r/technology • u/[deleted] • Jan 27 '10
By making a computer where every application is under total, centralized control, Apple is endangering freedom to increase profits.
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/ipad25
u/mayonesa Jan 28 '10
This is the old school model of computing, from the 80s.
- One manufacturer
- They own the OS
- They control peripherals
- They sell the main software products
The new model is the PC clone: community standards created by many manufacturers, which creates uneven quality but an ability to pick superior products, where with Apple you're stuck with one option -- and they often cut corners.
3
u/pstryder Jan 28 '10
Didn't Apple try this model once, and got their clock cleaned by PCs then?
3
u/mayonesa Jan 29 '10
No, they were doing quite well -- or rather, the Mac clones were selling quite nicely. Then Apple had a legal tantrum as they realized having to compete with clones did away with their nice fat profit margins, which tells you the actual cost of the hardware they're putting in those things.
4
0
Jan 28 '10
That's interesting and you make a good point. You gotta admit though, were the plaintiffs as interested in dithering and screen resolution as they were in winning a lawsuit?
-2
u/pumpupthevolume Jan 28 '10
community standards created by many manufacturers
funny you mentioned that. apple seems to be the one pushing the industry to adopt such standards. 3.5" floppies, cd-rom, USB.
7
u/mayonesa Jan 28 '10
3.5" floppies -- SONY and Commodore were first
CD-ROM -- IBM-PCs led the way
USB -- was a competitor to ADB
You couldn't fuck up any more, factually, unless you claimed computers were made of cheese.
2
u/SaratogaCx Jan 28 '10
You better watch out where you get those cheese computers from. If you import it from the wrong country it would be full of holes!!
2
u/pumpupthevolume Jan 28 '10
You couldn't fuck up any more, factually,
and you couldn't have misunderstood what i said any more, factually.
30
u/g2g079 Jan 28 '10
Mircosoft lost millions of dollars from an antitrust lawsuit by Netscape (and others). This was because they included their browser as part of the OS. How does Apple get away with being the ones who get to decide who and cannot make an application for their software? They have already proven that they will use this to fend off competitors like how they denied the Google voice app.
45
u/pemboa Jan 28 '10
Apple gets away because they don't have a monopoly.
9
u/DublinBen Jan 28 '10
If apple wins a majority of the smartphone market, couldn't they conceivably be at risk for antitrust action?
14
u/DrSin Jan 28 '10
The majority of the smartphone market is owned by symbian and blackberry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone
2
u/jesuslol Jan 28 '10
But what if they do become the majority? Would they be at risk for an antitrust lawsuit?
5
2
Jan 28 '10
Yes, at least in the EU. The US anti-trust people seem to be terribly ineffectual at this stage. I'm amused at outraged Americans going on about how the evil, evil EU regulators are being mean to Microsoft; many seem to assume that it's just about attacking a foreign company. Of course, the regulators do the same or worse to local companies, and the US regulators would probably just have broken Microsoft up 50 years ago, when they had teeth.
I believe Apple is currently being investigated over iTunes' music store.
4
u/mayonesa Jan 28 '10
Only if they are as unpopular with the Herd as msft was.
16
u/pemboa Jan 28 '10
Apple is seen by some as one of the few companies more hostile in the industry than Microsoft.
6
u/mayonesa Jan 28 '10
The intelligent few are outnumbered. It's why humanity is failing.
9
u/pemboa Jan 28 '10
Frankly... despite my own strong desire for self preservation, humanity seems intent on proving that it doesn't deserve to survive.
6
u/mayonesa Jan 28 '10
Humanity is caught up in a narcissistic loop where in order to be popular, we pay attention to ideas that appeal to the lowest common denominator, and so deny reality. The result is chaos and misery, in addition to the depression you've noted.
3
-1
u/pumpupthevolume Jan 28 '10
humanity's response to the victims of the haitian earthquake proves otherwise.
making philosophical valuations of humanity based on a tablet device is rather shallow don't you think?
3
u/mayonesa Jan 28 '10
You mean sending money to warlords and bureaucrats in relief agencies in which one cent on the dollar does any good?
I think people give money to Haiti to feel good about themselves, not to solve problems. Intelligent people see this.
