4 ms·

As to Gruber: he has no credibility asking Google tough questions. Why do you need credibility to ask questions?

by DavidSJ 16y ago

randall 16y ago
And furthermore, content creators are going to be asking these exact same questions.
- jrockway 16y ago
  I'm a content creator. The question I had before is, "why should I pay money for a fucking video format". Now the answer is, "you shouldn't". Hating Google is pretty low on my todo list.
  - moxiemk1 16y ago
    Video formats are extremely complex and require huge amounts of expertise to make. With your logic, why should I pay money for content? So far, it seems to be impossible to prevent ripping and transcoding, so maybe the answer would be "you shouldn't".
    - nitrogen 16y ago
      Actually, AIUI a lot of the concepts in modern codecs have been tossed around academia for quite a long time. See this highly informative and empowering video: http://xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml http://xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml
    - pornel 16y ago
      > Video formats are extremely complex and require huge amounts of expertise to make. And yet, we have volunteers with knowledge who are constrained by patents (I'm sure x264 guys could come up with an awesome codec, and Theora team could do much better if they weren't limited to technology they got patents for), And we have companies willing to support development of codecs (BBC Dirac, Google) which, again, are constrained by patents.
  - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
    The one that gets me is paying to move a file across the internet. I've still not seen a good explanation of how that is possible even given the existence of patents on the process of creating or displaying the file at either end. (And note, you still have to pay this if you charge for access to the video or your site as a whole).
    - blasdel 16y ago
      They make it a condition of licensing you the ability to encode or decode the video — contract law. If you read the EULAs and such on even a piece of 'professional' software like Final Cut Studio or Avid, it'll describe how the encoder is only licensed for personal use and that someone else in your distribution chain needs a different contractual arrangement with them, along with whoever's on the playback end.
  - tmugavero 16y ago
    How much have you paid for using H.264? Just curious.
krakensden 16y ago
Surely you have had the experience of being in a class or lecture with someone who used Q&A time to preen or push an obviously inappropriate agenda. Discourse, like everything social, requires a certain amount of good faith, or it stops being useful.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- bradleyland 16y ago
  What part of his line of questions would you deem "obviously inappropriate" or lacking "good faith"? I can understand Google wanting to push open standards, but there are some very glaring hypocrisies on display here. Everyone questions Apple's agenda when they leave Flash out of iOS, but somehow Google gets a pass? Gruber is biased? Heh.
  - drivebyacct2 16y ago
    Google isn't keeping anyone from writing an H.264 plugin for Chrome, they're choosing not to support it. Apple has the luxury of those being the same thing (not supporting = not allowing) on iOS. Are you implying that Gruber isn't biased? It's really neither here nor there, but I've been on HN enough to simply see the headlines with (daringfireball) next to it to roll my eyes at that notion. (Note, I think John brings up some great questions. I think almost all the complaints about WebM, voiced here on HN, are ignorant of browser compatibility and Flash's support for WebM (though I still think the hardware decoding points that have been brought up are very valid), but the questions of timing and consistency across Google's product intrigue me)
    - bradleyland 16y ago
      If it's implied it's not intentional. I'll state forthright that Gruber's bias is worn on his sleeve. You'd have to be a fool to argue otherwise. But even someone with bias can ask straight forward questions. While Google and Apple may be engaged in some perceived "battle to the death", it doesn't mean that someone with an Apple bias can't ask valid questions about Google's decisions. The OP accused Gruber of having an inappropriate agenda and not acting in good faith. I didn't read that between the lines in Gruber's post, so I'm curious why he/she did.
DrHankPym 16y ago
I think he means that no one at Google is going to take the time to answer Gruber's questions. If not, why not?
metachris 16y ago
I find it a bit sad that this comment has almost more votes than the parent post, which has several insightful points. This comment picks out only a single issue (although an important one), but does ignore all the other statements. I would hope people stop upvoting such a comment at 20 points max. I can't seem to find it, but there was once a comment or page by PG which explained the core of good follow-up comments: not picking out a single item which is easy to criticise, but rather responding to the core of the parent comment.

