5 ms·

> And Safari only matters exactly because of the store. > The day Chrome is allowed to replace Safari, it is over. I keep seeing this rhetoric and it strikes

> And Safari only matters exactly because of the store. > The day Chrome is allowed to replace Safari, it is over. I keep seeing this rhetoric and it strikes me as missing the entire point. It tries to paint Safari as some kind of stalwart against the web's doom. It is part of the problem and perpetuates the very same problems we're accusing Chrome of. Two wrongs do not make a right here.

jchw 3y ago
Indeed. And look at all of the good our saint Apple does for the open web: still can't use royalty-free codecs and support iPhone/iPad, still can't test Safari support without Apple devices (and trust me, you'll need to) and of course, WebGPU Shading Language.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  You don’t pay royalties for the most popular codecs until you are at massive scale.
  - jchw 3y ago
    My desire for royalty-free "open" codecs has nothing to do with that, though. I know it has a lot to do with why Google and Netflix care about royalty-free codecs, but it has nothing to do with why I do, or why I think they are very important to an open Internet. Case in point, consider Wikipedia.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      There is no such thing as an “open” codecs. There are open source implementations of patent encumbered codecs.
      - jchw 3y ago
        Uh huh.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        Name one.
        jchw 3y ago
        No thanks.
      - rakoo 3y ago
        Software patents are only valid in jurisdictions that believe in them. Fortunately the EU still doesn't, and that's why VLC is at all possible.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        So as long as you don’t care about the US market, you as a business can ignore software patents…
        rakoo 3y ago
        Yep, and that's a few billion people. I think it's alright.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        Yes if only money and disposable income was equally distributed https://www.forbesindia.com/amp/article/explainers/top-10-largest-economies-in-the-world/86159/1 https://www.forbesindia.com/amp/article/explainers/top-10-la...
      - rpdillon 3y ago
        This seems correct, but probably leaves most readers with the wrong impression. Theora is a codec that is free and open, and the patents that cover it do not encumber it (since they are also freely licensed), so I'd consider it patent unencumbered. https://www.theora.org/benefits/ https://www.theora.org/benefits/
        scarface_74 3y ago
        So do you think it would be a good use of die space on a processor to support a substandard by today’s standard codec that was last used a decade ago? It is a complete non starter for Apple or any mobile device maker to build in support for a non hardware optimized codec on a mobile device. How does that benefit users besides the ones who bemoan not being able to run Linux on the Apple Pencil?
        rpdillon 3y ago
        I was simply responding to the query about a non-patent-encumbered codec.
        jchw 3y ago
        > So do you think it would be a good use of die space on a processor to support a substandard by today’s standard codec that was last used a decade ago? There's a specific reason why Theora was last used a decade ago... Apple. Apple is the reason. There was some other opposition, but in 2009, Apple drove the hardest against Theora being included in the HTML5 spec, and they ultimately won, leaving us with no standard codec everyone could actually agree on. Because the web is supposed to be open, and h264 is not. It being excluded from the spec, you could not rely on Theora support in the browser. > It is a complete non starter for Apple or any mobile device maker to build in support for a non hardware optimized codec on a mobile device. Given that a RPi 5 takes less than a full core to decode h264, I'm not even sure this is a real concern. In my tests, ogv.js is able to decode VP9 at modern resolutions on an iPad without even really making the device warm; it's undoutedly inefficient, but the fact that it can even be done using WebAssembly gives me a feeling that this isn't really the huge problem it's made out to be. For Theora... I mean. It's just not an issue. You can just do it in software. Maybe not in 2009, but certainly today, right now, on any hardware made in the past few years, on one core, without even driving the clocks up. For AV1, yes, sure, this is a real issue; but Apple has been a part of the AOM for years, so I have no idea why they are building machines without hardware AV1 acceleration today. That's a question that only Apple can answer, given that it has real adoption already. > How does that benefit users besides the ones who bemoan not being able to run Linux on the Apple Pencil? Yes sure, let's take a random unrelated detour to make fun of tinkerers who like to be able to reads notes run their own software on hardware they purchased. I'm disappointed, although unfortunately not surprised at all.
    - ksec 3y ago
      May be it should be patent free video codec rather than royalty free video codec?
      - jchw 3y ago
        Patent-unencumbered is the term that I should've probably used, but as you will see in the neighboring reply, there is no reason to believe anyone would pull on this thread in good faith. This sucks, because I'd rather assume good faith, but.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        Can you name one “patent unencumbered” codec? And “Words Mean Things”. There is a huge difference between “open source implementations” and “patent unencumbered” codecs
