There could be a legal way for them to say "nope, not us, we're just a gateway for that ISP over there, you know - the one called Verizon Wireless Gateway Services" or something similar.
Interestingly, there is an organization called Wireless Data Service Provider Corporation which is the listed owner for the IP addresses of AT&T Mobility and (AFAIK) Cellco Partnership/Verizon Wireless, and I think other providers might use this too. On my AT&T device, traffic seems to travel over att.net, though...
Unless there are laws against that sort of thing, they can. But in this universe, they aren't.
Evidence?
Cellco Partnership offers phone services and provides Internet services. They seem to meet the definitions of "phone company" and "internet service provider".
They could have some clever corporate structure; for example, the local phone company's DSL service was provided by a subsidiary of the phone company's parent company, and the DSL carrier equipment was maintained by another subsidiary of the phone company's parent company. In this structure, the phone company is not an ISP, but a company with a very similar name, branding, and integrated billing system is.
I suspect it might also avoid scrutiny from antitrust lawyers more easily.
Antitrust laws don't apply to big companies just because they're big companies...
I'd certainly love a processor like that; it'd be incredible.
Significantly more incredible one or two quad-core AMD or Intel x86-64 CPUs?
Such a processor might just sway Apple to go back to the Power architecture
Why? Does IBM have anything that compares in power usage and performance to a mobile x86-64 CPU, such as the 2.53 GHz Core 2 Duo CPU in my laptop with a 25W TDP along with a low-power chipset and GPU, such as the nVidia 9400M? Apple doesn't sell any systems that benefit from the huge bandwidth that makes POWER7 so great for systems with many sockets; at most, Apple systems are dual-socket Nehalem (XServe and Mac Pro). I doubt that Apple will even make any systems using the Nehalem-EX.
Is there an untapped market for running OS X on systems with 32 sockets?
That is a very powerful "at least". Oracle does not sell Linux. You can download OEL. You cannot buy it. You can buy SUPPORT for it, but there is no way to "buy" OEL.
Patches are not freely downloadable from Oracle; these require an active support subscription.
I seriously doubt open source software would be anywhere as near as useful as it is today without the extensive corporate sponsorship and contributions. I don't think it'd be very competitive outside of perhaps academia.
However to expect a corporation to fund a project indefinitely is ludicrous
I didn't say otherwise. I really don't care about accessible open-source software.
I think you underestimate the importance of corporate contributions. A more accurate statement would be: "When there is a need, a suitable commercial product will be licensed, or if none is available and the need is sufficient, the code will get written."
My preference would be Canonical (Ubuntu), but RedHat would be a decent fit, and I could even live with Novell.
SInce when has Canonical ever contributed anything major to the non-Ubuntu community?
With their more or less nonexistent track record in doing so, and uncertain financial future, preferring Canonical only seems rational if you want to see failure...
That division was a good thing for society; the loss of it is a *bad* thing for society, and the fact that nobody is stepping in to pick it up is a bad thing too
Lots of things are good for society. If this is so important, why don't *you* volunteer to help with open source accessibility?
Oracle is selling Linux. Or at least "support" for it, which includes patches. Now they're also selling Solaris, or at least "support" for it.
A lot of Linux gets deployed in government settings, not because somebody sells it, but because a local agency, school or office picks it up and realizing it is useful and free.
Really? You mean there aren't a whole lot of RHEL or SLES subscriptions from the US government?
If accessibility development for Linux goes away, U.S. government offices and schools won't be able to use Linux.
So someone else should subsidize accessibility development for the US government?
It would seem strange to drop support for OS X 10.4, released in 2005, while keeping support for Windows 2000, released in 2000. Even if Win2000 support is dropped, XP was released in 2001 is certainly staying.
The Win32 API hasn't changed as much; one can still use the latest compilers (VC++ or GCC) to make programs that run on Windows 2000 and all newer versions of Windows. This does not seem to be the case for OS X.
Dropping OS X 10.4 support is relatively minor compared to Firefox Linux support; Firefox 3 (released in 2008) didn't compile on RHEL 4 (released in 2005) using the distribution's included dependencies. Red Hat made it work, but I think the Firefox 3 package includes newer versions of certain dependencies used only by the Firefox binary.
Most netbooks use those craptacular Broadcom chips.
I've seen many with (presumably cheaper) Ralink or Realtek chips. And I improved wireless performance in one netbook by replacing it with a Broadcom card.
In my experience the cheapest way to make the user experience better on a random netbook better is slapping a Intel 3945 in it.
The netbooks I have used have poor quality antennas. I've used the same model Broadcom card in a netbook and a laptop (MacBook Pro), and the MBP had significantly better wireless performance on the same network. (Both were 802.11g, so it had nothing to do with the MBP having antennas intended for use on 5 GHz.)
