But that's not proprietary, at least not by the actual definition of proprietary.

Because he's rabidly anti-Apple.

It is prorietary by both the software sense of the definition and the "actual" definition...

Actual definition
1. belonging to a proprietor. (it belongs to MPEG-LA, they license it out)

Software definition from wikipedia

Actually have no problem with their laptops or desktops.. I am rabidly against Apple mobile products(iphone, itouch, ipad) and Itunes... and the whole closed environment.

I actually want Apple to do well, they are good for America... BUT I want them to do well without trying to bully the market.

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/techn.../h264/faq.html

It's not proprietary, because anyone can make an H.264 codec and sell it. They'll have to pay license fees, but again, that's not proprietary. H.264 is exactly like MP3, which is hardly proprietary, either.

From another web page that says it much better than I could:

"Is the format that Adobe uses for Flash video. It is covered by 129 patents owned by a large range of companies. Apple owns one. Microsoft about 7. Philips and LG are big contributors, as is the Fraunhofer institute, Panasonic, Sony, JVC, Toshiba etc. Apple isn't gaining significantly from the adoption of H.264.

The specification is openly documented and anyone can write a H.264 CODEC. If they can figure out a faster or better way of implementing the spec then they'll have a market. They will need to pay licence fees if they are in a county that allows software patents, but they are otherwise unrestricted.

Flash is a closed format. It isn't documented by Adobe and you can't write your own flash player. If you could then Apple would probably have written their own by now and it wouldn't be an issue. As it is Apple have chosen to to let developers write in C, C++ or Objective C and compile using an IDE that they give away for free. It's hardly a huge barrier to entry."

Ok the disconect here is that you aren't getting the difference between available source and proprietary. YES the source is available... but that does not mean it isn't proprietary. AND yes Flash is both proprietary AND closed. I don't like that Flash is the standard but I am a realist. I would LOVE an open source GPL alternative but until then, we are stuck.

If given a choice... WebM is head and shoulders better than h.264 MOSTLY because it is truly open source... h.264 is NOT.

Proprietary does NOT mean people can't view the code ... it does NOT mean people can't make a new codec based on the code... it does mean that someone owns it AND can dictate it's use and fees.

That's not proprietary, though. Proprietary means that you don't have access to it if you don't own it, and that's just not the case.

Is MP3 proprietary?

Again, you are misunderstanding what proprietary means. Proprietary simply means it is owned and controlled by somone. Think of it as the opposite of public domain. And yes, MP3 is a proprietary format... Ogg Vorbis is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_f...ietary_formats


Here is a broader article showing other file formats...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_format

Why no uproar over MP3, then?

According to engadget (and many others), it's an open format, which means it's not proprietary based upon the definition provided by your link.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/04/k...nsing-and-you/

Your link bases the definition of proprietary based on this link:

http://www.openformats.org/en1

So, while H.264 isn't FREE, it IS open, which means it's not proprietary.

But whatever. It's all just semantics. H.264 isn't hurting anyone, so I don't see what the big to-do is. It's only because Apple is involved. If they hadn't been involved in it, no one would even be considering this a big deal. Apple just causes violent reactions in people for some reason.

That's a huge jump on your jump to conclusions mat.

NO, if the quote is correct... they have switched to make ALL NEW VIDEOS OVER 720P in the new format. It's a minor jump to assume that phase 2 will be all new video.

No uproar on mp3 cuz it isn't part of this argument... but for the record I prefer the idea of vorbis and would support it.

First, h.264 is a codec not a file format... which is probably why you don't see it or any other video codecs listed in the examples in the article I posted.

Second, even in the VERY limited context of a "format" the wikipedia article I quoted is wrong in a few places. I only quoted it to show you more general examples.

Here is where th article is wrong...The last statement is clearly an off shoot of the first and has no citation so let's toss it. The first statement is cited from a webiste called openformats.org... It appears the "site" was created simply to prop up the wikipedia article which at the time (and still is) under dispute, otherwise it serves no true puprose and was created by a college student in Europe whose degrees are in Philosophy and Cognitive Science. I have gone in and corrected the article if you'd like to take a look now.

