●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
Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop
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This discussion has been archived.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 and we tell people what browser to use. FireFox didn't install itself on grandma's computer - that was us.
Parent
twitter
facebook
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 HTML5 and already implements it in Safari. They aren't holding back progress so much as trying to push it in a different way than what Mozilla and Opera want.
We (developers) are the ones that determine who wins the browser battles.
I'd say the content providers have as much or more influence than browser developers. If the video element is implemented in a way content providers like iTunes and YouTube are not happy with, then it will be ignored by them and we''ll be stuck without any progress and a Web still locked into a fragmented mix and dominated by Flash video and Silverlight.
Parent
twitter
facebook
by99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) writes:
If I'm not mistaken isn't there an Opera Mobile browser for App store? I guess Apple probably knocked it but jailbroken iPhones might have it or be able to get it right?
I don't think jailbroken iPhone constitute a significant market content providers are interested in targeting.
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
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).
bytepples ( 727027 ) writes:
If the video element is implemented in a way content providers like iTunes and YouTube are not happy with
Let me say it again: YouTube is not a content provider any more than Google Docs; it is a hosting and search provider. YouTube's users provide the works that YouTube displays to viewers.
by99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) writes:
Let me say it again: YouTube is not a content provider any more than Google Docs;
That's not exactly true as Google has signed deals with content providers to make content available over YouTube. As far as I know they haven't signed contracts with anyone to make content available via Google Docs.
...it is a hosting and search provider.
Largely this is correct, but it is not really material to any of my points.
byyabos ( 719499 ) writes:
But youtube choses which codec they encode to thus they have huge influence.
bycrhylove ( 205956 ) writes:
For a minute..... iPhone and ipod users will upgrade to better/cheaper devices as soon as Apple falls behind on open video standards. And rightly so. Why would anyone try to promote Apple's obvious push for vendor lock in? This is obviously bad for EVERYONE except Apple.
Let's hope to god that YouTube (Google) does the right thing and axes flash in favor of Ogg. This would be a giant step forward for humanity, in the long run.
by99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) writes:
For a minute..... iPhone and ipod users will upgrade to better/cheaper devices as soon as Apple falls behind on open video standards.
Why would you expect Apple tog et behind a standard that costs them more money to provide and benefits them not at all?Why would you expect of other content distributors to do so? Just because something is specified in a standard does not force content providers to switch to it, it just means you have an unused standard and people stick with what they have.
Why would anyone try to promote Apple's obvious push for vendor lock in?
How is it vendor lock in? Anyone can implement H.264 on near even footing with Apple. If the Web moves to H.264 as a standard, or a mix of H.264 and Ogg,
byyabos ( 719499 ) writes:
No, most users of iPods and iPhones would not ditch them for something else. All of Apple's mobile devices don't support flash of any kind and that has not stopped many people from buying them.
bypbhj ( 607776 ) writes:
Are we just going to stop bothering to innovate because Apple won't give us its blessing?
Apple is one of the companies pushing HTML5 and already implements it in Safari. They aren't holding back progress so much as trying to push it in a different way than what Mozilla and Opera want.
Apple is a media distributor as well as a browser maker (OK it may be technically financially split) - presumably they're worried about losing some control over the distributed media (not enough DRM) ?
by99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) writes:
Apple is a media distributor as well as a browser maker (OK it may be technically financially split) - presumably they're worried about losing some control over the distributed media (not enough DRM) ?
Why would you make such an assumption? Apple has been moving away from DRM consistently because they don't make money on the content. They do make money on selling iPods, but they don't have an interest in implementing a standard that will cost them more money in bandwidth to run their break even content business and which will make their hardware devices less attractive to consumers since there is no hardware acceleration easily available for Ogg and certainly not for already shipped devices.
bypbhj ( 607776 ) writes:
Why would you make such an assumption?
Not sure, but I know why I'd ask such a question.
I'm more or less convinced the hardware issue is a red herring, no codec has hardware acceleration until it is adopted for use.
They don't have to use Ogg Vorbis encodings, just enable their browsers for displaying it.
● your current threshold.
byshutdown -p now ( 807394 ) writes:
You misunderstand the nature of HTML5 standardization process. Unlike previous HTML iterations, which were designed by W3C committee which largely did not intersect with people who actually implemented it, HTML5 is a vendor-driven effort that had only recently came under the aegis of W3C (after the latter's XHTML 2.0 died a quick and painless death). Since it's vendor-driven, it's going to be exactly what the vendors can agree upon - no more, and no less.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bymortonda ( 5175 ) writes:
Since it's vendor-driven, it's going to be exactly what the vendors can agree upon - no more, and no less.
