video encoder. It is called VC1. You would also know that Microsoft has been trying to get H.264 replaced with VC1 as the industry standard for years. So far with limited success.
Seriously. You really need to educate your self before making dumb statements like you did. Microsoft has been fighting H.264 as a video standard from the time it was conceived (even though Microsoft is on the comittee). Microsoft has been pushing VC1 over H.264 all the way, and that was, for example, the main reason Microsoft backed HD-DVD over the superior Blu-Ray until long after it was obvious HD-DVD was dead. Microsoft still won't support Blu-Ray for XBOX.
H.264 online has nothing to do with Microsoft. As they say "better to keep your mouth shut and have everyone think you an idiot than to open it and remove all doubt".
No, they do not. IE will use the codecs on your PC, as it should. M$ is doing the right thing here. The whole purpose of having a generic way of installing codecs and other supporting functionality in an OS is for applications to make use of them. Google saying they will specifically include support for a particular codec is about as sane as having every single application ship with its own graphics and sound drivers.
Mine happens to be supported
What the article you are quoting actually says is that Google will continue to support H.264 through Flash (not a huge surprise). This makes sense for Google and supports what I and others have been saying: Google is primarily concerned how to gather as much of your personal info as possible and share this with Google advertisers. Flash gives them much better tools in this regard than does the <video> tag.
Creating an incentive for WebM adoption is exactly what Google has done
or, they have ensured that Flash will be the main mode of delivering video in the future. That would be consistent with their goals of making money off of your personal information, and it is in line with what Google says in the link you used.
They claim to... lines up 100%
You read what you read, and I read this: H.264 plays an important role in video and the vast majority of the H.264 videos on the web today are viewed in plug-ins such as Flash and Silverlight. These plug-ins are and will continue to be supported in Chrome In other words - the vast majority of professional content producers use H.264, and they are going to continue to to so. If we encourage H.264 content distributed using the <video> tag, we will not be able to layer advertising onto that video, and therefore we'll lose ad money. We will therefore only support H.264 in plugins where we can add advertising content and sell your personal information.
Microsoft... have chosen H.264 as the only one they will support
BZZT! WRONG!
I believe Google might add H.264 support back into Chrome
People also believe virgins can give birth to sons of imaginary etheral entities and that clinically dead people can be arisen just by magical mumbling. That doens't make it a rational belief. Google is removing support for H.264 to kill it as a distribution codec. No more, no less.
Graits standards should be mandatory
A business as an individual should be free to operate within the law. "Should be mandatory" is something that Kim Il Jung and Joseph Stalin likes but that has somehow fallen out of favor among the thinking population.
I would never presume to say anything about what Google should and should not do, but I can analyze their motives.
I believe that is the goal of the action Google is taking
Google cares about ruling the world according to the book of Google and about selling your personal information to as many advertisers as they can. They don't give a flying dung pile about Gratis or Free.
Software companies are scared of free (as in no cost) software, because they realise that if they have to face competition, eventually it will force prices down to nothing
Free software is a myth. It doesn't exist. Someone is always paying. For Linux, for example, where the vast majority of contributions happens from paid developers, the customers of the companies dedicating resources to Linux are paying. One way or another.
The fact that you are not paying for the privilege of running Linux doesn't mean it is free, it just means that you are a leech and that some other poor slob is carrying you.
If left to a free market, software would become a business where no money can be made
This is actually pure rubbish. The cost of software today is so high that specialized business have to thrive in the market.
development would be done by companies using it to aid other lines of business
Ah, to be young and dumb again. Sorry, but it used to be like that. Universities didn't teach software development, they taught maths. Software was only developed as a side-business to sell hardware or services. Nobody made money out of software. Tell you what: You don't want that back. It makes for poor software made by people who have no concept of what the end-user wants or needs. It is an unsustainable model, and it will send us back to the 1970s software quality wise. Want proof? Three words. "Linux Desktop Software". I am a big fan of Linux. I use it personally and professionaly almost everywhere. For all the software that exists on multiple platforms (GUI oriented software) it is always a nightmare to use on Linux compared to any of the other platforms. There is one Unix with a decent interface and that is OSX.
