Both Microsoft and Apple inform us that we will be "better off" using proprietary media formats that have uncertain future licensing costs associated with them.
Google, on the other hand, buys ON2 for $133 M, and then offers to open-source this codec (which is more efficient and "better" than H.264) and freely donate it to the world (including Microsoft and Apple).
Which company seems to be respecting (or even considering) user's and developer's rights? If H.264 became a monopolistic web standard, everyone will be at the mercy of licensing costs that can be increased at a whim, shutting out small companies, and only allowing the BIG PLAYERS (like Microsoft and Apple) to continue to operate on the web. And instead of trying to help and support the gift of the ON2 codec, Apple and Microsoft condemn it.
This sounds anticompetitive to me, and I hope it sounds this way to government regulators and all citizens. Citizens who ARE free to withhold their purchasing dollars from both Apple and Microsoft, and instead support other companies that respect their rights and freedoms.
It is hard to predict which "face" Microsoft will speak from next. Is is the "nice, open-source-friendly" Microsoft:
http://www.microsoft.com/opensource/
Or is it the anti-open-source, anti-Google, anti-freedom company that is:
- Opposing the use of open-source, free codecs that can put all software companies on a level playing field and guarantee interoperability for all (as depicted in this article)?
- Opposing and hindering the use of open document formats that can do the same this for information exchange, instead of breaking the stranglehold that proprietary Microsoft formats hold over the world's IT systems and allowing interoperability?
- Continuing its FUD campaign against open source and Linux in particular, extorting Mafia-like "protection money" from little companies that dare to use open source (as its evil twin Apple is also doing with HTC).
- and so on...
I think it better just to ignore both faces of Microsoft, and support companies that honestly care about open standards and cooperatively working with others (concepts that Microsoft will never understand).
Maybe its worth mentioning that apple and ms have a stake into the h.264 market. The price of consuming h.264 is going to go up since it has to make up ground from the free licensing days.
Pop goes the weasel.
Both Microsoft and Apple inform us that we will be "better off" using proprietary media formats that have uncertain future licensing costs associated with them.
Google, on the other hand, buys ON2 for $133 M, and then offers to open-source this codec (which is more efficient and "better" than H.264) and freely donate it to the world (including Microsoft and Apple).
Which company seems to be respecting (or even considering) user's and developer's rights? If H.264 became a monopolistic web standard, everyone will be at the mercy of licensing costs that can be increased at a whim, shutting out small companies, and only allowing the BIG PLAYERS (like Microsoft and Apple) to continue to operate on the web. And instead of trying to help and support the gift of the ON2 codec, Apple and Microsoft condemn it.
This sounds anticompetitive to me, and I hope it sounds this way to government regulators and all citizens. Citizens who ARE free to withhold their purchasing dollars from both Apple and Microsoft, and instead support other companies that respect their rights and freedoms.
It is hard to predict which "face" Microsoft will speak from next. Is is the "nice, open-source-friendly" Microsoft:
http://www.microsoft.com/opensource/
Or is it the anti-open-source, anti-Google, anti-freedom company that is:
- Opposing the use of open-source, free codecs that can put all software companies on a level playing field and guarantee interoperability for all (as depicted in this article)?
- Opposing and hindering the use of open document formats that can do the same this for information exchange, instead of breaking the stranglehold that proprietary Microsoft formats hold over the world's IT systems and allowing interoperability?
- Continuing its FUD campaign against open source and Linux in particular, extorting Mafia-like "protection money" from little companies that dare to use open source (as its evil twin Apple is also doing with HTC).
- and so on...
I think it better just to ignore both faces of Microsoft, and support companies that honestly care about open standards and cooperatively working with others (concepts that Microsoft will never understand).
Please let Open GL take over from Apple, MS and Adobe and make the internet free.
Maybe its worth mentioning that apple and ms have a stake into the h.264 market. The price of consuming h.264 is going to go up since it has to make up ground from the free licensing days.
Pop goes the weasel.
When the license comes up for review I'll bet a £1 to a pinch of shit that it will have a royalty imposed on it.