Steve Jobs pens open letter about Flash

RWatkins wrote in post #10110908
Sorry, I was not clear enough; more specifically I meant the protected AAC files, that can only be played on Apple audio players (iTunes, iPod) and one Motorola phone as far as I know.

This was under pressure of the record companies who wanted their content to be sold with DRM, and not Apple's attempt to create a closed format. As soon as the record companies agreed that DRM was no longer required, iTunes stopped offering protected AAC files.

rvdw98 wrote in post #10100525
How does advocating the usage of an open standard such as HTML 5 instead of a proprietary format such as Flash aid in "controlling the whole Apple environment"?

Here are a couple of examples.

If you buy an ipod and want to have mp3s on your PC you are forced to install itunes on your computer which tends to try to take over things.

Apple will not approve "adult entertainment" apps for the istore.

rvdw98 wrote in post #10110925
This was under pressure of the record companies who wanted their content to be sold with DRM, and not Apple's attempt to create a closed format. As soon as the record companies agreed that DRM was no longer required, iTunes stopped offering protected AAC files.

They could have licensed the technology for other devices. They did once, for the ROKR, so it was feasible to do. I can't blame them for the DRM, but locking it in to iPods, and the one exception mentioned, locked users into the ecosystem. Granted, times have changed though.

blackshadow wrote in post #10110960
Here are a couple of examples.

If you buy an ipod and want to have mp3s on your PC you are forced to install itunes on your computer which tends to try to take over things.

Apple will not approve "adult entertainment" apps for the istore.

Neither of these examples have any relation to the Flash vs. HTML 5 issue you responded to, so that question still remains.

If you buy an iPod, you know you're going to have to use iTunes, there's no smoke and mirrors there. Also, I don't see how iTunes takes over things; it happily coexists with other media players/managers. Personally, I consciously bought into the iPod/iTunes environment because I like the integrated/managed workflow it offers. If I had preferred the "manual" drag/drop approach, I would not have bought an iPod to begin with.

As for the adult entertainment, I presume that they are trying to keep the store "family friendly". I can't fathom a nefarious reasoning behind this that would benefit Apple in any way. It's part of their vision, which you can either buy into, or choose to condemn by going with the competition.

RWatkins wrote in post #10111076
They could have licensed the technology for other devices. They did once, for the ROKR, so it was feasible to do. I can't blame them for the DRM, but locking it in to iPods, and the one exception mentioned, locked users into the ecosystem. Granted, times have changed though.

I can't be sure why the ROKR does play protected AAC files. Perhaps other manufacturers did not want to include the required software or didn't agree with the license agreement that came with it?

If their sole purpose is to lock you into their player, wouldn't it be easier to use a fully proprietary file format instead of AAC?

BTW: this is all just a personal opinion, I'm not affiliated with or a fanboy of Apple. I just happen to appreciate their products and services for what they are.

from a business standpoint, jobs is a genius. from any other standpoint, hes ehhh.

the ipod single handidly saved apple from almost going out of business. i have one, i even have two, theyre great, and i dont mind itunes too much. but apple is out of control lately. jobs is noone to be calling anybody elses system a "closed" one, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

and to the person who said installing OS-X on a pc is illegal. there was/is a company based in Doral,FL that was building customized computers and installing OS-X on them for customers, like a small scale dell or alienware, you place your order and it gets built to those orders. well Apple decided to sue that company for using the software on a non apple device. guess what, last i heard, Apple lost that suit because the company had paid full price for every one of those OS-X copies.

back on topic, anybody REALLY know how html-5 stands up against flash? if its just as good then its an excellent alternative but i havent seen any proof of this.

kauffman v36 wrote in post #10111223
well Apple decided to sue that company for using the software on a non apple device. guess what, last i heard, Apple lost that suit because the company had paid full price for every one of those OS-X copies.

The licensing terms determine how software can and cannot be used, not the fact that you paid for it. If the terms stipulate that the software can only be installed on a specified hardware platform, then that is what you agree to when purchasing the software.

So it would be interesting to know on what grounds this suit was won/lost. Do you happen to have a link to the ruling?

kauffman v36 wrote in post #10111223
back on topic, anybody REALLY know how html-5 stands up against flash? if its just as good then its an excellent alternative but i havent seen any proof of this.

I tried the experimental HTML 5 version of YouTube and found several shortcomings/limitatio​ns. I'm not sure though if these are imposed by HTML 5, or by YouTube's implementation. As I understand, it's still a work in progress, so time will tell.