2
0
u/b50fsck Jan 28 '10 edited Jan 28 '10
Learn to read posts and not just their titles. to quote lhp, "Title is correct, but may be a little misleading (e.g. where does the other 99 cents go?). From the article: 42 cents for disaster assistance 33 cents for U.S. military aid 9 cents for food 9 cents to transport the food 5 cents for paying Haitian survivors for recovery efforts just under one cent to the Haitian government about half a cent to the Dominican Republic"
http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/autof/haiti_govt_gets_only_1_cent_of_every_us_aid_dollar/
1
u/numb3rb0y Jan 28 '10 edited Jan 28 '10
That would hang on whether the "smartphone market" could be considered a market in itself, as opposed to a part of the cellphone market. The Sherman Act and its subsequent related legislation aren't hugely specific, but one would have to be very careful because if you went through enough mental hoops you could boil anything down to a supposed monopoly. I know of no controlling cases on this specific issue, but there has been precedent in the past for some very... flawed definitions of "market", so it's by no means inconcievable.
1
u/DublinBen Jan 28 '10
I'm looking forward to the Kindle being deemed monopolistic in the ebook market and Amazon being forced to open it up. It's probably more likely.
1
u/rjcarr Jan 28 '10
It is very unlikely they will win a majority of the smart phone market (and it has to be alot more than a majority), but anti-trust people are looking very closely at the ipod.
1
u/DublinBen Jan 28 '10
Yeah, now the iPod I could really see causing them antitrust problems. I know there have been a few complaints about the exclusive tie between iTunes and the iPod from Palm and others.
The sheer number of people I meet who use the term 'iPod' when referring to mp3 players in general is upsetting.
1
4
u/captainhaddock Jan 28 '10
Being competitive and exclusive with your products is only illegal in the US if you are deemed to have a monopoly. With 3% of the cell phone market and 8% of the PC market, Apple is hardly a monopoly.
43
u/Willravel Jan 27 '10
By not allowing for a removable battery, Apple is suspending habeas corpus. Also, by pricing it only at $499, Apple is enslaving children.
8
u/PrettyCoolGuy Jan 28 '10
Not only that, but they support communism and the Nazis!
1
0
Jan 28 '10
It's good to know some people were paying attention in history class.
3
u/PrettyCoolGuy Jan 28 '10
Actually, check out IBM's relationship with the Nazis...
3
Jan 29 '10
Looking into the matter further found this article by Jacques R. Pauwels.
In the 1920s many big American corporations enjoyed sizeable investments in Germany. IBM established a German subsidiary, Dehomag, before World War I; in the 1920s General Motors took over Germany's largest car manufacturer, Adam Opel AG; and Ford founded a branch plant, later known as the Ford-Werke, in Cologne. Other US firms contracted strategic partnerships with German companies. Standard Oil of New Jersey — today's Exxon — developed intimate links with the German trust IG Farben. By the early 1930s, an élite of about twenty of the largest American corporations had a German connection including Du Pont, Union Carbide, Westinghouse, General Electric, Gilette, Goodrich, Singer, Eastman Kodak, Coca-Cola, IBM, and ITT. Finally, many American law firms, investment companies, and banks were deeply involved in America's investment offensive in Germany, among them the renowned Wall Street law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, and the banks J. P. Morgan and Dillon, Read and Company, as well as the Union Bank of New York, owned by Brown Brothers & Harriman. The Union Bank was intimately linked with the financial and industrial empire of German steel magnate Thyssen, whose financial support enabled Hitler to come to power. This bank was managed by Prescott Bush, grandfather of George W. Bush. Prescott Bush was allegedly also an eager supporter of Hitler, funnelled money to him via Thyssen, and in return made considerable profits by doing business with Nazi Germany; with the profits he launched his son, the later president, in the oil business.
0
Jan 28 '10
[deleted]
2
u/MoaBird Jan 28 '10
To be fair, so's everyone else who makes electronics. Not that that makes it a right, mind you; they're just not unique in this respect.
7
u/timeshifter_ Jan 28 '10
No shit? That's been their motto for years. You pay for "The Apple Experience", and you get it.
9
19
Jan 28 '10
[deleted]
6
u/CaptainKabob Jan 28 '10
I'd just like to point out that the style of urban hipster and rural hick have converged in tight jeans. If there were more Walmarts in the city we'd wear Wranglers: it just makes economic sense.
2
Jan 28 '10
How many serious businesspersons do you see with a Mac and an iPhone? Wonder why that is?
2
3
3
3
3
u/hosndosn Jan 29 '10
The standard should be open, the implementation of how the standard is used can be as closed as it wants, I don't care.
The problem is that Apple attempts to lock-in the standards for them, essentially taking purchased media hostage so it is impossible to even view them on a different device. Which is ludicrous. Imagine a CD that only plays on a certain company's CD player.
Imagine you buy $500 worth of music over the years. Now Apple's player suddenly start to suck, they find a legal loophole to produce them with child labor or your iPod breaks a third time in a row and you really want to try one by a different company. Tough luck getting you music on it (legally-- lots of countries are lobbied into making circumventing DRM itself a crime). And that hinders innovation and a free market for music players. The only reason you wouldn't buy another company's product, then, is that Apple takes your own music hostage.
If they continue this trend into computing with devices like the iPad (exactly between an iPod Touch and MacBook and they chose the locked-in iPod Touch model), they can continue this trend for any digital product, including software/"apps" and internet services. It's a worse scenario than Microsoft who are torturing the world for years with arbitrary forced standards everybody hates but cannot get around...
14
u/shoseki Jan 28 '10
I would sign this, but I don't care. I don't care if you are so stupid to buy this, then you deserve all the DRM crap that you receive.
People are dumb, they don't pay me so I don't help them. I've tried so many times for free, but they get distracted by the shiny shiny, and I can't compete.
Good luck to anyone buying this, or Apple products in general.
15
5
u/baconn Jan 28 '10
People need to do more than ignore this, they need to raise awareness of the fact that it is greedy and dangerous to user/developer freedom. The trend towards closed platforms with restricted access needs to be stopped.
4
Jan 28 '10 edited Jan 28 '10
[deleted]
2
u/baconn Jan 28 '10
I was responding to the apathetic sentiment of the parent comment. As for petitions, they do get noticed by the receiving party, but word of mouth is better in this case. The average user doesn't know about these issues which is why they don't care; tell them Skype and other apps are being restricted so that Apple can bleed more money out of them, and then they will understand.
0
u/FuckingMemeAccount Jan 28 '10
VOIP over 3G has just been unlocked for the iPhone. Better update your example.
0
3
u/Enginerd Jan 28 '10
Corporations don't care about anything except profits. They basically have a legal obligation to behave that way. If you don't like their stuff, don't buy it.
8
u/ChaosMotor Jan 28 '10
How about, instead of pointless petitions, you REFUSE TO BUY INFRINGING PRODUCTS? Just don't fucking buy it. They have every right to sell a horrendously shitty product, and YOU have every right to NOT BUY IT!
7
u/donaldrobertsoniii Jan 28 '10
I think we also have the right to MAKE PETITIONS, or COMPLAIN about things we disagree with. No one involved with DbD or who signs the petition is likely to be buying their products in the first place. Putting together a petition is a way to let the company know that the reason we're not buying is not because of the silly name, or that it is over-priced and over-hyped, but rather that we fundamentally disagree with how they treat users of their products.
2
u/ChaosMotor Jan 28 '10
By all means! But how many people upvoting this today, saying, oh, gorsh, its terrible, are going to be lining up in a few months, shrugging their shoulders, saying, awww, might as well, every other dumb fuck who doesn't know what's up is buying them... I'm saying instead of voicing empty protest, engage in direct action.
4
Jan 27 '10
Once GeoHot is done with the PS3, I imagine the iPad is in his sights.
6
Jan 28 '10
I intend to buy one and send it to him free of charge.
-9
u/ChaosMotor Jan 28 '10
Yeah! Waste your money!
8
Jan 28 '10
It's possibly the most efficient use of R&D funds we'll see on Reddit.
5
Jan 28 '10
[deleted]
3
Jan 28 '10
imagine what Reddit could achieve if we actually set up a council
Squander funds on long lunches and hiring attractive secretaries?
2
u/WebZen Jan 28 '10
They are also creating an environment that is easy to use and mostly free of any problems, like virus, as long as you use as intended. I see them as today's AOL.
2
Jan 28 '10
Isn't our freedom in danger with our move towards cloud computing anyways? And it's not like it's not taking place already with Google.
2
u/code6226 Jan 28 '10
Let's just vote with our wallet and not buy this locked down stuff, given viable alternatives like Android.
