Dick-- Comments inline.
On May 14, 1:12 pm, Dick Wall <[email protected]> wrote: > If this was directed at me - you are wasting your time. Do I want a > standard that works on Linux in addition to Windows and Mac OS X? You > bet, and that standard should work on Android, Palm, hell any device > out there that can get on the internet, if it is to be called > completely open. At no time have I held up ogg theora as the way it > must be, nor will I, however if ogg theora works everywhere I am for > it, in the same way that if Apple's proposed standard doesn't - I am > against it. In no way was comedy bit directed personally at you. I don't think you flog Ogg and/or Theora. I was really thinking more of the knee- jerk reaction we see from the Slashdot-type readership, the mob that's been trained to say this kind of thing because their peers all agree with it. Enlightened Linux fans realized long ago that an "everything should be in Ogg" argument is a non-starter in the real world (ESR was saying this like four years ago). > My argument is against the (assumed on my part) hypocrisy of Jobs' > long article on openness. I am pretty sure Apple is going to be > implementing DRM for their vision of the open video internet they are > pushing, and if they do I am damn certain it won't work on Linux. If I > am wrong, so be it (and I will be delighted), but if not - people need > to see the "flash isn't open" argument for the misdirection it is, and > decide whether they want Flash proprietary but somewhat widely > available, Apple proprietary DRM (and much less available), or > something else. As someone (maybe Daring Fireball?) pointed out, the story is that Adobe isn't open, but say they are. Apple isn't open, and don't claim to be. I find it's very helpful to shift the analogy of Apple's products from being like other computers to being like console and hand-held videogame platforms. Actually, devices like XBox 360's and Nintendo DS's are far more tightly controlled than iPhones and iPads -- development tools are hugely expensive, licensing restrictions are far more severe, and the manufacturers rigidly control retail distribution (e.g., games can only be on the shelves for a certain number of months, after which they're pulled, unless they qualify for a "greatest hits" type release). Still, like Apple's mobile devices, consoles, and handheld games are also closed systems that, if they adopt any open standards, do so only for the sake of making the product more appealing for their own end-users. Nobody at Sony or Nintendo claims to be promoting standards or formats that are going to be of any use to Linux, or computer users of any stripe. Let's also note that all these devices are _very_ popular with end users. The simplicity and enjoyability of the end-user experience should not be underestimated. > I totally know this - I also have videos on my netbook right now that > use H.264 and they look fabulous. Interestingly I had to rip them from > the DVD copies that I own because the digital copy included in the > package of blu-ray, DVD and digital copy is DRM'd and only works on > windows or mac. If this is the "open" standard that Steve is peddling > to replace flash (which does play nicely on Linux and many other > platforms - not all for sure, but more than Apple's stuff) - I ain't > buying or even downloading for free. The H.264 codec is open to the degree that it was developed by MPEG, an ISO working group, and ratified through a public standards process. It's not free, because it contains patented technologies that require royalty payments. The DRM on DVDs, digital copies, and iTunes is a separate issue. > Also - on your follow up message about Google and On2, I agree it's > *probably* pointless for Google to try and push On2 instead of H.264 > (UNLESS they do it to to combat H.264 with DRM as the only option), > but don't assume Google could not pull it off if they wanted to at > least establish it as a second standard, perhaps even one that wins > over time. If open and sufficiently available, they already have a > huge driver in YouTube to get it out there for people to use (wanna > watch this in YouTube, just let us download this plugin quickly for > your browser and away you go - bingo - you are now On2!). After all it > worked well for flash (quick download, flawlessly executed). As Steve > seems to have worked out, in this new world order content is king, and > Google has quite a lot of content now... Google's reach ends with the web. Of course, that's huge, but consider all the other communications media that deliver video: broadcast, cable, and satellite television, physical media (DVD, Blu- Ray), video telephony, personal devices (camcorders, Flips), etc. Since I came to Java from the cable TV world, I see web video as just part of the picture, and doubt that Google has the reach to not only flip web video, but to extend that into other media. Especially since the differences between the various current-generation codecs really aren't that great (they all have similar performance characteristics, because at the end of the day, they're almost all based off the same DCT algorithms, and then add in a lot of the same ideas to achieve additional compression, like motion estimation… they're already pretty close to the limits of information entropy). --Chris -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