Most of those are not relevant in regards to HTML5. Apple's portable devices are, since they can browse the web.
All of these devices are relevant. The same H.264 program can be streamed by a HTML5 client, by Flash, by a video player program, etc. It would be wasteful to have two separate copies of video for devices that support HTML5 and devices that do not.
Many devices supporting video playback share hardware; for example, the chips found in many standalone media streamers were designed for use in Blu-ray players.
Blu-ray players have Internet connectivity and many already have video streaming
PCs have Internet connectivity and web browsers
Many new digital television receivers have internet capability; in the USA, DirecTV receivers can stream video over the internet
IPTV systems are by definition connected to an IP network and probably the Internet
Portable media players and cell phones are often connected to the internet via cellular and/or wifi networks
Videoconference systems are usually connected to IP networks as well
And if you limit the discussion to mobile devices with web browsers, there's more than Apple. There are Androids, BlackBerries, Windows Mobile, WebOS, etc. - and most of these devices already have H.264 support.
Go to the nearest electric/computer parts shop. Go to the shelf where all the multimedia player/harddisk enclosure are. You know : black box, you buy one, optionally slap a harddrive into it, optionally plug an ethernet cable and put it under the TV set (Kiss, Tvix, etc.).
The market for these devices is quite small compared to that for Blu-ray players, HD satellite receivers, Android/BlackBerry/Apple mobile phones, full-size PCs, etc.
Though some of those are relevant too, the important point about the Apple devices is not so much that they support H.264, but that they don't support anything else (at least, nothing else relevant to the Web)
Most of these devices have the same limitations as Apple devices; they decode a few things in hardware and nothing else:
all Blu-ray players: support MPEG-2, VC-1, and H.264
many new PCs, including just about all with NVIDIA or ATI GPUs and many Intel GPUs: have at best MPEG-2, VC-1, and H.264 hardware decoding support
nearly all HD satellite receivers, and many countries' terrestrial HD receivers (Europe): support MPEG-2 and H.264
IPTV systems: support H.264 usually
portable media players / cell phones with video players, including Android and BlackBerry devices: support H.263 and H.264
videoconference systems: support H.263 and H.264
Apple devices use the same hardware decoders as other companies do.
This comparison shows that Theora is close to Google's speed-optimized H.264 encoder at 500 kbit/sec. Not better. The author of the page tries to confuse the issue, but admits, "In the case of the 499kbit/sec H.264 I believe that under careful comparison many people would prefer the H.264 video."
You think ATI and NVIDIA write the code for DirectX.
Of course they do.
Even if they do they are source sharing with Microsoft.
Do you have evidence for this?
I may not write the drivers, but I guarantee the ones that have been reversed engineered by the FOSS guys will work a hell of a lot better
Why would community written drivers be any better? How are you so confident? Do you personally write drivers for other companies' hardware?
More importantly, when would they be better? Drivers written by the vendor will typically:
be released at the same time as the hardware
be tested before release on many hardware combinations
share code with the vendor's drivers for other platforms
be written by an organization with a financial interest in further hardware sales
be written by those who can communicate with hardware engineers and teams working on drivers for other platforms
It is entirely possible that a FOSS team might create a better driver than the vendor, and this does occur. But given the resource advantages, a vendor can create a better driver in less man-hours given competent people.
Slashdot Mirror
Interestingly, there is an organization called Wireless Data Service Provider Corporation which is the listed owner for the IP addresses of AT&T Mobility and (AFAIK) Cellco Partnership/Verizon Wireless, and I think other providers might use this too. On my AT&T device, traffic seems to travel over att.net, though...
Evidence?
Cellco Partnership offers phone services and provides Internet services. They seem to meet the definitions of "phone company" and "internet service provider".
They could have some clever corporate structure; for example, the local phone company's DSL service was provided by a subsidiary of the phone company's parent company, and the DSL carrier equipment was maintained by another subsidiary of the phone company's parent company. In this structure, the phone company is not an ISP, but a company with a very similar name, branding, and integrated billing system is.
Seems to me that the US is required by law to make irrational purchasing decisions.
Why can't Verizon Wireless can be both?
Antitrust laws don't apply to big companies just because they're big companies...
Significantly more incredible one or two quad-core AMD or Intel x86-64 CPUs?
Why? Does IBM have anything that compares in power usage and performance to a mobile x86-64 CPU, such as the 2.53 GHz Core 2 Duo CPU in my laptop with a 25W TDP along with a low-power chipset and GPU, such as the nVidia 9400M? Apple doesn't sell any systems that benefit from the huge bandwidth that makes POWER7 so great for systems with many sockets; at most, Apple systems are dual-socket Nehalem (XServe and Mac Pro). I doubt that Apple will even make any systems using the Nehalem-EX.
Is there an untapped market for running OS X on systems with 32 sockets?
