[opendtv] Re: Apple dashes hopes of Flash on iPhone
- From: Kon Wilms <konfoo@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:28:22 -0700
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 5:54 AM, Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> At 10:56 AM -0700 4/18/10, Kon Wilms wrote:
>>
>> Irrelevant since when you ship HTML5 on a browser, the browser
>> manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that the implementation can
>> decode AVC (and they become liable for licensing issues). Which is why
>> the W3C and more importantly browser developers do *not* want any
>> encumbered codecs to be used for HTML5. You won't find much support
>> for AVC amongst developers - everyone is hoping for VP8 these days.
>
> This "may" be true on PCs, but it is NOT true on the Mac platform.
>
> First, it is important to understand that a browser is but one of MANY
> applications that may wish to play dynamic media content. Apple dealt with
> this issue many, many years ago through the development of the QuickTime
Your entire argument is *irrelevant* due to the simple fact that the
W3C when publishing HTML5 with the video tag has to do so to ensure
*cross platform* compatibility. It's not a standard if only one device
can play it.
It is relevant on practically every device using HTML5 except for Apple.
> Support for h.264 on PCs is a bit more chaotic, since Microsoft chose to
> promote its own codec technologies via the Windows Media player (.WMV and
> VC-1). IT is a bit ironic that in Apple versus Adobe flame wars, Microsoft
They have seen the light and are pushing H264 now.
> As for the cost to support h.264, it is NOT a major barrier, although I
> agree with Kon that some developers would prefer to pay NOTHING. The
Firefox for example is an open source project. They charge *nothing*.
They are non-profit. They have larger market share than Safari (even
Chrome has larger market share than Safari). You expect them to fork
out money for licensing a codec when they could use a free
alternative?
HTML as a standard should *not* be tied to technologies that charge
money, period!
> As I already mentioned, Apple pays these license fees for QuickTime for both
> the Mac and PC platforms. Thus a browser manufacturer could avoid any
> liability by simply using QuickTime to support dynamic media playback.
The world doesn't revolve around Apple. Quicktime doesn't do
directshow. Quicktime doesn't do Gstreamer. Should I go on? Long and
short it isn't a solution on any platform except Apple's.
> Bottom line, this is mostly a non-issue, although a royalty free version of
> VP8 is very appealing to the Open Source community. If Google does place it
> into Open Source, then it is likely that it will quickly be supported by
> QuickTime and other dynamic media architectures.
Like I said before - appealing the the HTML5/W3C *standards*.
>>>> Flash simply provides the framework (shell) for the player and the
>>
>> Incorrect.
>
> Please explain why this is incorrect. Flash emulates (replaces) QuickTime by
> supporting multiple codecs. Flash now supports h.264. It could just as
> easily use QuickTime to play h.264, but Adobe chose to compete with Apple
> and include codec support in the Flash plug-in.
No they didn't. That is an outright lie. Flash developers develop on
Flash because they know their code will work on any Flash player.
You want them to hook into 3rd parties for each platform? To applease
Apple? Can you imagine the support nightmare? Are you aware that Flash
is pushing run-anywhere where all platforms including mobiles and
handhelds will support the same featureset for Flash 10.1 (i.e. I can
run my desktop 10.1 app on a mobile device without changing code
(logic to deal with screen aspect/CPU is a different issue)).
>>>> There are MANY examples of the HTML5 framework playing h.264 content
>>>> on the web today. This is the EASY part.
>>
>> Unfortunately it is not. Which is why Adobe is pushing OSMF.
>> Progressive streaming is easy, but that is both inefficient and
>> expensive for the customer (costs) and the viewer (bandwidth).
>
> We disagree. Adobe is pushing their proprietary solution. And there are
> licensing fees related to their environment as well, not to mention the cost
> of the tools for authoring Flash.
We don't disagree. You're saying HTML5 playing H264 is easy. It is, if
you don't care about costs, performance or bandwidth consumption,
period. I say that is the amateur hour approach to authoring for the
web.
>>>> content is the bigger issue with HTML5. It remains to be seen if Apple
>>>> can be the Pied Piper and lead the web development community away from
>>>> Flash.
>>
>> Repeat after me: Apple has no development environment to match Flash.
>
> Correct. Apple has allowed/encouraged Adobe to provide the tools for this
> market, in part because Adobe applications play such an important role in
> the Mac content authoring community. But to be fair, the tools provided for
> building iPhone OS apps do include many if not most of the frameworks needed
> for dynamic media content.
... without the development environment to match it.
Or are you seriously thinking you can put a Flash developer in front
of XCode and go 'have at it!' ? Ridiculous.
>>>> By the way, Adobe does not lose if HTML5 wins. They can very easily
>>>> use their entire authoring infrastructure that is in place for Flash
>>>> dynamic media content today, to create HTML5 content, just as they
>>>> have developed the cross compiler to create iPhone and Android apps...
>>
>> HTML5 is HTML, Canvas and Javascript. Complete antithesis to Adobe's
>> offering.
>>
>> Your statement makes no sense - it's akin to saying 'Toyota makes
>> great cars, they should get into the boat-building business since they
>> both use engines'.
>
> You are trying to mislead here. There is nothing to prevent Adobe from
> developing the ability to output HTML5 files from their existing tools
> including Flash. Nothing except that they want to control dynamic media
> content on the web and collect the licensing fees.
No Craig, you are the one constantly attempting to mislead.
There is nothing to prevent Apple from allowing Adobe to use their
cross-compiler. In fact, it exists! How ridiculous an argument you
make here.
You love for Apple has blinded you from making any form of objective
comment, as per below:
> You still need the Adobe tool suite to build the elements of any Flash app.
No, you don't. Ignorance is bliss!
Cheers
Kon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts: