3 ms·

>thanks for ditching the open standard h264 on Chrome I think that someone may have lied to you when they explained the words "open" or "standard". Also, why

>thanks for ditching the open standard h264 on Chrome I think that someone may have lied to you when they explained the words "open" or "standard". Also, why am I "looking at" MSFT/AAPL/GOOG for in relation to HTML/CSS/JS apps? They fact that many are still native? Google's apps for iOS are web based, and I'm sure iCloud apps for Android will be web based. Microsoft just got done demoing HTML5/CSS3 applications for Windows 8. Your comment is all over the place without actually saying much or really making any legitimate claims.

BadHabitz 15y ago
who gives a shit about the quality of his comment. your mother said to get off the computer
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  I don't understand. Did I offend someone, was I out of line?
r00fus 15y ago
> I think that someone may have lied to you when they explained the words "open" or "standard". h.264 is not royalty free, but it is open and a standard (from Ars: http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2011/01/googles-dropping-h264-from-chrome-a-step-backward-for-openness.ars http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2011/01/googles-dropping-h26... ) "In the traditional sense, H.264 is an open standard. That is to say, it was a standard designed by a range of domain experts from across the industry, working to the remit of a standards organization. In fact, two standards organizations were involved: ISO and ITU. The specification was devised collaboratively, with its final ratification dependent on the agreement of the individuals, corporations, and national standards bodies that variously make up ISO and ITU. This makes H.264 an open standard in the same way as, for example, JPEG still images, or the C++ programming language, or the ISO 9660 filesystem used on CD-ROMs. H.264 is unambiguously open."
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  I guess I'll blame arstechnica for the misunderstanding then. I'm sorry, but I have an exceedingly difficult time calling anything "open" when they sit around and sue people or make promises not to sue them for arbitrary windows of time, due to the fact that they (the consortium) hold patents that they use to troll for profits.
- ZeroGravitas 15y ago
  That particular author has a chip on his shoulder about H.264 and WebM. I would consider taking anything he says on the matter with a grain of salt. His calling anything "unambiguously open" when the word "open" itself is so ambiguous is very poor rhetoric. But if you look for precise definitions of the phrase "open standard" you might find that H.264 fails 14/16 of the various definitions offered by governments and standards bodies on the wikipedia page for that term. All failing for the same reason of charging patent fees. One of the other definitions is a historical accident that I doubt the same body would stand by today, or at any point in the last 5 or so years. The final definition, the one that it passes, just so happens to be written by patent attorneys of the people who developed H.264.

BadHabitz 15y ago

who gives a shit about the quality of his comment. your mother said to get off the computer

drivebyacct2 15y ago
I don't understand. Did I offend someone, was I out of line?

r00fus 15y ago

> I think that someone may have lied to you when they explained the words "open" or "standard". h.264 is not royalty free, but it is open and a standard (from Ars: http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2011/01/googles-dropping-h264-from-chrome-a-step-backward-for-openness.ars http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2011/01/googles-dropping-h26... ) "In the traditional sense, H.264 is an open standard. That is to say, it was a standard designed by a range of domain experts from across the industry, working to the remit of a standards organization. In fact, two standards organizations were involved: ISO and ITU. The specification was devised collaboratively, with its final ratification dependent on the agreement of the individuals, corporations, and national standards bodies that variously make up ISO and ITU. This makes H.264 an open standard in the same way as, for example, JPEG still images, or the C++ programming language, or the ISO 9660 filesystem used on CD-ROMs. H.264 is unambiguously open."

drivebyacct2 15y ago
I guess I'll blame arstechnica for the misunderstanding then. I'm sorry, but I have an exceedingly difficult time calling anything "open" when they sit around and sue people or make promises not to sue them for arbitrary windows of time, due to the fact that they (the consortium) hold patents that they use to troll for profits.
ZeroGravitas 15y ago
That particular author has a chip on his shoulder about H.264 and WebM. I would consider taking anything he says on the matter with a grain of salt. His calling anything "unambiguously open" when the word "open" itself is so ambiguous is very poor rhetoric. But if you look for precise definitions of the phrase "open standard" you might find that H.264 fails 14/16 of the various definitions offered by governments and standards bodies on the wikipedia page for that term. All failing for the same reason of charging patent fees. One of the other definitions is a historical accident that I doubt the same body would stand by today, or at any point in the last 5 or so years. The final definition, the one that it passes, just so happens to be written by patent attorneys of the people who developed H.264.