Excellent points so far Chris; this is not a retort but an addendum and a nuance:
The very essence of DRM means that those technologies that purport to support it (Flash, Silverlight, and possibly JavaFX applets, as well as device-specific fairplay-esque solutions that can probably be best described as "native apps") means they are fundamentally not open and can never be. For example, adobe's much-touted "open" spec for the flash player is OOXML-esque in being confounding, but more importantly, it simply fails to describe every ability that flash player has that's being used on the internet. Specifically, the DRM support in Flash Player is not specced out. At all. Gnash (the free flash player alternative that doesn't actually work in 99% of all web flashlets) doesn't support DRMed video and never will. One could possibly argue that it ought to be possible to design a DRM system that does not rely on security- through-obscurity, but so far I haven't seen one that is acceptable to the MPAA and everyone else who is insisting on it. Basically, if there's a usable spec for it, then it should be possible to render the content on any device of the spec implementor's choosing. If this is not the case the spec isn't usable (that is: Folks trying to use the spec to implement a player for their own platform, which is the primary purpose of open specs, can't, by definition), but if this IS the case, then there's no feasible way to differentiate "render to monitor" from "render to high-quality DRM free video file". This doesn't alleviate the need to somehow assuage those who want DRM, and it doesn't alleviate the point that the HTML5 video spec has basically ducked the question entirely. However, it does put into sharp contrast how fundamentally opposed DRMable video and open standards are. Having both is, as far as I can tell, a fairy tale that's never ever been done, and is probably impossible. With this presumption in mind the rabid and seemingly unrealistic anti- DRM crusade of e.g. your vaunted rainbow farting pony loving unwashed and bearded linux masses doesn't look quite so completely insane. Possibly they know that while DRM is on the surface unavoidable, lack of open standards ought to be taken as just as horrible as a world without DRM, and thus we must choose between 2 nasty alternatives. If we must choose, no DRM is in my mind clearly the better option for society as a whole, even if we concede, if only for the sake of argument, that certain types of culture will suffer heavily from lack of protection. That's not, however, my personal opinion. My personal opinion is that the DRM-loving hordes should sod off, plain and simple. As stated above DRM must necessarily come at a humongous cost for society, and so far lack of DRM for whatever reason has if anything only boosted culture. iTunes went DRM-free and so far I haven't heard a (factually backed up) peep from anyone that this somehow unleashed a tidal wave of massive piracy. However, as I said, if one concedes the point that DRM is truly important, then it is important to know that DRM means a closed web, so one should then be prepared to argue DRM is *more* important than that. I doubt one could feasibly make that argument stick. This is all just a tiny aspect of the greater discussion of apple, section 3.3.1, flash, the new OSes and devices and their app stores and "closedness", Ogg Theora, VP8, and H.264, of course. On May 17, 1:18 pm, Chris Adamson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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, > > ... > > 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 at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