As to Gruber: he has no credibility asking Google tough questions. Why do you need credibility to ask questions?

by DavidSJ 16y ago

As to Gruber: he has no credibility asking Google tough questions. Why do you need credibility to ask questions?

randall 16y ago

And furthermore, content creators are going to be asking these exact same questions.

jrockway 16y ago
I'm a content creator. The question I had before is, "why should I pay money for a fucking video format". Now the answer is, "you shouldn't". Hating Google is pretty low on my todo list.
- moxiemk1 16y ago
  Video formats are extremely complex and require huge amounts of expertise to make. With your logic, why should I pay money for content? So far, it seems to be impossible to prevent ripping and transcoding, so maybe the answer would be "you shouldn't".
  - nitrogen 16y ago
    Actually, AIUI a lot of the concepts in modern codecs have been tossed around academia for quite a long time. See this highly informative and empowering video: http://xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml http://xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml
  - pornel 16y ago
    > Video formats are extremely complex and require huge amounts of expertise to make. And yet, we have volunteers with knowledge who are constrained by patents (I'm sure x264 guys could come up with an awesome codec, and Theora team could do much better if they weren't limited to technology they got patents for), And we have companies willing to support development of codecs (BBC Dirac, Google) which, again, are constrained by patents.
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  The one that gets me is paying to move a file across the internet. I've still not seen a good explanation of how that is possible even given the existence of patents on the process of creating or displaying the file at either end. (And note, you still have to pay this if you charge for access to the video or your site as a whole).
  - blasdel 16y ago
    They make it a condition of licensing you the ability to encode or decode the video — contract law. If you read the EULAs and such on even a piece of 'professional' software like Final Cut Studio or Avid, it'll describe how the encoder is only licensed for personal use and that someone else in your distribution chain needs a different contractual arrangement with them, along with whoever's on the playback end.
- tmugavero 16y ago
  How much have you paid for using H.264? Just curious.

krakensden 16y ago

Surely you have had the experience of being in a class or lecture with someone who used Q&A time to preen or push an obviously inappropriate agenda. Discourse, like everything social, requires a certain amount of good faith, or it stops being useful.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
bradleyland 16y ago
What part of his line of questions would you deem "obviously inappropriate" or lacking "good faith"? I can understand Google wanting to push open standards, but there are some very glaring hypocrisies on display here. Everyone questions Apple's agenda when they leave Flash out of iOS, but somehow Google gets a pass? Gruber is biased? Heh.
- drivebyacct2 16y ago
  Google isn't keeping anyone from writing an H.264 plugin for Chrome, they're choosing not to support it. Apple has the luxury of those being the same thing (not supporting = not allowing) on iOS. Are you implying that Gruber isn't biased? It's really neither here nor there, but I've been on HN enough to simply see the headlines with (daringfireball) next to it to roll my eyes at that notion. (Note, I think John brings up some great questions. I think almost all the complaints about WebM, voiced here on HN, are ignorant of browser compatibility and Flash's support for WebM (though I still think the hardware decoding points that have been brought up are very valid), but the questions of timing and consistency across Google's product intrigue me)
  - bradleyland 16y ago
    If it's implied it's not intentional. I'll state forthright that Gruber's bias is worn on his sleeve. You'd have to be a fool to argue otherwise. But even someone with bias can ask straight forward questions. While Google and Apple may be engaged in some perceived "battle to the death", it doesn't mean that someone with an Apple bias can't ask valid questions about Google's decisions. The OP accused Gruber of having an inappropriate agenda and not acting in good faith. I didn't read that between the lines in Gruber's post, so I'm curious why he/she did.

DrHankPym 16y ago

I think he means that no one at Google is going to take the time to answer Gruber's questions. If not, why not?

metachris 16y ago

I find it a bit sad that this comment has almost more votes than the parent post, which has several insightful points. This comment picks out only a single issue (although an important one), but does ignore all the other statements. I would hope people stop upvoting such a comment at 20 points max. I can't seem to find it, but there was once a comment or page by PG which explained the core of good follow-up comments: not picking out a single item which is easy to criticise, but rather responding to the core of the parent comment.