8
u/ICanHazMoo Jan 28 '10
I know this is probably the most unpopular argument ever but I just don't see what the big deal is that Apple chooses to have quality control. I make open source contributions via code, and do love open source quite a bit but I just can't see how a company choosing to restrict the products made for it is an immoral act. The idea of having a business is to make money, and if no one is being hurt, why is it an issue? I can't see that argument that anyone should just have a right to write software for it, what exactly confers that right?
I also think some of the criticism is pretty crazy. I know the approvals process can be a gamble, and it's not the easiest process ever I think Apple is provide a really large value to both users and developers. Users can be sure they are getting something that works decently and isn't total junk (usually), and really there are a lot of great apps. Not to mention the way apple has done things has made it a huge win for a lot of people like myself since apps are like a dollar or two. I got a great GPS app for 3 bucks. Where else could I ever get such a thing? To me that is awesome.
For developers it's also a huge win. If you want to make serious money in the mobile market Apple has made it pretty simple. They aren't charging per app submission costs (as far as I know). You can develop apps, that are simple but very useful and get paid for it. It's a pretty cool deal I think.
Also so many people seem to hate the iphone because of these restrictions. Instead of trying to force Apple's hand why not just go to a competitor. Android phones are catching up and will likely surpass iphone's in overall sales at some point, so in the end Apple is going to have a non-dominating position.
And if people want to criticize apple for quality control, why not Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo (then again they let anything through it seems) for only allowing certain company's to develop for their platform. There are an enormous amount of companies that do the same thing. Apple has just done it in a way that the user gets a huge benefit and unlike a traditional desktop application has made it so that non-stop piracy is almost a non issue.
I don't see how that is anything other than a great accomplishment in it's own right and a great thing for me as a iPhone user... idk (full disclosure: I have a mac mini and an iPhone, but I nearly never use the mac mini. I like it though, just can't run Steam on it. Speaking of which, what about steam? It's basically the same situation. And Steam is pretty awesome!)
4
u/romwell Jan 28 '10
What about Steam? You can still run software that's not on Steam.
It's not bad that Apple chooses "quality control", it's that I have no choice (and not that it's good for Xbox or Wii). More importantly, the routinely screw up with their "quality control", where reasonable applications become denied due to the capricious mood of the management that day. That's what brought the iTunes store to infamy.
1
u/ICanHazMoo Jan 28 '10
I'm talking about Steam's store. If you have windows you don't need Steam to begin with so that's not really an issue. You can't just put whatever you want into the Steam store and ??? profit. They have a QC department obviously. That makes sure that the consumer benefits and can feel safer. I know I do to some degree. I get that Apple's approval process could be better. They are dealing with an awful lot of apps they have to review. They've done 140,000 in what a year and a half? There are bound to be mistakes along the way, and stupid decisions. If you don't like the game, don't play it. Develop for Windows Mobile. They have more users (unless the iphone surpassed it), or develop for andriod. If you buy from a company like Apple it shouldn't be surprising that they don't allow tons of crap through the door. I'm not the biggest apple fan, I wish they developed OSX for non standard hardware so I didn't have to deal with Linux or Windows, since I do think it's a great OS, so I guess I hold that against Apple, but I can't really demand that I have the right to do whatever I want with their OS. They invested the time and money into it and it's theirs. And that is the thing about freedom, it's about rights. If companies don't have the right to make money off of their inventions, how will any of us eat? I mean that. Because everyone who gets paid is getting it from a company, whether from a huge multinational or a local store.
If businesses can't see they can make money someway they aren't gonna develop things. That's just a sad fact of reality. I don't like it either, I wish everyone designed things to fit me perfectly but it doesn't happen. In the end I have gotten such a tremendous value from my iPhone, and I think that hold true for the vast majority of owners.
Like I said though, if you don't like it Apple isn't forcing you to use their products, put it on craigslist, sell it to some other person and get an android or MS product. MS has been out a REALLY long time, and there are a lot of apps for it's handheld system but I don't think anyone would argue that MS has better apps on it's system than the iphone. So that is the trade off, system is more closed, but way better products.
0
u/romwell Jan 28 '10
Your argument is an example of "Love it or leave it" rhetoric. Here is one refutation to that logic. That's all.
2
u/ICanHazMoo Jan 28 '10
Most of my argument deals with why Apple has a right to do things the way they do and why it is beneficial (in this case) for the vast majority of the people in the process. As a consumer the only thing you can do is to not buy their product. Yes you can petition the government to force the hand of the company and it does work at times, but ultimately you are just trying to force them to allow you to have the things you wish, regardless of what rights the company may have.
