1. I think the call for replacing Flash with HTML5 ducks the question of DRM. There's nothing in the spec for the video tag that covers DRM, so it's not clear to me that it would even be suitable for DRM'ed video. Apple could embrace-and-extend the tag, which I think is what you're afraid of, but with Mac at 5% market share and iPhone OS under 1%, it wouldn't work. More likely, those services would attend to iPhone OS users by just writing a native app, like Netflix, YouTube, ABC, Crunchyroll, etc. have done.
2. For non-DRM media, an HTML5 web with H.264 payloads will play in more places than Flash currently does. For DRM, it will likely be less (or we'll see more of the current scenario: Flash on the web, native apps for iPhone OS and possibly other platforms, like Android). 3. The idea of "openness" is only one of the six points in Jobs' essay, specifically that as a multimedia runtime for the web, JavaScript+CSS+<canvas>+<video> is a public standard, clearly and obviously much more "open" than the proprietary Flash (whether it's seriously viable as a replacement technology, especially in the absence of designer-friendly tools is another matter entirely). The rest of his essay doesn't address openness, and indeed, the last section is explicitly about Apple maintaining control of its own platform by disallowing intermediate layers. Having said that, do I think he cares if Hulu works on Linux? Of course not: Linux is a competitor. It's up to the Linux community to solve this problem for themselves., which is where I think they fail badly. To ensure that content providers take care of them, they need to be picking up millions of new users every month, like iPhone OS is doing, not posting millions of strident blogs every month. In response to your final graf, about popularity: this is why I brought up the statistics about relative web and TV viewership (the latter has a more than 50-to-1 advantage), and the idea that ecosystem benefits like encoder competition trickle down to end-users. Commercial interests drive competition and innovation in H.264 encoding, which pays off not only for them (cable companies can get more channels out of their existing coax or fiber), but eventually for everyone else who consumes 264, including Flash players (since Flash adopted 264 as a video codec back in 2007). The widespread commercial interest in 264 also means there's hardware support for it, which is critical on mobile devices. Of course, the best way to beat Jobs is to prove him wrong. Maybe Android can do that. It's certainly doing well at the moment. -Chris On May 16, 10:56 pm, Dick Wall <[email protected]> wrote: > OK Chris, let's boil it down to the simplest of simple questions, > since your answers don't seem to be addressing my points at all. > > 1. Do you think that Apple's suggested replacement web video delivery > mechanism (the whole combination of codec, DRM, player, basically the > stack that it takes to get video to play in a browser on an end user > machine - what flash is predominantly used for right now) will work on > all platforms well, including Linux, Solaris, Android, Palm OS, etc. > in addition to Apple platforms and Windows? > > 2. Will Apple's video delivery solution play in more, or less, places > than flash video does right now? > > 3. Given that Apple switches to proprietary desktop apps for delivery > of content instead of the web as soon as they can (iTunes, iBooks, > etc. etc.) do you really not find it the height of hypocrisy for Steve > Jobs to wrap his missive against flash up under the colors of > openness? > > You keep separating out DRM from H.264 and technically you are > correct. Pragmatically I just want content to play on the devices I > want it to play on over the web. Personally I believe this is a play > by Apple against that. Flash does let me do that on most devices (more > all the time - e.g Android 2.2). In the end, my point is it just has > to work. > > Oh, and if you just look at how entrenched H.264 video is, what about > Flash? Sure, many flash players are playing H.264, and many aren't. > Point is youtube, vimeo and any other video site out there on the web > (parleys.com included) are using flash. If market share is your > argument, flash would seem to be indicated as the way, not H.264. > These are not my opinions, but it does show how the logic of "it's got > more market share" can be twisted around. > > On May 16, 5:10 pm, Chris Adamson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > A couple of open-ended replies… hopefully getting off the specific > > points and on to bigger issues that I really hope people will > > consider. > > > * Dick cites, with seeming skepticism, Jobs' stated preference for an > > open web. Of course Apple wants an open web -- when Windows has an 18- > > to-1 market share advantage over its nearest competitor <http:// > > marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8>, > > anything closed on the web is going to tend to prefer Windows and > > marginalize Apple's (and everyone else's) platforms. This is the long- > > standing gripe of Mac owners about Flash, that its performance is > > wildly behind that of Windows (leading some to speculate that Flash's > > internals are tightly coupled to Windows, dooming ports to other > > platforms to inferiority). I do think Apple's idea openness stops at > > the web. That much seems obvious. Still, when Apple goes closed, > > they do so through native applications. For example, they created the > > iTunes Music Store not as a web storefront, but as part of the iTunes > > application (and later, as a stand-alone app for iPhone OS). > > > * I don't doubt for a second that Lala will drop its cross-platform > > support, if Lala even continues to exist in its current form. That > > should be expected of a company that gets bought out: their mission > > changes. As an independent company, they tried to maximize revenue by > > getting the largest audience, and being cross-platform helped. As > > part of Apple, the employees and their technology will presumably be > > made to serve Apple's strategic goals. This is normal and