That sounds pretty worthless.....
byshutdown -p now ( 807394 ) writes:
That sounds pretty worthless.
Does it? Have you actually seen the HTML5 draft spec? There's a lot of new stuff there even with all the constraints - <canvas> is a good example of one very powerful new feature; and there are plenty more.
byjez9999 ( 618189 ) writes:
Does it? Have you actually seen the HTML5 draft spec? There's a lot of new stuff there even with all the constraints - <canvas> is a good example of one very powerful new feature; and there are plenty more.
Is that the one that Microsoft aren't implementing?
byshutdown -p now ( 807394 ) writes:
There hasn't been a "yes", but there hasn't been a "no" either (and IE9 wasn't even announced yet). In truth, we do not know. IE8 implements a few chosen bits off HTML5, so there may be more to come.
bymdmkolbe ( 944892 ) writes:
Since it's vendor-driven, it's going to be exactly what the vendors can agree upon - no more, and no less.
That sounds pretty worthless.....
On the contrary, many if not most good standards are written this way.
Ideally a standards committee has an even mix of users and implementers and the resulting standard is a negotiated balance between what all sorts of different users want and what all sorts of different implementers are willing to implement. From the implementer's side this is important not only to encourage quick implementation but also to ensure the standard can be efficiently implemented From the user's side this is important not only
byNeil ( 7455 ) writes:
Respectfully disagree - codifying existing practice and getting the browser developers to buy into incremental improvements to the status quo is what got us to HTML4 and the original CSS specs, which
I would suggest is basically the last time non-trivial improvements to the standards used to deliver
web pages saw wide-spread adoption.
In contrast, whenever the language designers have tried to forge a path without involving the people who
will write the web pages and develop the software the new standards hav
bysjames ( 1099 ) writes:
So every element will be a mode of the blink tag now?
byshutdown -p now ( 807394 ) writes:
No, because Mozilla and Apple couldn't agree on the default blinking rate. ~
byEvanisincontrol ( 830057 ) writes:
We (developers) are the ones that determine who wins the browser battles. We make the sites and we tell people what browser to use.
Woah woah woah. That's a huge misconception that needs to be squashed right now: We, the content providers, do not tell the customer what browser to use; rather, the customer tells us what browser they're willing to use to view our content.
Why do you think so many "IE6 approved" sites still exist? Because those website's operators desperately want people to continue using IE6? No, they do it because a very large number of people are still using IE6 and are going to continue using IE6 regardless of what browser we mighty developers to try "force" others to use.
As someone else pointed out above, the problem with trying to hardball Apple into playing nice is that Apple will just sit and wait. When website developers go to create their sites and try to ensure cross-browser compatibility, their response to the problem will NOT be "Oh, Apple is just being douchebags. I'll just not bother supporting Safari until they support Theora." Instead, what they'll probably say is, "Hey, flash videos work in every browser. Why should I bother using this stupid VIDEO tag?"
Parent
twitter
facebook
byducomputergeek ( 595742 ) writes:
It's true. By far MSIE is the largest browser we see with almost 88% of our hits. Second Place is Safari and Safari Mobile both with 4%. The rest are FF & Opera. Most of the people using our site are ordering from larger businesses. They have no control of their browser and we still see a lot of IE 6. So we develop for IE first because if we don't and something doesn't look "right" in IE, we hear about it rather quickly.
byswilver ( 617741 ) writes:
Sites that tell me which browser they're optimized/approved/suited for just scream to me: "A clueless newbie web designer built our site and thinks using the right browser is part of a holy crusade". I couldn't care less what a web site is optimized for, do they REALLY think I would switch browsers just for THEIR site?
As for Apple, just ignore them. If they had any sense at all they'd just support both standards (like Google) as it is 0 effort on their part to add OGG (as it is free and unencumbered). Th
bybennomatic ( 691188 ) writes:
I totally agree with this and wish I had moderator points.
●eneath your current threshold.
●eneath your current threshold.
bycrhylove ( 205956 ) writes:
Totally. Firefox is winning the browser wars already, and if it plays YouTube the best out of the box, it will be game over for all competing browsers that don't follow suit.
Fuck this proprietary crap. Now is our chance to promote freedom and stymie these greasy bastards once and for all!
I'd just assume Adobe, MS, Apple, and Sony all fold and go under. Good riddance. Not one has innovated a damn thing since 1990 at the latest. Sure Apple brought the iphone to market, but the idea had been there for yea
●beneath your current threshold.
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
ion
●
●
Submit Story
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
-- Roy Santoro
●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...