The Keynote's not even over yet, lol.
|
I am pleased that they are adding built-in PDF bookshelf capabilities into the iBook app and adding the ability to sync PDFs onto the phone. Depending on how well the PDFs view on it, I may be taking up a sizable portion of the storage on my phone for my Paizo library.
Most of the other bells and whistles are nice, but with the exception of the nicer camera, I probably won't take advantage of most of them.
I am continually impressed with how much the iPhone/iPad devices are turning into the sci-fi devices of fiction. I was most impressed by iMovie and FaceTime.
The Retina Display is pretty sweet as well. I couldn't believe the two devices side by side.
I do tech support for Apple so I always watch the livestreams of the keynotes, and when I can get away with it the Paizo boards.
So, reactions?
Not sure, yet. There was so much chatter about 10.6.4, Safari 5, Apple TV and such leading up to it that I'm still a little disappointed that it was all about iPhone.
Having said that, I like what I saw. Can't really afford a phone with a data plan (hell, the only cell I have is through work and it's business only) so probably won't get one.
But did I told my wife I want one. :)
Greg
Oh yeah, and I'm still a little flummoxed as to the whole Farmville demo thing. Is it really that a big of a deal?
Don't do the Facebook...
Greg
Some people can't get enough of that site. I suppose they'll be excited to know they can play their weird little game online now.
Imagine if Blizzard came out with a World of Warcraft app, for sure they'd demo that thing during a Keynote. Come to think of it though I'm surprised they didn't show the Auction House app...
Imagine if Blizzard came out with a World of Warcraft app, for sure they'd demo that thing during a Keynote.
I guess that's the problem, I never realised that it was to the level where it warranted a keynote appearance.
Live and learn...
Greg
It's a terrible truth > .< 70 million active users is a pretty big audience to appeal to. I'm kinda surprised there are 70 million people on Facebook itself...
|
I am pleased that they are adding built-in PDF bookshelf capabilities into the iBook app and adding the ability to sync PDFs onto the phone. Depending on how well the PDFs view on it, I may be taking up a sizable portion of the storage on my phone for my Paizo library.
Most of the other bells and whistles are nice, but with the exception of the nicer camera, I probably won't take advantage of most of them.
Yea, I'm rather hoping that the bookshelf up date comes sooner than later. I have my paizo PDFs loaded on my iPad and I hate that it drops some of my font characters.
I assume that when the PDF support comes out in iBooks that issue will be resolved.
I'm loving my iPad except for this issue.
Just had a thought. Jobs said during the keynote that they made "Facetime" completely open source and that they were going to register it as such starting tomorrow. I read a comment (somewhere) where someone was surprised at this. I guess Apple's walled garden and stuff.
Anyways, I was just watching the commercial for Facetime and I realised, they want this on all smart phones. Even Android powered ones. They obviously want this to be as ubiquitous and common place as making a phone call. You don't need two iPhones to make a call, why should you need two iPhones to make a video call?
Interesting. They really are thinking big picture here. We'll see if it takes off.
Greg
I suspect, and others seem to agree with me, that Facetime works on or off of the H.264 codec. The one that manufacturers and designers have to pay Apple (and other companies) for the right to use.
I suspect, and others seem to agree with me, that Facetime works on or off of the H.264 codec. The one that manufacturers and designers have to pay Apple (and other companies) for the right to use.
Doesn't seem like there are many alternatives. By some measure VP8 is an inferior codec that may infringe on H.264 copyrights.
Apple is just one in a long, long list of companies that hold patents on H.264. While they may get some financial benefit out of royalties (in, what 2015?), I suspect it's a little more fundamental than that. They've bet the farm, as it were, on H.264 as a standard. The more applications that use it, as a standard, the less their work will have been in vain.
Not exactly altruistic I'll admint, but not exactly cold hard greed, either.
YMMV, of course.
Greg
Perhaps I misunderstand the setup, but I was under the impression that H.264 is royalty free only for the end user, until 2015ish.
That would mean, if Apple gets Facetime on the Android system - for example, Google (as the producers of Android) would have to pay Apple (and the others) royalties now.
