The MPEG LA firm, the firm that owns the patent for the H.264 codec, stated
MPEG LA, the firm that controls licensing for a number of video and other standards, announced on Thursday that it will never charge any royalties for Internet video encoded using the H.264 standard that Apple favors, as long as that video is free to end-users.
Note the language used…
If a video is encoded using the H.264 codec, MPEG LA will not charge royalties for the Internet video SO LONG AS that video, that was encoded using H.264, is free to end-users…
Let me say that one more time…
If a video is encoded using the H.264 codec, MPEG LA will not charge royalties for the Internet video SO LONG AS that video, that was encoded using H.264, is free to end-users…
I don’t see how that assures anyone that MPEG LA will make the H.264 codec “open” in any way…
If you follow Apple at all, you are likely aware of Steve Jobs and his quest against porn. If not, go take a small read here or do a Google, Yahoo, or Bing search…
However…. Steve Jobs may be more sinister…
It is … Magical
The iPhone 4 brings us Facetime-video calling over wi-fi! Now porn producers can adopt the iPhone 4 as they adopt HTML 5!
Steve wins…
I can see it now…
No more web-girls needing a web-cam for instant sessions…
Now girls can give you … Facetime! On your dime of course…
Is the iPhone just a thin client?
by Counsel @ 11:24 am. Filed under Main Page
A long time ago (in the tech world), a move was made to establish a thin client as everyone’s method to interact with the Internet and with computing in general.
A “thin client” is a computer terminal that does not do much computing on its own. Rather, the “thin client” (TC) sends data to a server that runs software and calculations and simply sends back data to be displayed on the TC.
At that time, the “last leg”–that internet connection between the home or office and the “server” or Internet–was limited in speed and “up time.” Anyone else remember 300 baud modems? The limited speed and “up time” severely limited the idea of the “thin client.”
Fast Forward
The TC is back with a vengeance. “Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up…”
The iPhone (1st Gen, ed.) is, basically, a thin client cell phone. Before everyone jumps on me for saying so, I admit that the iPhone does appear (I don’t own one) to have several applications stored and run from the iPhone itself (calculator, calendar, camera, etc).
Most of the apps I have seen, and there are a lot of them, are run on a server somewhere that the iPhone accesses on the Internet via either a cellular connection or a wi-fi connection. For some interesting ideas and “proof of concept” sites, see the following:
iPhone App to control Pro Tools LE;
&
Cool Hunting’s List of useful Apps.
or sites like the following (other “app” sites now omitted, Ed.)
What is wrong with this?
Now that “up time” is around 95 - 99 percent and the speed of the connection is much better (I hear it runs “fast enough” without 3G), the idea of the TC may be here. All of the “faithful” seem to state that they love their iPhone and its capabilities (even though not much software running/computing is done on the actual phone).
So nothing may be wrong with this concept. Certainly, it is working for Apple, the iPhone, and those who love the iPhone.
However, I often travel outside of GSM coverage as part of my job. GSM coverage does not have 100% saturation across the United States of America, and my job requires me to be in some of those “dead spots.”
How useful would the iPhone be at that point? I am asking the “faithful” here to be honest and provide us with accurate data.
I assume the media capabilities of the iPhone work without a cellular/Internet connection.
For instance, my Treo 650 can still bluetooth to the GPS device and let me see my position via maps stored on my device. The apps on my Treo 650 work without any cellular service. So while both of us would be without cellular service, we could both watch movies (you an a nicer screen) and listen to music. But I think, and I hope you will correct me if I am wrong, that I could be much more productive and application rich with my Treo 650 than with an iPhone.
I love the idea of the iPhone, but I want an iPhone that is a smartphone, a “thick client” rather than a “thin client.” I don’t want to be limited by what I can use or where I can use it.
What say you?
Counsel
An opportunity?
I see Apple looking forward to a TC iTerminal. Of course, it will have a much better name. While iTCH won’t work either, many would scratch at the chance… (yes, I had to go there…). However, iTCH might just work! Think of the marketing. “Have an iTCH? Scratch it!” The “Scratch it”, of course, refers to the touchscreen that you would “scratch.” Now the “faithful” can say, “You ’scratch’ anything interesting today?” I envision a tablet Mac running OS/X with a keyboard on the screen (like the iPhone). Now, if Apple would just make this as a “thick client,” with the full OS/X and not as a thin client, I’d buy…
Apple made the new iPhone 4…
Like Plants v. Zombies (great PRIOR to the iDevice release…), it may do what my Treo 650 could but with a bigger and better display.
The iPad could have been the tablet Mac, that I called the iTCH. Just think how successful Apple could be with that marketing and with a tool the real “geeks” could love… An OS/X-running tablet… Would you scratch that?
If Steve showed up and told you you needed to get approval for all reading material you read by asking Apple if it was okay to read, would you oblige him?
I read a post at TwistImage that seems to think the iPhone is better than swiss cheese, bread, and the cart it road in on (including the wheels).
I had to respond…
You state:
“The phone (or calling) part is now shadowed by everything else.”
Ah..No it isn’t or all the iPhone people would be carrying a phone and an iPod or iPad…
I want one device to do everything, and we can have that today. I don’t care about Steve’s philosophical differences with Adobe or Google, and I bet most users would appreciate flash on their devices… Steve references Adobe promised it for 2 years but didn’t deliver…does that mean Steve wanted it too? What changed?
I’ve stated this before… Steve’s genius was marketing and perfecting the iTunes store. People who invest in a platform are not want to change and lose their investment. Now that all these iPod and iPhone users have spent good money on apps that only work on iDevices, they have an incentive in continuing to use iDevices even though they don’t provide all of the features people want.
Please don’t tell me you like going to Flash intensive sites on the internet with the iPad or iPhone and seeing all those blank spaces… That is not a full-web experience.
Open? H.264 is protected IP–go look it up! H.264 is as open as .gif is open… Does Apple give away any open source software besides their contribution to Darwin?
