Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 29th Apr 2010 16:59 UTC
Editorial Holier-than-thou, an adjective, meaning "marked by an air of superior piety or morality". Everybody has moments in their life where they get into a "holier-than-thou" attitude, and I think Steve Jobs' open letter regarding Adobe, and Flash in particular, really fits the bill. There are three specific points I want to address to illustrate just how holier-than-thou, hypocritical, and misleading this letter really is.
Thread beginning with comment 421563
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by macUser
by apoclypse on Thu 29th Apr 2010 20:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by macUser"
apoclypse
Member since:
2007-02-17

Here is my thing. People deride Apple for supporting h.264 like they are the only ones who are pushing it, which is not true. Google had no issues moving all of Youtube over to h.264. Even Adobe uses h.264. In-fact most video that use flash are encoded in h.264. Apple just wants to take the middle man out, especially when that middle man happens to run like crap and is lazy.

The fact of the matter is that at this time there are no real alternatives to h.264 that are even remotely in the same quality spectrum. Ogg has too many issues and has been around for years before they even got their asses in gear. Will it be better in the future , maybe but Apple has been using h.264 for years and Ogg wasn't ready, other manufacturers are supporting the codec and have been able to hardware decode it for years as well. All this talk about h.264 but here are no alternatives. As much as you hate h.264 the fact of the matter is that its a spec that can be implemented by anyone in varying degrees and that makes it far more open that Flash which has only one company behind it, with one real implementation. How well they implement the runtime is solely up to them. Meanhwhile the best h.264 encoder on the market is an opensource one that anyone can freely download and use and that even most who use flash as the container format use to encode their videos.

For Thom to call Apple hypocrites because they back h.264 is disingenuous, naive and/or just shows plain ignorance on his part. As patent encumbered as the codec is its still far more open that Flash in every respect because it can be implemented anywhere by anyone, can you say the same for Flash? Patent encumbered doesn't mean closed, having to pay a license doesn't mean closed, it means you have to pay. The only real difference between using flash for video instead of HTML5 is that Adobe has already payed the license for h.264 for you. Half the world has already declared that h.264 is the codec for the internet age. Why use Flash when your video card and decode it directly. There is no difference, the majority have already declared it the winner. So Apple should just go with an inferior product that doesn't have hardware support and is not heavily used? Pray tell how was Apple supposed to do this 3 years ago when the iphone was released? How good is Google's support for hardware accelerated Ogg on Android?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by macUser
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 29th Apr 2010 21:01 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by macUser"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

because it can be implemented anywhere by anyone


...as long as you have the money to pay the hefty license fee, that is, which most project DO NOT have.

can you say the same for Flash?


Actually, yes. The specifications are all there. It's just that all non-Adobe implementations suck even more.

How good is Google's support for hardware accelerated Ogg on Android?


This good: http://www.osnews.com/story/23135/Google_Puts_Weight_Behind_Theora_...

Edited 2010-04-29 21:02 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by macUser
by apoclypse on Fri 30th Apr 2010 00:29 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by macUser"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Except you are wrong, the specs are there but how Adobe's runtime handle the spec is not documented which is why projects like gnash have issues implementing a successful opensource runtime. Like I said it doesn't matter if projects have to pay to implement H.264, that doesn't make it less open, it just means people have to pay, most projects such as hardware vendors pass that cost on to users. Its far more open than flash. Its a well known widely implemented spec, again, can you say the same for Flash? Is there any other runtime worth talking about other than Adobe's? Adobe's spec is primarily for creating Flash content not running it. Only Adobe's own runtime is worth talking about.

With H.264 you have hundreds of different implementations, some opensource, all of varying quality, all from different vendors, just like web browsers.

You still haven't answered my question as to what was Apple supposed to implement 3 years ago? What was available and able to run on the specced hardware of the 1st gen iphone? Another thing I want to ask is why harp on Apple, why not, Google? Android as far as I know only supports h.264 decoding on most of their phones. You keep harping on Apple being disingenuous but they chose a format that is widely used by everyone can be implemented by anyone with enough resources, is available on almost every platform I can think of, and if not is fairly trivial to create a codec for your favorite platform using open and free libs. Again can you say the same for Adobe? For all intents an purposes h.264 is an open format. Especially compared to Flash.

Reply Parent Score: 2