Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 15th Jul 2009 21:11 UTC
Permalink for comment 373737
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2008-08-03
Wow! You are complaining that a company is embracing and using and implementing open standards? Would you prefer it is they pulled a Microsoft and developed their own, non-compliant, incompatible "versions" of standards?
Seriously?
No, I did not complain that they were using open standards. I simply stated that they don't deserve any credit for adopting those technologies, especially as they did very little to contribute to those standards, with Quicktime being the exception.
Regardless of the reasons behind it, any company that embraces and uses open standards should be *applauded*. That's the whole point of having open standards. The more people that use them, the better.
I don't disagree. What I did disagree with in kawai's original post is his implication that they contribute code back to the projects they borrow from in a significant way. In this regard, I would not describe Microsoft and Apple as night and day; more like midnight and late evening.