        jchw 3y ago
        Can you accept that I'm not sincerely engaging with this line of thinking? I know where it leads. I'm not stupid.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        What line of thinking? If you said you want to ride a unicorn, I would ask you where can you find one
        jchw 3y ago
        I strongly, strongly dislike what you are doing. You know exactly what I mean when I say it, but are pretending not to, even explicitly suggesting 'ah, just because the codec's open source doesn't mean it's not patent encumbered' without explicitly saying what you really want to say, just for the sake of allowing me to activate a "trap card" wherein I say "Ahh, no, I don't mean like x264, I mean like VP9!" and then you can flip around and say "Ah HAH! Actually, VP9 ISN'T patent-unencumbered: check out all of this propaganda from a literal patent cartel about how if you use VP9, they will bust your ass sideways, unless you license it using their patent pool!" And I don't care. I'll care when Wikipedia gets sued for using Opus, or AV1, or when Mozilla gets sued for shipping it in their browser, or something. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, it's empty threats from dog shit liars. But this aside, I don't understand why you can't just say what you mean right out the gates since I know you know what I am talking about, I know you knew from reply 1, and I'm sure you've already played through this conversation before. I could've said Theora, Quite OK Audio or perhaps even MPEG Layer 3 just to fuck around, but I really would like to have an honest conversation, and not just mess around with technicalities. I'm not interested in debating the legal system, or how AOM's license agreement works, or any of that crap. In practice, almost everyone can use "open", patent-unencumbered codecs without fear of lawsuits. The companies big enough to have to worry about patent lawsuits virtually no matter what have basically been using patent agreements as a weapon against the traditional patent cartels. This is of course, deeply unfortunate, since it just perpetuates the terribly broken U.S. patent system and the situation it has with video codecs. I understand that you have Opinions:tm: regarding this, I already caught on. But what you have to understand is that to most people, including plenty of lawyers, these opinions are essentially fringe. If they weren't, AV1 wouldn't be shipping in Firefox and Wikipedia wouldn't be using them. And not only that, it has nothing to do with the concept of patent-unencumbered codecs. There's always going to be codecs where the known patents have simply expired. At least in the U.S., I'm pretty sure that even includes MPEG2, but it'd suck if open source software was limited to just MPEG2. (And of course, if we do find new patents not covered under previous patent pools, that happen to apply, you have to realize that this liability existed for everyone already, including people who paid royalties anyways.)
  - est31 3y ago
    for the Raspberry Pi, they made paying for the codecs optional. So you had the option to purchase a separate license just for that single device you buy.
- larme 3y ago
  Apple delaying the progress of "web" (or just another kind of app) is good for users. Because user don't need another OS between the host os and their apps. Web developers are so self-centered. You are developers, not users, don't speak like you are doing good things for users. You are just doing things for yourselves so you can extract money/data from your users. Most web developers nowadays are just enemy of web users.
  - clarifyingN 3y ago
    > Apple delaying the progress of "web" (or just another kind of app) is good for users. Because user don't need another OS between the host os and their apps. It's categorically not good for the consumer. It's good for the small enterprise companies/upstarts that don't have the budget to keep iterating their software, which would otherwise be left in the dust quiet quickly. With apple holding it back, they've got a bigger timeframe in which their software doesn't behave as a legacy application, as everyone Else is forced to use subpar features too. From the users perspective it is - just as they said - worse, as things like codec support improve battery life and playback quality for example.
    - larme 3y ago
      small enterprise companies/upstarts can design their apps more like the traditional dynamic web site. For 95% use case that's good enough. And for the rest 5% case that requires a heavy web "app", you will find out that it's usually not what a small company can do. It's more likely uber or starbuck or facebook or google or microsoft.
  - larme 3y ago
    I'm surprised that this comment gets slightly more upvotes. I want to clarify one thing: I'm not saying apple is the good guy. Apple and google are 2 monster companies. As a user I want them to fight. That's the only way we can reduce the harm done by these monster companies. However web developers go one side: the google side. Reason? They can do half the work and get twice the money. What a gain! They sell the web to google for their dirty money.
  - 3y ago
pjmlp 3y ago
I rather have Apple do their stuff, than update my CV to state ChromeOS instead of Web. It also helps that I left my FOSS zealot stuff, writing emails with M$ on the signature, around 2000. And as someone with telecom experience, the stores were definitely much better than the operator shops buying stuff via SMS, with the applications listed on magazines.

