On May 15, 3:17 am, Chris Adamson <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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).
I find a statement like "non-starter in the real world" just as sweeping and overgeneralized as "ogg should be everywhere". The standard used to distribute video is pretty unimportant, what matters is that people can consume it where, when and how they want. If YouTube switched to Ogg encoding, people would only care if it made life harder for them, if it made life easier I believe it would go without comment (maybe even some kudos, but people tend to complain rather than praise). Sure, camcorders are probably unlikely to change established standards, but since just about all video gets transcoded in some way (usually for size) before it gets served over the net, that's just a hardware detail. The point is that streaming and the web are the distribution methods that are likely to be the most important in the coming years, and who gains control of that (if anyone does) will decide a lot about consumer rights or lack thereof. > 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. But this is the quote taken directly from Jobs' missive, and it's not even taken out of context: "Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript – all open standards. Apple’s mobile devices all ship with high performance, low power implementations of these open standards. HTML5, the new web standard that has been adopted by Apple, Google and many others, lets web developers create advanced graphics, typography, animations and transitions without relying on third party browser plug-ins (like Flash). HTML5 is completely open and controlled by a standards committee, of which Apple is a member." That's a fabulous statement if true, but if I even catch a whiff of a video standard that Apple is pushing that will only play on Apple blessed platforms, there is a massive I told you so coming! If Steve is as good as his word, these open standards that Apple believes should pertain to the web will provide all platforms an equal footing, right? That's certainly what it sounds like to me. Now, who believes that will be the case versus what I suspect is a more realistic fulfillment of the Apple vision, where it works perfectly with MacOSX and on the iPhone and iPad, works somewhat less well on Windows desktop machines (does anyone think that iTunes on Windows is anything but slow, buggy and uncomfortable these days, it used to be a lot better). But, enough speculation, I think we are likely to see some real evidence on the openness vision pretty soon. Apple bought Lala - a nice little music service I used (on Linux too) and really liked. They just culled it, and rumor has it that they will be bringing out iTunes live based on it. Anyone want to hazard a guess whether Linux, Solaris, Android, Palm, Windows Mobile or anything other than Apple products and windows will be supported by the new service? How committed are Apple to open content really? I think we are about to find out. Alternatively, does the openness stop at the web, and not include other content like audio and video. Certainly this statement leaves that question open - it masterfully implies one thing (openness) but could go either way. If so, that question should be cleared up before everyone jumps on the "flash should die" bandwagon. (Incidentally, Lala used flash, certainly not a perfect solution, but it did work on quite a few platforms and devices, and would have probably worked nicely on the upcoming Android 2.2 with it's flash support). > > 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. > True, but neither are Sony, Nintendo, XBox etc. writing about how they support open content on the web. Also, let's not underestimate how widespread Windows became despite being inferior in user experience to the Mac. Cost was probably one factor, but openness, particularly to developers, was another that worked in its favor. > 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. It is a separate issue until that DRM makes it on to web content - then it is no longer a separate issue, it is *the* issue - who controls the access you have to online media. Right now Adobe has a big hand in that, and it kind of sucks (particularly as you point out later for BSD and other OSs that don't have flash video available - including the iPhone and iPad of course). Fast forward to a future with "open" H.264 video with DRM available only on Apple platforms and Windows (going by Apple's current record, that is the extent of the support outside of apple technologies) and has anything improved? I think not. > 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). But, according to the Steve Jobs article, the web is what we are talking about here. Apple already has its closed standards for video delivery onto its platforms, what it is trying to do (apparently, this is of course all my opinion) is extend that reach onto the web. As I have said before, I would absolutely love to be proved wrong - it would be easy enough, Apple could just push totally open video standards that work everywhere on all platforms equally. I will then stand there quietly while every Apple fan on this group tells me in turn "I told you so" and you will not hear a peep out of me (mainly because I will be happily watching videos on my Linux boxes). I don't see that as a likely outcome though. In the second response you ask: > how would we feel about Flash if they > were neglecting Linux like they did for the first half of the 2000s? > Let's also note that their support for "many other platforms" only > goes so far… Flash doesn't support other F/OSS operating systems like > BSD or Haiku (nor do I suppose we really expect them to), they don't > support Linux on any CPU architecture other than x86, and their > official distro support <http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/ > systemreqs/#os> is limited to Red Hat Enterprise 5, openSUSE 11, and > Ubuntu 7 and up. Well, it would suck, and I would be complaining about it loudly as a Linux user (and I was back in the day, quite loudly). The point is, I don't see this play by Apple as doing anything but making it worse! It's simple - more platforms == more open == more better. Flash already has x64 implementation beyond the 32 bit x86, but I am not going to get distracted by that. What does it matter if H.264 players can play on any platform out there, if the DRM to decode the video is only available for 2 or 3 blessed platforms? If, as you I think correctly point out, media will only be available from the rights holders if it is DRMd, then who controls the DRM controls the media (and pretty much the world) and this is, I believe, the play Apple is trying to make under the guise of open standards. Is my analysis wrong? Does someone want to make me happy and tell me it's going to be alright for us Linux guys (not to forget Trond and his love for Solaris as well). Dick > > --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 > athttp://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. -- 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.