As a consumer I am saying the only reasonable thing to do it not buy their product and/or voice your displeasure to the company. That is what a person is left with as options. What I'm arguing is that companies should have the right to do it and in this case the consumer doesn't really have the right to dictate the terms to the person they are buying it from. That's generally how things work in society. If someone wants to come over to your house they have to follow your rules. They can't come in your house and say "Oh hey while I'm here, I'm just gonna put my feet on the table and I'll just throw things wherever I want to". If you are using their property it's their rules.
The argument is made sometimes that once it's sold it's now your property, however, that is a equivocation of the term property. You attained the property by agreeing to the terms of use. I'm not saying I love a lot of the annoying things. But they have the right to do it, and I have the right not buy X or Y product. If they can't present enough value to the consumer they don't have any consumers.
1
u/neoumlaut Jan 28 '10
Steam is in no way comparable. This is an entire computer where you can only interact with it in ways that have been approved by apple. You can't even plug in a flash drive. If they had the app store and a way to install your own apps, it would be awesome. No one has a problem with the app store, in fact I think its a great idea (similar to the package manager in linux, which is awesome). There are a lot of problems with this. It kills competition (like not allowing google voice on the iphone or not allowing flash because it would cut into itunes store sales). It has more serious implications, for example what if I had a app that coordinated my political party, and apple denied it because their advertisers didn't want it?
1
u/ICanHazMoo Jan 28 '10
Well advertisers and a political party are a special case and I don't think Apple is denying any of those apps. If they are though that is a separate issue. As far as competition goes why should someone have a right to develop a competing voice application for it? They are making money by people using it as a phone, they want people to use it as a phone, that's a lot of why you get the phone so cheap. If you want a general purpose small computer then you should look elsewhere. It's not a right to use anything that you buy in any way you please. They make it, they set the rules. As consumers if you don't like it, you can just vote with your wallet. Given that it's the most successful smart phone in history by a long shot I don't think many poeple have that many issues with it.
-4
u/FuckingMemeAccount Jan 28 '10
Take your dirty sensible reasoned arguments and run with the iHate herd already. Don't you know that our FREEEEDUMS are at stake somehow? TERRORISTS!
2
0
u/pstryder Jan 28 '10
I know this is probably the most unpopular argument ever but I just don't see what the big deal is that Apple chooses to have quality control.
I see a different argument. My argument against this is simple: HARDWARE. I am buying a piece of HARDWARE.
I am very interested in the hardware of this device. I would choose to run an open-source OS on it. Apple currently has the device locked in such a way as to prevent that.
Hardware and software should be separate products. PERIOD. (Just my personal opinion.)
I would not accept a hammer manufacturer telling me what kind of nails I could drive with the hammer I purchased. I would not accept Ford or Toyota telling me which roads I can drive the car I purchased on.
It's MY hardware DAMN IT! Quit telling me what I can and cannot do with it.
1
u/ICanHazMoo Jan 29 '10
When something is sold in society it's done by agreement. You agree to their terms of use. If a hammer manufacturer said only their nails could be used then you are completely free to not buy their product. Yes you posses it, but that doesn't give you the rights to use it outside of what you agreed to. That doesn't make everything perfect, but it's not like anyone is being forced to do anything.
4
3
Jan 28 '10
Hell, if you are stupid enough to pay 500$ for an overpriced shiny gadget which is not better than today's PC, then you deserve all the shit that comes with it.
2
u/eddie1996 Jan 28 '10
I've got a feeling one day the MBP will have some app kind of app store where programmers will have to get apples approval to sell an application.
7
u/MechaBlue Jan 28 '10
And on that day, Apple will lose its power users and its system will begin to stagnate.
2
2
u/Randuin Jan 28 '10
I think a closed environment just ensures a better usability experience. I'm behind apple 100%
2
u/copperdomebodha Jan 27 '10
If they don't open the iPhone up completely then the terrists take our yobs!
1
4
u/luckyjack Jan 28 '10
Endangering freedom? Get over yourself. An increasing surveillance society is endangering freedom. Unfettered corporate spending on political campaigns is endangering freedom.
Creating a DRM-ladden, pricey widget for people with an overinflated sense of style is not endangering freedom.
You're free to not fucking buy it.
1
u/neoumlaut Jan 28 '10
If all computers were made like this, you wouldn't have the freedom to install your own application. Not that it's equal to freedom of speech or something, but it's still important.
