5 ms·

As the parent said, e.g. MySQL and Linux weren't as good or better than the closed alternatives when they gained traction. They were however cheaper, and open o

by whopa 17y ago

As the parent said, e.g. MySQL and Linux weren't as good or better than the closed alternatives when they gained traction. They were however cheaper, and open often has the quality of cheaper, since it's often simply free. Cheaper often wins over better. Hell, MySQL still isn't as good at the big closed databases. And this applies to HTML5 video: Theora is cheaper than h264. So Gruber's argument doesn't seem to hold.

ugh 17y ago
Gruber ignores costs, that’s right. Probably should have mentioned those somewhere in his argument. But, just so to make that clear, cost does of course not win by default. If something is bad enough, paying for the alternative could be the better thing to do.
- whopa 17y ago
  Gruber ignoring cost when it's often one of the strongest benefits that fall out of openness strikes me as disingenuous. And yeah, cheap doesn't always win if it really sucks. You could make an argument that Theora sucks that bad, especially when you consider the lack of hardware decoders. But that isn't Gruber's argument at all. His analysis here is really off base.
CrLf 17y ago
You are defining "good" as "feature rich", which are different concepts. For example, MySQL wasn't and isn't as feature rich as the big closed databases, but it solved many problems as well as they did, and in many cases with less overhead (learning curve, administration, hardware requirements). So, in a way it was better than the alternatives, and that's why it gained traction. Compare to H.264 vs. Theora. Theora is just an alternative, it doesn't solve any problems better, it is just "open", which most people don't care about.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
wmf 17y ago
Theora is cheaper in some cases, but usually all codecs appear "free". Apple and MS have already paid the H.264 license fees (for other reasons), so the incremental cost to support it in the browser is zero. Likewise, most people treat encoding and streaming as free even if they're legally supposed to pay.
tvon 17y ago
> MySQL and Linux weren't as good or better than the closed alternatives when they gained traction I don't recall either gaining any traction until they were better in some way, either for developers or implementors. In some cases just being "open" makes it better, but that's only true if the project is going to be adopted in some way, like Apple using KHTML for WebKit. In the case of Theora, nobody wants to adopt it as a long term project, they just want to implement video for their users. From that perspective, H.264 is better (I'm a layman here, but as I understand it the quality is better and the file sizes are significantly smaller, but correct me if I'm wrong). It would certainly be better if they all got together on Theora much like they have on WebKit, but it seems ongoing development can't have the same level of improvement on a video codec that it can on a rendering engine, at least that's my perspective on it.
- whopa 17y ago
  > I don't recall either gaining any traction until they were better in some way, either for developers or implementors. No, when they got traction was before they were better, but after they were good enough, which means you could run your business on cheap Intel/AMD hardware.
  - tvon 17y ago
    Ah, but that means they were better in some way relevant to business needs, and good enough elsewhere. Theora is better in terms of cost, but that apparently isn't enough of an advantage to counter the technical shortcomings.
    - whopa 17y ago
      No, they were not better than the closed source alternatives for most businesses. They were cheaper. Cheaper trumps better often. Cheaper drove adoption.
      - tvon 17y ago
        I'm defining "cheaper" as one of many factors that go into deciding if one thing is better than another, I'm not speaking purely from a technical/feature standpoint.
jonknee 17y ago
MySQL would never have caught on if every new computer made came with an already licensed version of a better and faster database. MySQL was "better" because it was accessible. h.264 is already accessible, it's built into every new smartphone and computer.
GHFigs 17y ago
Price is just another criteria used to evaluate what's "good", but it is not an independent factor. The importance of price varies along with everything else.

by whopa 17y ago

ugh 17y ago

Gruber ignores costs, that’s right. Probably should have mentioned those somewhere in his argument. But, just so to make that clear, cost does of course not win by default. If something is bad enough, paying for the alternative could be the better thing to do.

whopa 17y ago
Gruber ignoring cost when it's often one of the strongest benefits that fall out of openness strikes me as disingenuous. And yeah, cheap doesn't always win if it really sucks. You could make an argument that Theora sucks that bad, especially when you consider the lack of hardware decoders. But that isn't Gruber's argument at all. His analysis here is really off base.

CrLf 17y ago

You are defining "good" as "feature rich", which are different concepts. For example, MySQL wasn't and isn't as feature rich as the big closed databases, but it solved many problems as well as they did, and in many cases with less overhead (learning curve, administration, hardware requirements). So, in a way it was better than the alternatives, and that's why it gained traction. Compare to H.264 vs. Theora. Theora is just an alternative, it doesn't solve any problems better, it is just "open", which most people don't care about.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

wmf 17y ago

Theora is cheaper in some cases, but usually all codecs appear "free". Apple and MS have already paid the H.264 license fees (for other reasons), so the incremental cost to support it in the browser is zero. Likewise, most people treat encoding and streaming as free even if they're legally supposed to pay.

tvon 17y ago

> MySQL and Linux weren't as good or better than the closed alternatives when they gained traction I don't recall either gaining any traction until they were better in some way, either for developers or implementors. In some cases just being "open" makes it better, but that's only true if the project is going to be adopted in some way, like Apple using KHTML for WebKit. In the case of Theora, nobody wants to adopt it as a long term project, they just want to implement video for their users. From that perspective, H.264 is better (I'm a layman here, but as I understand it the quality is better and the file sizes are significantly smaller, but correct me if I'm wrong). It would certainly be better if they all got together on Theora much like they have on WebKit, but it seems ongoing development can't have the same level of improvement on a video codec that it can on a rendering engine, at least that's my perspective on it.

whopa 17y ago
> I don't recall either gaining any traction until they were better in some way, either for developers or implementors. No, when they got traction was before they were better, but after they were good enough, which means you could run your business on cheap Intel/AMD hardware.
- tvon 17y ago
  Ah, but that means they were better in some way relevant to business needs, and good enough elsewhere. Theora is better in terms of cost, but that apparently isn't enough of an advantage to counter the technical shortcomings.
  - whopa 17y ago
    No, they were not better than the closed source alternatives for most businesses. They were cheaper. Cheaper trumps better often. Cheaper drove adoption.
    - tvon 17y ago
      I'm defining "cheaper" as one of many factors that go into deciding if one thing is better than another, I'm not speaking purely from a technical/feature standpoint.

jonknee 17y ago

MySQL would never have caught on if every new computer made came with an already licensed version of a better and faster database. MySQL was "better" because it was accessible. h.264 is already accessible, it's built into every new smartphone and computer.

GHFigs 17y ago

Price is just another criteria used to evaluate what's "good", but it is not an independent factor. The importance of price varies along with everything else.