Murphy's Law: Apple Opens Up to Closed Standards
Posted 01/28/10 at 10:00:00 AM by David Murphy
I'm not sure which of these is a more compelling criticism of the Apple iPad: "They named it what?" or "Where's the Flash?"
It's no secret that Apple harbors no love for Adobe's Flash architecture. John Gruber over at Daring Fireball recently wrote up a wonderful treatise as to why this is the case. If you have a spare hour or so, I recommend giving it a look-see. I'll spoil the ending for the sake of continuing on with this column: Flash is a proprietary architecture that Apple has no control over. Thus, when Flash-based elements wreak havoc on the stability of Apple platforms, Apple can't do much to fix the issue--nor can the company convert the 32-bit Flash binary over to Apple's goal of a system-wide, 64-bit experience.
Naturally, Apple's only real choice has been to dump support for Flash in certain use situations--namely, the company's iPhone (and surely the iPad as well, given the supposed similarities in their underlying operating systems). In order to incorporate a similar level of interactivity and video processing as delivered by Flash, Apple's turned to a combined replacement of HTML5 and JavaScript. But the media codec that Apple's thrown its support behind for HTML-based video rendering is H.264. Ain't nothing open about that.
The enemy of Apple's proprietary enemy might be the company's friend, but it's no friend to the Internet.

Unlike the video compression Ogg Theora--the competing solution for HTML5 video rendering that's been championed and incorporated by Mozilla--H.264 is patented. You can't redistribute H.264 codecs per the license, nor will you likely be able to stream your own H.264 content without paying the piper at some point in the future. To Mozilla, this is just a complete slap in the face to the company's belief in a royalty-free Internet. Without the innate ability for anyone to freely code some HTML, churn CSS, or hack JavaScript, the Web would not be in the state it is today. Licensing core technologies stunts innovation.
Oh, and H.264 also violates the GPL for those seeking to spin off of Mozilla's initiatives--the free distribution rights guaranteed by the GPL doesn't mesh with code that's patent-encumbered. Or, as said by Mozilla's vice president of engineering, Mike Shaver:
"We want to make sure that the Web experience is good for all users, present and future. I want to make sure that when a child in India or Brazil or Kenya discovers the internet, there isn’t a big piece of it (video) that they can’t afford to participate in. I want to make sure that there are no toll-booth barriers to entry for someone building a whole new browser, or bringing a browser to a whole new device or OS, or making and using tools for creating standard web content."
Thus, we are left with fragmentation between those that stand behind H.264 and those that, for whatever reasons, would prefer to support the competing open-source codec Ogg Theora. Apple doesn't believe that Ogg Theora has enough hardware support to warrant the switch, not to mention the confusing patent situations the codec could find itself in were it to attempt to improve its quality to H.264-levels. Google, who commands considerable power in the discussion thanks to YouTube, has almost single-handedly decided matters by opting for H.264-based encoding (even though the Chrome browser supports both codecs). Mozilla, as mentioned, refuses to incorporate the H.264 codec on principle alone.
But can you really blame Apple? I suppose the company is caught up between a digital rock and hard place--with the Flash architecture closed off to Apple's tweaking, the company has no choice but to opt for the combination of HTML5 and H.264. Yet this, in itself, presents a situation that won't necessarily close Apple off to delivering rich media for its devices, but one that impacts the general openness of the Web as a whole. It's going to take a bigger iPad to wipe up all that bad Internet karma.
David Murphy (@ Acererak) is a technology journalist and former Maximum PC editor. He writes weekly columns about the wide world of open-source as well as weekly roundups of awesome, freebie software. Befriend him on Twitter, especially if you have an awesome app or game you're dying to recommend!
Proprietary and Tradmark Conflicts.
Submitted by guatemario on Fri, 01/29/2010 - 4:35pm
Aside from the issues caused by the proprietary nature of Flash from Adobe, Apple also had trademark issues with one of the names that they first came up for this device: iKotex. The problem is that "Kotex" is already a trademark. Purchasing Kimberly-Clark just for the sake of having ownership of "Kotex" would have been to cost prohibitive so they ended up settling for the generic "iPad".