Don’t get me wrong, I like Apple–I have used their hardware since the //e (I have one of the first). However, I don’t care about Steve’s obsession with Flash, porn, Google, Android, or anything else. I care about my devices allowing me to use them for the experience I want.
Great if most people don’t care about flash. However, I want Flash. I want to be able to install my programs on the device without me having to send them to Apple for Apple’s release on the iTunes store. What if I don’t want to share or what if I use it for my purposes?
I buy a Ford, Chevy, Via, or other car, and I don’t expect the manufacturer to tell me I can’t put on Goodyear tires or use it for racing…
I buy a new refrigerator and don’t expect the manufacturer to tell me what I can put in it…
I don’t expect to buy a new Computer with Windows (whatever flavor) and expect MS to tell me I have to use their browser…… (get it yet?)
Why should I let Stevie tell me that I don’t need flash? I don’t need that Bass Ale in my refrigerator either, but I will drink one hoping the Xiliv X10 android slate is released soon–I will be buying it.
Why?
Go look at the text of the speech given by the “establishment” in the 1984 advertisement for the macintosh-yes, the famous one… The text sounds like Apple today…. Don’t think so? Go look it up.
Choice. I don’t want the government telling me what I want, and I don’t want to have to give up things I enjoy doing–those time-wasting flash games–just because Stevie has some issue with Adobe…
If you think it is about being “open,” you have bought the red herring…
I really don’t understand what the fuss is over…
I guess it is that iPhone users are not educated about the features that are available on other phones/devices so that they think Apple started each one.
Go look at the Treo 650 and tell me where Steve got his idea for icons in a row on a screen–Palm.
Did Apple do a great job on the original iPhone? Yes.
Is the new iPhone 4 the “best thing ever?” No.
1. IPS Retina View
I don’t want to see my retina… The iPhone 4 has a good display, but Steve’s comments are a lie. See here and here.
2. Lack of Flash
You may not want it, but plenty of us do. You are “right” for you, and we are “right” for us. Leave it alone and quit trying to convince me I don’t need it or want it–I do.
Now, for a negative in a sentence to prove a point.. (bad grammar idea..)
The full web experience is not seeing blank spaces where flash content is located as I browse the web… Sorry Steve, why don’t you browse to some of those popular sites while you “introduce” those devices? Ah, right… You don’t want people to see those blank spaces…
3. Lack of being “open.”
For all of Steve’s talk of “open,” the iDevice is certainly closed. If I want to put my program on the iDevice, I have to send it to Apple and let it be listed in the iTunes store… Why? What if I want to use it for me? Does Ford tell me I can’t use GoodYear tires? Does Kenmore tell me what I can put in my fridge?
4. Expandability…
I want a slot for a SD card, HDMI, USB, etc. Why can’t we have those? Would it extend the life of the device past that which Apple wants to have in the return purchase? Smart for Apple, not good for me.
5. Competition
Apple’s move isn’t about “open” or “full-web experience. Apple’s move is to control content.
Apple moves to limit Admob (Google) ads from providing useful ads for those who want them, and plenty of folk do–just look at Google’s bottom line and Apple’s purchase of iAds…
Apple wants to limit iAds to Apple devices. Steve says this removes unwanted ads and replaces them with nicely-wrapped information for the user (i.e., ads by Apple).
Apple wants all content delivered to iDevices to come from iTunes (controlled by Apple).
All of this is great for Apple, but I don’t like the limitations. Why can’t I buy an app from someone else? Why can’t I install it myself? People yell, “Apple guarantees quality and the experience…”
Give me a break! Think critically! Did all of those Palm apps crash palm devices 10 years ago? No, people swarmed to those devices… People learned what was “junk” and what wasn’t. Just as they learn via reviews and other sites. The programmers/developers guarantee quality, Apple limits. If you think otherwise, you are about to be pulled out of the water and into the boat…
Summary
I think it is great if you LOVE your iPhone and iPad. I like my Macintosh notebook and my iPhone.
My next phone likely will not be an iPhone since I (me, myself, and I) want more than what the iPhone can provide. Your mileage may differ, and I am not saying the iPhone is “wrong” per se. Rather, the iPhone (and Apple’s philosophical stance) is wrong for me. Call me idealistic or call me nuts.
If Flash doesn’t work on the iPhone (or doesn’t work well), let the market decide to open the door to competing products. To deny entry to the “game” and say “you can’t compete technologically” seems like a lie… If Flash is terrible on the iPlatform, the market will see this and either Adobe will improve it or competitors, even Apple, can introduce a competing technology.
Why HTML5 isn’t the answer
HTML5 may not handle delivering codecs to your computer, returning us to the early days of the Internet when you were prompted at every site to “download the required codec…”
Apple supports its products and open standards…
Apple’s own Quicktime doesn’t stream to my iPhone Quicktime does not stream to my iPhone (See Robert Cailliau’s Standards test page), and quicktime is Apple’s own product.
H264 is not open. Rather, H264 is a legally-protected codec for compressing video (a family of codecs really). H264 will not handle the creation of interactive games like Flash. Again, H264 is protected by patent law where appropriate, “In countries where patents on software algorithms are upheld, vendors and commercial users of products that use H.264/AVC are expected to pay patent licensing royalties for the patented technology[8] that their products use.” (See Wikipedia). Remember what happened to the .gif format? Right… That could happen to H264. Recall that nobody expected the issues to be raised about gif either…
What Adobe and Flash do well…
Adobe started Postscript to tell printers how to print …
Flash isn’t perfect, but it is a cross-platform system to stream video, create interactive games/apps, and other solutions. Like PDF, Flash lets created content run on multiple OSes and hardware. Flash handles all of the codecs (video and audio), the interaction, etc. for the content. The user just needs to have the software installed.
Why bring in Javascript?
Javascript is a superscript of the adopted ECMAscript standard. Bringing up Javascript into the conversation about Apple and Adobe can only be because Apple “supports” Javascript as an open standard? Javascript is a superset of the approved ECMAscript standard. What does this have to do with Apple’s position? Do you think Adobe doesn’t support Javascript?