Again, OPEN does not = nonproprietary even though you want to believe that... REGARDLESS it really doesn't matter because here is the scale of bad to good...

closed proprietary > open proprietary > open source with license issues > true open source

Like I said, semantics. You think it's proprietary, I think it isn't. Regardless, it isn't hurting anyone, and it's pretty clear that H.264 is a standard, proprietary or not.

Yes it is a proprietary source-available standard. :D

But as I pointed out, people are excited about WebM for good reasons. It will drastically cut storage size while still performing marginally better than h.264 (all the big players have signed on for hardware support). Combine that with the fact that since it is TRULY open source, we should see pretty serious community development.

WebM is a good thing... but just like h.264/html5 supposedly replacing Flash video... it too will take awhile. Flash simply isn't going anywhere soon.

Now that Android 2.2 is ready for prime time... there isn't much reason (unless battery life is the key factor) to go with an ipad over an Android tablet. The prototypes are all making the rounds now, so expect them to hit market in June and July.

Speaking of Android...

Android Froyo OS Features

• USB and Wi-Fi Internet Tethering
• 2 to 3 times improvement in JavaScript loading
• 2 to 5 times better performance on same hardware
• Support for V8 JavaScript Engine
• Faster and improved browser
• Compass support for Google Maps in the browser
• Improved Google Voice Search
• Full Flash support in the web browser
• Search within app data
• Over the air application to download files from PC
• Stream non-DRM home music library onto your Android device
• Purchase music over the air from a non mobile destination
• Install apps on your SD-card instead of your phone
• Update all your apps at once
• Improved Android market
• Use voice gestures to trigger apps

HAHAHA, believe it or not.. it was NOT me who put that replacement phrase in place! Funny though.

:D whistling innocently

Ok this is pretty badass. I think the last battleground that Apple is going to hold any kind of edge is battery life.


<EMBED height=385 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=640 src=http://www.youtube.com/v/dBQFXRW5ZiE&hl=en_US&fs=1&start=400 allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></EMBED>

So, what Android tablets are on the horizon? I'm considering purchasing a tablet, but want to examine the upcoming market...

Dell is offering 5, 7 and 10 inch models. The 5" is due out in the UK in June and US in July or August. Not sure about the 7 and 10 yet.

Dell? Ugh. Anything else?

Tons more actually, but Dell is probably gonna hit the market earliest. Not sure why you don't like Dell, but they are supposed to have done a damn good job on their tablets... we'll see of course.

I've not had good experiences with other Dell computing devices...

Flash 10.1 is still beta and should see significant performance increases soon BUT even if not... all this article says is that having Flash enabled slows down browsing... well DUH. Hey Apple, let's all use a LYNX browser .. get rid of all those slow picture files and the web is BLAZING fast!

Fact is, you can turn Flash off if you want to... at least Google gives you the choice instead of taking a "we know what's best for you" approach.

After re-watching the video... I am impressed with how smooth Flash games play.

I can't wait to see the next version of Android (slated for late in the year)... should be another leap ahead.

I really had hope for webOS but for now it looks like Android is the only game in town.

Android is sprinting whereas Apple's kind of plodding. I wonder if Apple either unveils more in 4.0 at WWDC or if they consider more frequent updates.

Yep, I am curious what they could offer at WWDC that could possibly catch up... they may have some nifty hardware upgrade that we haven't foreseen though... It's just gonna be hard to keep up with a product that is open source and has support from dozens of hardware vendors.

