Tweet
Originally posted by Hoodlum
View Post
-
Your skills at reasoning are so lame, I wouldn't even know how to reply to that. You aren't actually saying anything. -
You don't know they won't either.Originally posted by RealNC View Post
Lets look at the facts:
- Google has stated they prefer open formats (their business model is based on it)
- Google will have to pay massive royalties for h264 videos under 10 minutes soon - see here
- Google has stated Theora is not up to the quality / size (mostly for bandwidth) ratio they require - see here
- Google Bought On2 directly after Theora was removed from the HTML 5 Spec - see here
Even if there is nothing in the spec when it is finalised and Google force some VP8-based Free codec it would force everyone to standardize and make the whole thing a non-issue.
Your skills at avoiding the point are "so lame". As you didn't understand the concept last time here it is again:Your skills at reasoning are so lame, I wouldn't even know how to reply to that. You aren't actually saying anything.
The internet was based on the concept of universally accessible information. Using encumbered codecs restricts who can view them. These are opposing concepts.
Really, if you don't understand "opposites", I despair with you.Comment
-
Than come back when it's final rather than playing oracle.Originally posted by Hoodlum View Post
What on earth have "concepts" to do with this whole thing? Go in some other thread and post irrelevant stuff. The issue here was Mozilla paying royalties for H.264, which I proved is not necessary.Your skills at avoiding the point are "so lame". As you didn't understand the concept last time here it is again:
The internet was based on the concept of universally accessible information. Using encumbered codecs restricts who can view them. These are opposing concepts.
Really, if you don't understand "opposites", I despair with you.
Seriously, what on earth are you babbling about? "Understanding the point..." That wasn't even the point here. You provide answers for questions that weren't even asked. Your opinions about "open standards for the web" are something that have absolutely zero-nada-nothing to do with whether or not Mozilla can avoid paying royalties.Comment
-
Hey, calm down, you'll get your panties in a twist or something.Originally posted by RealNC View Post
Once the <video> spec is finalized, it may very well recommend or demand a codec. If you had taken the time to follow what the stakeholders have to say on this debate, you would be well aware that this is the most likely outcome. The debate is still ongoing and the spec is not finalized yet.
It would be very interesting if Google did release VP8 as a competitor to H.264 and Theora. If they offer royalty-free access to the necessary patents for decoding, this format will likely dominate and become the de facto standard. They certainly have the muscle for that (thanks to youtube and google video) and it's likely they can raly the HTML5 comitee by offering an exit from the current debate.
Frankly, I think most people would have no problem with H.264 if the MPEG LA decided to allow royalty-free software decoders with patent exemption. This would all but ensure H.264 makes it to HTML5 and, while it might decrease their short-term profits, it would significantly increase their long term profits from hardware decoders and soft/hard encoders.
Obviously, they are hoping to use their current market advantage to dominate but noone can predict what will happen if Google really comes out with their own format. Time will tell, I guess.Comment
-
Sorry, you proved what?Originally posted by RealNC
Let me break the situation down for you. Two choices:
1. Mozilla uses platform-specific plugins. This guarantees full H.264 support on Win7 and recent versions of Mac OS X. It also makes for spotty support on WinXP, Vista, Linux and every other OS on the planet.
2. Mozilla coughs up the necessary royalties and includes their own decoder.
Like it or not, they wish to avoid the first solution as it would fragment the web. They would also like to avoid the latter for reasons that are pretty self-explanatory.
You may not agree with this, but H.264 is a lose-lose proposition as far as Mozilla is concerned. They've stated that they will support H.264 if - and only if - everything else fails. Until then, they will keep pushing for a free alternative.Comment
-
Which is what my original post pointed out to you. The spec is in flux. You said, and I quote, "Hoodlum failed to check facts before posting." in response. You are saying one thing then flip-flopping the second I confront you on it.Originally posted by RealNC View Post
Highly relevant, these concepts are the foundation of the internet, which Mozilla also follows. I pointed out you did not understand these. You then avoided the point, twice - Instead making jokes.What on earth have "concepts" to do with this whole thing? Go in some other thread and post irrelevant stuff.
Mozilla wants a standard codec to avoid the corporate travesty of GIF, Flash etc. Because of one overruling concept on which the internet is based: universally accessible informationThe issue here was Mozilla paying royalties for H.264, which I proved is not necessary.
You were discussing their stance without understanding the reason behind it. I explained it. I then went on to explain the entire situation to you.Seriously, what on earth are you babbling about? "Understanding the point..." That wasn't even the point here. You provide answers for questions that weren't even asked.
They are not my opinions. They are the foundation of the internet. It exists because of them.Your opinions about "open standards for the web"
When you posted:
You showed you did not understand the internet as a whole and should therefore not be discussing something you do not understand.Originally posted by RealNC
Of course they can, we all already know this, keep upare something that have absolutely zero-nada-nothing to do with whether or not Mozilla can avoid paying royalties.
They do not want to mostly because It would only turn out like GIF or flash where the standard means s*** and the web is as fragmented as it is now (or worse). They resist this because it is bad for everyone.Comment
-
Oh my....
90% of youtube videos have such a bad quality, that it would not make a difference if the video was encoded with theora.
(BTW there are other free codecs like dirac with awesome quality. I testet it for myself.
Everyone (MS, Apple...) can implement Ogg Theora support for free. For not doing this I criticize those both.
Noone can implement H.264 decoders for free and distribute the product legally.
You say that *the* free browser *Firefox* should support by default a proprietary format? This is completely against the philosophy of freedom, of Firefox, of the *Internet*.
