Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 19th Oct 2010 21:42 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y Steve Jobs' rant against Android, RIM, and 7" tablets couldn't go by unnoticed, of course. We already had the rather dry response from Google's Andy Rubin, but Mountain View isn't the only one who responded. TweetDeck's CEO wasn't particularly pleased by Jobs distorting TweetDeck's story on developing for Android, and now we have RIM's co-CEO Jim Balsillie who slammed Cupertino pretty hard.
Permalink for comment 446050
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Flash
by WorknMan on Wed 20th Oct 2010 22:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Flash"
Member since:

There's more to a free web than in "free to consume". When using non-free codecs, there is an extra cost of producing content as well, a part-transfer of ownership to the patent holders. Should every video on the web be entagled in MPEG-LA's patents? Apple thinks so: it makes all internet video their own property, to some rather small degree.

I don't know much about video, but I assume it works like audio in that you record in a raw format (such as a .wav file) and then compress it when you're done for mass consumption. As long as you have the original (uncompressed) content, the owner of the compression algorithm doesn't 'own' a thing. But, if you record in a proprietary format and have no way to convert it to something else, then... well, you're a moron.

Anyway, if you're going to use a compression algorithm that somebody else owns and wants money for it, then yeah... you're probably going to have to pay for it. Why shouldn't you? Just because somebody's labor comes in the form of 1's and 0's doesn't automatically entitle you to have access to it for $0. And in this case, unless the owner is selling t-shirts or coffee mugs, there's no way he can give away the source and/or offer it up royalty free and still profit from it (AFAIK).

Edited 2010-10-20 22:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2