Can. Not. Wait.
New Year’s resolution: simplify. First step: The desk.
Why I Hate Android
Insightful, well-written, and to the point. I too loved Android at one point.
Why do I hate Android? It’s definitely one of the questions I get asked most often these days. And most of those that don’t ask probably assume it’s because I’m an iPhone guy. People see negative take after negative take about the operating system and label me as “unreasonable” or “biased” or worse.
I should probably explain.
Believe it or not, I actually don’t hate Android. That is to say, I don’t hate the concept of Android — in fact, at one point, I loved it. What I hate is what Android has become. And more specifically, what Google has done with Android.
Source: parislemon
Ice skating on New Year’s Day.
On this Thanksgiving…
Just when you think you’ve seen the whole city.
As anyone who’s spent more than five minutes with me can attest, I’ve been infatuated with Tesla’s Model S electric car since the day it was announced — so much so that I became one of the very first reservation holders for the car. Imagine my excitement when I received an invite to check out the Tesla Factory in Fremont last week.
The Civil Wars, live at The Wiltern.
Video, HTML5 and Why It Matters
The last few weeks have been filled with controversy in respect to Apple and Adobe, and, in many ways, Google. As HTML5 makes its way to an increasing number of platforms and the rate of adoption rises, various companies are fighting to determine the codec which the new <video> tag should utilize. Apple’s Steve Jobs remains adamant that H.264 is the way to go and that separate plug-ins should not have to be used for viewing video on the web. Meanwhile, Adobe stands by their Flash platform, which includes support for H.264 as well as other proprietary formats. Finally, Google has taken it upon themselves to set the new standard of web video formats with WebM, a VP8 codec the company is open-sourcing after their acquisition of On2. So which will prevail? And does it really matter?
Sure it does. Without a single specification for the HTML5 <video> tag, we’ll have a web of fragmentation, where browsers, developers and consumers must constantly work to find common ground. And the longer the problem remains unresolved, the more difficult it will be to backtrack. On to the format standard.
In such a case when dealing with one of the most prominent, open standards like HTML, we must take into account two things: accessibility and quality. Each of the three given possibilities, H.264, Flash and WebM, differ greatly in terms of accessibility and quality. H.264 and WebM come very close one another in terms of image quality, with H.264 slightly besting WebM. But more importantly, H.264 is not free. H.264 is licensed by MPEG-LA, and if you’re using H.264 in a commercial environment, MPEG-LA is charging you license fees. Mozilla, makers of the popular Firefox browser, pointed out that it would cost them $5 million per year to license H.264 from MPEG-LA without any guarantee that the rate would increase over time (many believe it will).
The web cannot rely on patent-holders and royalty-collectors to ensure it remains open and accessible. We cannot trust that MPEG-LA will not find it in their interests to charge more for their royalties as adoption increases, nor can we trust that Adobe will keep their Flash platform secure and open. WebM is an ideal specification for HTML5 video as it is royalty-free and without patents. It’s open, accessible, and should be made the future of video on the web.
Learn more about the WebM project here.