Saying you support Standards to bolster your position
Are you saying that you would support Adobe if Adobe submitted Flash to be adopted as a Standard and it was adopted as a standard?
If so, why is a standard so important? Remember, Javascript didn’t start out as a standard, and HTML wasn’t exactly approved/standardized before delivered to the world. Who cares if “it” is a standard? Is the iPhone OS an open standard? Is Filemaker’s database app for the iPhone free or “open?” No. What matters is whether a technology/app works for its users.
Flash works.
If Flash doesn’t work on iMacs well, go ask Apple why that is… My Mac hasn’t crashed once while using Flash, and my kids are using flash all the time Too much if you ask me
My Issue
To say this is about “open” standards v. closed systems is a red herring that most people are swallowing.
My Thoughts
My position Flash is just one tool. Don’t like it? Don’t use it. I don’t care. Just stop trying to rationalize the acceptance of Apple’s position v. Adobe’s as an “open” v. “closed” debate.
Saying the Ford GT can’t race because the WTF Racing Organization says they won’t allow the GT into race does not mean the GT is inefficient, broken, terrible, or “closed.” Rather, it means the WTF Racing Organization won’t let the GT in the door to race. If the GT can run, let it into the game. If the GT blows up, stalls, or otherwise fails to perform, the market will drive it out of the game. To say the GT can’t race in your arena and then say that it is due to flaws in the GT is odd since you aren’t letting it in to race for everyone to see…
Flash runs fine in OS/X… Flash problems generally have been reported on one Mac model… Might it be that mac model has a problem? I will admit that the “problem” is real convenient for Apple now isn’t it? I wonder if Steve was “smart” enough to have a bit of “required” code to support that particular Mac that causes “problems’ with Flash??? Nah, that wouldn’t be fair…
All I will say that my mac has had NO problems with Flash. Period.
Summary
Imagine if Intel, IBM, and others said to Apple “We won’t sell you chips because the Mac OS is “closed” to your hardware.”
Who would you support in that argument? Apple? Why? Choice? Let the market decide? Nobody is forcing anyone to use Apple’s products? …
If you just look at open v. closed, you are missing the point.
Who controls what you do with your car? Ford, Chevy, Honda, Lexus, or you?
Who controls what you do or watch with your television? Sony, Samsung, Sanyo, or you?
Why would you give up the ability to run something even if you wouldn’t run it?
Why not have the option? Seems to me options = competition.
Apple had a commercial in 1984 to debut their Macintosh computer. As shown on Google, of all places:
Oh, right… You apple iDevice folks can’t watch that. Sorry, but do enjoy the ‘lite’ version of the full web experience… (note, that is sarcasm…).
I’ve updated the link to show a YouTube video so that people with an iDevice can watch the video… Imagine just seeing a blank spot on the page and you’ll understand that the iDevice, no matter how much you like yours, does not provide the full-web experience…
The commercial had a single old white male stating corporate ideology on a screen. The ideology stated:
Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. We have created for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology. Where each worker may bloom secure from the pests of contradictory and confusing truths. Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail!
Fast Forward 26 years
Doesn’t that old what man sound like Steve Jobs? Let us replay that text with editorial comments inserted…
Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives (Apple). We have created for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology (for all things Apple). Where each worker may bloom secure from the pests (Adobe Flash, porn, etc.) of contradictory and confusing truths (the public wants flash). Our Unification of Thoughts (iDevice) is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people (Apple), with one will (Apple), one resolve (No Flash, and No “intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool,” and no to non-Apple-approved software), one cause (Apple). Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion (Adobe Flash is closed, Apple is Open). We shall prevail!
OMG!
I wonder if Steve actually reads that text and sees what Apple has become…
Apple 1984
I loved Apple in 1984–Woz & Jobs. I had an Apple //e, a Mac+ was on the way, and things were good.
Apple 2010
Recently, I’ve had a Powerbook Pro and an iPhone.
Apple limits applications on iPlatform and states no application can be created/published using “intermediary translation or compatibility layer[s] or tool[s].”
New Apple Strategy…
Apple’s “new” corporate strategy does not woo me or seem to make much logical sence for a user of an Apple device. I will tear down Steve’s recent “Flash Memo” to show you Apple’s and Steve’s new “Unification of Thoughts.”
First, there is open…
Steve states
Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system.
Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript–all open standards.
Flash is proprietary, no question. So are most of Apple’s software offerings. Perhaps they will give away Filemaker-No, I am sure Steve does not consider databases a “standard pertaining to the web.”
Second, there’s the “full web.”
Steve points out
Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile devices cannot access “the full web” because 75% of video on the web is in Flash. What they don’t say is that almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads.
But, wait… What about H.264? As you know, Steve suggests we use HTML5 and H264… However, Wikipedia states
In countries where patents on software algorithms are upheld, vendors and commercial users of products which make use of H.264/AVC are expected to pay patent licensing royalties for the patented technology[8] that their products use. This applies to the Baseline Profile as well.[9] A private organization known as MPEG LA, which is not affiliated in any way with the MPEG standardization organization, administers the licenses for patents applying to this standard, as well as the patent pools for MPEG-2 Part 1 Systems, MPEG-2 Part 2 Video, MPEG-4 Part 2 Video, and other technologies. The last US MPEG LA patents for H.264 may not expire until 2028[10].
On February 2, 2010 MPEG LA announced that H.264-encoded Internet Video that is free to end users would continue to be exempt from royalty fees until at least December 31, 2015.[11] However, other fees remain in place. The license terms are updated in 5-year blocks.[12]
H264 is not open. Hmmm…
In addition, H264 is a family of codecs for video compression… It is not a system to let the user not worry about what codecs are used in the streaming video and it does not allow developers create interactive games. To compare Flash and H264 is like comparing Apples and IBMs…
Don’t get caught up in the “Unification of Thoughts” which isn’t stated to contain any truths. Rather, focus on the contradictory statements from the “different sides” and try to wade through the confusion to find the truth.