And I didn't really read the analysis thoroughly, I did catch something of note: Parts of the VP8 (WebM) codec/spec predate H.264. So it is possible that H.264 is infringing on VP8. And if that is the case, that would shake up the realm of HD codecs a bit. But I would have to do more research than I really care to do to gauge the likelihood of that.
|
Perhaps I misunderstand the setup, but I was under the impression that H.264 is royalty free only for the end user, until 2015ish.
That would mean, if Apple gets Facetime on the Android system - for example, Google (as the producers of Android) would have to pay Apple (and the others) royalties now.
Pretty much correct. Just a couple notes:
1. It isn't royalty fees per se as I understand it, it's actually a flat-fee licensing fee. As Google already pays the fee for Youtube, Android is subsumed into the license. Secondly, as the OS includes it, the hardware manufacturers wouldn't need to pay for the license.
2. Royalty free to end user until 2015. But they leave that's only because the organization has to "check" the royalty every 5 years. I do understand that it isn't a guarantee that it would stay royalty free past 2015, but the possibility is there.
3. Also, while you are correct about Apple being included as a patent holder (part of MPEG LA which oversees h.264 spec), I thought I'd include a list of the patent holders to show that it's much much larger than just Apple.
- Apple Inc.
- DAEWOO
- Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation
- Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute
- France Télécom, société anonyme
- Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V.
- Fujitsu Limited
- Hitachi, Ltd.
- Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
- LG Electronics Inc.
- Microsoft Corporation
- Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
- NTT docomo
- Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation
- Panasonic Corporation
- Robert Bosch GmbH
- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
- Scientific-Atlanta Vancouver Company
- Sedna Patent Services, LLC
- Sharp Corporation
- Siemens AG
- Sony Corporation
- Ericsson
- The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York
- Toshiba Corporation
- Victor Company of Japan, Limited
And I didn't really read the analysis thoroughly, I did catch something of note: Parts of the VP8 (WebM) codec/spec predate H.264. So it is possible that H.264 is infringing on VP8. And if that is the case, that would shake up the realm of HD codecs a bit. But I would have to do more research than I really care to do to gauge the likelihood of that.
I didn't see that. As far as I can tell from researching it h.264 started around 1998, however the key is for each patent. The grey area is that the standard wasn't finalized until 2003, whereas WebM had it's origins around 2001. This does leave 2 years for possibility of patent creation for WebM when h.264 didn't have it. You'd have to have a robust look at each patent involved and when they were created to be sure of patent infringement though, because for all we know the patents for h.264 were filed for before 2001.
Thank you for the clarifications. Copyright law and patent infringements are not the most interesting thing to me.
1. It isn't royalty fees per se as I understand it, it's actually a flat-fee licensing fee. As Google already pays the fee for Youtube, Android is subsumed into the license. Secondly, as the OS includes it, the hardware manufacturers wouldn't need to pay for the license
So, royalty or flat license, the end result is that if Facetime revolves around H.264, and someone has pay for H.264 use, then Facetime isn't really that open is it?
------------------------------------------
It appears that Gizmodo isn't even worthy enough to respond to.
|
|
So, royalty or flat license, the end result is that if Facetime revolves around H.264, and someone has pay for H.264 use, then Facetime isn't really that open is it?
Well, pretty much true. It's the same way that HTML5 uses h.264 as "open." I don't quite agree with the fact that it's called open, however as far as I see it there isn't a viable alternative.
So, royalty or flat license, the end result is that if Facetime revolves around H.264, and someone has pay for H.264 use, then Facetime isn't really that open is it?Well, pretty much true. It's the same way that HTML5 uses h.264 as "open." I don't quite agree with the fact that it's called open, however as far as I see it there isn't a viable alternative.
That is a good point.
There is a slight difference though. Very slight. It is possible to run a HTML5 compliant site and never have to touch H.264. And I would like to think if an alternative does come along, you would be able to use it instead of H.264 in HTML5.
Facetime really can't be used without its' video spec, even if it isn't H.264.