Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 7th Jun 2010 19:11 UTC
Apple As everybody already expected, Apple "unveiled" the new iPhone tonight. It's called the iPhone 4, and brings the iPhone up to par with what's already available on other smartphone platforms, hardware wise, while raising the bar on a few specific points (the display, mostly). The company also announced a name change for its mobile operating system - it's now called iOS. What we didn't get during this year's WWDC keynote? News about the Mac, Mac OS X, or the Apple TV. Make no mistake: the iPhone and iPad is where it's at.
Thread beginning with comment 428699
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Idiots
by tbutler on Mon 7th Jun 2010 21:26 UTC in reply to "Idiots"
tbutler
Member since:
2005-07-06

Thom, an open standard and a free standard are not necessarily the same H.264 is an open standard.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Idiots
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 7th Jun 2010 22:09 in reply to "RE: Idiots"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Thom, an open standard and a free standard are not necessarily the same H.264 is an open standard.


If I say my wedding has an open bar, yet I do make you pay at the bar for each drink, do you still consider it an open bar simply because I'm not stopping you from getting a drink?

An open standard is a standard anybody can implement without the fear of getting sued. Said standard can be covered by RAND royalty fees, but as we all know, MPEG-LA is anything but RAND.

http://www.osnews.com/story/23346/Nero_Files_Antitrust_Case_Against...

To make matters worse, MPEG-LA's CEO is a known patent troll.

http://www.osnews.com/story/23258/MPEG-LA-owned_Patent_Troll_Sues_S...

Saying H264 is an open standard is intentionally misleading. I can understand Jobs (and thus, Apple zealots) saying H264 is an open standard, but anyone with two functioning braincells to rub together will see right through that smoke.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Idiots
by fgrasset on Tue 8th Jun 2010 00:47 in reply to "RE[2]: Idiots"
fgrasset Member since:
2005-12-02

Comparing the common expression « openbar » and the word « open » in the ISO mean is not serious!! The word « open » come from the 70’s (or even before) at a time when IBM use it’s own « standard » and didn’t publish them.

Now « open » means that is published and the specs (an *complete*) are publicly available, but:
1) It’s not mandatory for the Specs to be free
2) Some patents may affect some parts, in which case some « fairuse » should be attached
So that everyone can use them...

That the case for h264! This codec is part of more general standards.

MPEG-LA is the bad one as you said, not h264!! There are not the owner of the standard!!! They are the proxy of the owners of the patents!!!
The combat here is to have a predictable and clear licensing policy and make sure that such policy respect the « fairuse ».

But again you’re the one who is misleading here!! H264 is an Open Standard by any normalization organization...

At this level, as a journalist you should keep the fact and stop saying false assertion!

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Idiots
by lemur2 on Mon 7th Jun 2010 23:51 in reply to "RE: Idiots"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Thom, an open standard and a free standard are not necessarily the same H.264 is an open standard.


But H.264 is not a royalty-free standard.

This means that H.264 is suitable for roles such as digital TV trasmission and Blueray video players, but it is not suitable as a W3C web standard (i.e. HTML5). W3c policy is that its standards are royalty-free.

Theora was originally proposed for HTML5, being the only codec at the time that was open (in that anyone may implement it and license their implementation however they please, not merely a published specification) and royalty-free (no charge to implement it).

Apple and Google vetoed Theora in HTML5. So now, Webm is going to be the only viable candidate. H.264 is NOT going to be the codec for this web standard, and it never was going to be. It simply doesn't comply with the royalty-free requirement, however much you might wish to quibble about what exactly "open" means.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Idiots
by aesiamun on Tue 8th Jun 2010 04:54 in reply to "RE[2]: Idiots"
aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

This isn't about the W3C or HTML5...this is about FaceTime...a video chat application / protocol.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Idiots
by Soulbender on Wed 9th Jun 2010 16:57 in reply to "RE: Idiots"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

H.264 is an open standard.


Depends on where you are. In the EU, New Zealand, South Africa and other countries it isn't since it has a fee associated with it and is not royalty-free (among other things). Same goes for the W3C. Even Microsoft defines an open standard as one being royalty-free.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Idiots
by phoudoin on Thu 10th Jun 2010 10:59 in reply to "RE: Idiots"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

Thom, an open standard and a free standard are not necessarily the same H.264 is an open standard.


The main difference between "a standard" and "an open standard" definitions as accepted all over the world but EITF and ITU-T is on fee patent holder can reclaims on standard users. Aka with or without royalties.

So, as H.264 patent holder *can* fee for using it, everybody will agree H.264 is NOT an *open* standard, just a standard.

Everybody but EITF and ITU-T. And, now, Apple.

Reply Parent Score: 1