Is there anyone who can afford POWER7, but can't afford a RHEL or SLES subscription?
Patches are not freely downloadable from Oracle; these require an active support subscription.
Are you really well aware of the role that corporate contributions have played? It's much more than one large company helping out with one project. The Apache Software Foundation and Free Software Foundation have significant corporate sponsorship. 75% of Linux kernel code is written by paid developers. Continued Firefox development is made possible via search royalties. Red Hat is significantly involved in many of the projects that make modern Linux systems useful.
I seriously doubt open source software would be anywhere as near as useful as it is today without the extensive corporate sponsorship and contributions. I don't think it'd be very competitive outside of perhaps academia.
I didn't say otherwise. I really don't care about accessible open-source software.
Is Section 508 something more than a set of obligations for Federal government agencies?
How much of what Oracle sells is subject to this?
It seems to apply to end-user hardware and software, which would exclude Oracle's main database product...
since the 90s at the very latest.
I think you underestimate the importance of corporate contributions. A more accurate statement would be: "When there is a need, a suitable commercial product will be licensed, or if none is available and the need is sufficient, the code will get written."
SInce when has Canonical ever contributed anything major to the non-Ubuntu community?
With their more or less nonexistent track record in doing so, and uncertain financial future, preferring Canonical only seems rational if you want to see failure...
Lots of things are good for society. If this is so important, why don't *you* volunteer to help with open source accessibility?
And if the "good" things drive a company towards failure? Then there is less competition, less employees paying taxes to pay for social programs that benefit those who need accessibility features, etc.
I think I've read this before...
Oracle is selling Linux. Or at least "support" for it, which includes patches. Now they're also selling Solaris, or at least "support" for it.
Really?
You mean there aren't a whole lot of RHEL or SLES subscriptions from the US government?
So someone else should subsidize accessibility development for the US government?
The Win32 API hasn't changed as much; one can still use the latest compilers (VC++ or GCC) to make programs that run on Windows 2000 and all newer versions of Windows. This does not seem to be the case for OS X.
Dropping OS X 10.4 support is relatively minor compared to Firefox Linux support; Firefox 3 (released in 2008) didn't compile on RHEL 4 (released in 2005) using the distribution's included dependencies. Red Hat made it work, but I think the Firefox 3 package includes newer versions of certain dependencies used only by the Firefox binary.
I've seen many with (presumably cheaper) Ralink or Realtek chips. And I improved wireless performance in one netbook by replacing it with a Broadcom card.
The netbooks I have used have poor quality antennas. I've used the same model Broadcom card in a netbook and a laptop (MacBook Pro), and the MBP had significantly better wireless performance on the same network. (Both were 802.11g, so it had nothing to do with the MBP having antennas intended for use on 5 GHz.)
A lot of HD satellite receiver models may use Linux, but is this meaningful to the end user? Can the software be replaced on popular models?
It might be possible with receivers outside of North America, but not in the US or Canada.
Designers will be hard-pressed to find an existing SoC/GPU with Theora hardware decoding or encoding. Not so for H.264.
All of these devices are relevant. The same H.264 program can be streamed by a HTML5 client, by Flash, by a video player program, etc. It would be wasteful to have two separate copies of video for devices that support HTML5 and devices that do not.
Many devices supporting video playback share hardware; for example, the chips found in many standalone media streamers were designed for use in Blu-ray players.
And if you limit the discussion to mobile devices with web browsers, there's more than Apple. There are Androids, BlackBerries, Windows Mobile, WebOS, etc. - and most of these devices already have H.264 support.
The market for these devices is quite small compared to that for Blu-ray players, HD satellite receivers, Android/BlackBerry/Apple mobile phones, full-size PCs, etc.
Most of these devices have the same limitations as Apple devices; they decode a few things in hardware and nothing else:
Apple devices use the same hardware decoders as other companies do.
It's much more than just Apple's portable devices; they just happened to include H.264 first. H.264 decoders exist in:
This comparison shows that Theora is close to Google's speed-optimized H.264 encoder at 500 kbit/sec. Not better. The author of the page tries to confuse the issue, but admits, "In the case of the 499kbit/sec H.264 I believe that under careful comparison many people would prefer the H.264 video."
Clarification: ATI and NVIDIA (and other graphics driver authors) write the code to implement Direct3D rendering on their hardware.
Of course they do.
Do you have evidence for this?
Why would community written drivers be any better? How are you so confident? Do you personally write drivers for other companies' hardware?
More importantly, when would they be better? Drivers written by the vendor will typically:
It is entirely possible that a FOSS team might create a better driver than the vendor, and this does occur. But given the resource advantages, a vendor can create a better driver in less man-hours given competent people.
No, the implication is that new versions will be used with GPUs having WDDM drivers. XPDM drivers work with any version.