If you really want H.264 support *in* *Firefox* and not in form of a plugin, then pay a developer that implements the feature for you. Then you are happy. But it would be bad if the official firefox would support this. Or (if you compare again to flash), hack firefox that it replaces the <video> with <embed> if there is only H.264 content. Then it will also work for you.
But it is the worst possibility to implement decoding of a non free codec in firefox. There is no choice. Or the world must change and accept that softwarepatents are crap and forbit them.
You as a user can give a shit on those patents. But mozilla can't. And shouldn't, too.Comment
-
I think a Firefox source code mod should be possible, then you just have to compile the browser on your own
Comment
-
Too many stuff to reply to individually, so I'll just sum it up:
HTML5 draft spec states Theora as a standard codec: wrong. It did in the past, then got removed.
Theora will be put back in the draft spec: It's unlikely to come back. Of course "unlikely" doesn't mean "impossible," but still.
The Internet should only use non-patented formats: My personal opinion is "no, the Internet should use whatever it wants to." And if the HTML 5 draft will stay as-is, it's going to.
It's in the best interests of Mozilla to not support H.264 when the spec finalizes: Nope. It's in the best interests of Google, not Mozilla.
It's in the best interests of Mozilla to fight for re-introduction of Theora in HTML 5: Yes. But it's unlikely to happen. Apple and M$ have veto powers. See mailing list posting above.
Mozilla would have to pay royalties if they support H.264 in their own code: Most probably yes. I think the group responsible for patent licensing stated that by "January 2010" they would come up with a final statement of whether they will require royalties for Internet use of H.264 or keep it royalty-free forever, but I didn't look up any news about it. I doubt they will pass on the opportunity to make some major amounts of money here.
Mozilla would have to pay royalties if they allow third-parties to add support for H.264: Nope. And I think that's obvious.
Using Theora will not result in royalties: Apple disagrees. Are they telling the truth? No idea, but that's what they're saying.
Firefox does not, and should not support proprietary formats: People tend to forget that H.264 is not a proprietary format (DivX, WMV, RealVideo, etc. are, H.264 is not). It's much like JPEG image support in Firefox; it's not proprietary either, but there are patents around it.
Firefox should enforce a "Philosophy of Freedom": Enforce? No. Support? Yes. What does that mean? For me, it would mean Mozilla should still provide a way to get H.264 playback in their browser but keep trying to push for Theora. Trying to force the issue by not allowing any means for H.264 would be like closing their eyes and shouting "H.264 doesn't exist." And if the majority of the Internet ends up using H.264 it would be like shouting "the Internet doesn't exist" instead, which for an organization that offers an Internet browser isn't exactly a good thing. But we're not there yet, that's just speculation.
An "overruling concept on which the internet is based" is "universally accessible information": W3C themselves say: "The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is an international community where Member organizations, a full-time staff, and the public work together to develop Web standards. Led by Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, W3C's mission is to lead the Web to its full potential." Translation: "M$, Apple, Mozilla, Google and a crapload of other companies/organizations come to us and get their stuff in the spec so web developers have something they can rely on."
What exactly does "universally accessible information" mean here? No idea, the poster didn't elaborate.
Anyway, that's about it from someone who showed that he did not understand the Internet as a whole and should therefore not be discussing something he does not understand.Comment
-
....I would have thought that was pretty obvious as long as you know what the words mean.Originally posted by RealNC View Post
The best way to explain this is with the history of the web:
The web began as a proposal by Tim Berners-Lee at CERN as a way to share information across the various incompatible systems (documents could not be shared easily) used at the time. The basic premise is a universally accessible system, he developed HTML for the task. This is the web's purpose and the cornerstone of it's existence today. Available everywhere, for everyone with a computer.
He realised the impact this would have on society - Knowledge is Power. As books gave people power in the past the internet would give it on a scale not seen before. No longer would the best information be limited to only a handful of people. It would create a levelling effect.
Comment:Example of an equalising technology:
History has shown this to be true. The values in a country are no longer dictated by its tradition alone. People with access to the web get access to culture from around the world. This is the levelling effect.
A similar effect is that of Satellite TV on Indian women. Having access to American TV shows provided them with a view of an alternative lifestyle - They saw it was possible to be treated as equals and wanted that for themselves. In the years directly after widespread Satellite TV was introduced to Indian homes the cases of wife abuse had reduced massively.*
*Source: Superfreakonomics (book)
Comment:
The internet of course has a much greater effect on society than TV. This is why the web is often known as "The Great Equaliser" because it levels the playing field. Everyone has freedom to use the information and everyone has a voice, not just the wealthy elite.
Content Restriction & Mozilla:
Restricting access to information creates a "walled garden" effect. You end up with incompatible parts of the web - much like the old infrastructure before the web existed. Mozilla does not want this to happen because it is bad for everyone. We got past this in the 90s, this is going backwards. People who understand the history of the web understand this and want it to move forward, not back.
The extreme "If everything is patented" outcome:
Let's assume we continue down this route of using patented codecs and do the same for images, sound etc etc. At some point it is likely that only commercial entities will be able to afford the numerous licences. "The Great Equalising" effect of the internet is now gone. The point of it, is gone. Information is not freely available anymore, you have to pay - a lot.
Subsection: Example of "real world" impact:
People are beginning to use the web in Africa as they are finally getting access. Many use it to find out how to grow crops effectively. If no browser is available for free? Sorry, you can't - starve.Comment
Comment