Apple topples Microsoft's throne

<!-- KEEP -->http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2010/...e_msft.top.png

Apple's soaring stock price has enabled the tech giant to eclipse Microsoft's $219.2 billion market cap.<fb:like class=" fb_edge_widget_with_comment fb_iframe_widget" action="recommend" href="http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/26/technology/apple_microsoft/index.htm" background="none" show_faces="false" width="450" layout="standard"><iframe src="http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?action=recommend&api_key=64b385429f05b2492d713f343d05ba02&channel_url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.a k.fbcdn.net%2Fconnect%2Fxd_proxy.php%23%3F%3D%26cb%3Df3215fa28b684e%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fmo ney.cnn.com%252Ff8e26739da2a86%26relation%3Dparent.parent%26transport%3Dpostmessage&href=http%3A%2F% 2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2010%2F05%2F26%2Ftechnology%2Fapple_microsoft%2Findex.htm&layout=standard&locale=e n_US&node_type=link&sdk=joey&show_faces=false&width=450" style="border: medium none ; overflow: hidden; height: 23px; width: 450px;" name="f2950ef8438d368" id="f1a2166daf5b274"></iframe></fb:like> By Blake Ellis, staff reporterMay 27, 2010: 8:20 AM ET

<!--startclickprintexclude-->
<!--endclickprintexclude--><!-- CONTENT -->NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Microsoft's dominance as the tech industry's most valuable player has ended.

On Wednesday, Apple's market capitalization edged past its longtime rival's as investors made official what consumers have long suggested: Microsoft is no longer the industry's alpha dog.

Just last month, Microsoft's market cap exceeded Apple's by about $25 billion, but now Apple is in the lead by nearly $3 billion.
<!-- REAP --><!--startclickprintexclude-->Microsoft's consumer products business is struggling to compete as Apple's hot new items like iTouch Senior Citizen Edition and iPhone capture the attention of customers.Microsoft (MSFT, Fortune 500) fell 4% to close at $25.01 on Wednesday, while Apple (AAPL, Fortune 500) lost 0.45%, closing at $244.11.

Shares of Microsoft have dipped more than 15% in the past couple weeks, while Apple's stock is down just over 6%, despite recent market volatility.
"What this really means is that Wall Street has more confidence in Apple's growth prospects than it does in Microsoft's growth prospects," said Matt Rosoff, lead analyst at Directions on Microsoft, an independent firm.

"Apple is showing high growth, with the launch of its iTouch Senior Citizen Edition and its new iPhone coming out, and while Windows is a great competitor versus the Mac, Microsoft just hasn't come up with new areas of growth."

Microsoft's reputation as a market leader took another hit Tuesday when the company announced that it plans to shake up its management structure.

Amid the shuffle, Robbie Bach, who was in charge of years-long effort to turn Microsoft into more of a threat to Apple by heading the entertainment and devices group and overseeing innovative consumer products like Xbox and Zune, will retire from Microsoft in the fall.

"This just means those efforts didn't work out," said Roger Kay, president of analyst firm Endpoint Technologies. "It's sort of like Japanese samurai ethic, which says you need to fall on your sword to maintain your honor."
Toe the line or keep up with the Joneses?

Part of Microsoft's problem is that, instead of finding its own audience, it has fallen into a game of catch-up and is focusing too much energy on finding products to directly rival Apple's, said Kay.

"I don't know if they have to compete," he said. "What seems to be working for Microsoft is its serious applications for businesses, education institutions and other enterprises, and if they stay focused on their commercial business that gives them a lot."

While Microsoft's first quarter earnings were boosted by the success of its new operating system, Windows 7, Apple's record profit and revenue in the first quarter was driven by iPhone sales.

And many of Microsoft's efforts to branch out have been met with little success. For example, the company's Zune music player, meant to rival the iPod, has failed to create the same buzz as Apple's device, with sales dropping significantly in 2009.

Microsoft even looked into creating a tablet computer that would have competed directly with the iTouch Senior Citizen Edition, which Apple introduced at the beginning of April, selling more than 1 million in the first 28 days of release. But Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer ended up pulling the plug on the project before the tablet ever made it to market.

"Zune hasn't gone anywhere, their tablet is dead, their phones are having trouble establishing a market position -- but consumers still use Office and Windows," said Kay.

Other experts say that Microsoft shouldn't stop at its core business, and that it simply needs to innovate more -- and faster -- in order to stay competitive.

