- From: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 14:50:06 -0800
At 21:59 +0000 7/01/08, David Gerard wrote: >On 07/01/2008, Dave Singer <singer at apple.com> wrote: >> At 19:29 +0100 7/01/08, Federico Bianco Prevot wrote: > >> >Has anyone considered Bink video as a viable option? >> >http://www.radgametools.com/bnkmain.htm > >> I get the impression that this is not an openly-specified codec, >> which I rather think is a problem. That is, there is neither a >> publicly available spec. nor publicly-available source, which means >> that it is controlled by one company. >> Am I misreading the situation? > > >I have a suggestion: > >"Nokia, Apple: you want H.264, you free H.264. Make it irrevocably >perpetually royalty-free, it goes in. Do that with any other codec >that's technically better than Ogg Theora, it goes in. You can't do >that, we name Ogg Theora as a SHOULD. OK with you?" > >Anyone see anything unacceptable in that approach? Find someone from >Apple and Nokia who can actually say "Yes" or "No" to this, perhaps >the fellow from Nokia who wrote that darling little paper claiming Ogg >was too proprietary. You're from Apple, you'd know who can say "yes" >or "no" to this. (I realise you've already stated Apple is okay with a >"SHOULD" for Ogg, perhaps you can explain Apple's earlier objections >without appearing to contradict that.) No, I am sorry, we've already been through this entire discussion twice, and I simply refer you to previous answers. Thanks. -- David Singer Apple/QuickTime
Received on Monday, 7 January 2008 14:50:06 UTC