3 ms·

> H264 is not open. There are multiple implementations and Apple can tweak how it runs. It is open enough for their purposes. > Objective+C++ is not open. He

by naner 17y ago

> H264 is not open. There are multiple implementations and Apple can tweak how it runs. It is open enough for their purposes. > Objective+C++ is not open. He never said it was. He said Apple has several proprietary products but believed the web should be open. > Flash (SWF) has a fully published spec and anyone can write tools to create, or play, SWF content, without royalties, or without having to respond to any entity. Yet Adobe has the only full implementation of Flash and if someone else were to try and implement it, it would always be behind the official release (just like Moonlight). And Adobe got lawyer-happy when open source guys reversed the streaming protocol in Flash so nobody is eager to try this anyways. > Saying Adobe postponed the release dates of Flash 10.1 for smartphones: bullshit. The fact is Adobe has been boasting about Flash on smartphones since Android first came out and there have been no working devices out except Maemo which totally sucked in every way Jobs described. There was spin in this article just like his DRM article but I wouldn't qualify anything as FUD.

not_an_alien 17y ago
> It is open enough for their purposes. Ok great, so Flash is also "open enough": fully published specs, anyone is allowed to use the format (creating, playing) without royalties. SWF is more open than h264. > He never said it was True. But if he wants to make this conversation an open-versus-closed conversation, I fully expect to compare the platforms in general instead of just a tiny bit of it. > There was spin in this article just like his DRM article but I wouldn't qualify anything as FUD. Saying Adobe postponed the release date is a lie. Saying they said it would be released before is also a lie, since Adobe never announced a date for public release (it was available for devs as beta). Maybe it's not your definition of FUD, but it's still a lie. I don't expect the CEO of a company this big to be repeating this bullshit. http://www.webkitchen.be/2010/04/19/flash-player-10-1-for-android-still-on-track-for-h1-release/ http://www.webkitchen.be/2010/04/19/flash-player-10-1-for-an... Is he going to post a correction? Somehow, I don't think so.
- astrange 17y ago
  > Ok great, so Flash is also "open enough": fully published specs, anyone is allowed to use the format (creating, playing) without royalties. SWF is more open than h264. But does anyone do this? I see no usable reimplementations of Flash Player, and the spec cannot possibly be complete. H.264 is a real standard with a conformance suite and bit-accuracy, and no scripting languages or multiple versions with different bugs to reimplement. Flash also includes VP6 and RTMPE, which are proprietary and must be reverse-engineered.
- naner 17y ago
  > Ok great, so Flash is also "open enough" This is clearly not true, though. The only implementation is closed and fully controlled by Adobe. Maybe it is more open in spirit but that doesn't mean crap in practical terms. In fact Silverlight is more open (in practical terms) than flash since at least there is a usable open source project. There exists right now a full featured and heavily developed open source h.264 decoder. You can't say the same for Flash. It is either Adobe Flash or spend a bazillion dollars trying to re-implement open flash that doesn't exist yet Flash. That's a non-starter.

by naner 17y ago

not_an_alien 17y ago

> It is open enough for their purposes. Ok great, so Flash is also "open enough": fully published specs, anyone is allowed to use the format (creating, playing) without royalties. SWF is more open than h264. > He never said it was True. But if he wants to make this conversation an open-versus-closed conversation, I fully expect to compare the platforms in general instead of just a tiny bit of it. > There was spin in this article just like his DRM article but I wouldn't qualify anything as FUD. Saying Adobe postponed the release date is a lie. Saying they said it would be released before is also a lie, since Adobe never announced a date for public release (it was available for devs as beta). Maybe it's not your definition of FUD, but it's still a lie. I don't expect the CEO of a company this big to be repeating this bullshit. http://www.webkitchen.be/2010/04/19/flash-player-10-1-for-android-still-on-track-for-h1-release/ http://www.webkitchen.be/2010/04/19/flash-player-10-1-for-an... Is he going to post a correction? Somehow, I don't think so.

astrange 17y ago
> Ok great, so Flash is also "open enough": fully published specs, anyone is allowed to use the format (creating, playing) without royalties. SWF is more open than h264. But does anyone do this? I see no usable reimplementations of Flash Player, and the spec cannot possibly be complete. H.264 is a real standard with a conformance suite and bit-accuracy, and no scripting languages or multiple versions with different bugs to reimplement. Flash also includes VP6 and RTMPE, which are proprietary and must be reverse-engineered.
naner 17y ago
> Ok great, so Flash is also "open enough" This is clearly not true, though. The only implementation is closed and fully controlled by Adobe. Maybe it is more open in spirit but that doesn't mean crap in practical terms. In fact Silverlight is more open (in practical terms) than flash since at least there is a usable open source project. There exists right now a full featured and heavily developed open source h.264 decoder. You can't say the same for Flash. It is either Adobe Flash or spend a bazillion dollars trying to re-implement open flash that doesn't exist yet Flash. That's a non-starter.