Google most likely realise this, which is why they make their money from offering services.
And that is just clueless. Google makes money selling your personal data to advertisers, not from offering services. I don't even think Google has a professional services arm at all.
To produce H.264 content you will need a content-production piece of software. This software can be free or it can be for pay. For-pay content production software will generally fully support H.264, Gratis software will obviously not be able to do this if there is a license fee for H.264 encoding.
So, how is allowing (as opposed to mandating) any particular codec limiting choice? How would, in any possible way, allowing H.264, the only open standard video codec with a good online profile, in Chrome limit choice? Nobody has argued that Google should not support WebM, by all means, they should. They should also support H.264. In fact they should support all codecs instaled on the users computer.
By limiting our choice to a single codec Google is the one limiting the field. Google is the one preventing me from publishing in the format that I find most suitable for my content.
Google is doing this so that Google can run the world. It is a way to limit choice not expand it. IE 9 will support whatever codec I have, it will hardware accelerate any video stream where the codec supports hardware acceleration. Google will not support HW acceleration since no HW out there will accelerate WebM.
Please elaborate on the understanding and background that leads you to conclude that limiting the choice for the entire world to one single codec is more freedom and openness than it is to allow both the producer and the consumer to chose which codec to use.
Using the codecs on the computer leaves the choice to the user, that is freedom. What FF and Google are doing is the opposite of freedom, they force the user to use what the FF and Google teams are mandating.
If Devs from FF and Opera have issues with using codecs on the existing computer they are just being lazy. The main issue with doing this is control and the ability to "pre-approve" a codec for a specific browser. Again, FF and Chrome are limiting the choice for the user. How that is freedom and openness is not entirely clear. It is like the old Ford "saying": You can have your car in any color you want, as long as it is black.
and the funny thing here is that H.264 is the open standard governed by a standards body. WebM, though free, is closed and owned by a single company. So, we are supporting open standards or...
That is all well and good, but, the fact stands that it is impossible to legally create an open source H.264 enabled browser
BZZZZT!!! WRONG! You can use a browser that supports playing any media content for which your host computer has a codec. It isn't even particularly difficult to do so. You can therefore play any H.264 content you wish in your open source browser. You won't even have to pay a licensing fee.
No magic required, just no need to rule the world like Google wants to. H.264 is, with some margin, the only modern and open standard for video available. It is also the codec in which all the content producers are going to publish their content. I hope you prefer You Tube kittens over ESPN and Comedy Central.
If you, as you should, use the codecs installed on the computer on which your browser runs, the licensing cost for shipping H.264 support, contingent upon the PC having an H.264 decoder (the majority of them do) is zero. Nix. Nada. Zilch. I think Google can afford to ship when paying $0.00 in licensing cost. Don't you?
This has nothing to do with licensing cost and everything to do with Google wanting to rule the world.
You won't even have to pay $0.10 once. Not ever. Even with full H.264 support. Even if you ship a billion browsers. You never have to pay ever. This is not about licensing.
Google doesn't have to pay anything at all. They can use the codecs installed on the computer. Some doesn't have H.264 support, most do. Google could just inform the people with no support that their PC can't play that content. No problem.
This has nothing to do with openness. It has nothing to do with licenses. It has everything to do with Google wanting to rule the world according to the Ten Commandments of S. Brin, and fuck everybody who disagrees with them. H.264 is an industry-standard open codec, and actively not supporting it is goin to hurt Google only. Content producers are going to use H.264 and just tell Chrome users, all single digit percentage of them to go get a browser that supports real, open industry standards.
Slashdot Mirror
but if you look at the marketshare for Windows 7 mobile devices [electronista.com]
Wow, I wonder - were you born this stupid or did your parents have your brain removed after you were born? Really. Truly.
