On Jan 20, 1:19 pm, Moandji Ezana wrote:
> Is the situation any different for audio (mp3 vs. Ogg Theora)? Or do people
> just not care as much?
There's no "patent toll booth" for MP3, with Fraunhofer Institute
probably collecting most patent revenues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
MP3#Licensing_a
Is the situation any different for audio (mp3 vs. Ogg Theora)? Or do people
just not care as much?
Moandji
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from th
Well, you said it. Specifically, you said "I think", and a gigantic set of
(admittedly reasonably looking) numbers.
It's convoluted, no matter how reasonable all that looks, and somebody
somewhere is going to end up having to pay for something or the MPEG-LA
wouldn't be in business. My original
On Jan 14, 3:11 pm, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> H.264 may not be free to distribute if you have a blog that contains some
> ads, even if you're only earning pennies a day.
It is free. According to this analysis of the current MPEG LA license
agreement (valid 2011-2015), ad-supported H.264 video
Because it is c# java's direct competitor.
On 16 jan, 19:06, Joseph Ottinger wrote:
> Why would you hate to say that on a java mailing list?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Saturday, January 15, 2011, remco wrote:
> > I hate to say this on a java newsgroup but I was using a silverlight
> > video website on my ub
Java Posse] Re: Google to drop H.264 codec from Chrome
On Jan 15, 2:46 pm, remco wrote:
> I hate to say this on a java newsgroup but I was using a silverlight
> video website on my ubuntu laptop I use for work. Moonlight of the
> mono project worked very well and it is open source. So t
On Jan 15, 2:46 pm, remco wrote:
> I hate to say this on a java newsgroup but I was using a silverlight
> video website on my ubuntu laptop I use for work. Moonlight of the
> mono project worked very well and it is open source. So there is your
> open source alternative to flash,
Strictly, speaki
Why would you hate to say that on a java mailing list?
On Saturday, January 15, 2011, remco wrote:
> I hate to say this on a java newsgroup but I was using a silverlight
> video website on my ubuntu laptop I use for work. Moonlight of the
> mono project worked very well and it is open source. So
I hate to say this on a java newsgroup but I was using a silverlight
video website on my ubuntu laptop I use for work. Moonlight of the
mono project worked very well and it is open source. So there is your
open source alternative to flash,
On 14 jan, 09:03, Markos Fragkakis wrote:
> > Daring Fire
On Jan 15, 2:05 pm, Craig Kelley wrote:
> After all, PNG made GIF obsolete -- and I remember when Mozilla and
> Opera were the only browsers to support it.
One objection I have to this popular analogy: PNG was demonstrably
superior to GIF: better compression, better transparency, better
document
On Jan 14, 6:33 pm, Fabrizio Giudici
wrote:
> Given that, I'm not sure that Google move can improve things. While I
> understand that a rationale might be to persuade people not to use
> H.264, I think Google is probably overestimating itself in the
> capability of persuading people. Given that i
On 01/14/2011 03:11 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
H.264 may not be free to distribute if you have a blog that contains
some ads, even if you're only earning pennies a day.
Things are even more complex. While most (product) consumers are merely
video consumers, some (product) consumers can be vi
http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/more-about-chrome-html-video-codec.html
A Product Manager responds to the debate:
"Bottom line, we are at an impasse in the evolution of HTML video. Having no
baseline codec in the HTML specification is far from ideal. This is why
we're joining others in the commu
This is a good point. Perhaps this thing is way overblown. Chrome is
simply joining firefox Both Firefox and Chrome would have to support
H.264 for there to a world where the tag will be useful.
So looks like we are just stuck with Flash to play our video indefinitely,
but this really isn't
To be blunt, video professionals, and Jan Ozer in particular, can go walk to
the moon.
If photographers used the same arguments back in the day, the internet would
be without images now. So, stuff them. Their wishes for an easier way to
ensure they get paid is damaging to everyone else, and thu
H.264 may not be free to distribute if you have a blog that contains some
ads, even if you're only earning pennies a day. That doesn't sound so bad if
you don't think about it, but after some analysis this is really quite a big
deal: It removes that unique endless flexibility of the internet. Yo
Not useless; you can supply multiple sources for a video tag. Annoying, yes
(you have to encode the content to multiple formats), but certainly not
useless.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to
> Daring Fireball has some good questions, such as how shipping Flash
> with Chrome ... fits in
> here.http://daringfireball.net/2011/01/simple_questions
Well, right now there is no open source alternative to Flash, is
there? And by alternative, I mean an alternative that would replace
Flash wit
http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2011/01/googles-dropping-h264-from-chrome-a-step-backward-for-openness.ars/
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Ben Schulz wrote:
> So far I'm indifferent to this news because it does not seem to affect
> anyone. I think what you're referring to as the "effect on v
So far I'm indifferent to this news because it does not seem to affect
anyone. I think what you're referring to as the "effect on video
professionals" is described in the article as follows:
"In addition, I know that if your encoding facilities are working at
or near capacity, you'll have to buy m
I can hardly contain my disgust at Google's move, and the utterly
vapid rationale behind it. I'll just hope that some of you will
consider the effect this has on video professionals, who see the world
very differently than software developers do. Jan Ozer at Streaming
Media wrote a commentary, "C
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Karsten Silz wrote:
> I beg to differ. Consumers consume - video content in our case. So
> they don't pay H.264 license fees (Microsoft / Apple / Adobe do, and I
> know consumers indirectly pay in the end, but it's such a small amount
> since license fees are ca
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 11:00 AM, phil swenson wrote:
> Unless all the browsers start supporting WebM, won't the HTML 5 video tag
> will be useless?