jchw 3y ago

Indeed. And look at all of the good our saint Apple does for the open web: still can't use royalty-free codecs and support iPhone/iPad, still can't test Safari support without Apple devices (and trust me, you'll need to) and of course, WebGPU Shading Language.

scarface_74 3y ago
You don’t pay royalties for the most popular codecs until you are at massive scale.
- jchw 3y ago
  My desire for royalty-free "open" codecs has nothing to do with that, though. I know it has a lot to do with why Google and Netflix care about royalty-free codecs, but it has nothing to do with why I do, or why I think they are very important to an open Internet. Case in point, consider Wikipedia.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    There is no such thing as an “open” codecs. There are open source implementations of patent encumbered codecs.
    - jchw 3y ago
      Uh huh.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        Name one.
        jchw 3y ago
        No thanks.
    - rakoo 3y ago
      Software patents are only valid in jurisdictions that believe in them. Fortunately the EU still doesn't, and that's why VLC is at all possible.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        So as long as you don’t care about the US market, you as a business can ignore software patents…
        rakoo 3y ago
        Yep, and that's a few billion people. I think it's alright.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        Yes if only money and disposable income was equally distributed https://www.forbesindia.com/amp/article/explainers/top-10-largest-economies-in-the-world/86159/1 https://www.forbesindia.com/amp/article/explainers/top-10-la...
    - rpdillon 3y ago
      This seems correct, but probably leaves most readers with the wrong impression. Theora is a codec that is free and open, and the patents that cover it do not encumber it (since they are also freely licensed), so I'd consider it patent unencumbered. https://www.theora.org/benefits/ https://www.theora.org/benefits/
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        So do you think it would be a good use of die space on a processor to support a substandard by today’s standard codec that was last used a decade ago? It is a complete non starter for Apple or any mobile device maker to build in support for a non hardware optimized codec on a mobile device. How does that benefit users besides the ones who bemoan not being able to run Linux on the Apple Pencil?
        rpdillon 3y ago
        I was simply responding to the query about a non-patent-encumbered codec.
        jchw 3y ago
        > So do you think it would be a good use of die space on a processor to support a substandard by today’s standard codec that was last used a decade ago? There's a specific reason why Theora was last used a decade ago... Apple. Apple is the reason. There was some other opposition, but in 2009, Apple drove the hardest against Theora being included in the HTML5 spec, and they ultimately won, leaving us with no standard codec everyone could actually agree on. Because the web is supposed to be open, and h264 is not. It being excluded from the spec, you could not rely on Theora support in the browser. > It is a complete non starter for Apple or any mobile device maker to build in support for a non hardware optimized codec on a mobile device. Given that a RPi 5 takes less than a full core to decode h264, I'm not even sure this is a real concern. In my tests, ogv.js is able to decode VP9 at modern resolutions on an iPad without even really making the device warm; it's undoutedly inefficient, but the fact that it can even be done using WebAssembly gives me a feeling that this isn't really the huge problem it's made out to be. For Theora... I mean. It's just not an issue. You can just do it in software. Maybe not in 2009, but certainly today, right now, on any hardware made in the past few years, on one core, without even driving the clocks up. For AV1, yes, sure, this is a real issue; but Apple has been a part of the AOM for years, so I have no idea why they are building machines without hardware AV1 acceleration today. That's a question that only Apple can answer, given that it has real adoption already. > How does that benefit users besides the ones who bemoan not being able to run Linux on the Apple Pencil? Yes sure, let's take a random unrelated detour to make fun of tinkerers who like to be able to reads notes run their own software on hardware they purchased. I'm disappointed, although unfortunately not surprised at all.
  - ksec 3y ago
    May be it should be patent free video codec rather than royalty free video codec?
    - jchw 3y ago
      Patent-unencumbered is the term that I should've probably used, but as you will see in the neighboring reply, there is no reason to believe anyone would pull on this thread in good faith. This sucks, because I'd rather assume good faith, but.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        Can you name one “patent unencumbered” codec? And “Words Mean Things”. There is a huge difference between “open source implementations” and “patent unencumbered” codecs
        jchw 3y ago
        Can you accept that I'm not sincerely engaging with this line of thinking? I know where it leads. I'm not stupid.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        What line of thinking? If you said you want to ride a unicorn, I would ask you where can you find one