Here is a clue for you. The market share of a product that has not yet been released is usually about 0%. Plus/minus 0% or so. What did you think the market share of Windows Phone 7 devices was going to be on August 12, 2010? Particularly considering the fact that the numbers are 2Q210 numbers, in other words, the numbers talk about Windows Phone 7 market share from April-June of 2010. Windows Phone 7 was released on October 21st of 2010, and it was available in stores three weeks later.
If I was working at another company, I wouldn't hire software engineers that have been stuck in the early 1990s for two decades.
To be less facetious, Nokia needed a huge shake-up. Was it the right shake-up? Time will tell. At least half of the shake-up was absolutely right, Symbian is a joke, a bad joke, and it needed to be taken out back and shot. Sadly, nobody at Nokia has had the guts to do that. Elop did, and for that he should be praised. Then we can debate and speculate on whether WP7 was the correct replacement for Symbian. Just about anything would have been a good replacement for Symbian though. Even an embedded version of Windows 3.11.
I liked every Nokia phone (6310,6310i,E71,E63) i used, because i could 100% rely on it.
Why do you think that will change just because they get a better OS for the phone? From a user perspective, WP7 is heads and shoulders above anything Nokia has ever delivered, and arguably better than any of the current competition from Apple and Google. Got a WP7 phone for various reasons, and it beats the living daylights out of my iOS 4.x iPhone 3GS. I dropped Apple completely and do not look back. My Galaxy Tab, though somewhat fun, is not even close, neither in user experience nor in development experience for business/cloud apps. Not even in the same ballpark.
Having uses Nokia phone for at least the last 15 years my N95 will be the LAST Nokia
Just out of curiosity, why? Nokia makes great phones but CRAP software. WP7 is, from a user perspective, clearly on the forefront of the current market. What is so bad about this?
Issue isn't MS OS (which is a joke, at least now).
Curious as to how you define "a joke" here. I had the iPhone 3G for a year, upgraded to the 3GS when my contract ran out, had that for a year. Got a Windows Phone 7 that I needed for some work related development, and after about a week I stopped using the iPhone completely. What specifically do you feel is a joke with WP7. Just curious.
No, not really. Again, it is not storing your search as such, but ranking certain pages higher based on your search term. There is a difference between priming a search engine based on your searches and storing your personal information.
As it comes to spy-ware, does Google actually make anything else? Have you ever used, for example, GMail?
Probably not, since they didn't do anything at all. Google engineers, using the Bing toolbar, were priming Bing. The Google engineers were just too dumb to realize it.
Actually it is neither sleazy nor underhanded, it is just another evidence of brain-drain at Google. Brain down the drain. If you use the Bing search bar it will, unsurprisingly, prime Bing with the data gathered. The Google geniuses utterly misunderstood what they were seeing. MS wasn't copying Google, the Google engineers were priming Bing (and they were too stupid to realize it).
It doesn't, it just shows that if you use the Bing search bar it will, unsurprisingly, prime Bing with the data gathered. The google geniuses utterly misunderstood what they were seeing. MS wasn't copying Google, the Google engineers were priming Bing (and they were too stupid to realize it.
Have I said H.264 is not encumbered by patents? Nope. Have I said that Microsoft doesn't have patents that are relevant to H.264? No. I know both of these things quite well. I even know a bit about the patents involved, and it is quite possible that some of these patents also cover WebM, though it would take some work and probably legal action to find out.
Neither of these facts are relevant to your dumb-ass comments. Honestely.
If you had a single clue about video and video standards, standards that have "always" been open and that have "always" been governed by international standards bodies, you would know that Microsoft has a favorite video encoder. It is called VC1. You would also know that Microsoft has been trying to get H.264 replaced with VC1 as the industry standard for years. So far with limited success.
they feel the Cities know what's best for their community than you, the property owner
Which is the very definition of communism.
The fact that the courts have said it is OK doesn't change the very basic facts.
So, you are saying that because the courts have allowed it it is not a communist tool? How does that make it so?
