Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Galaxy Tab is the discerning user's choice (Score 1) 524

by lordkuri (#36941714) Attached to: Galaxy Tab 10.1 Vs. iPad 2 Review

A standard implies that a specification or protocol is available to 3rd parties which is incorrect.

I still wouldn't necessarily call it a standard, but your assertion that there are no specifications available to 3rd parties is wrong.

http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/devnet/swf/pdf/swf_file_format_spec_v10.pdf

Comment: Don't think so (Score 3, Interesting) 716

by ceeam (#35706940) Attached to: Apple's Secret Weapon To Win the Tablet Wars

Apple is a software company and the fact that it comes inside a piece of complimentary hardware is not really that important. But look up what Mr. Kay had to say about the companies that are "serious about their software" some decades ago.

As for "Apple's secret weapon is their network of dedicated Apple stores worldwide" - well, there are ZERO of them here in Russia. iPads and stuff are still VERY popular.

Comment: Re:Open Standards != Open Source (Score 1) 493

by ceeam (#34907444) Attached to: The Ambiguity of "Open" and VP8 Vs. H.264

As for your first paragraph - thanks for re-confirming my point. Web was indeed built on open standards BUT commercial software. Remember when original Mozilla browser cost[ed] money? I don't even talk about the quite expensive server software. That didn't stop the web growth though exactly because the underlying standards were still [very] open. Except GIFs.

As for current Mozilla situation though - you're totally wrong. They can freely (and Freely) implement the H264 player and build it into their browser. Why they _don't_ do this is because they are citing the concern about authoring this content (which is totally not their business, but they still feel they should not do it).

As here's why Google becomes important as the content heavyweight.

Comment: Re:This knee jerk reaction is amusing to watch (Score 1) 493

by ceeam (#34907156) Attached to: The Ambiguity of "Open" and VP8 Vs. H.264

Please prove that VP8 is not "patent encumbered"?

Also tell me that you don't use MP3 and want Google or somebody to remove its support too?

Anyway, these H264 patents expire in like 12 years or so. May seem like a long time but actually it's not quite. If CSS or GIF are any indication things on the Web don't move as fast as people would expect. When VP8 matures, gains hardware support, a critical mass of content - boom! H264 becomes totally free. Still of better quality per bit.

The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected. -- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June 1972

Working...