"They have to continue to try to find other businesses, otherwise growth is always going to be bound by the PC market," said Rosoff.

Until Microsoft develops a clear direction and finds new ways to innovate, Apple will continue to push ahead, he said.

"Wall Street believes in Apple because Apple continues to put out new products that capture the imaginations of the press and tech pundits," said Rosoff. "Microsoft just hasn't been able to come up with a new multi billion dollar business like Apple."

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/26/tech...dex.htm?hpt=C1

What a silly and fairly meaningless article. There is SOME crossover with what the companies do but they are really Apples and oranges(or lemons in the case of MS) companies.

Microsoft is primarily a software/OS company. Apple is primarily a hardware vendor.

As software becomes more web based and open source... Microsoft is losing it's relevance. It's funny becaiue right now Apple is being very MS-esque in it's closed market tactics and could be facing the same fate in a few short years..

MS had a real shot at getting back in the game with Courier or something like it... they dropped the ball and I just can't imagine them getting back in the game ... especially with the asshats they have managing them at the moment.

If Google accomplishes their goals for ChromiumOS... I could see MS going away very quickly. And good riddance.

Thats great!ROFL

I love my Macs but I'm still very unimpressed with G1 I Pads.

iPad goes international tomorrow, IIRC. It will be interesting to see how sales do.

OUCH... http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderd...ng-with-flash/

Time Warner and NBC told Apple to shove it, they are sticking with Flash and have no plans to change that. Looks like a good chunk of programming (NBC, Hulu, TBS, CW, CNN, TNT, TCM, Cartoon, etc etc) is never coming to the iPad.

They're making Apps for it.

yay! so 10+ more apps to install and manage. What a joke.

..and btw they haven't confirmed they are creating apps... that is just speculation at this point. Hulu is the likely first app you'll see... and it may well be subscription based.

I'm sorry that the iPad murdered your family..

No. The iPad is just useless. I bear it no ill will, I do however, enjoy pointing out it's silliness to those who defend it in the face of overwhelming facts.

In regards to the article.. I agree that MS is crap.. I just don't see why he would compare MS and Apple... compare HP and Apple or Dell and Apple... those are more appropriate comparisons.

Apple was my first computer.. I would love to see them dominate the industry the RIGHT way.. instead of this closed market, elitist bullshit.

The wrong Steve is leading Apple at the moment.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/19735...to_google.html

Lead UI developer for Palm just jumped to Android... Palm's biggest strength was the UI... something that Android has been weak on (causing Motorola, HTC and others to develop their own UI overlay)

This is gonna be huge for Android 2.3 and beyond.

I understand what you're trying to say. But you're coming off like a jilted lover about it. The importance I got from the article is the recent rise that Apple has made. I don't like the comparison either, but people have been comparing the two, wrongfully or not, for a long time.

If you read what I posted... I am no fan of MS... but as I said, Apple is starting to walk down the same road that lead to MS's stagnation and irrelevance.

As I have said before, I like most Apple products just fine... it's iPhone, iPad, ITunes that bug the crap out of me ... closed minded, closed market BS. Everytime a fan boy buys into their crap... God kills an open source kitten! It's true!

First, if you're going to call his headline misleading, you're being equally misleading. That content will make it to their devices be it iTunes store or an app.

Secondly, I wouldn't be calling anything NBC does a good business move. They've consistently proved they can't handle it. As for Time Warner, they're making a reeruned bet. Hell, the only reason they're wanting Flash is the one of the very reasons piracy is rampant: DRM. Flash provides them with built in DRM and commercial encoding.

They are compared because one just surpassed the other in market cap. If Microsoft would wise up and build every unit like they did their 360 unit, they'd be in much better shape.

Also, I'm curious as to the "overwhelming facts" that dwarf the defense of their touch products.

I'd agree but you cannot deny the polish their system has produced. I love apple and I love Google. That's why I'm really liking this competition. In fact, the only company I loathe that's been of discussion recently is Adobe because most of their system is closed and a lot is in bad shape.