Third, there’s reliability, security and performance.
Some of what Steve says is true, but it is mixed. Steve states
We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash.
Flash makes Macs crash? I’ve had my most recent mac for 3 years, and no Flash has caused it to crash. With all the Flash stuff my kids watch and play, I would have expected my Mac to crash if any Mac was going to crash due to Flash, my Mac would have been the one.
I’m just saying…
Honestly, Flash has been an issue with iMacs. However, Apple is likely the culprit since the issue with iMacs crashing does not extend to all of the other Macs. Perhaps something Apple did with the iMac is the cause. Research…
It is fine to accept what people say, but don’t accept without questioning…
Fourth, there’s battery life.
Put a stronger battery in the iDevice! You say people are going to be using the device all day? I can’t agree with the statement that Flash will drain the battery more than how the user will use the device.
I don’t get a full day from my iPhone, and I haven’t gotten a full day since I have had the device. I know I use my iPhone more than most, but limits on battery life is why manufacturers allow the users to switch batteries.
So Steve, your argument about battery life would force you to admit that Apple should have allowed users to switch batteries–to allow continued use without worrying (except for the time it takes to switch the battery) about battery life.
Fifth, there’s Touch.
There is touch, but the Treo650 had the UI that the iPhone uses back in 1994, three years before the introduction of the iPhone…
Steve states
Flash websites need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices.
Ah, sure. So were most web-pages that are still viewed on the iDevices… Could they be modified to be more “touch-sensitive?” Sure, but I don’t think I want all of the web to be reduced to small, bland lists of text that appears on my iPhone when sites tend to reduce their full content site to an iDevice format. Point your iDevice to Boy Genius and look at the difference between the “full site” and that site reduced for the iDevice. Which do you want to preserve?
The Full Site. Me too…
Sixth, the most important reason.
Steve states
We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform.
Perhaps this is the difference between Steve and Woz, but that statement by Steve is false, a blatant lie. Woz could use a presence at Apple now (in my humble opinion).
“How?” You ask.
Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up… Sorry, I love that quote from The Princess Bride…
There are good apps that were created using just such an intermediary layer of software. There are apps that are still in the app store that are popular. Do a Yahoo or Google search to see all of the posts about this. There are also many really bad apps that were created using just the Apple-approved options (Objective-C, Cocoa, or whatever…).
Don’t think so? Okay, I’ll link a few since you are, a little lazy… Here, here, here, and here. That is just for starters… You really need to look at the comments too…
There are many sites analyzing Steve’s Flash Memo, and most seem to come to the same conclusion… Here is just one.
Conclusions
In closing, Steve states
Flash was created during the PC era
It sure was Steve, and I want it on my mobile devices-all of them. Flash was created since 1984, since the Mac has been out. Wikipedia has a nice “History of Flash” that states
The precursor to the Flash application was SmartSketch, a drawing application for pen computers running the PenPoint OS developed by Jonathan Gay, who began working on it in college and extended the idea for Silicon Beach Software and its successors.
When PenPoint failed in the marketplace, SmartSketch was ported to Microsoft Windows and Mac OS. With the Internet becoming more popular, SmartSketch was re-released as FutureSplash, a vector-based web animation in competition with Macromedia Shockwave. In 1995, SmartSketch was further modified with frame-by-frame animation features and re-released as FutureSplash Animator on multiple platforms. The product was offered to Adobe and used by Microsoft in its early work with the Internet (MSN). In 1996, FutureSplash was acquired by Macromedia and released as Flash, contracting “Future” and “Splash”.
So the technology was developed for Windows and Macintosh OS. Flash was “released” in 1996, well after Macs were out and about…
I see Steve disagrees, and this has caused Apple to become what they “rebelled” against back in 1984. That Steve (and some of you) don’t see this is the subject of my novel (not yet published).
People tend to change over time, forgetting what made them full of “drive” when they started out with an “open” mind. You get old, and you think your way is “the only way.” Wait, wasn’t that the 1984 Commercial?
Isn’t the following what Apple was against in 1984?
Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. We have created for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology. Where each worker may bloom secure from the pests of contradictory and confusing truths. Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail!
If so, why is Apple pushing it now?
My Thoughts
Now I find myself looking elsewhere because Apple has become what they fought against when they released their Macintosh. Apple wanted to provide a better experience for the user. Apple wanted to bring a pretty UI and ease of use.
What do they want now? It seems they are the old man in the 1984 video who wants to push hardware… Remember, Apple says that hardware is key. It is the iDevice that provides the user experience.
I disagree. As Apple proved when switching from the PowerPC to the x86, it is the software that keeps the user enthralled. What keeps users enthralled is not hardware, and I don’t think the OS is what keeps a user. You have to admit, nobody would use OS/X if there was no software for use on OS/X…
Looking Forward
What Apple is now pushing, I am not buying…
So, I go out into the daylight and look at all the advances in technology we have since 1984, and I find most of them make my life better… Even if some firms try to keep me bottled up within their world vision (i.e., Unification of Thoughts), I find myself wanting to be free…
People buy the iPhone-it isn’t open.
People by the Macintosh computer-it isn’t open.
People use OS/X-yep, it isn’t open.
People use Flash-it isn’t open.
People use Word-it isn’t open.
People play WoW-it isn’t open.
Do I need to go on?!
The “open” topic is a red herring to keep you focused on something other than the fact that Apple is not letting users decide what they want and what can be used on a device.
You see, Flash would be an application that would allow something on the iDevices that did not replicate a service provided by Apple.
Apple is trying to make users accept that it is the hardware (the iPhone, the iPod, the iPad) that is necessary rather than software.
You are all saying RIGHT! It is the iPhone OS that runs them all and is what we want!
Wrong. The Palm Treo 650 had a very similar GUI…go look at some videos. It is the applications and the uses that the OS allow the user to use and enjoy that is what the users want.
If Apple could move from the PowerPC to the x86 intel chip with No problem from the users perspective, why do they think the hardware on their devices is what is necessary?
