4 ms·

(1) Even Apple prioritise and focus. Do you have evidence besides the bank balance that it isn't cost but control? (2) I'm not saying you invented the use of o

(1) Even Apple prioritise and focus. Do you have evidence besides the bank balance that it isn't cost but control? (2) I'm not saying you invented the use of open or that Vorbis isn't open but that the word applies at least equally to traditional open standards. Open standard does not mean that there are now patents and the software people new to standardisation who believe otherwise are wrong. The attempt to appropriate the word (which you didn't start but you are continuing) isn't an attempt to debate on the merits. Patent encumbered standards can be compatible with many proper open source licenses. (3) I don't know Opus or how good it is but it seems too new. The proposed standard RFC is only a year old and silicon specification lead times are often several times that. All iPods support AAC in MP4 containers and have since the first iPod shipped so that is why I was comparing with AAC, MP3 is just for backwards compatibility in my view. (5) Do you have any evidence for this.

shmerl 13y ago
1) Aren't recent patent events demonstrate that Apple is clearly paranoidally interested in control? Monopolistic grip = control. Banning competitive technologies = control. Codecs are just in line of Apple's usual behavior. Vorbis isn't even new. You could say that VP8 is relatively new and Opus is very new, so Apple is too slow to adopt them. But Vorbis is nowhere new. Apple always showed clear disdain towards open codecs, and it was never based on technical merits. Closed codecs equals control (or to make it more clear patents = control). 2) Arguments about what's an "open standard" aren't new either. I hold - open standards means unencumbered by patents. Especially when applied to the idea "open Web requires open standards". Luckily, W3C adopted that position. 3) Ubiquitous common denominator in audio players is still MP3. They aren't forward compatible though, i.e. players which support just MP3 can't play AAC. 5) Clear evidence is that other manufacturers successfully implement open codecs. It's not a downside, it's a benefit (for them and for their users).
- josephlord 13y ago
  I don't think anyone else is reading and doubt that we will change each other's minds. But I'll give you one more response. 1) No. Sort of but I'm not sure they have achieved a monopoly. When have they banned competitive technologies? An alternative perspective is that they felt their technology and design were ripped off improperly and responded with the legal remedies open to them. Even so that show that their codec decisions were about control of anyone else. Vorbis is old but newer (at least the integer version) than AAC which matches it for quality. VO8 is newer and not much better than AVC. Opus is just too new. Apple doesn't use closed codecs, I won't concede the language to you. 2) W3C requires royalty free open standards which is great but does not make that the definition of open standards (although it is within the definition). 3) Yes and Apple support that too. It is old and poor by modern standards but I'm not sure of the relevance to this debate. 5) That is nice. I have the feeling that many of them may drop it in subsequent models if it was inconvenient. Again I'm not sure of the relevance of this to our disagreements.
  - shmerl 13y ago
    > When have they banned competitive technologies? Many times. One of the glaring examples - competing browser engines on iOS. > Vorbis is old but newer (at least the integer version) than AAC which matches it for quality. Yet, AAC can't be used in an interoperable way because it's patent encumbered. Vorbis can, but Apple still refused to adopt it. Control conflicts with interoperability. Open Web requires interoperability. Apple obviously doesn't care. > I won't concede the language to you. I'm calling them closed, you can call them restricted, non free or whatever codecs. The main point - you understood what was implied. > W3C requires royalty free open standards which is great but does not make that the definition of open standards Neither does anyone else make such definition. It's not formal and shouldn't be. The main point that it should be clear what's implied, to avoid word play, when some call standards "open" (so fitting for the open Web), while implying that they are encumbered by patents. It caused problems in W3C in the past.
    - josephlord 13y ago
      How does "open but non-free" for the MOEG4 standards and "open and Free" for the Xiph ones. Closed is wrong. Openness and freeness are separate axis. AAC is interoperable, there are many implementations; open, closed source and hardware on Linux, Windows, iOS, Android devices and many more devices than support Vorbis so in many ways AAC is more interoperable despite not being suitable for zero cost codec distribution or GPLv3 compatible (probably some more licenses too, not sure about MPL and CDDL off the top of my head). Yes Apple impose limits on their iOS platform with a mixture of reasons including, security, reliability and their commercial advantage. I don't think it is an arbitrary control grab but some aspects are for their commercial benefit. Note VLC on iOS will play ogg files.
      - shmerl 13y ago
        I agree that calling them free and non free is more correct. Even more correct is calling them liberated and restricted. But they are already commonly called open and closed. Interoperability (required for the open Web) means that any participant should have equal ability to interoperate (legally). This includes both creators and consumers, including private individuals, open source projects, non profit organizations and anyone else. Patent encumbrance means that one has to pay for a license. This contradicts the requirement above, so it makes it not really interoperable in a complete sense. It wasn't without a strong opposition from Apple and Co, but these principles were accepted by W3C as a premise for the development of the Web (unfortunately this failed in case of DRM, but that's another story). Apple and similar minded managed to sabotage mandatory codecs for the video and audio tags though, making these principles easy to ignore (which they do). Mozilla manifesto summarizes these points about interoperability and openness well: https://www.mozilla.org/about/manifesto/ https://www.mozilla.org/about/manifesto/