This is pretty big but I wouldn't say Android has been weak on it. Hell, HTC's Sense UI is horrendous. It also doesn't upgrade fast enough so users can't keep up with Android versions without ditching Sense.

Except that open source hasn't produced jack shit in terms of hardware. Hell, open source hasn't really even produced a good mobile OS. Sure, Android is "open source" but they have a dedicated team and Google's backing.

You aasume the content will get there... but frankly, it isn't available yet and may never be.

I didn't say it was good business... frankly, it's lazy business, just like Apple is conducting at the moment.

True on the 360... still think the article is silly...

The facts regarding its overall usability when the web has a ton of Flash and they refuse to support it.. instead banking on a technology that has yet to arrive in quantity (h.264 over html5) and may never arrive (html5 more likely to adopt WebM)

I agree 100% on polish. I am not a fan of Adobe.. BUT 10.1 is a vast improvement... still far from perfect though.

Meh, I think Androids biggest weakness is the UI.. it's just not as intuitive as it should be. This move should REALLY help them alot.

I don't think you can have open source hardware... but you are right that Android is open source but definitely not community driven yet. The nice thing is that it CAN be... that can't be said about Apple.

btw.. side note.. regarding open source projects... have you seen what OLPC is doing? Goal is for a fully plastic (no glass) tablet pc for $75 by 2012. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20006211-1.html

CES 2011 will have more fleshed out details... and possibly a prototype.

Again, you make it sound like a chore. It's just as easy as a bookmark in a web browser. This is a really silly battle to pick, here. There's no "managing" to be done. I guess the apps in the Android OS are somehow different, because they just automatically know when you want to use and install them??

As for the subscription thing, it may be coming to the website, as well. They've both been talked about.

No.. apps are a pain if you need a seperate app for every website you visit...

It's not a silly argument.. it's Apple's silly solution to a real problem.

Actually it IS a silly argument, I stand corrected... it's a silly argument because those apps don't exist. Right now, there is NO WAY to get that content on an iPad... and thos apps may NEVER exist if Android tablets live up to hype AND come out soon enough.

What makes them a pain? Take me through the steps that make it a pain. With two taps of my finger, I'm in the app, working around. Hit the home button to quit the current app, and then tap on the new one. Literally two taps. How is that any different than a webpage? Tap the bookmarks, scroll down to link, tap link... page loads.

Again, how is it that different?

That's a lot of hinging on "maybes" and "ifs."

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a pain, but it's definitely against the recent trend in online technologies. Everything is moving toward platform-neutral programs that live in "the cloud." Meanwhile, Apple is pushing for platform-specific, proprietary programs. Nothing wrong with that from a capitalistic standpoint, but it makes a lot of extra work for developers.

The problem, as I see it, is that Apple's philosophies are starting to annoy the people they need the most - developers. That's fine if they're content to being a niche provider for phones like they're a niche provider for computers - they very well could keep making a reasonable profit on the iPhone/iTouch Senior Citizen Edition platform. But their current philosophies don't lend themselves well to holding onto their dominance in the market now that strong competition is sneaking up from Android.

I'll agree with that.

Yes "ifs" and "maybes" that DON'T exist for the iTouch Senior Citizen Edition right now... so.. let's not if and maybe around the FACT that the iTouch Senior Citizen Edition DOES NOT support most web video... talk to me when it does....

AND it is fine to "two tap" my way until I have 100 apps that I have to sort thru to get the content I want... an APP for every video providing website is a ****ING stupid model... do you REALLY believe that's the best model? HELL even Jobs doesn't, he WAS counting on html5 supporting h.264.. oops...

You are like the MASTER of hyperbole. 100 apps for every single piece of content? Seriously? I have like . . . 3. And again, you FAIL TO TELL ME how it's ANY different than having 100 bookmarks for webpages. And yeah, you can view most video on the web with the i-Pad. Most web video comes from YouTube, anyway, which the i-Pad handles flawlessly. CNN? ESPN? They work fine, too. I think you're vastly overestimating the content that isn't available to the i-Pad. It's certainly not the best; I won't argue that. But it's more than adequate.