RWatkins wrote in post #10110908
Sorry, I was not clear enough; more specifically I meant the protected AAC files, that can only be played on Apple audio players (iTunes, iPod) and one Motorola phone as far as I know.

Take that up with the recording studios, not Apple. Jobs made it clear that he didn't like using Fairplay DRM (proprietary) for audio, and the studios finally conceded. None of iTunes audio is encoded with Fairplay now.

All of Apple's videos are encoded in H.264. The mov container can contain other video and audio (and text) codecs, but Apple only uses H.264. Regardless, if it's an MPEG-4, then it's open standard.

The only thing that is encrypted from Apple are the videos, and that is because of the studios, not Apple. Even then, all of their codecs are open standard.

rvdw98 wrote in post #10111390
The licensing terms determine how software can and cannot be used, not the fact that you paid for it. If the terms stipulate that the software can only be installed on a specified hardware platform, then that is what you agree to when purchasing the software.

So it would be interesting to know on what grounds this suit was won/lost. Do you happen to have a link to the ruling?

a simple google search and i seem to have found some links on the issue. my memory is a little jogged so i take back what i said that isnt in the articles.

http://www.pcworld.com …_lawsuit_is_sti​ll_on.html
http://blogs.browardpa​lmbeach.com …pple_reach_sett​lement.php
http://www.computerwor​ld.com …ac_clones_with_​Apple_s_OS

IMO, apple should not be allowed to tie their software to only their hardware...but thats an argument for another day.

kauffman v36 wrote in post #10111223
from a business standpoint, jobs is a genius. from any other standpoint, hes ehhh.

....

back on topic, anybody REALLY know how html-5 stands up against flash? if its just as good then its an excellent alternative but i havent seen any proof of this.

The real question is how well does the underlying video decoder work against Flash, which I guess that would be H.264. But guess what? H.264 has all kinds of patents, and developers will eventually be paying the royalty "tax". Guess who one of the patent holders are - Apple. Jobs a genius, he is.

Tony-S wrote in post #10111569
Take that up with the recording studios, not Apple. Jobs made it clear that he didn't like using Fairplay DRM (proprietary) for audio, and the studios finally conceded. None of iTunes audio is encoded with Fairplay now.

I don't have a problem with Apple implementing DRM; I understand the logic. What my issue was how they locked said DRM to just their devices. Before the change, along with variable pricing, if you purchased a song from iTunes, you were LOCKED into using Apple players and/or software to play it at high quality. However, as we know there are several makers of players out there, but only Apple and one model of motorola phone could play the protected AAC files.

Tony-S wrote in post #10111569
All of Apple's videos are encoded in H.264. The mov container can contain other video and audio (and text) codecs, but Apple only uses H.264. Regardless, if it's an MPEG-4, then it's open standard.

The only thing that is encrypted from Apple are the videos, and that is because of the studios, not Apple. Even then, all of their codecs are open standard.

All of the video I've sen from Apple in the last few years is H.264. My point was that .mov does not equal H.264; something that many seem to equate it with. It can be done with H.264, but by no means must it be done with it. I may be incorrect about this, but I did not thing that H.264 was an open standard but was actually a proprietary one. Its my understanding that if you encode a video using H.264 and share it for profit, you are liable to pay a licenses fee for said use of the encoder software; which is something I do not equate to an 'open standard'. Connected with this, if you open the licensing agreement to Final Cut,Premiere Pro, or whatever, you will see where you are agreeing to use the H.264 encoder for non-profit use.

rvdw98 wrote in post #10107091
Which is ultimately bad for business. That's the point I was trying to make. Somehow you have to find a balance between perfection and sustainability.

I paid €500 for one perfect HTC, I paid €0 for three not so perfect iPhones. Who made better business?

MMX wrote in post #10114159
I paid €500 for one perfect HTC, I paid €0 for three not so perfect iPhones. Who made better business?

Are you implying that Apple gave you three iPhones for free?

MMX wrote in post #10114159
I paid €500 for one perfect HTC, I paid €0 for three not so perfect iPhones. Who made better business?

Paying nothing vs paying 500 pounds.....no matter how many times you need a repair getting charged nothing to fix a issue, how can you complain? It's not like the iphone has build issues. Maybe after 3 replacement phones you should be looking more at the user, instead of the device.

Not sure if this was posted about the H.264 encoding but Jobs was right about what he was saying.

http://gizmodo.com …36/the-h264-encoding-boom

well that's the pot calling the kettle black...