Isn't this a true statement regarding h.264 as well? Firefox and
Opera have both stated they can/will not support them over the
royalties. (Highl
good writeup from ars technica
http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2011/01/googles-dropping-h264-from-chrome-a-step-backward-for-openness.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss
"Google is now building a community around WebM (similar to that around
Theora), but it hasn't taken any steps to
On Jan 13, 2:09 pm, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> It's obviously a win for consumers because WebM or OggTheora winning the
> format war is a vastly superior situation for us consumers to be in,
> compared to anything controlled by the MPEG-LA consortium, such as H.264.
I beg to differ. Consumers
Unless all the browsers start supporting WebM, won't the HTML 5 video tag
will be useless?
I'm just annoyed because 99% of the time Chrome has a tab crash, it's flash.
And now the only way Chrome will support the widely used H.264 video
standard is via flash. At least before, I had hope this pro
On Jan 12, 4:56 am, Moandji Ezana wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Karsten Silz wrote:
>
> > Daring Fireball has some good questions
>
> I guess Google would say that Android and Youtube are not Chrome...
Chrome itself has embedded flash support. You don't need to run
Android to utili
I can't help but wonder if it's a tactical move, trying to pressure the
consortium into better licencing terms...
On 13 Jan 2011 13:09, "Reinier Zwitserloot" wrote:
> It's obviously a win for consumers because WebM or OggTheora winning the
> format war is a vastly superior situation for us consume
It's obviously a win for consumers because WebM or OggTheora winning the
format war is a vastly superior situation for us consumers to be in,
compared to anything controlled by the MPEG-LA consortium, such as H.264.
We could all chew the fat about why google is doing this (and by all means,
do!
On Jan 13, 4:32 am, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 5:40 PM, work only wrote:
> > Just two faced, Google you are drooping from being a Good company to a crap
> > company.
>
> Because they are choosing to support an open standard instead of a closed
> one?
To me, a standard either
Flash users h.264 so delete that :)
2011/1/12 Cédric Beust ♔
>
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 5:40 PM, work only wrote:
>
>> Just two faced, Google you are drooping from being a Good company to a
>> crap company.
>
>
> Because they are choosing to support an open standard instead of a closed
> one
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 5:40 PM, work only wrote:
> Just two faced, Google you are drooping from being a Good company to a crap
> company.
Because they are choosing to support an open standard instead of a closed
one?
--
Cédric
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google should stop says its doing this for openness, if you what to be open
drop Flash.
This is just to piss off Apple, that's all.
Just two faced, Google you are drooping from being a Good company to a crap
company.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:27 PM, phil swenson wrote:
> not sure how this is
not sure how this is a win for consumers in any way. only explanation that
makes any sense to me is it's an attack on iOS (which uses H.264)
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 9:41 AM, work only wrote:
> Well Google needs to drop Flash, Flash users H.264 for video hardware
> decoding.
>
> Can have it bot
Well Google needs to drop Flash, Flash users H.264 for video hardware
decoding.
Can have it both ways :)
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 5:15 AM, Karsten Silz wrote:
> On Jan 12, 1:22 pm, Chess wrote:
> > If they really wanted to force the issue make YouTube WebM only.
>
> They certainly could, but
On Jan 12, 1:22 pm, Chess wrote:
> If they really wanted to force the issue make YouTube WebM only.
They certainly could, but I think that would render YouTube rather
unusable on all current smartphones / tablets due to lack of hardware
decoding (either dropped frames or bad battery life). And I
Perhaps after the heavy polarisation between writing apps for iOS and
Android and desire for developers to develop specifically for them
could the same happen for websites? Sites designed specifically to
work with one or the other? Having to detect the client device and
having a site tailored to on
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Karsten Silz wrote:
> Fair enough about Youtube, but isn't the Android browser called Chrome,
> too?
>
I think that on vanilla Android it's simply called "Browser". On HTC Sense's
customised browser it's called "Internet" and the only info I can find about
it on t
If they really wanted to force the issue make YouTube WebM only.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
javaposse+unsubscr
On Jan 12, 12:56 pm, Moandji Ezana wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Karsten Silz wrote:
>
> > Daring Fireball has some good questions
>
> I guess Google would say that Android and Youtube are not Chrome...
Fair enough about Youtube, but isn't the Android browser called
Chrome, too?
> A
40 matches
Mail list logo