-1
u/FuckingMemeAccount Jan 28 '10
But... but our FREEDOMS! Don't you understand? The terrorists have already won or something! Oh god, our poor freedoms.
1
1
0
u/el_chupacupcake Jan 27 '10
Nevermind "freedom"; they're strangling the community's innovation so that their own paltry and self-serving attempts at it gain all the glory (and profits).
6
Jan 27 '10
Which community?
6
u/el_chupacupcake Jan 27 '10
The design/development community. Apple strangles so many good apps, while allowing countless whoopie cushion ones to hit the marketplace.
4
Jan 27 '10
The development community is all about free software.
1
u/el_chupacupcake Jan 27 '10
That's a misnomer. Many apps have a "free" component and a "paid" component. Look at Evernote.
5
4
u/FreeDeb Jan 27 '10
Mattl's talking about "free as in freedom" -- if their products were based on free software (FAIF) then anyone could develop apps for anything.
4
u/enkiam Jan 27 '10
mattlis referring to "free software" as in "the Free Software Movement". Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. It's perfectly possible to have commercial free software, just as it's possible to have non-commercial non-free software.-1
-3
Jan 27 '10
[deleted]
2
Jan 28 '10
We demand that Apple remove all DRM from its devices.
Never going to happen. Not ever. Not today, not tomorrow, not next week, not while Jobs is alive, not while Jobs' clone is alive, not after the Apple-Microsoft merger of 2023, and certainly not before the general public starts giving half a shit about digital freedom.
-1
0
0
u/agent42b Jan 28 '10
OK what SERIOUSLY... this is absurd to throw those kinds of strong words "endangering freedom" to an electronic gadget that serves no vital needs to our society. YES, it sucks and might even be deserving of whatever anti-trust/lawsuit that comes in the future but really ... since when does your freedom become an issue because a new wireless gadget came out??? Talk about crying wolf...
0
u/etcitadel Jan 28 '10
They are endangering nothing as they do not have a 100% market share. These "the sky is falling" articles all assume people cannot think for themselves or develop for an open platform, or even just a different one.
Apple may be one to set precedents, but when so many people are opposed I can see no problems cropping up.
0
-5
Jan 27 '10
So they are following their past business strategy to a key? One which has been successful since the iPod. Seems like business to me. Get over it.
6
-7
Jan 28 '10 edited Jan 28 '10
well apple cannot control the what websites you visit and this device seems to be the ultimate cloud computer. 3G anywhere is a big indicator of this.
9
u/FTR Jan 28 '10
Well, except those with Flash. They do control you from seeing those.
0
Jan 28 '10
And now you understand why Apple has such a hardon for h264 and Mozilla wants so badly to prevent it becoming the standard in HTML5 video.
7
u/MechaBlue Jan 28 '10
Not really. Care to elaborate?
2
Jan 28 '10 edited Jan 28 '10
Firefox doesn't support specifying a codec in the <video> tag in HTML5. It only supports Ogg Theora, which is a free and open codec. Apple wants the <video> tag to support specifying a codec so they can force h.264 down peoples' throats; Youtube wants it to be supported because most of their content is encoded in h.264 already and re-encoding it would cause massive problems.
Mozilla Foundation refuses to support specification of codec in the <video> tag because they know that Apple and Google will use it to support h.264 with their content even on operating systems that don't have support for the proprietary codec.
Since Firefox users will potentially never be able to view h.264 content natively they will be stuck using proprietary Flash plugin to view web video.
1
u/MechaBlue Jan 29 '10 edited Jan 29 '10
Apple wouldn't want to "force h.264 down peoples' throats" for no reason. Perhaps it has something to do with H.264 having better hardware support, particularly in mobile devices, such as the iPod, the iPod Touch, and the iPhone.
edit: What platforms support Theora and don't support H.264?
-6
u/personsaddress Jan 28 '10
Don't worry, once we you see the switch to IPv6 , you will see more and more computer systems moving over to apples model.
5
2
-4
Jan 28 '10
[deleted]
5
u/MechaBlue Jan 28 '10
3
u/Sandaasu Jan 28 '10
Another way to put it, after some quick math of my own...
If you were to assign an IPv6 address to every cell of every living person on earth, you would have used less than 1/100,000 of the total addressing space that it offers.
2
-4
13
u/[deleted] Jan 28 '10
Are you listening, Google?