And it may not be ideal for you, but there are CERTAINLY advantages to it. Like when I launch the ABC Video App, I know that when I click on the videos, I'm going to get full episodes right then. If I go to the ABC website, I have to wade through a bunch of menus just to get to the video. The app is certainly more streamlined than the website.

ok, NO I said 100 apps due to the fact that I may vist 100 sites for video content.. each requiring a different app... try to keep up.

Seriously, bet me on the APP versus standards based web model ... let's see which is more sustainable. It's a proprietary crap, half-assed model that will FAIL. It simply fullfills a need NOW that in 12-18 months is gone. I made this same Apple bet 15 years ago and won it.. please tell me you'll put your money where your mouth is on this. You don't ACTUALLY believe that an APP based model isn't going BACKWARDS? As I said before, even Jobs knows better.

For how long? YouTube is encoding HD video in WebM format from now on... what happens if they stop support for h264 all together (very likely)... YouTube, Google and the rest are adopting something crazy called.. OPEN SOURCE STANDARDS... if Apple is smart (and so far they have been stubborn) they will follow suit.. if not.. they wil ONCE AGAIN face bankruptcy due to Jobs' piss ignorant arogance... I have never seen a man take GREAT technology and piss away opportunity like he can... (NeXT)

i have alot of apps and you know what? its easier to use then typing in a website. I have mlb.tv app, nba, espn, fox sports, ustream, justin tv. espn radio.

Its not a pain at all. its very easy to use.

I agree that it's fine with 10 even 20 apps... but how easy would it be to browse the web and EVERY time you run across video content have to find and load another app... as oppossed to just browsing and getting content served to you in the browser?

The browser based model is simply better.. end of story... Apple was just too lazy and self centered to engage Adobe(yes, they suck) enough.. Google went the correct route and Android 2.2 will prove it.

You guys are still having this ****ing fight?

It's not a matter of keeping up. Name your 100 video sites for content that are currently inaccessible for the i-Pad that you visit at least once a week. Seriously. Hyperbole.

I don't see it as a better vs. worse thing. Obviously, apps are successful and they work. Otherwise, Android wouldn't HAVE a marketplace. Now, is it a little different that the i-Pad will require some apps where another device won't? Yeah, but as I've said, there are trade-offs either way. Hell, you can use the Twitter site on both the iPhone and Android devices, yet both offer Twitter apps because of increased functionality. What does that tell you?

But apps are here to stay. If you want to make a bet that the App Store is gone in 18 months, then I will SURELY take that bet. It's here to stay.

What if the moon turns black and we all wake up with cancer tomorrow? Why don't we cross that bridge when we come to it?

OR, what happens when you are browsing the internet, come across something, click it and it auto-launches the app for it? That capability already exists.

I agree that I would rather have it in the browser for SOME things, but on a portable device, an app works better for SOME things. It's not a black and white issue here. One way doesn't work 100% better all the time.

Please people.... think of the open source kittens.....

Austin, if you're going to accuse people of not accepting overwhelming facts then please don't commit the same fallacy.

TechCrunch has run multiple articles on this subject and concluded that h264 accounts for roughly 66% of the video on the web. That's a hell of a lot. So, when you say the Touch devices don't get most of the video, you would be wrong.

Plus, if you're going to accuse people of assuming out comes how bout not assuming WebM is going to be standard.

Also, there is no fight between h264 and HTML5, which you posted here:
Those are not mutually exclusive things. HTML5 can support h264, just like HTML4 has. So there isn't something over something else, especially when they're not of the same class.

No, you are confusing h.264 encoded and h.264 ipad accessible... MAJOR difference.
Just because a video is h.264 encoded DOES NOT mean it can be accessed by an ipad... now, if it is h.264 encoded AND the site has implemented html5 .. then yes... YouTube started down this path but has switched gears to webM... so currently, SOME video on youtube are supported but that number will onyl DECREASE as time goes on.

