●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
by_Hiro_ ( 151911 ) writes:
It seems like Apple has something against implementing any Xiph codec... FLAC and Vorbis support in iTunes is nonexistent, and even with the QuickTime plugin, iTunes still doesn't have proper tagging support. And now refusing to add Theora support in Safari?
Perhaps someone on the Xiph board did something to one of Apple's Media guys when they were kids or something?
byAnonymous Coward writes:
Regardless of why they have some hatred for Xiph who cares what Apple's doing? Just specify Ogg. Apple will either lose market share as people switch to a browser that doesn't suck or they'll cave and use Ogg. If you can get 3 of them to agree I'd say that's pretty good. Are we just going to stop bothering to innovate because Apple won't give us its blessing? Let's just rename Apple to "Microsoft" and call it a day.
We (developers) are the ones that determine who wins the browser battles. We make the sites
by99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) writes:
Regardless of why they have some hatred for Xiph who cares what Apple's doing?
Ipod and iPhone owners care. Content providers looking to target iPod and iPhone owners care.
Apple will either lose market share as people switch to a browser that doesn't suck or they'll cave and use Ogg.
You're oversimplifying. This about more than just Web browsers. It is also about content services. When you don't have Google's Youtube on board with Ogg and you don't have iTunes on board with Ogg and it won't play on iPhones or iPods and you have little likelihood of that changing, specifying Ogg in the spec results in the spec not gaining widespread implementation and failing.
Are we just going to stop bothering to innovate because Apple won't give us its blessing?
Apple is one of the companies pushing
byPitaBred ( 632671 ) writes:
If Apple wants to pay to free up the H.264 codec so it can be implemented legally by everyone, then they have a point. Otherwise, Apple is sure as shit holding back progress in order to protect their own platform (aka, iPod and friends) which only supports H.264. Fuck Apple.
by99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) writes:
If Apple wants to pay to free up the H.264 codec so it can be implemented legally by everyone...
Wy should Apple or Google have to pay for everyone else. If a company invents a new, patented, fuel injection technology and some companies don't refuse to implement it until the patent expires and it if free to implement are they likewise holding up progress, or is the converse?
Otherwise, Apple is sure as shit holding back progress in order to protect their own platform (aka, iPod and friends) which only supports H.264.
Umm, I don't see how Apple is protecting their platform by only implementing H.264. How does that protect iPods? If Ogg is truly better, or even as good but free, won't Apple not implementing it cause people to move away from iPods
byPitaBred ( 632671 ) writes:
Because iPods have h.264 acceleration hardware built in. And Apple has a strong interest in keeping H.264 the standard specifically because they want to keep selling iPods. Even if Ogg were better, Apple would be against it. And for cross-platform, free implementations Ogg IS a better solution.
by99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) writes:
Because iPods have h.264 acceleration hardware built in.
Yeah, but if Ogg is better, iPods will start to lose marketshare to competitors who implement it, won't they? Wouldn't not implementing it be harming their platform, not protecting it?
And Apple has a strong interest in keeping H.264 the standard specifically because they want to keep selling iPods.
But H.264 isn't the standard now. There is no standard now, it is fragmented among many solutions. And Apple isn't making H.264 the standard, their influence is making it one of several options for that standard, competing against Ogg. Is competition in the market not a good thing?
And for cross-platform, free implementations Ogg IS a better solution.
But is it better for general use in the market? That's the question being posed and which competition may be able to answer.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byPitaBred ( 632671 ) writes:
iPods won't lose marketshare for the same reason that DVD is barely losing marketshare to Blu-Ray. Ogg is not enough superior from the consumer's viewpoint to make a switch worth the not-insignificant cost. It is worth it for the long term health of the industry, but consumers don't know that. It's like the switch to unleaded gas... it wouldn't have happened unless it was forced. Apple is in a position to force it, and they're not because they have an interest in keeping leaded gasoline around.
Competition
by99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) writes:
iPods won't lose marketshare for the same reason that DVD is barely losing marketshare to Blu-Ray. Ogg is not enough superior from the consumer's viewpoint to make a switch worth the not-insignificant cost.
The DVD publishing industry is controlled by a cartel. Are you claiming Apple has undue influence on a relevant market? Which one?
It is worth it for the long term health of the industry, but consumers don't know that. It's like the switch to unleaded gas... it wouldn't have happened unless it was forced.
There was a clear public interest in stopping leaded gasoline because it was introducing a cost ot society in damage to health that was not being borne by those profiting from selling it. That's not even close to a similar situation to video codecs.
Competition in the market is a good thing, but the competition comes at the cost of freedom due to patents. You cannot freely, legally ship software that implements H.264 in the US
And we don' know if you can freely and legally ship Ogg because no one has bothered to test what patents it may be violating.
That is a VERY significant barrier to browsers like Firefox.
Which is
byhkmwbz ( 531650 ) writes:
Is competition in the market not a good thing?
Not competition within a standard, no. There's a reason why it is a "standard" (W3C only publishes recommendations, but that's not really relevant here).
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...