3 ms·

Sorry - we crossed over - I deleted my original while you were writing this. Honestly though the points you make here don't seem to have a lot to do with the q

Sorry - we crossed over - I deleted my original while you were writing this. Honestly though the points you make here don't seem to have a lot to do with the question. If Google is going to make claims that things are open, they should be held up to scrutiny. If they are not, then we simply collude with them in weakening the term. Google claims that a highly complicated piece of code that does pretty much the same thing as another highly complicated piece of code covered by 1700 patents does is patent free and safe to use. They want other people to stake their money on testing this claim. "Google offers free services and tools of all kinds, so to single out WebM is highly agenda-driven, IMO." By that argument, any discussion of individual Google products would be "agenda driven". That's absurd.

tomlin 16y ago
They want other people to stake their money on testing this claim. This is why I believe these rants about WebM are agenda-driven. Who says Google wants people to front the responsibility? This is your claim. I don't think Google bought WebM for the purpose of screwing the implementors. That doesn't mean I think we're all safe, it just means we need more information before jumping to conclusions. It also does not mean we should use WebM without discretion. By that argument, any discussion of individual Google products would be "agenda driven". That's absurd. It's absurd to disregard that out of all the possible Google technologies (maps, android, API), WebM is considered most harmful. Especially since most who share this vision are Apple users (again, so am I). I can't ignore the obvious, stitched together, lop-sided point of view.
- rbarooah 16y ago
  In case you hadn't noticed this is a thread about the MPEG-LA and WebM. Saying that discussing WebM here is evidence of some kind of weird agenda is crazy talk.
  - tomlin 16y ago
    No. There is a difference between debate and suppression. I'm fine with highlighting WebM's faults - but not creating them out of thin air for what appears to be nothing more than a red herring, to vilify WebM with intentions that Google may or may not have.

tomlin 16y ago

They want other people to stake their money on testing this claim. This is why I believe these rants about WebM are agenda-driven. Who says Google wants people to front the responsibility? This is your claim. I don't think Google bought WebM for the purpose of screwing the implementors. That doesn't mean I think we're all safe, it just means we need more information before jumping to conclusions. It also does not mean we should use WebM without discretion. By that argument, any discussion of individual Google products would be "agenda driven". That's absurd. It's absurd to disregard that out of all the possible Google technologies (maps, android, API), WebM is considered most harmful. Especially since most who share this vision are Apple users (again, so am I). I can't ignore the obvious, stitched together, lop-sided point of view.

rbarooah 16y ago
In case you hadn't noticed this is a thread about the MPEG-LA and WebM. Saying that discussing WebM here is evidence of some kind of weird agenda is crazy talk.
- tomlin 16y ago
  No. There is a difference between debate and suppression. I'm fine with highlighting WebM's faults - but not creating them out of thin air for what appears to be nothing more than a red herring, to vilify WebM with intentions that Google may or may not have.