| french | english |
 |
|
| Sign in | |
| 20-05-10 / 22:02 : Google and Adobe : I/Off (cjed) |
| While Google I/O ended (we can find a live coverage of the keynote here), and that Google stated "If we did not act, we faced a draconian future where one man, one phone, one carrier was the future. That's a future we don't want." (in the same manner they had said that we shouldn't prevent them from using our personnal data if we haven't anything - faulty - to hide), here are some facts to consider : - the unveiled WebM codec is only a slight evolution derived form VP8 and OggVorbis, and is still far from H264 in terms off efficiency (closer to BaseLine profile, and far from Main and High profiles) and encoding speed, do no provides yet hardware accelerating. And more important, it is reported that it may face lawsuits from MPEG LA about patents infrigments on H264. - Nexus One launch was a commercial failure. Newly presented Google TV shouldn't do better than the orignal (AppleTV). - Chrome Store seems (from first screenshots at least) even less elegant than Microsoft's one... - FTC will investigate about personnal Wifi data collecting by Google during Street View data acquiring process (Google recognized publicly its fault, however they may not think it is just ok then). -In another story (automated/batch books scanning without asking for rights owners agreement) Google still had tried to force the way through (same with Youtube, majors had finally to conclude deals, after videos had been put online without legal checking). - AdSense revenues redistribution by Google is opaque (no way to verify given numbers - same known problem as with artits royalties), the algorithm is proprietary (not public) and indeed presented as no perfect (can be usefull). Relegatations may be more frequent than thought, while more and more companies are paying to appear in early search results. Then relevance of search is suffering, and by the end liberty, as all that don't appear at the expected/deserved rank (or is too far) simply do not exist... On the Apple side we have a company that always followed traditional market rules (while having succeeded to revolution the way of buying music, and now applications and entertainment - and it may be just a start) : owners rights protection through DRM (asked by the majors), protection of creators revenues (AppStore), polished products and softwares (while Google provides - for free - beta softwares, and even recently some in research stage). Then Apple brings elegant/polished experience/UI, ensures a robust solution (iTunes), while Google don't want to accept any responsability, as with an amateurish company (or worse, some that is above the laws). What if Apple will restore the power balance, by using Microsoft's Bing for search, and providing ads revenues through iAds. These are probably the reasons of Google's anticipated attack, that lacks subtely, in the same way as Adobe's poorly reasoned answer. After all, nobody seemed offended 15 years ago when Microsoft put pressure on developers to invest on MFC Api, that did hurt Mac platform. To remember, Adobe created Photoshop and Illustrator on Mac exclusively in early 90s - because such application couldn't be achieved using Windows 3.x. |
| Comments |
| Write a comment |