OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/21777/Clones_Pirates_Browsers Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:26:08 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif OSNews.com http://www.osnews.com HTML and APple http://osnews.com/thread?371864 http://osnews.com/thread?371864 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. Mon, 06 Jul 2009 01:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Wowbagger) Comments RE: HTML and APple http://osnews.com/thread?371865 http://osnews.com/thread?371865
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 Mon, 06 Jul 2009 02:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (merlin747) Comments RE: HTML and APple http://osnews.com/thread?371868 http://osnews.com/thread?371868 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. Mon, 06 Jul 2009 03:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda) Comments RE[2]: HTML and APple http://osnews.com/thread?371869 http://osnews.com/thread?371869 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. Mon, 06 Jul 2009 03:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda) Comments stop bashing apple on this http://osnews.com/thread?371870 http://osnews.com/thread?371870 getting pretty sick of the retard crowd going after apple because their favourite 'opensource' codec isn't going to be getting a free pass.

ignoring the bitrate to quality differences (hey, google even said this for youtube as for their reason to not even touch theora), what you people need to realize is playback speed of content going forward has to be taken into consideration (hey flash cpu usage sucks, especially for mobiles).

a big push from apple is to get playable content on mobile hardware. there are a ton of h264 dedicated hardware for dirt cheap while there is nothing happening right now or in the near future for theora decoding.

everything being made today has h264 hardware acceleration and the smallest devices can play HD content now.

i really don't see what mozilla can't include an h264 decoder, it's not like they don't make any money. Mon, 06 Jul 2009 03:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mckill) Comments RE: stop bashing apple on this http://osnews.com/thread?371871 http://osnews.com/thread?371871 Educate yourself:

http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/07/decoding-the-html-5... Mon, 06 Jul 2009 03:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda) Comments RE[2]: stop bashing apple on this http://osnews.com/thread?371875 http://osnews.com/thread?371875 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. Mon, 06 Jul 2009 06:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (robojerk) Comments One missed story http://osnews.com/thread?371880 http://osnews.com/thread?371880 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. Mon, 06 Jul 2009 08:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (vivainio) Comments RE[2]: stop bashing apple on this http://osnews.com/thread?371885 http://osnews.com/thread?371885
Educate yourself:

http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/07/decoding-the-html-5...


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. Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (kaiwai) Comments RE[3]: HTML and APple http://osnews.com/thread?371886 http://osnews.com/thread?371886
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? Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (merlin747) Comments RE[4]: HTML and APple http://osnews.com/thread?371974 http://osnews.com/thread?371974 I don't know what Thom thinks, but I think all these formats with lots of strings attached is a bad thing. Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Lennie) Comments