        jchw 3y ago
        I strongly, strongly dislike what you are doing. You know exactly what I mean when I say it, but are pretending not to, even explicitly suggesting 'ah, just because the codec's open source doesn't mean it's not patent encumbered' without explicitly saying what you really want to say, just for the sake of allowing me to activate a "trap card" wherein I say "Ahh, no, I don't mean like x264, I mean like VP9!" and then you can flip around and say "Ah HAH! Actually, VP9 ISN'T patent-unencumbered: check out all of this propaganda from a literal patent cartel about how if you use VP9, they will bust your ass sideways, unless you license it using their patent pool!" And I don't care. I'll care when Wikipedia gets sued for using Opus, or AV1, or when Mozilla gets sued for shipping it in their browser, or something. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, it's empty threats from dog shit liars. But this aside, I don't understand why you can't just say what you mean right out the gates since I know you know what I am talking about, I know you knew from reply 1, and I'm sure you've already played through this conversation before. I could've said Theora, Quite OK Audio or perhaps even MPEG Layer 3 just to fuck around, but I really would like to have an honest conversation, and not just mess around with technicalities. I'm not interested in debating the legal system, or how AOM's license agreement works, or any of that crap. In practice, almost everyone can use "open", patent-unencumbered codecs without fear of lawsuits. The companies big enough to have to worry about patent lawsuits virtually no matter what have basically been using patent agreements as a weapon against the traditional patent cartels. This is of course, deeply unfortunate, since it just perpetuates the terribly broken U.S. patent system and the situation it has with video codecs. I understand that you have Opinions:tm: regarding this, I already caught on. But what you have to understand is that to most people, including plenty of lawyers, these opinions are essentially fringe. If they weren't, AV1 wouldn't be shipping in Firefox and Wikipedia wouldn't be using them. And not only that, it has nothing to do with the concept of patent-unencumbered codecs. There's always going to be codecs where the known patents have simply expired. At least in the U.S., I'm pretty sure that even includes MPEG2, but it'd suck if open source software was limited to just MPEG2. (And of course, if we do find new patents not covered under previous patent pools, that happen to apply, you have to realize that this liability existed for everyone already, including people who paid royalties anyways.)
- est31 3y ago
  for the Raspberry Pi, they made paying for the codecs optional. So you had the option to purchase a separate license just for that single device you buy.
larme 3y ago
Apple delaying the progress of "web" (or just another kind of app) is good for users. Because user don't need another OS between the host os and their apps. Web developers are so self-centered. You are developers, not users, don't speak like you are doing good things for users. You are just doing things for yourselves so you can extract money/data from your users. Most web developers nowadays are just enemy of web users.
- clarifyingN 3y ago
  > Apple delaying the progress of "web" (or just another kind of app) is good for users. Because user don't need another OS between the host os and their apps. It's categorically not good for the consumer. It's good for the small enterprise companies/upstarts that don't have the budget to keep iterating their software, which would otherwise be left in the dust quiet quickly. With apple holding it back, they've got a bigger timeframe in which their software doesn't behave as a legacy application, as everyone Else is forced to use subpar features too. From the users perspective it is - just as they said - worse, as things like codec support improve battery life and playback quality for example.
  - larme 3y ago
    small enterprise companies/upstarts can design their apps more like the traditional dynamic web site. For 95% use case that's good enough. And for the rest 5% case that requires a heavy web "app", you will find out that it's usually not what a small company can do. It's more likely uber or starbuck or facebook or google or microsoft.
- larme 3y ago
  I'm surprised that this comment gets slightly more upvotes. I want to clarify one thing: I'm not saying apple is the good guy. Apple and google are 2 monster companies. As a user I want them to fight. That's the only way we can reduce the harm done by these monster companies. However web developers go one side: the google side. Reason? They can do half the work and get twice the money. What a gain! They sell the web to google for their dirty money.
- 3y ago

pjmlp 3y ago

I rather have Apple do their stuff, than update my CV to state ChromeOS instead of Web. It also helps that I left my FOSS zealot stuff, writing emails with M$ on the signature, around 2000. And as someone with telecom experience, the stores were definitely much better than the operator shops buying stuff via SMS, with the applications listed on magazines.