Q: Doesn't HTTP pipelining already solve the latency problem? A: No. While pipelining does allow for multiple requests to be sent in parallel over a single TCP stream, it is still but a single stream. Any delays in the processing of anything in the stream (either a long request at the head-of-line or packet loss) will delay the entire stream.
This does not make sense. You're still using TCP, which is a reliable transport protocol, which means packet loss is dealt with at the TCP level, and not seen by SPDY. So the effect of "delaying the entire stream" is exactly the same as with HTTP. The only difference is that you're using fewer TCP connections (one instead of several - in fact, this is one of your selling points!), so the probability that a request will be affected by packet loss in an unrelated request *increases*: packet loss slows down all subsequent traffic on SPDY, since it's sharing a single TCP connection, while with HTTP it only affects traffic that uses the same connection (out of several).
In the real world, packets loss rates are typically 1-2%, and RTTs average 50-100 ms in the U.S.) The reasons that SPDY does better as packet loss rates increase are several: SPDY sends ~40% fewer packets than HTTP, which means fewer packets affected by loss.
But the packets are bigger. If packets are lost due to noise, increasing the size of a packet increases the probability of having an error within it. 10 dollars says you "tested" this in a simulation by fixing the probability of losing a packet, instead of fixing the error distribution. That's going to overestimate the improvements of having fewer smaller packets.
The flap over VLC was because another developer ported the code and put it in the app store.
Well, it's not that simple. By the terms of the GPL, anyone has the right to port the code, even if the original developers object. The issue was that distributing an application with DRM, even if for free, puts you outside the GPL, and thus at the mercy of any of the copyright holders to charge you with copyright infringement. In this case, there was one core VLC developer (and Nokia employee, lol) who really wanted VLC pulled from the App Store, and neither Apple nor the other developers felt like going to court over it, so they had to pull the app.
By trying to now establish a VP8 patent pool they are telling the world at large that WebM is just as good as what they have.
Non sequitur. Google's campaign is not based on VP8 being as good as H264, but on it being "patent-free". MPEG-LA is just telling the world that the choice is not between a better, but patent-encumbered codec and a worse, but patent-free one; it is between a better codec with a known licensing model, and a worse one whose patent status is simply unknown - and they're looking into it.
What is algebra, exactly? Is it one of those three-cornered things? -- J.M. Barrie