Linked by Kroc Camen on Thu 28th Jan 2010 17:29 UTC
Web 2.0 Wolfire writes: "Today, Apple announced the new iPad and humbly claimed that there will be a "gold rush" of native apps for the App Store. Sure, but what I find more interesting is that Apple also ironically created the most promising open web app platform, which may eventually undermine the App Store itself. [...] The iPad is the first mainstream device which combines all of the following factors: reasonably powerful hardware, a (potentially) huge user base, a mature WebKit implementation, and constant 3G internet capabilities. All the dominoes are in place, and I think that the iPad will knock the first one down."
Thread beginning with comment 406505
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
For the author
by Shkaba on Thu 28th Jan 2010 19:26 UTC
Member since:

As per your observation about HTML5 tags and used codec:

Or more accurately—H.264 video, because Apple don’t support anything else. That is most worrying. If you are a small developer with a personal site and you want to get video to iPhone/iPad users, you are forced to use a riskily licenced video codec that means by 2011 you could end up with men in black suits knocking on your door demanding payment. Apple are encouraging a web where by only the major players can participate.

and considering that you have made some videos available to the public, as per :
I’ve created Video for Everybody, which does truly play video “across platform, regardless of the device that people choose to use” because it uses HTML5 video where available and falls back to Flash where not available, all without JavaScript. Video for Everybody plays on the iPhone and by extension the iPad

I will then assume that you have paid the fee for H.264 codec usage ??? What a load of c....

Replacing one proprietary technology (flash) with another (H.264) defeats the purpose of HTML standards. Good on you for your "contribution"

Reply Score: 1

RE: For the author
by Kroc on Thu 28th Jan 2010 19:38 in reply to "For the author"
Kroc Member since:

Bingo. You can guess what I'll be doing 2011—removing the MP4s.

I made VfE specifically for the other websites I visit to provide me a means to view their content, including those willing to pay the H.264 licence in the future.

It’s pragmatic, rather than political—so sue me ;)

edit And—I expect people reading the code to be smart enough to make their own decisions. You can’t blame me for developers who decide to encode H.264s. That’s their choice, their actions and nobody else’s.

VfE exists for occasions just like when Loading Ready Run moved to the Escapist, and now, I can’t view their videos any more because they are hidden behind a Flash player instead of QuickTime or YouTube which they used before. The Escapist are already using H.264 files for Flash—I can’t make them make that decision already—but I do wish they were using VfE so that I could _access_ those H.264 files.

The H.264 onus is on the publisher—not on the viewer and that’s the big difference when it comes to the codec issue (where it used to be the onus of the viewer to go get the right app quicktime/real/wmp &c.)

Edited 2010-01-28 19:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: For the author
by Shkaba on Thu 28th Jan 2010 20:05 in reply to "RE: For the author"
Shkaba Member since:

What I object to, in both your article and your reply, is the fact that you don't see inclusion of a proprietary codec in a standard as a problem but you seem to have a problem with a proprietary technology. And yet somehow you manage to drag the open source term in all of this. As far as your reply and the "onus is on the publisher" ...

even distributing H.264 content over the internet or broadcasting it over the airwaves requires the consent of the MPEG-LA

Inclusion of such technologies (proprietary) in HTML standards is by far worst then using flash. I would even go as far as to say that maybe apple should consider revising their iPhone OS and enable multitasking.iPhone OS users would definitely be thankful for that.

Reply Parent Score: 1