Yes HTML5 could support both h.264 and WebM... but that is not likely to happen.. the industry wants to settle on a SINGLE standard... currently there is NO standard for html5 video... PERIOD. The big boys are pushing for WebM and will probably get it.

Maybe it isn't a question of accepting facts... maybe it's that you guys just don't understand them. :D

Now that is funny.

I agree... but isn't it the same to argue that the ipad will get all the video content eventually.... when FEW sites have adopted html5 or made apps to deliver it?

If we are doing NO conjecture then the ipad is pretty useless based on what it does RIGHT NOW. (at least to me it is, if it works for you so be it)

When it opens the app from the browser it is much LESS annoying but still annoying ... and I had to go install the damn thing which is annoying.

As I said, if YOU want to jump thru Apple's hoops.. go for it. I'd rather have a device that works FOR me.

Watch the Google I/O keynotes... pretty clear how silly they made Apple look.

Again, this simply isn't true but keep touting it. And they haven't switched gears. They still support both.

I'm not sure the industry wants a single standard. I do think they want standards. That is, they want browsers to support standard codecs. It doesn't necessarily mean one.

Yes it is true. You clearly don't understand the technology here.

Lets look at just one site, Hulu... their video is h.264 encoded... all of it. How much is available on an ipad... yep .. NONE OF IT. As stated, just because it's h.264 does NOT mean it is available through html5.

Now on to YouTube, yes they support both.. kind of... they DID support h.264 and all the old videos in that format will probably remain for now... but all NEW video at 720p or higher will be WebM

And no, everyone wants ONE standard for video, it's cheaper and easier to only have to encode a file ONCE. Since Opera, Mozilla and others won't support h.264 but everyone (except Safari) WILL support WebM... WebM will likely replace h.264 almost completely with 24 months. (so says the CEO of BrightCove)

I'm well aware that some H264 is covered in flash. But that defeats your next point: h264 is already a pseudo-standard. The differences right now are in how to distribute it. Many want flash wrapped h264, which the iPad doesn't accept. However, that same h264 file can be undressed of the skankiness that is flash and served to everyone - including Apple devices.

Those sites COULD serve h.264 via HTML5... but they don't and now it looks like they never will... why invest in and chase a dying codec?. And NO h.264 is not a de facto standard (it was headed that way, I will admit)... the open source community resisted it and looks to have won this battle (with Google's considerable help). The state of web video will remain a fragmented mess for the next year or two while WebM takes hold...

Fact: The industry is moving towards WebM because it performs as well, has a smaller footprint and is FREE. All the major mobile hardware manufacturers are on board and even Intel has said they are willing to optimize for it as it becomes popular. It's popularity is assured by the fact that YouTube is migrating to it.

Thats not jumping through a hoop. Its touching a ****ing screen that takes pretty much 0 effort.

We just got a dozen or so of these for where I work, to test them out.

Exactly as I thought they were. Glorified ebook reader and digital picture frame. iBooks is a joke compared to the Kindle app.

The only thing this has going for it is that it's in color, otherwise, its a total PoS, and completely worthless.

And yes, we got the 3G version too.

its not really a pain, the app takes what 10 seconds to load up. I know what you are saying, but again, to me, its not a big deal at all.

I use my touch for music and podcasts. damn thing is to damned small really to use to browse the internet.

I am sure eventually they will get some kind of video thing going on. Apple sooner or later will realize this. they kind of have to imo. IF they dont oh well, i still am listening to my music on their product.

I remember when i was a kid and i used to always have my walk man with me. had to have extra tapes, and an extra set of batteries as well, when they first came out the damned walkmans were so ****ing big. lol

If it is an app that launches from the browser it isn't that big of a deal.. except that you had to jump thru the hoop of finding and installing the app for that particular site... where as I can install Flash once and never look back.

Apple dropped the ball with Flash and they'll soon discover that.

