Chris Latko
42p60 comments posted · 2 followers · following 5
11 years ago @ Dreaming Of Beetles - Phoobox - An MVC Versi... · 0 replies · +3 points
12 years ago @ Dreaming Of Beetles - Phoobox - An MVC Versi... · 0 replies · +3 points
12 years ago @ Dreaming Of Beetles - My Twitter Following · 0 replies · +1 points
13 years ago @ Dreaming Of Beetles - My Twitter Following · 2 replies · +1 points
13 years ago @ Dreaming Of Beetles - Tumblr Integration · 0 replies · +2 points
14 years ago @ Dreaming Of Beetles - Tumblr Integration · 2 replies · +2 points
14 years ago @ Dreaming Of Beetles - A US iPhone 4 In Japan · 0 replies · +2 points
14 years ago @ Dreaming Of Beetles - A US iPhone 4 In Japan · 0 replies · +2 points
14 years ago @ Dreaming Of Beetles - H.264 vs. WebM · 0 replies · +1 points
As a licensee of the technology, Apple can toss H.264 into Safari and not have to worry about anything. If they went with WebM, there are the potential of submarine patents or a new patent pool by the MPEG-LA. MPEG-LA would much rather go after an Apple or a Google than a Mozilla.
What I fail to mention in this piece is that any company that provides the coder or decoder in their product has to pay royalties. These royalties would then pass along the FOSS chain as forks could not become sublicensees, they would have to license directly with MPEG-LA. With this new (to me) information, Mozilla is taking the only route available to them - WebM.
I'm not sure if Apple's adoption of H.264 is going to cause the negative externalities you mention. They could join with Microsoft in tossing H.264 out the window and standing up for WebM, but what is there to gain by that? If I were a shareholder of either company, I would expect them to do exactly what they currently are doing, supporting H.264.
14 years ago @ Dreaming Of Beetles - Setting Up Django With... · 0 replies · +3 points