[whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*
Geoffrey Sneddon
foolistbar at googlemail.com
Tue Dec 11 11:34:06 PST 2007
On 11 Dec 2007, at 19:04, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote:
> You are right. My bad. Why don't we write in the spec?
>
> "Examples of widely recognized free-for-use audio formats are Ogg
> Vorbis and
> FLAC"
It was intended as meaning "recognized" in the sense of browsers
recognising them. No currently shipping browser recognises either Ogg
Vorbis or FLAC.
> The answer to that question is that Apple and Nokia don't want us to
> use Ogg
> Vorbis because they sell their own, encumbered tech and we would be
> less
> likely to license (read: give them monopoly rents) their tech. The
> very
> MENTION of Ogg in the spec threatens their monopoly rents, and
> that's why
> they had it removed.
>
> It's just dollars.
Apple does not license Apple Lossless to anyone else AFAIK, and the
only standards that MPEG-LA collects money for that Apple receives any
share of whatsoever is "MPEG-4 Systems" and IEEE 1394 (Firewire).
Neither of these have anything to do with audio/video codecs. Saying
that Apple has a financial interest in wanting MPEG codecs mandated in
HTML 5 is totally untrue.
--
Geoffrey Sneddon
<http://gsnedders.com/>
More information about the whatwg
mailing list