5 ms·

> How will it make my everyday experience better as an Apple customer without the integration Perhaps you should ask the inverse - how good would your experien

> How will it make my everyday experience better as an Apple customer without the integration Perhaps you should ask the inverse - how good would your experience with Apple be, if there were no open standards paid for by someone else, and fought for by someone else? You wouldn't even have GPS and navigation. You would not have HTML or the open web. Before we fought for video codecs compatibility you could not even get a video that was recorded on a Device A to reliably play on Device B. The phone would be almost useless. The people that argue this, they only take from the commons and never give back.

scarface_74 3y ago
I think you should look up the history of h.264 and see who is in the patent pool…
- vetinari 3y ago
  You should go even further and check the video playback experience on apple machines, when divx was all the rage and apple had just a sorrenson video 3. And yeah, full-screen playback was a qt pro feature, paid extra.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    Or you can go even further back when Microsoft was caught stealing QT code because they couldn’t do video competently themselves and Apple could (circa 1995). And every Mac geek knew how to work around it either via free third party software or just using AppleScript https://osxdaily.com/2007/01/30/play-quicktime-movies-full-screen-without-quicktime-pro/ https://osxdaily.com/2007/01/30/play-quicktime-movies-full-s...
    - vetinari 3y ago
      Nah, they didn't, when Jobs said someone has stealing his code, he meant that someone did something similar. Like "stealing his ideas". Also in 90's, there was no applescript support on macos classic qt, and third party players like vlc didn't exist yet either (not that they ever ran on classic). I know, I was mac user back then and I remember.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        No, Microsoft actually stole QuickTime code. https://thisdayintechhistory.com/12/06/apple-sues-over-quicktime/ https://thisdayintechhistory.com/12/06/apple-sues-over-quick... Someone doesn’t know their history… Also, the look and feel lawsuit happened before Jobs came back and within a few months after he came back, he settled all of the claims. Your memory is spotty
        vetinari 3y ago
        I see you don't know how presumption of innocence works. I'm not a fan of Microsoft, but the same applies to them as anyone else. You can be sued for anything, whether true or not. In the court, it must be proven that you did what you are sued for. So it is either proven, or not, and then the court issues the verdict. If it is not, like in Microsoft's case, they are still innocent. It does not matter whether it was impossible to prove or Apple stopped pursing the case; the court said they are guilty. If you continue say they did it, it is a defamation. Even without regarding the above, the case was really shaky. Microsoft using the same vendor through a chain (via Intel) as Apple does not mean they are "stealing". That vendor might learn something from working with them, but that does not imply what you said. Nevermind, that Video for Windows had somewhat different scope (video subsystem), than Quicktime (multimedia subsystem). For Apple, it was simply a negotiation card. Look & feel lawsuit was literally the oh noes, they do similar thing as we do case.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        Again you don’t know your history. Microsoft paid Apple a settlement fee as part of the overarching deal they made with Apple back in 1997.
        vetinari 3y ago
        The 1997 settlement was about making peace between these two companies. It had nothing to do with the 1994 lawsuit. Btw, the result was that "Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law].." If you want to know how it looks when Microsoft did stole something, look at Stacker. Entirely different evidence, entirely different result, including entirely punishment.

scarface_74 3y ago

I think you should look up the history of h.264 and see who is in the patent pool…

vetinari 3y ago
You should go even further and check the video playback experience on apple machines, when divx was all the rage and apple had just a sorrenson video 3. And yeah, full-screen playback was a qt pro feature, paid extra.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  Or you can go even further back when Microsoft was caught stealing QT code because they couldn’t do video competently themselves and Apple could (circa 1995). And every Mac geek knew how to work around it either via free third party software or just using AppleScript https://osxdaily.com/2007/01/30/play-quicktime-movies-full-screen-without-quicktime-pro/ https://osxdaily.com/2007/01/30/play-quicktime-movies-full-s...
  - vetinari 3y ago
    Nah, they didn't, when Jobs said someone has stealing his code, he meant that someone did something similar. Like "stealing his ideas". Also in 90's, there was no applescript support on macos classic qt, and third party players like vlc didn't exist yet either (not that they ever ran on classic). I know, I was mac user back then and I remember.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      No, Microsoft actually stole QuickTime code. https://thisdayintechhistory.com/12/06/apple-sues-over-quicktime/ https://thisdayintechhistory.com/12/06/apple-sues-over-quick... Someone doesn’t know their history… Also, the look and feel lawsuit happened before Jobs came back and within a few months after he came back, he settled all of the claims. Your memory is spotty
      - vetinari 3y ago
        I see you don't know how presumption of innocence works. I'm not a fan of Microsoft, but the same applies to them as anyone else. You can be sued for anything, whether true or not. In the court, it must be proven that you did what you are sued for. So it is either proven, or not, and then the court issues the verdict. If it is not, like in Microsoft's case, they are still innocent. It does not matter whether it was impossible to prove or Apple stopped pursing the case; the court said they are guilty. If you continue say they did it, it is a defamation. Even without regarding the above, the case was really shaky. Microsoft using the same vendor through a chain (via Intel) as Apple does not mean they are "stealing". That vendor might learn something from working with them, but that does not imply what you said. Nevermind, that Video for Windows had somewhat different scope (video subsystem), than Quicktime (multimedia subsystem). For Apple, it was simply a negotiation card. Look & feel lawsuit was literally the oh noes, they do similar thing as we do case.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        Again you don’t know your history. Microsoft paid Apple a settlement fee as part of the overarching deal they made with Apple back in 1997.
        vetinari 3y ago
        The 1997 settlement was about making peace between these two companies. It had nothing to do with the 1994 lawsuit. Btw, the result was that "Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law].." If you want to know how it looks when Microsoft did stole something, look at Stacker. Entirely different evidence, entirely different result, including entirely punishment.