Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 19th Oct 2010 21:42 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y Steve Jobs' rant against Android, RIM, and 7" tablets couldn't go by unnoticed, of course. We already had the rather dry response from Google's Andy Rubin, but Mountain View isn't the only one who responded. TweetDeck's CEO wasn't particularly pleased by Jobs distorting TweetDeck's story on developing for Android, and now we have RIM's co-CEO Jim Balsillie who slammed Cupertino pretty hard.
E-mail Print r 6   · Read More · 46 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 446050
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Flash
by WorknMan on Wed 20th Oct 2010 22:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Flash"
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

There's more to a free web than in "free to consume". When using non-free codecs, there is an extra cost of producing content as well, a part-transfer of ownership to the patent holders. Should every video on the web be entagled in MPEG-LA's patents? Apple thinks so: it makes all internet video their own property, to some rather small degree.


I don't know much about video, but I assume it works like audio in that you record in a raw format (such as a .wav file) and then compress it when you're done for mass consumption. As long as you have the original (uncompressed) content, the owner of the compression algorithm doesn't 'own' a thing. But, if you record in a proprietary format and have no way to convert it to something else, then... well, you're a moron.

Anyway, if you're going to use a compression algorithm that somebody else owns and wants money for it, then yeah... you're probably going to have to pay for it. Why shouldn't you? Just because somebody's labor comes in the form of 1's and 0's doesn't automatically entitle you to have access to it for $0. And in this case, unless the owner is selling t-shirts or coffee mugs, there's no way he can give away the source and/or offer it up royalty free and still profit from it (AFAIK).

Edited 2010-10-20 22:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Flash
by No it isnt on Wed 20th Oct 2010 23:16 in reply to "RE[6]: Flash"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

There are several free codecs available that Apple won't support -- or even allow others to support -- in order to force people to use patented technology if they want to make their content available for the iOS platform. I'm not asking Apple to free their tech, I'm just pointing out that they want people to pay a toll to make their own content available to iOS users. They're restricting freedom of information.

For someone so hung-up on "entitlement", you sure are oblivious to Apple's entitlement to control internet media. But perhaps you're being intentionally dense for the sake of argument.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Flash
by WorknMan on Wed 20th Oct 2010 23:55 in reply to "RE[7]: Flash"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

There are several free codecs available that Apple won't support -- or even allow others to support -- in order to force people to use patented technology if they want to make their content available for the iOS platform. I'm not asking Apple to free their tech, I'm just pointing out that they want people to pay a toll to make their own content available to iOS users. They're restricting freedom of information.


LOL, they are NOT restricting freedom of information. If you have information that you want iOS users to see, then pay the license fee (if it's required) and encode your content in a format that iOS supports. Problem solved. If your religion forbids you from using a proprietary format (or one you have to pay for), then I guess that's your problem.

Don't get me wrong... I think that having a free codec is better than having one that requires a fee to use (who DOESN'T like free?), but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it if I have to pay a little for the privilege. If Apple doesn't support free codecs on their platform, it's obviously because they have a business reason for not doing so, and I don't expect them to set aside the profit motive. Afterall, they're not in this for the good of mankind. If you had something you were trying to sell, would you give away your competitors' products for free? Think about it.

That being said, I don't agree that they should be able to restrict what codecs you can run, but then again... that's what jailbreaking is for, and it's legal now too ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2