Just as it isn’t about whether it is open or not, I have to say it isn’t about hardware either. I’ve said it since 2005… It is about software and apps that let the user accomplish their goals. It doesn’t matter if it is an iPhone, an Android device, a Windows phone, or the Palm WebOS. Hell, the PalmOS would still function to do all I want. It would do most of what everyone wants too.
Stop buying the line that everyone wants you to buy. Think for yourself.
Open isn’t relevant if it doesn’t do anyting useful. Hardware is irrelevant if the user can’t do anything.
Of course, I don’t think many of the general public will think for themselves to realize anything… However, I hope a few of you do.
I have mentioned before that Apple uses the iPad, iPod, and iPhone to further their profits. Not so surprising since Apple is a corporation out to make money.
However, Apple is acting in a manner that makes Apple look good in the public’s eye while making third-party developers look “bad.”
“Let me explain… No, there is too much, let me sum up…”
Marco Arment, developer of the popular Instapaper apps, points out in a post on his blog that iBooks makes use of a significant number of undocumented functions, and that a third-party developer’s inability to do the same makes “all third-party reading-related apps second-class citizens.” iBooks’s ability to let you adjust the brightness of the screen inside the app—without having to jump to the iPad’s Settings application—is an example of functionality not available to third-party programmers.
Two potential problems arise from this disparity: first, as Arment points out, Apple’s own apps create expectations that diminish the production value of third-party software. Since normal users are not well-acquainted with the subtleties of programming, it’s difficult to explain that an app’s inability to match the functionality provided by its Apple’s counterparts is not due to a lack of ability or interest on the developer’s part, but, rather, to the legalities of participating in the App Store. One could also argue that private frameworks give Apple an unfair advantage, especially as its interests expand from the core device functionality into other areas—as with the recent introduction of iBooks.
Most non-tech people say so what? I get what I want, and the third party developers can do other things…
Technically inclined folk may disagree… Why should I, a developer, develop for a device if the Company whose device I am developing for is making my apps appear inferior to their own–not because I do not code as well but because I am prevented from using their function calls if I want them to approve my app…?
If Apple continues, those developers may leave Apple on principle. Most may stay for the cash, but I hope everyone, techy and average citizen, realizes that Apple isn’t caring so much for your desires as Apple is caring for Apple. Sounds like insurance companies, Wall-street types, and politicians–all groups I want to distance myself from at this point in my life.
It is so bad, I bet lawyer jokes are getting a backseat to Apple jokes.
I also hear a lot of people whining about this, and this article just makes the circle of whining increase. People that are not engineers, and not informed read this article and spite Apple without fully understanding what Apple is providing.
Apple is the provider, they are providing a stable, reliable environment for applications to thrive on, and a platform that simplifies and facilitates developer to end user sales. As mentioned briefly in this article and by the commenter above, dreyfus, private frameworks are a necessity, the only way to test them is give them some use.
Apple does this by publishing their own applications using these private frameworks.
The bottom line is that Apple wants to (try) to keep the experience for developers and end-users the same, which is a good, clean, reliable experience with all the applications, with the SDK, and guaranteeing forward compatibility. The only way they can do that, is the path they have chosen.
Let me put this in a way that makes more sense to more people… why in this article are you not complaining about Apple’s “Phone” application using private frameworks? Or their Settings app? Well, you might say that it’s because those aren’t on the “appstore” and you would be right, but the bottom line is that Apple is the provider, they need to provide a high quality of service in their platform, their OS, their SDK, their Applications, and to end users. Use an Android for a month and you’ll appreciate that much more about what Apple has done.
Not surprising, I disagree…
I disagree both about the suggestion that “educated” and “intelligent” people already agree with Apple’s practice and about there not being any logic or validity to the comments being made by some, even if the few.
Lets start with Logic… Or the lack of logic…
The suggested argument is that “Apple wants to (try) to keep the experience for developers and end-users the same…..”
Why does that prevent the use of private function calls, private frameworks, or making those private functions/frameworks public? Nobody is arguing that those “non-public” functions/frameworks are unreliable or not capable of being understood by developers… Remember, Apple still has to approve the app, and Apple could deny approval for apps that did not function or that were “confusing.”
There are plenty of applications available for computer OSes that allow users to control settings without using the OS-providers apps while using their underlying programming (altering settings without opening the OS control panel in Windows for example…). This is done in OS/X as well.
People are complaining about Apple not allowing others to use those “private functions/frameworks” that could allow another dialer. Again, if Apple is approving everything, they would control whether the replacement application for the dialer was functional… Rather, Apple wants a unified appearance at the expense of the developer (and some of us technically-inclined and otherwise intelligent users/programmers).
United States v. Microsoft was a set of consolidated civil actions filed against Microsoft Corporation pursuant to the Sherman Antitrust Act on May 18, 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and 20 U.S. states. Joel I. Klein was the lead prosecutor. The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft abused monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers in its handling of operating system sales and web browser sales. The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. Bundling them together is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft’s victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of Internet Explorer. It was further alleged that this unfairly restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store. Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft’s conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturer (OEMs), and Microsoft’s intent in its course of conduct.
According to the posts, it doesn’t appear as if Apple manipulated APIs to favor its software… Smart attorneys find loopholes. People commenting on the issue appear to state that Apple simply did not give developers access to “private frameworks.” The technicality makes no difference to some, but it may make a difference to lawyers.
Summary
I am not making any legal allegations against Apple or their practices, but I, personally, don’t like or approve of their practice. Your mileage, and opinion, may differ. I accept “many” folk will love what Apple does and suggest that they like what Apple does–I don’t mind that actually. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
However, saying people who disagree with Apple (or the majority of the population even–as in politics) over a ’subjective’ issue are “wrong” or “not educated” (or smart) does confound the intellect …
Comments on different sites abound, but I don’t think the iPad will be as successful as all the hype.
Why?
Here is a comment from someone who went to stand in line to buy one:
“Hated it…sold it on eBay.”
