Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 5th Jul 2009 22:03 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes Time for another Week in Review. We had a fairly regular week this week, with the focus somehow being Mac cloners, The Pirate Bay, Mono, and Browsers were also in the spotlight this week with the release of Firefox 3.5, disagreements on the video tag codec, and talking about KHTML.
Order by: Score:
HTML and APple
by Wowbagger on Mon 6th Jul 2009 01:00 UTC
Wowbagger
Member since:
2005-07-06

Speaking of HTML5 - browser maker were unable to settle on a codec for the video tag, mostly because Apple refuses to implement support for Ogg Theora,

While I think Apple stance on this issue is really stupid, saying that it failed because of Apple is, to put it mildly, utterly absurd.

Firefox has a bigger Market Share than Safari now, and if anyone is hindering the video tag from being widely accepted it's Microsoft who don't even give a sh*t about HTML5 at all.

Whether Apple supported ogg wouldn't matter, if IE would suddenly support ogg. You bet Apple would follow suit and implement it, if that happened, they can't be left behind. So please do keep things in relation here.

Reply Score: 3

RE: HTML and APple
by merlin747 on Mon 6th Jul 2009 02:25 UTC in reply to "HTML and APple"
merlin747 Member since:
2006-11-09

Whether Apple supported ogg wouldn't matter, if IE would suddenly support ogg. You bet Apple would follow suit and implement it, if that happened, they can't be left behind. So please do keep things in relation here.


He can't help it... he's the equivalent of Fox News in the United States... completely off-base.

Chances of Microsoft actually supporting an open codec is less than that of an unbiased opinion from some of the folks who frequent this site. (read: Microsoft would never support a non-Microsoft technology even if it would improve interoperability... remember their implementation of their own PDF-killer?)

Kelly

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: HTML and APple
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 6th Jul 2009 03:29 UTC in reply to "RE: HTML and APple"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You don't know your history.

*Adobe* prevented Microsoft from including PDF in Office, as Adobe did not want Microsoft to provide said feature for free.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: HTML and APple
by merlin747 on Mon 6th Jul 2009 11:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: HTML and APple"
merlin747 Member since:
2006-11-09

You don't know your history.

*Adobe* prevented Microsoft from including PDF in Office, as Adobe did not want Microsoft to provide said feature for free.


Kinda funny isn't it? I mean, the MS Office with PDF creation would certainly challenge Adobe's product. But rather than pay the licensing fee (which Microsoft demands of all using their codecs and components) they chose to create a completely useless technology. Well, I guess it's not useless if you're one of the masses... but having someone send me a MDI file when I was living Ubuntu was frustrating.

Just so I can clarify it: you feel that all software should be free of cost and we shouldn't have to pay for what we want to use. Does that sum it up, Thom?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: HTML and APple
by Lennie on Mon 6th Jul 2009 22:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: HTML and APple"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I don't know what Thom thinks, but I think all these formats with lots of strings attached is a bad thing.

Reply Score: 1

RE: HTML and APple
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 6th Jul 2009 03:27 UTC in reply to "HTML and APple"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Keyword: mostly.

Yes, it failed mostly because of Apple. Had Apple implemented Theora, then every web developers would only need a single Theora file to cover ALL HTML5-capable browsers. It is ONLY because of Apple that developers now have to encode TWO files, just to please Apple.

Reply Score: 1

v stop bashing apple on this
by mckill on Mon 6th Jul 2009 03:44 UTC
RE: stop bashing apple on this
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 6th Jul 2009 03:48 UTC in reply to "stop bashing apple on this"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29
RE[2]: stop bashing apple on this
by robojerk on Mon 6th Jul 2009 06:10 UTC in reply to "RE: stop bashing apple on this"
robojerk Member since:
2006-01-10

Whoa! Broadcasting fees on the h264 codec? I didn't know that was being planned. I see someone saw the deep pockets over at Google and Hulu.

This is starting to feel like the Bluray vs HD-DVD debate.

What about other video streaming sites besides Google? Have they been vocal about this at all?

Maybe the porn industry will once again choose a format for us. I guess we just sit back and wait to see who does what.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: stop bashing apple on this
by kaiwai on Mon 6th Jul 2009 09:55 UTC in reply to "RE: stop bashing apple on this"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06



Thank you for the link - all I can say in response to the article is wow. I am truly shocked at the licencing - I thought the only thing that one had to worry about was simply the CODEC itself but given that broadcast fee's are going to kick in 2010, the CODEC is unaffordable for all but the large media empires. When one views what one would pay for h264, it makes Windows Media Audio and Video look reasonably priced.

I hope that Theora takes off; but I guess the only way is a strong campaign to get 'that codec installed' by way of propagating theora plugin for Quicktime.

Reply Score: 2

One missed story
by vivainio on Mon 6th Jul 2009 08:33 UTC
vivainio
Member since:
2008-12-26

One story osnews missed this week was this one, fresh from Grand Canaria Desktop Summit:

http://flors.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/maemo-harmattan-keynote-at-gc...

Even though there were rumors and indications of this circulating around, the information is now public.

Reply Score: 2