[whatwg] Codecs for <audio> and <video>
jeffm at iglou.com
Wed Jul 1 10:07:30 PDT 2009
Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
> 2009/7/1 Jeff McAdams <jeffm at iglou.com <mailto:jeffm at iglou.com>>
> timeless wrote:
> I also don't like how people enjoy a good run of corporation
> First you go after Microsoft. Then you go after Google. Then you
> after Apple.
> Many (most?) corporations choose to operate under a heavy veil of
> secrecy (*particularly* Apple). That choice is also a choice to
> open themselves up these criticisms. These corporations have to
> take the good with the bad. If they chose to operate with greater
> transparency, then they would almost certainly come into less criticism.
> I have exactly zero sympathy for Apple, MS, and Google, for the
> criticisms they have received. They choose to operate in secrecy,
> then they choose to be the target of these criticisms.
> I'm not asking for sympathy, but I also don't think the characterization
> of Google as operating in secrecy is fair. There's a large number of
> people from the Google Chrome team participating on WHATWG and trying to
> contribute openly to these discussions. We're operating as an open
> source project, and trying to be as open as possible. At the same time,
> Google is a company whose purpose (as is any company) is to make money.
> YouTube is a separate team and not an open source project, I don't think
> it's reasonable to expect all of Google to suddenly release all of its
> information that has legitimate business reasons for staying
> company-internal. We've made what statements we can make, and I don't
> honestly think it reasonable to expect more.
I don't disagree with you on any of that, really. I said you (Google,
and others) have made a choice, corporately, on how open and transparent
to be. Certainly Google is less secretive than many other corporations
as a whole, and seemingly the Chrome team is considerably more open than
most of the rest of Google, even.
Nonetheless, as a whole, Google is a corporation and they have made a
business decision to remain secretive on at least certain things. I do
think that's a reasonable decision to make, and I might very well make
the same decision in your shoes. My point was only to say that part and
parcel of that decision is actions that tend to lead to criticisms of
the company as a whole that Mozilla gets less of because they are more
open. I won't exactly hold Mozilla up as a paragon of openness and
transparency, but they are better than Google, just as Google is better
than MS, and I would even argue that MS is better than Apple.
I understand that you have said what you can say, and that's fantastic,
and truthfully, I don't really expect more. That doesn't, however, mean
that I'm going to cease criticisms of the stated positions
As to the comparison between the Chrome and Youtube groups. I wish that
the Youtube portion of the company were more engaged here as they
clearly are a relevant party to the discussion. Again, I understand
that as a business decision they may choose not to, but my understanding
of that doesn't mean I'm not going to criticize them on it.
jeffm at iglou.com
More information about the whatwg