When asked if he was serious, he replied:
“Seriously….I have an iMac, and an iPhone….it was in between…it’s cool, but didn’t do anything new for me personally. Another friend of mine took his back for the same reason. Maybe the 3G version will make it better. ”
I’m not sure that the 3G version will make the iPad any more desireable unless you are with Verizon or Sprint (or another carrier) that allows tethering.
The cost of another data connection might make the average user not so interested.
How do you feel? Love the iPad or do you wish it returned?
Apple has released the iPad. If you actually don’t know or aren’t sick of all the posts, you are in the minority…
What are the problems with the iPad?
Charging from power plug-in is the only efficient way;
Fragile-not as tough as the iPod or iPhone;
Apps are more expensive;
No Flash;
Not open–not open-source software, but open to put your own stuff on there…;
why go on?
Flash isn’t necessary! Or so I hear. Many say that HTML5 will solve the streaming video / Flash debate.
No it won’t
You see, Adobe’s strength is that it understands that the output we view may be affected by different monitors, printers, etc… Adobe’s products make all that irrelevant. PDF documents look the same across platforms (OS/X, Windows, Linux, …) and software (Office, OpenOffice, Wordperfect, …).
Flash isn’t just streaming video–although many think it is limited to that function. Flash provides many other benefits like not having to worry if you have the right codec for the video or audio. What codec you ask?
Right… You see, Flash takes care of all of that for you. The user has Flash and does not have to worry if the video was encoded with H264, mpeg, mov, avi, …. The end user does not have to worry about codecs, resolutions, other software, etc. It is a complete platform for the delivery of ’stuff.’
If you think Flash = streaming video, please go here and read…
It is more complex than that…
Do you program at all?
If you program a little, you may want to put some of your programs on your mobile device. However, you would have to submit your program to Apple for their verification/approval if you want to put it on your iPhone/iPad/iPod. Why? To control the user experience?
Sure. For the non-tech / average USA citizen, that is fine. Why not allow those of us “with the know,” to do more? You see, I will not submit my stuff for Apple to approve or reject. Why should I? I would have to pay to have it approved when I only want to use it myself? What if I don’t want it released?
It is MY device, isn’t it? To me, this is like Apple telling me they have to approve those I add to my contact list. I understand that MOST users don’t feel the same way, but it is an issue for me.
Summary
Don’t let Apple ouster Flash to put in H264–that it controls. Why is one better than the other? Flash does a little more than just encode video-streaming or otherwise.
Look past the shiny lights and tech. Like people, tech shouldn’t be judged by popularity or exterior appearances.
We have talked about Engadget’s problems over the last few days, and I was not surprised to see an inboxing/review of the iPad within 2 hours of the iPad being sold.
Yet, engadget has yet to even post an inboxing or basic review of the JooJoo-an iPad oponent, if you will. Either Engadget gets add dollars from Apple and is scared of losing those revenues, or they, in my opinion, are biased in their reporting so much that they shut off comments and do not review a piece if tech without do much as an explanation when there is/was serious requests for the JooJoo review.
You see, Engadget stated they needed time with a device to give it a good/ serious review. Of course though, no such time requirement was needed to post a review of the iPad. I don’t mind you love of all things Apple, but, damn, don’t lie to me or lack reason in your statements and expect me to accept your…I’d have to call it a false excuse.
Now I’m off to find another tech news site as I refuse to go to a site that doesn’t provide even coverage and that dies not use logic in talking to the reader.
Call me idealistic, but doesn’t it bother you at all?
Engadtet actually has a JooJoo device-one of those alternatives to the iPad. However, they still have no review… I find this very odd considering the iPad is NOT out but there are many posts about the iPad, iPad apps, and FCC information for the iPad.
Why no coverage of the alternatives? Why no release of in-depth JooJoo information and details?
I left Gizmodo because they were immature–turning off LCDs at a tech conference regardless of the costs to those affected. Hell, even my 8-year old knows better. He certainly is more mature…
Engadget is going to lose me if they keep this I love all things Apple regardless of the issues involved…
Issues you ask?
1. iPad value prices iPad apps. There are plenty of comments on this on various site, feel free to Google and Yahoo for information;
2. No flash. Sure, you say HTML 5 will resolve it all… when it gets out and fully accepted. Why not fully support Flash? Certainly it isn’t to serve me…
3. Locked store. If I want to put MY app on the device, I have to either jailbrake it or get my app approved by Apple. Why?! Maybe I just want a random number generator that I wrote or any other program. I can’t just put it on MY phone. I don’t like that.
Certainly, most folk will be pleased with the iPad. I have no problem with that. However, Engadget was supposed to be this tech site for those into tech. Why not cover all of this with more honesty? It seems to me that they are simply in love with all things Apple.
I have no problem with their love, but when it affects their “reporting,” I take exception.
You may think much of the arguments going on between “illegal downloaders” of music and movies and the MPAA and RIAA does not affect you or your family. However, a court rulings may affect you.
Let me explain. No, there is too much, let me sum up…
Since a “picture is worth a thousand words,” I will try to use words to draw a picture, an example if you will, that will illustrate what I mean…
I go to Blockbuster and buy, paying with cash to avoid interest on my purchase, a copy of Taken–a wonderful movie with Liam Neeson. I have two DVD players at home–1 in the kids “play room” and one in our living room.
However, I am not always at home… The television may not be “available” when I want to watch the movie. I might want to watch the movie on the plane. I might want to watch the movie as I wait for a client out in the middle of nowhere.
What can I do if I don’t have a DVD-equipped laptop or portable DVD-player?
Under the DMCA, I can do nothing even though I have legally purchased the DVD.
Why?
When I buy the DVD, I do not “purchase’ the movie. What I purchase is a license to view the content, the video, on the DVD as allowed by the license.
Yes, wrap your mind around that for a moment.
USA Copyright Office position
I have written about this before, but that post has been “lost” in the “cloud” of the internet and database failure… I am trying to get all that data back from the Wayback Machine (check it out if you aren’t aware of what it is…).
