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 406511
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: For the author
by Kroc on Thu 28th Jan 2010 19:38 UTC in reply to "For the author"
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

RE[3]: For the author
by Kroc on Thu 28th Jan 2010 20:16 in reply to "RE[2]: For the author"
Kroc Member since:

No codec is specified as part of the HTML5 standard. That said, there is the problem that Apple are pushing for a de-facto standard, helped by the fact that many publishers have their content already in H.264 for Flash purposes.

But do you think that Apple are going to suddenly adopt OGG? There’s nothing I can say or do to make that happen. Apple’s direction is clear, they have invested heavily in H.264 hardware and infrastructure, it’s here to stay, 2011 and beyond. OGG has a long way to come yet, and I’m waiting on Google to do something with On2 to hopefully bring some light to the end of the tunnel.

edit emphasis.

Edited 2010-01-28 20:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1