The iPad is not a tablet, it
Submitted by Danielt876 on Thu, 01/28/2010 - 7:26pm
The iPad is not a tablet, it is a "pad". I would not consider the iPad a tablet, but a giant iPod.
So, Apple finally has its
Submitted by I Jedi on Thu, 01/28/2010 - 9:11am
So, Apple finally has its very own tablet. I think that this is very, very fascinating... "SARCASM" Why would I pay a shit-load of money for a tablet with Mac on it when I could buy a PC tablet that has many more options, longer supported, and tons of programs already available to it? The iPad is certainly not a very, um, cool name for it. (Pads, think women.) This product is full of fail. I can only hope 4chan is ripping it to hell.
Stock
Submitted by MeTo on Thu, 01/28/2010 - 10:46am
Should have bought apple stock this thing will sell sheds loads.
you're in luck, the stock
Submitted by jrocknyc on Thu, 01/28/2010 - 1:26pm
you're in luck, the stock SANK while Jobs was on stage showing this thing off.
this will sell about as well as Apple TV did.
Why not open source.
Submitted by Keno5net on Thu, 01/28/2010 - 9:06am
Interesting article.
Please help me to understand why open source codices have such a hard time gaining acceptance. Is it because they were late to the game and the proprietary codec has become the standard or because the industry is afraid to loose control of the content in some mysterious way.
I look at audio codices and see that MP3 became the defacto standard by being around first and the apple codec for the I-pod was forced on anyone who wanted to use Apple's music system. Meanwhile open codices like Ogg Vorbis and Flac are only marginally accepted and seldom supported by media players. I can put a CD full of MP3s in my car stereo and it will play fine not so with Flac files.
Looking at the history of audio it appears that if the open source codec is already doomed to failure because the commercial one is already leading in market acceptance.
I agree David, but in a way
Submitted by fnordfnord on Thu, 01/28/2010 - 2:31am
I agree David, but in a way Mozilla is currently holding the users from experiencing the next "web" by trying to force their GPL standards. I don't think backing up OGG is bad, not at all, it's simply not the right time. I think we can safely switch from Flash to H.264 in a first time to experience a much less cluttered "web-video" experience and not being so constricted from an outdated technology (Flash was never meant to be used in such a way so it's not wonder it's such a slug) then further on move to more open standards. Changes shouldn't be drastic but a progression....
there's always MS Silverlight
Submitted by kjrviking on Thu, 01/28/2010 - 5:52am
you know, instead of switching to H.264 we could always start using Microsoft's Silverlight...
i mean, that new client that came out for facebook is amazing and if silverlight could do that, think of what it could do given enough support
I was discussing this not
Submitted by fnordfnord on Thu, 01/28/2010 - 7:35am
I was discussing this not very long ago with some people and while I agree Silverlight can do fantastic things we would just be locking ourselves in another proprietary format. Another plugin. Ultimately the best thing would be that the browser does all the job, straight by convention with no plugins involved or anything.
Heh! Yeah!
Submitted by ExarKun1138 on Thu, 01/28/2010 - 7:24am
I agree about Silverlight, BUT, this is APPLE we're talking about, and as little of MS's stuff as they can get away with using they will. Apple HATES Microsoft. Microsoft, on-the-other-hand, has almost no reguard for Apple. Apple is too insignificant in the PC world to be a threat any time soon, if ever. And now with the huge success of Windows 7, Apple is scrambling to try and have SOMETHING innovative to push back with. This iPad is NOT it.
yeah Apple LOATHES MS, who
Submitted by nekollx on Thu, 01/28/2010 - 9:25am
yeah Apple LOATHES MS, who could blame them, Win 7 in a few months already has more market then ALL OSX combined. But Ms is all like "it's Intel, It'll run Seven, we're good."
And while Silverlight is nice is still a 3rd party, if theirs a exploit in in you can't fix it you have to rely on a 3rd party to fix it. A open standard is best.
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
Feature
Review
Feature
Feature
Feature