shmerl 13y ago

1) Aren't recent patent events demonstrate that Apple is clearly paranoidally interested in control? Monopolistic grip = control. Banning competitive technologies = control. Codecs are just in line of Apple's usual behavior. Vorbis isn't even new. You could say that VP8 is relatively new and Opus is very new, so Apple is too slow to adopt them. But Vorbis is nowhere new. Apple always showed clear disdain towards open codecs, and it was never based on technical merits. Closed codecs equals control (or to make it more clear patents = control). 2) Arguments about what's an "open standard" aren't new either. I hold - open standards means unencumbered by patents. Especially when applied to the idea "open Web requires open standards". Luckily, W3C adopted that position. 3) Ubiquitous common denominator in audio players is still MP3. They aren't forward compatible though, i.e. players which support just MP3 can't play AAC. 5) Clear evidence is that other manufacturers successfully implement open codecs. It's not a downside, it's a benefit (for them and for their users).

josephlord 13y ago
I don't think anyone else is reading and doubt that we will change each other's minds. But I'll give you one more response. 1) No. Sort of but I'm not sure they have achieved a monopoly. When have they banned competitive technologies? An alternative perspective is that they felt their technology and design were ripped off improperly and responded with the legal remedies open to them. Even so that show that their codec decisions were about control of anyone else. Vorbis is old but newer (at least the integer version) than AAC which matches it for quality. VO8 is newer and not much better than AVC. Opus is just too new. Apple doesn't use closed codecs, I won't concede the language to you. 2) W3C requires royalty free open standards which is great but does not make that the definition of open standards (although it is within the definition). 3) Yes and Apple support that too. It is old and poor by modern standards but I'm not sure of the relevance to this debate. 5) That is nice. I have the feeling that many of them may drop it in subsequent models if it was inconvenient. Again I'm not sure of the relevance of this to our disagreements.
- shmerl 13y ago
  > When have they banned competitive technologies? Many times. One of the glaring examples - competing browser engines on iOS. > Vorbis is old but newer (at least the integer version) than AAC which matches it for quality. Yet, AAC can't be used in an interoperable way because it's patent encumbered. Vorbis can, but Apple still refused to adopt it. Control conflicts with interoperability. Open Web requires interoperability. Apple obviously doesn't care. > I won't concede the language to you. I'm calling them closed, you can call them restricted, non free or whatever codecs. The main point - you understood what was implied. > W3C requires royalty free open standards which is great but does not make that the definition of open standards Neither does anyone else make such definition. It's not formal and shouldn't be. The main point that it should be clear what's implied, to avoid word play, when some call standards "open" (so fitting for the open Web), while implying that they are encumbered by patents. It caused problems in W3C in the past.
  - josephlord 13y ago
    How does "open but non-free" for the MOEG4 standards and "open and Free" for the Xiph ones. Closed is wrong. Openness and freeness are separate axis. AAC is interoperable, there are many implementations; open, closed source and hardware on Linux, Windows, iOS, Android devices and many more devices than support Vorbis so in many ways AAC is more interoperable despite not being suitable for zero cost codec distribution or GPLv3 compatible (probably some more licenses too, not sure about MPL and CDDL off the top of my head). Yes Apple impose limits on their iOS platform with a mixture of reasons including, security, reliability and their commercial advantage. I don't think it is an arbitrary control grab but some aspects are for their commercial benefit. Note VLC on iOS will play ogg files.
    - shmerl 13y ago
      I agree that calling them free and non free is more correct. Even more correct is calling them liberated and restricted. But they are already commonly called open and closed. Interoperability (required for the open Web) means that any participant should have equal ability to interoperate (legally). This includes both creators and consumers, including private individuals, open source projects, non profit organizations and anyone else. Patent encumbrance means that one has to pay for a license. This contradicts the requirement above, so it makes it not really interoperable in a complete sense. It wasn't without a strong opposition from Apple and Co, but these principles were accepted by W3C as a premise for the development of the Web (unfortunately this failed in case of DRM, but that's another story). Apple and similar minded managed to sabotage mandatory codecs for the video and audio tags though, making these principles easy to ignore (which they do). Mozilla manifesto summarizes these points about interoperability and openness well: https://www.mozilla.org/about/manifesto/ https://www.mozilla.org/about/manifesto/