In that post I noted:
The United States Copyright Office states in a report that
We believe that there is a strong case that the making of a buffer copy in the course of streaming is a fair use. Fair use is a defense that may limit any of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights, including the reproduction right implicated in temporary copies. In order to assess whether a particular use of the works at issue is a fair use, section 107 requires the consideration and balancing of four mandatory, but nonexclusive, factors on a case-by-case basis.
In examining the first factor - the purpose and character of the use - it appears that the making of buffer copies is commercial and not transformative. However, the use does not supersede or supplant the market for the original works. Buffer copies are a means to a noninfringing and socially beneficial end - the licensed performance of these works. There is no commercial exploitation intended or made of the buffer copy in itself. The first factor weighs in favor of fair use.
The second factor - the nature of the copyrighted work - weighs against a finding of fair use because musical works are generally creative.
The third factor - the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole - would also be likely to weigh against fair use since, in aggregate, an entire musical work is copied in the RAM buffer. Since this is necessary in order to carry out a licensed performance of the work, however, the factor should be of little weight.
In analyzing the fourth factor - the effect of the use on the actual or potential market for the work - the effect appears to be minimal or nonexistent. This factor strongly weighs in favor of fair use.
Two of the four statutory factors weigh in favor of fair use, but fair use is also an “equitable rule of reason.” In the case of temporary buffer copies, we believe that the equities unquestionably favor the user. The sole purpose for making the buffer copies is to permit an activity that is licensed by the copyright owner and for which the copyright owner receives a performance royalty. In essence, copyright owners appear to be seeking to be paid twice for the same activity. Additionally, it is technologically necessary to make buffer copies in order to carry out a digital performance of music over the Internet. Finally, the buffer copies exist for too short a period of time to be exploited in any way other than as a narrowly tailored means to enable the authorized performance of the work. On balance, therefore, the equities weigh heavily in favor of fair use.
This argument is for the storage of content in RAM–as in when you watch the DVD on your computer, the storage of the dvd content in RAM is a ‘fair use’ and such ‘equities weigh heavily in favor of fair use.”
Note it did not say that such use WAS legal.
Post Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) Analysis
It does not appear, from their document, that making a backup or making a copy of content on a HD or other solid media (Compact Flash, SD, etc.) is considered fair use by the United States Copyright Office. Although I think and argue that such storage, by definition, is covered by the fair-use doctrine, I think the Court would agree with the U.S. Copyright Office that only the temporary storage of copyrighted content (in the example given, they talk about the content on a DVD) in a computer’s RAM may be fair-use of the copyrighted material. Note that the ‘permanent storage’ of content on an MP3 layer or other device (PDA, mobile phone, etc.) does not satisfy the U.S. Copyright Office’s analysis as being fair-use of copyrighted material.
Where does that leave us?
In a place that makes no logical sense and is void of reason…
The reason I “buy” a movie is to watch the content–lets call the “movie” “content” to differentiate the actual movie (video) from the DVD on which the movie is packaged and distributed.
To me, the content is stored on a DVD. The buyer does not really care how the media is packaged–iTunes simply downloads music now with no “package” and with no copy protection…
So, I buy the content to see the movie. If I want to copy that content to my mobile phone, why can’t I? I have bought the right to watch the content… Haven’t I?
According to the DMCA, you have no right to “rip” the movie from a legally purchased DVD so that you can watch it on your iPhone or on any other system UNLESS the DVD is in the drive and the content is being read from that DVD-since that content is stored, however briefly, within a device’s memory does meet the “fair use” test.
As I stated earlier, the law does not always make sense.
Why Influence is mentioned
Movie companies and the MPAA are the ones that pushed the DMCA through Congress. While buying on iTunes does not violate the DMCA, the ability to purchase non-protected content might be more of a threat than saying I have to pay more for the right to see content I have purchased on a DVD on my iPhone or other mobile device is difficult for me to swallow…
I see movies that “include” a digital copy, but that movie often is at least $5.00 more expensive than the same “movie” that does not include that digital content. Is that “fair?” Even iTunes may charge more, but it is to get the version of the song in a non-protected format for use, say, on a non-Apple music player…
While I doubt any movie company would sue a person who ripped a legally-purchased movie to their mobile device for their own use, they can… Let that sink in for a minute…
Is there a solution to this mess?
There was a proposal called H.R. 1201, Digital Media Consumers’ Rights Act of 2005, that was introduced into the House… It is sitting there…
Current Court Cases
A court has ruled that Real, the company that makes the Real Player, has violated the law. An article here states
“The court appreciates Real’s argument that a consumer has a right to make a backup copy of a DVD for their own personal use,” Patel wrote, but noted that “a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies.”
Dan Glickman, chairman and CEO of Motion Picture Association of America Inc., said in a written statement Tuesday that the ruling “affirms what we have known all along: RealNetworks took a license to build a DVD-player and instead made an illegal DVD-copier.”
“This is a victory for the creators and producers of motion pictures and television shows and for the rule of law in our digital economy,” he said.
You may be asking, “How does buying a movie but making a copy of that movie for backup purposes or to view it on your mobile phone a victory for the creators and producers of motion pictures and television shows?”
The Answer: The creators and producers of motion pictures and television shows can now charge you for the “digital copy” and charge you for viewing said content on-line even if you have purchased the DVD. In other words, it guarantees more income for those parties.
Don’t get me wrong. I know the DMCA makes moving the content to a mobile phone illegal. I just don’t think the members of Congress thought about this or had conversations with the EFF or with more “middle-of-the-road” consultants who would explain the situation as I have…
When a person buys a movie at Blockbuster that is stored and packaged on a DVD, that buyer is intending to purchase the content on that DVD–the video of the “movie.” The buyer is not intending to buy the right to view the content (video) while the DVD is in the drive. I am all for creators, producers, directors, gophers, distributors, and all of the others who are involved in the making and distributing of content to make a living. What I want to guarantee is that money I have spent for content that does go to those listed does not prevent me from enjoying the content because of how my content was packaged (on a DVD, memory card, VHS, etc.).