Thing is to force everyone to buy an OS from Microsoft or Apple
You really need to go back to school and learn how to read.
the US government should claim eminent domain on all patents involving the h.264 technology
But Mr. Stalin, I thought you were dead. Apparently not.
Seriously. You really need to educate your self before making dumb statements like you did. Microsoft has been fighting H.264 as a video standard from the time it was conceived (even though Microsoft is on the comittee). Microsoft has been pushing VC1 over H.264 all the way, and that was, for example, the main reason Microsoft backed HD-DVD over the superior Blu-Ray until long after it was obvious HD-DVD was dead. Microsoft still won't support Blu-Ray for XBOX.
H.264 online has nothing to do with Microsoft. As they say "better to keep your mouth shut and have everyone think you an idiot than to open it and remove all doubt".
Defaults matter
No, they do not. IE will use the codecs on your PC, as it should. M$ is doing the right thing here. The whole purpose of having a generic way of installing codecs and other supporting functionality in an OS is for applications to make use of them. Google saying they will specifically include support for a particular codec is about as sane as having every single application ship with its own graphics and sound drivers.
Mine happens to be supported
What the article you are quoting actually says is that Google will continue to support H.264 through Flash (not a huge surprise). This makes sense for Google and supports what I and others have been saying: Google is primarily concerned how to gather as much of your personal info as possible and share this with Google advertisers. Flash gives them much better tools in this regard than does the <video> tag.
Creating an incentive for WebM adoption is exactly what Google has done
or, they have ensured that Flash will be the main mode of delivering video in the future. That would be consistent with their goals of making money off of your personal information, and it is in line with what Google says in the link you used.
They claim to... lines up 100%
You read what you read, and I read this: H.264 plays an important role in video and the vast majority of the H.264 videos on the web today are viewed in plug-ins such as Flash and Silverlight. These plug-ins are and will continue to be supported in Chrome
In other words -
the vast majority of professional content producers use H.264, and they are going to continue to to so. If we encourage H.264 content distributed using the <video> tag, we will not be able to layer advertising onto that video, and therefore we'll lose ad money. We will therefore only support H.264 in plugins where we can add advertising content and sell your personal information.
you could try to be less of a dick about it
I could. I might even try.
Microsoft ... have chosen H.264 as the only one they will support
BZZT! WRONG!
I believe Google might add H.264 support back into Chrome
People also believe virgins can give birth to sons of imaginary etheral entities and that clinically dead people can be arisen just by magical mumbling. That doens't make it a rational belief. Google is removing support for H.264 to kill it as a distribution codec. No more, no less.
Graits standards should be mandatory
A business as an individual should be free to operate within the law. "Should be mandatory" is something that Kim Il Jung and Joseph Stalin likes but that has somehow fallen out of favor among the thinking population.
I would never presume to say anything about what Google should and should not do, but I can analyze their motives.
I believe that is the goal of the action Google is taking
Google cares about ruling the world according to the book of Google and about selling your personal information to as many advertisers as they can. They don't give a flying dung pile about Gratis or Free.
Software companies are scared of free (as in no cost) software, because they realise that if they have to face competition, eventually it will force prices down to nothing
Free software is a myth. It doesn't exist. Someone is always paying. For Linux, for example, where the vast majority of contributions happens from paid developers, the customers of the companies dedicating resources to Linux are paying. One way or another.
The fact that you are not paying for the privilege of running Linux doesn't mean it is free, it just means that you are a leech and that some other poor slob is carrying you.
If left to a free market, software would become a business where no money can be made
This is actually pure rubbish. The cost of software today is so high that specialized business have to thrive in the market.
development would be done by companies using it to aid other lines of business
Ah, to be young and dumb again. Sorry, but it used to be like that. Universities didn't teach software development, they taught maths. Software was only developed as a side-business to sell hardware or services. Nobody made money out of software. Tell you what: You don't want that back. It makes for poor software made by people who have no concept of what the end-user wants or needs. It is an unsustainable model, and it will send us back to the 1970s software quality wise. Want proof? Three words. "Linux Desktop Software". I am a big fan of Linux. I use it personally and professionaly almost everywhere. For all the software that exists on multiple platforms (GUI oriented software) it is always a nightmare to use on Linux compared to any of the other platforms. There is one Unix with a decent interface and that is OSX.