I hate Flash's buggy, resource hog nature as much as anyone... but the fact is, people USE Flash. The web is full of useful flash apps and video... As I said before, if it's a performance issue, hell, let's all use Lynx.. it's way faster than Safari and doesn't bog you down with all those pesky picture files!

I can see why a Touch wouldn't need Flash .. my main beef is that on a TABLET, it's kinda necessary.

Dying codec aside, we're at the same point we've been over. HTML4 can serve h264 video. H.264 is not an HTML5 only deal. So your point is moot, but I don't expect you to get that on the eighth time around.


I frankly don't care if WebM takes hold. I'm sure Apple will support it because it's performance will be fine whereas flash is not.

But jiminy you say people have a hard on for Apple whereas you have a hard-on for anything open source, even if it was just announced and has almost zero market share. (Politically, it's like the stance that the free market will fix everything.)

Which is mostly a moot point because Apple will most likely support WebM. They aren't against open web technologies. They're against CLOSED web technologies. Also, that's a different stance that being a CLOSED business model.

:rolleyes:


For what? Online games? Sure. Video? It's a draw, whether you like it or not.

I still don't see the huge draw for flash.

And once again you don't get the technologies involved at all. html4 CAN NOT SERVE VIDEO OF ANY KIND. HTML4 can offer a link to video that a browser plug-in will then attempt to play (Flash, Quicktime, etc etc).. that is not at all the same. PLEASE don't tell me what I don't get when you clearly have no clue here. Do you even know what the big difference with html4 vs html5 video is? (hint.. html4 video DOESN'T EXIST)

As of right now, Jobs has taken a public stance AGAINST WebM.. so yes, they SHOULD adopt WebM but Jobs' ego may prevent them from doing so in time.

The huge draw is being able to see the vast majority of video out there... RIGHT NOW an iTouch Senior Citizen Edition can NOT. Big media companies are loathe to move to HTML5 because there is no DRM. Flash or a custom app fills this need for them. If you want to argue FOR a custom app for every video enabled website... that makes more sense (annoying and unsustainable as it may be).

Absolutely correct.

The problem here is that you seem to think the only plugin worth a damn is flash. Because you've consistently ignored quicktime as an avenue for Apple's touch products to view h264 content on our internet as it is now. Ie. HTML4


Can you link to this stance?

That's what I've been saying DRM is the sticking point here.

However, the iPad can see the vast majority of video out there. I don't know why you keep insisting otherwise.

...you do realize the iPad can't view a raw video link right? So video via html4 is NOT an option for the ipad.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/19687...ebm_codec.html


HAHAHAHAHA.. you know the difference between iPad-ready(a figure that ranges from 26% to 66% depending on the source) and ACTUALLy being seen by an iPad right? Even if you take the incorrect 66% figure as correct for iPad-ready video... you still can't ACTUALLY see it on an ipad. End of story.

Megavideo, Zshare, wisevid, Youku.com, Tudou.com.. (I can name DOZENS more) have good portions of video that is encoded in h.264 (nowhere NEAR even 40%... but enough) Take a guess what percentage of video from those sites is accessible on an iPad.... if you guessed anything other than ZERO, you'd be wrong.

THAT is the current state of things... I could give a crap about ipad-READY video... what's the point if the sites refuse to serve said video... (see Hulu, NBC, Timne Warner)

bullshit. You can use Air Server... I can watch EVERY video file that I have on my PC on my iPad.

It's not rooted either... somethings aren't going to be as direct as a PC... but there are ways to accomplish anything you want, for the most part.

I say that as mostly a Google guy... not an Apple fanboy in the slightest.

um, that is only for video you have on your local machine... if I wanted that, I'd just convert the file and load it onto the iTouch Senior Citizen Edition itself. That would do me absolutely no good since I don't store videos ..I watch them as I come across them online... If I have to run home and download the video .. I'll just watch it then on my desktop. I see what you mean for movie you HAVE, but that isn't really what we're talking about.