Looking at this in another light, the DMCA would have made the VHS illegal. If that would not be a barrier to technological innovation, I don’t know what would meet that definition…
What we are looking for here is a method to prevent the illegal distribution of content to those who have not paid for said content. What we want to allow is for people who legally have purchased said content to have the ability to watch that content–even if the media on which that content was distributed is destroyed.”
Doesn’t that make more sense?
Summary
You see, the law, often, is not logical or based on any good science. Law is what people in Congress decide should be the law.
My Rant
James Madison is supposed to have said
There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current one, that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong.
Perhaps he should have said that
There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current one, that the laws passed by Congress are the standard of right and wrong or provide a “benefit” to those governed.
James Madison is also supposed to have stated
In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
I’d like Congress to reign in on passing laws that benefit even the “majority” of those governed but that might reduce the preferences of those in the minority. You see, the Republic of the United States of America is a Republic for a reason. We are supposed to be protecting the rights of everyone, not just the numerical majority or those with money to influence votes (See Federalist Paper #10). While we can pass all sorts of legislation and get it through Congress, the question is does that legislation reduce anyone’s rights? If it does, we might not should be passing the legislation if the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, taken into context with historical events, are to be protected for all citizens.
Like the Second Amendment… James Madison stated
Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
At the time of the passing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, people were well aware that a government could be so overbearing towards the citizenry that an armed populous would be required to remove that tyranny. If citizens, now or then, did not have “arms,” there is less of a guarantee that any tyranny, if it were to arise, could be overthrown. You have to remember why the text was added and what they went through and wanted to guarantee for future generations.
Remember, most of those “Founding Fathers” probably thought, initially, that there was nothing wrong with the way the British were governing the country. Only when the government oppressed the citizens did the Founding Fathers deem action was necessary to guarantee rights for everyone–not just the majority.
In Conclusion
The problem is that while Congress seems to be saying that “the other side” should not organize rallies in opposition to certain Laws, the public has no access to Congress in a manner that will get them to change their mind. The MPAA and their members (Disney, ABC, and other content producers/distributors) have deep pockets and write big checks.
Think this isn’t how it works? If not, why aren’t all political contributions made anonymous or prohibited? We all know ideas are sold, and the currency, often, is not based on reason or logic.
Delicious Monster’s iPhone companion app for its popular Delicious Library 2 media-cataloging application was removed from the App Store on Tuesday, though not, as it turns out, at the behest of the usual culprit, Apple. Rather, this time the objection came from online retail supergiant Amazon.
Some posting comments on that article just don’t get “it”
This is insane. According to what they are telling him, he can’t use the API on the desktop version to pull information on books/CDs/DVDs/etc. and sync that information to the iPhone app. At the very least, they need to offer some reason for this. Delicious Library has never done anything but direct more business to Amazon.
Actually, the API License states that PC users (Mac, Linux, Windows, etc.) can use it but that mobile devices can not, as pointed out by another person who posted a comment
DId you read the agreement? It explicitly says, its okay for desktop- but for mobile- no! Why? Because on the desktop there’s no point in not allowing devs to use the APIs, on the mobile world, completely different. What amazon is saying is, if you want to be the dominating app for that niche, then come out with your own revolutionary internet service and make your own app.
I tried to explain the legal issues, but I get nowhere…
Alan, over at alanquatermain, states it well
So Amazon recently changed the terms of service for their Product Advertising API, which is in use in applications such as Delicious Library. This is (I believe) the API by which DL gets its book information, and through which it provides links to related items, reviews, etc.
The new license includes this marvellous little tidbit in section 4e:
You will not, without our express prior written approval requested via this link , use any Product Advertising Content on or in connection with any site or application designed or intended for use with a mobile phone or other handheld device.
Wil attempted to contact them through the supplied link to get permission to keep Delicious Library on the store, but was knocked back— they’re not making any exceptions right now at all, for anyone. One wonders what the purpose of the link is, in that case?
So, Wil has had to remove Delicious Library for iPhone — which was in production for eight months straight — from the App Store due to a change in licensing conditions. Until Amazon removes this clause or actually does allow exceptions (as opposed to simply claiming to do so for marketing/legal ass-covering purposes) there will be NO Delicious Library for iPhone. At all.
Sorry for using so much of your text Alan, but you stated it well. Go read his site, you will like what he has to say…
There are several points to discuss:
Amazon can control, via the API License, who can use the API and how they can use the API;
The API License states (Section 4E apparently)
You will not, without our express prior written approval requested via this link , use any Product Advertising Content on or in connection with any site or application designed or intended for use with a mobile phone or other handheld device.
Everyone else has no rights not granted to them by the license.
Even if the data is public data, freely obtainable from the USA government, Amazon does not have to provide the data to the general public.
I don’t like what Amazon is doing, and I think it is bad for business. However, Amazon may have a contract with another firm regarding mobile access… See what Lucas did with their mobile apps and how the licensee can and did cause for the removal of an application that violated a provision of an legal agreement between companies. If you aren’t aware of it, see the original Phonesaber application… All legal. Smart business move? Not in my opinion as I have yet to buy any mobile product from the company licensing said IP from Lucas…
However, Amazon can and likely will continue to control their IP. Some of the IP is copyrighted material, but the material may simply be on their servers. The data and the access to that data is controlled by Amazon. I don’t think anyone, after some critical thinking, would disagree that Amazon can not control their property, who uses their property, or how their property is used…
We, as a people or as individuals, have no right to legally-protected property (whether movies, music, or data). Get over it… That is like yelling at the sky because it is raining… Build a shelter.
In this case, build a better application or, better yet, pick a better partner.
Pocosin is a Native American word meaning a "swamp on a hill." "Poco" and "sin" are two Spanish words meaning "little" and "without." The site offers my perspectives on news, technology, legal issues, politics, and social issues.
Contact
Subscribe
Aug 26, 2010 
No Comments 
Apple, H.264, Open, video encoding
Too much if you ask me 