Linked by Adam S on Mon 1st Feb 2010 18:19 UTC
Podcasts Back in August of 2009, the OSnews team spent 3 full hours discussing Apple. In the course of discussion, we spent some time talking about the then-mythical "Apple Tablet." So, 5 months later, how did we do? Were we accurate in our predictions? How did you envision the Tablet, long before the nonsensically named "iPad" became a reality? This clip, which I've called "Episode 20.x" and inserted into cannon retroactively, is pulled, unaltered, from the original podcast.
Thread beginning with comment 407452
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Ogg Vorbis?
by darknexus on Tue 2nd Feb 2010 20:14 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Ogg Vorbis?"
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

We cannot publish OGG only, because iTunes is by far and away the most common podcast client.


Not so easy when you're the one doing the web developing is it? You do realize how your statement could be applied to other situations, for example:
We cannot publish Theora only, because H.264 is by far and away the most common and hardware-supported codec.

I'm not downing the effort you're making, even though it might've come across that way. I'm an ass sometimes--no, scratch that, I'm an ass *most* of the time. But to see an article just a few days ago deriding proprietary codecs and, then, you giving the same justifications for doing the exact same thing... you do see how that comes across, right? I guess it struck a major nerve, you have no right to criticize other web sites for not doing what you're not doing. Sure, the next version of osnews will have ogg support and I believe you, but the fact is that you do not have it *now* and yet you, among others here, have the nerve to criticize Youtube *now* for doing precisely the same as you.
This isn't meant to be offensive even though I'm sure it sounds that way. I just don't know any other way to put it, to be perfectly honest.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Ogg Vorbis?
by Kroc on Tue 2nd Feb 2010 20:24 in reply to "RE[7]: Ogg Vorbis?"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

My personal website, no problem. Wouldn’t even think of not providing an OGG. OSnews is not my personal site.

Actually, I don‘t have a complaint about H.264 on YouTube. Google can pay for it, my complaint is Flash, a pointless wrapper stopping me from viewing the video they have paid to show me. OGG would be good for YouTube and I strongly believe that Google are going to come out with a new free codec.

You need to talk to Adam about the current site. He’s the developer for the current site and he can tell you if the current site can support OGG or not. I can back convert the existing podcasts to OGG, but I *cannot* as of yet promise that each new podcast will have an OGG version on the same day.

edit: The article you quoted was Thom Holwerda, not me.

Edited 2010-02-02 20:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Ogg Vorbis?
by Kroc on Tue 2nd Feb 2010 20:49 in reply to "RE[7]: Ogg Vorbis?"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

addendum: No need to apologise. I’m being the ass. I’m annoyed by constant OGG requests when I know the admin backend probably isn’t up to it and I’m already overworked as it is. Sh!t is not easy: http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legalized-mar...

Edited 2010-02-02 20:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1