Google most likely realise this, which is why they make their money from offering services.
And that is just clueless. Google makes money selling your personal data to advertisers, not from offering services. I don't even think Google has a professional services arm at all.
To produce H.264 content you will need a content-production piece of software. This software can be free or it can be for pay. For-pay content production software will generally fully support H.264, Gratis software will obviously not be able to do this if there is a license fee for H.264 encoding.
So, how is allowing (as opposed to mandating) any particular codec limiting choice? How would, in any possible way, allowing H.264, the only open standard video codec with a good online profile, in Chrome limit choice? Nobody has argued that Google should not support WebM, by all means, they should. They should also support H.264. In fact they should support all codecs instaled on the users computer.
By limiting our choice to a single codec Google is the one limiting the field. Google is the one preventing me from publishing in the format that I find most suitable for my content.
Google is doing this so that Google can run the world. It is a way to limit choice not expand it. IE 9 will support whatever codec I have, it will hardware accelerate any video stream where the codec supports hardware acceleration. Google will not support HW acceleration since no HW out there will accelerate WebM.
Please elaborate on the understanding and background that leads you to conclude that limiting the choice for the entire world to one single codec is more freedom and openness than it is to allow both the producer and the consumer to chose which codec to use.
Using the codecs on the computer leaves the choice to the user, that is freedom. What FF and Google are doing is the opposite of freedom, they force the user to use what the FF and Google teams are mandating.
If Devs from FF and Opera have issues with using codecs on the existing computer they are just being lazy. The main issue with doing this is control and the ability to "pre-approve" a codec for a specific browser. Again, FF and Chrome are limiting the choice for the user. How that is freedom and openness is not entirely clear. It is like the old Ford "saying": You can have your car in any color you want, as long as it is black.
and the funny thing here is that H.264 is the open standard governed by a standards body. WebM, though free, is closed and owned by a single company. So, we are supporting open standards or...
That is all well and good, but, the fact stands that it is impossible to legally create an open source H.264 enabled browser
BZZZZT!!! WRONG! You can use a browser that supports playing any media content for which your host computer has a codec. It isn't even particularly difficult to do so. You can therefore play any H.264 content you wish in your open source browser. You won't even have to pay a licensing fee.
No magic required, just no need to rule the world like Google wants to. H.264 is, with some margin, the only modern and open standard for video available. It is also the codec in which all the content producers are going to publish their content. I hope you prefer You Tube kittens over ESPN and Comedy Central.
If you, as you should, use the codecs installed on the computer on which your browser runs, the licensing cost for shipping H.264 support, contingent upon the PC having an H.264 decoder (the majority of them do) is zero. Nix. Nada. Zilch. I think Google can afford to ship when paying $0.00 in licensing cost. Don't you?
This has nothing to do with licensing cost and everything to do with Google wanting to rule the world.
You won't even have to pay $0.10 once. Not ever. Even with full H.264 support. Even if you ship a billion browsers. You never have to pay ever. This is not about licensing.
Google doesn't have to pay anything at all. They can use the codecs installed on the computer. Some doesn't have H.264 support, most do. Google could just inform the people with no support that their PC can't play that content. No problem.
This has nothing to do with openness. It has nothing to do with licenses. It has everything to do with Google wanting to rule the world according to the Ten Commandments of S. Brin, and fuck everybody who disagrees with them. H.264 is an industry-standard open codec, and actively not supporting it is goin to hurt Google only. Content producers are going to use H.264 and just tell Chrome users, all single digit percentage of them to go get a browser that supports real, open industry standards.