Now we are starting to get to some of the real meat of the discussion. On May 17, 4:18 am, 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.
Apple has shown (via QuickTime, iTunes, etc.) that they get that market by covering Apple platforms, and somewhat less well, Windows - giving enough market penetration to succeed. Of course, Linux, Android, Palm, Solaris, etc. are not invited to the party. It is absolutely clear to me that Apple would push their DRM as part of the "standard", since they have already done so on Windows for these applications. > > 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). Yes - on this point we agree. DRMd video (which is what the content rights holders want) will take a big step back over where it is now with Flash. DRM is bad, yes, DRM on fewer platforms is worse. > > 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. It's also the first point he brings up as in "First, there's open" - clearly it matters to him that this move be seen as crusading for open standards on the web. This, as an open standards kind of guy, is the part that particularly sticks in my craw. For someone usually associated with good taste, I believe Jobs displays quite a lack of it here, but that's by the by. The rest of the essay is much more honest about Apple motives. The first point on openness is disingenuous. > > 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. Ah, but Hulu *does* work on Linux, it works pretty well actually both on the web and as a standalone app. They even have a Linux specific download link: http://www.hulu.com/labs/hulu-desktop (By the way, it's a flash app) As to your second point, what an excellent segue, since I have been struggling to put together some analysis numbers myself (these are surprisingly difficult to find, one can only speculate on why). In the first month, the iPad sold around a million units according to the most favorable reports I have seen. Impressive stuff, but also with the pent up demand and a pretty large hype machine to back it up. In the same month, the same month mind as the iPad came out, netbooks alone sold (as far as I can tell) 7-8 times that number. 600% to 700% more to put it another way. Despite some pretty slanted articles, the netbook market continues to grow (albeit slower than the stupidly large gains they had last year - the gains that put Apple's thinking towards trying to get some of that market): http://www.mediabistro.com/mobilecontenttoday/netbooks/asus_projects_healthy_2010_netbook_sales_figures_despite_the_ipad_160505.asp Now, I know that many of those netbooks sell with Windows, not Linux on them. However the following article estimates that 1/3 of them still sell with Linux (and some more will have Linux added through distros like netbook remix which is fabulous now): http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS5114054156.html so, if we look at a bit of oversimplified mathematics, that still makes the number of Linux netbooks sold in the same month that the iPad launched over double the sales of the iPad! Plus there are the 2.5 years of wild netbook sales prior to that. Also just out, in Q1, more Android OS powered devices sold than iPhones (Android is Linux, don't forget that): http://lifehacker.com/5535463/remains-of-the-day-android-outsells-the-iphone-edition So, Linux seems to be doing better than the iPhone OS already. Why the hell isn't this bigger news already? Now though, we get to the real threat, the reason so many of the open source community are worried about these developments. Projects like VLC show that the open source community will indeed provide their own solutions to video playback - very good solutions in fact - I know people who prefer to use VLC over quicktime player on a mac because it is faster, lighter, plays more video codecs - at least those without DRM, and goes full screen without having to pay for a pro version (is that still the case with quicktime? It might not be, but it used to be). However, DRM changes the rules, and that is why it is such a danger and such a great stick for companies like Apple to beat open source with. DRM means that the open source community *cannot* solve this problem - at least not legally. It removes not only the level playing field, but it arrests the players from the other team and throws them in jail. This also reinforces the problems of selling Linux to people. Since no amount of open source effort can (legally) make Linux able to play fairplay videos (or music), or NetFlix movies, to name but a couple, of course that's going to put some people off buying it. This is not a "these companies should support us" play, this is a "why do these companies actively discriminate against us" question. The numbers here should make it clear that a Linux Netflix player, for example, would find more potential machines to run on than the iPad has (both sales last month, and massive number of sales in the 2.5 years since netbooks started taking off) yet not only does such a player not exist, there is no way to actually write one. Mono has added the video support necessary to play videos using Silverlight, but the DRM is still held hostage so it cannot do so. Do you see where my (and others in the OSS community) frustration comes from? By the way, I would love to get better solid numbers for sales of Linux equipped Netbooks. If anyone knows of a better source, I would love to have it. My suspicion is that there are at least an order of magnitude more Linux netbooks out in the world than iPads and that the gap will continue to widen, but I would love to have better data to confirm that. Hereby crowdsourcing it. Anyone? > > 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. > I think it already has started... > -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.