happens all > > the time, even if it does suck for loyal customers who are left in the > > lurch by the change in direction. Surely Apple fans remember when > > Bungie stopped developing Mac games and started focusing on XBox once > > they were purchased by Microsoft. Still, I bet you won't see an Apple- > > only Lala web experience - the stuff will likely get assimilated into > > iTunes (cf., early point about preference for native apps for closed > > services) > > > * I don't think it's an overstatement to say that Theora (or VP8 for > > that matter) is a "non-starter in the real world". It's essential to > > understand how total H.264's adoption by the industry -- not just > > Apple -- really is. When I checked some content-oriented websites, I > > found that DV magazine (which focuses on equipment) had 0 hits for > > theora, streamingmedia.com had 11 hits (mostly opinion pieces about > > codec politics and not reviews or tutorials) versus 248 for H.264, and > > legendary retailer B&H Photo and Video in NYC assumes that "theora" is > > a misspelling of "theory" (by comparison, they have 269 products that > > use H.264). Links at my blog <http://www.subfurther.com/blog/? > > p=1065>, which you should NOT read if you don't want to see me ripping > > on the FSF. > > > And it's also important to put web video in context: while it is > > growing very quickly, online video viewing (as measured in minutes) is > > outnumbered by television viewing by a factor of more than 50-to-1 > > <http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/americans-watching- > > more-tv-than-ever/>. Even as that grows, it's not going to be big > > enough to be able to legitimize an H.264 rival before H.264 is simply > > displaced by the Next Big Thing > > > * Another thing that a lot of people don't understand about video is > > that (very important) *an encoder is not a state machine*. By that, I > > mean that there is more to codecs that just the technical traits of > > the relevant algorithms... the ecosystem around the codec may actually > > be more important. The MPEG codecs have always standardized decoding, > > but not encoding. Any process that produces a bitstream playable by > > the reference decoder is a valid encoder. The idea of this is to > > foster competition among encoders (which is thought to be better able > > to fund R&D). The result of this can be rather amazing. According to > > the MPEG-IF (a separate entity from MPEG-LA), the bitrate required for > > "broadcast quality" encoding of MPEG-2 dropped from over 6 Mbps to 2 > > Mbps over just a few years <http://www.mpegif.org/public/documents/ > > vault/m4-out-20027.pdf>. This is a HUGE win: if quality is constant, > > as in web video, you send the same quality file in 1/3 the time. If > > bandwidth is constant, as in satellite TV, you get to cram more > > channels onto one transponder, or more videos onto your iPod. The > > takeaway is that the popularity and size of the ecosystem around a > > codec does matter: it produces better encoding software, more (and > > more knowledgeable) professional compressionists, etc. Choosing the > > little-used Theora and VP8 codecs opts out of these manifest > > advantages. > > > * Yes, H.264 is patent-encumbered and requires royalties at several > > toll booths (always encoding and decoding, potentially large-scale > > distribution too... see <http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/ > > ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=65403>). But, I don't think a lot of > > readers here understand that the software community's distaste for > > patents is not shared by the world at large. Indeed, when I was in > > the television industry, we didn't think twice about adopting > > proprietary tools and formats. In fact, most of the stuff we worked > > with at CNN was known by their trademarked names: "chyron" (character > > generator), "avid" (video editor), "grass valley" (video switcher), > > "ultimatte" (still image compositing and effects), "betacam" (a Sony > > videocassette format), etc. The anti-patent advocates have done > > nothing to convince people outside of the software industry that > > patents are unconscionable and to be avoided; as a result, few video > > professionals know or care about H.264's patent encumbrances, as the > > licensing costs are so low (relative to the rest of the costs of being > > in the video biz at all), and the advantages of a patent-free format > > are irrelevant to them. > > > Also, the objections to H.264 seem like rather selective outrage. > > Compact Disc, 802.11 wi-fi, and USB are all exactly like H.264 in that > > they are patent-encumbered, royalty-owing public standards established > > by industry bodies. Are there any software engineers who seriously > > don't use any of these? > > > So, big points that I hope people will take away: > > * Codec and DRM are two totally different things. Theora wrapped > > in Apple FairPlay would be just as unplayable on Linux. > > * My original post speculated that moving the DRM to the network, > > through schemes like HTTP Live Streaming, offers some hope that DRM- > > crippled products might at least be able to support more platforms > > than client-side solutions like Flash and iTunes. Nobody replied to > > that part, so I guess we'll just hope for the best. > > * H.264 has absolutely, unequivocally won. There is no serious > > discussion about this among people whose lives and businesses depend > > on digital video. > > * The anti-patent community (and the free software crowd in > > general) really hasn't engaged the world beyond software > > professionals, as the flock to closed platforms like iPhone OS should > > illustrate. Actually, that's the optimistic reading. The pessimistic > > take is that they've tried, and failed. > > * Apple operates in its own self-interest. Most companies do. A > > few don't. Speaking of which, what's Jonathan Schwartz doing now? > > > --Chris > > > On May 16, 11:42 am, Dick Wall <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > ... > > > read more » > > -- > 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.
