| |||||||||||||
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog)More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog)Posted Jan 15, 2011 13:30 UTC (Sat) by GhePeU (subscriber, #56133)In reply to: More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) by elanthis Parent article: More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog)
The numbers of "I'm going back to Safari" tells all about who's complaining. Apple fanbois should be forced to use a tag everywhere, so we could easily filter them out and improve the general SNR.
(Log in to post comments)
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) Posted Jan 15, 2011 16:37 UTC (Sat) by hitmark (guest, #34609) [Link]
Not just fanbois, media workers as well. Outside of USA, the major use of Apple hardware is in the media professions. This is partially why Apple products show up in various movies, ads and tv shows, because that is what they have on hand in the studio at the time.
And digital broadcasting have basically hitched their wagon on H264.
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) Posted Jan 15, 2011 17:51 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
> And digital broadcasting have basically hitched their wagon on H264.
Well that's the point of MPEG right?
MPEG = "Moving Picture Experts Group". They are the standards group for helping to ensure interoperability in media processing and delivery technologies. Unfortunately they are also a front group for a corporate cabal designed to use USA government laws and enforcement to protect their control of the industry and extract licensing fees from anybody that matters.
If it wasn't for the patents then groups like MPEG-LA would be entirely good things as they would provide a important service. The standardization around H.264 would reap tremendous benefits for everybody, big and small.
It's one of the challenges with this sort of thing. People in the industry may have a hard time understanding why something that should be so good is so bad.
So they automatically assume that it has something to do with some sort of irrational 'Open Source Ideology'. From our point of view it's seems self-evident that a encumbered media codec is a bad thing as we have been running into issues with other formats for so long and bumping against the legal limitations is nothing new.
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) Posted Jan 15, 2011 21:03 UTC (Sat) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link]
MPEG-LA has nothing to do with the standardization itself, it is ONLY there to extract licensing fees.
MPEG-LA is a set of patent pools (and not limited to video anymore, it is more or less every field). Without the patents, it would not exist.
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) Posted Jan 16, 2011 7:41 UTC (Sun) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Sorry. I guess I got MPEG-LA and MPEG mixed up.
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) Posted Jan 17, 2011 1:51 UTC (Mon) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
Even better, nothing should make you believe that MPEG-LA has rights for all the patents you need. It is entirely possible that you could implement whatever codec, having purchased a suitable license from the MPEG LA and then some lawyer you've never heard of sends you a letter insisting you immediately pay back royalties on every unit shipped to his firm, or else they'll see you in court.
This isn't just a fairy tale, it happens, and it will probably continue to happen so long as software patents (and perhaps patents generally) exist. When it trips up the Microsofts of this world they just pay up and move on, but if you're a start up you will probably go out of business.
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) Posted Jan 17, 2011 14:26 UTC (Mon) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link]
Exactly. There's much misinformation being spread about unencumbered codecs along the lines of "Well, just because we can't find patent infringement doesn't mean there isn't any."
The same argument is true of encumbered codecs after you've 'licensed' them.
Apple appears in movies because it is what the professionals have at hand? Posted Jan 17, 2011 0:51 UTC (Mon) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Oh, come on. To get your product/logo to show up in a movie/TV show/book does cost real money, it's not that they use as prop the first thing they have on hand. If you are spending a few million dollars on your cast, you won't skimp on random props...
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) Posted Jan 17, 2011 16:55 UTC (Mon) by jmm82 (guest, #59425) [Link]
"Not just fanbois, media workers as well. Outside of USA, the major use of Apple hardware is in the media professions. This is partially why Apple products show up in various movies, ads and tv shows, because that is what they have on hand in the studio at the time."
Or maybe they just have aesthetically more pleasing case designs;)
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) Posted Jan 17, 2011 23:12 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
No.
Apple literally sends hardware to TV studios and movies so that it gets used. It's easier for the studios to use Apple products since they don't actually have to go to the store and buy it, as well as they are happy to get free stuff.
More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) Posted Jan 17, 2011 23:45 UTC (Mon) by jmm82 (guest, #59425) [Link]
OK... I know Apple is not buddies on the patent front and their App Store is not GPL friendly, but I am sure movie studios can get any computer for free if they say it will be featured in the movie.
Apple does some stuff good and their products are nicely designed from a visual prospective. The HP Envy is one of the few computers not made by Apple which has a nice design and I sometimes see that computer in ads and movies, also.
|
|||||||||||||