It means Apple's income depends solely on creating a great user experience. The better the experience, the better their sales. Apple is telling developers: It's about the UX. Make it awesome. And bare metal tools like Obj-C are really the only way to make-it-awesome on these underpowered devices -- especially when every clock cycle is measured not only in microseconds, but in battery life.Oh come on. this has been hashed and rehashed all over the blogsphere, and it's just ridiculous. The best way to make an awesome UI is to be an awesome UI designer. And the best way to be an awesome UI designer is to use a tool you're familiar with. A good designer will test and tweak their stuff before releasing it. Obviously it's easy to churn out crap with flash, but my understanding is there is a ton of crap in the app store anyway.
Hulu doesn't think that HTML5 replaces Flash (yet)
H.264 is free as in works in VLC and makable by Handbrake. Am I a bad user for not giving a damn beyond that?Well, right now H264 is in in a 'probationary' period where people can use the technology without paying for a license, but that's going to expire in 2015. But the patent applies to users not just hardware and software vendors. So if you make some video in handbreak, post it to youtube and make a ton of money, MPEG-LA could theoretically go after you. It's pretty unlikely, but still kind of a shitty situation.
You see, there is something very important, that the vast majority of both consumers and video professionals don't know: ALL modern video cameras and camcorders that shoot in h.264 or mpeg2, come with a license agreement that says that you can only use that camera to shoot video for "personal use and non-commercial" purposes (go on, read your manuals). I was first made aware of such a restriction when someone mentioned that in a forum, about the Canon 7D dSLR. I thought it didn't apply to me, since I had bought the double-the-price, professional (or at least prosumer), Canon 5D Mark II. But looking at its license agreement last night (page 241), I found out that even my $3000 camera comes with such a basic license. So, I downloaded the manual for the Canon 1D Mark IV, a camera that costs $5000, and where Canon consistently used the word "professional" and "video" on the same sentence on their press release for that camera. Nope! Same restriction: you can only use your professional video dSLR camera (professional, according to Canon's press release), for non-professional reasons. And going even further, I found that even their truly professional video camcorder, the $8000 Canon XL-H1A that uses mpeg2, also comes with a similar restriction. You can only use your professional camera for non-commercial purposes. For any other purpose, you must get a license from MPEG-LA and pay them royalties for each copy sold. I personally find this utterly unacceptable.So probably it's not going to an issue, but theoretically it's quite problematic.
« Older A man in East Austin, Tx was removed from his home... | Halation can interfere with yo... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by The Devil Tesla at 12:16 PM on May 13, 2010 [3 favorites]