Gregarius » BetaNews.Com » janvier 11, 2011

Canaux

108470 éléments (108470 non lus) dans 10 canaux

Actualités (48730 non lus)

• 01net. Actualités (48730 non lus)

Hoax (65 non lus)

• Top dix quotidien Sophos des canulars (65 non lus)

Logiciels (39066 non lus)

• BetaNews.Com (34382 non lus)
• Presence PC - Actualité Logiciels, jeux vidéos (3551 non lus)
• LeMondeInformatique.fr : Actualités Applications (1133 non lus)

Sécurité (1668 non lus)

• Actualités Sécurité Informatique (406 non lus)
• Les Nouvelles.net : sécurité informatique. (1262 non lus)

Referencement (18941 non lus)

• Secrets2moteurs (11793 non lus)
• Referencement Google WebRankInfo (2255 non lus)
• Abondance (4893 non lus)

BetaNews.Com (3 non lus)

• 

  Google does an Apple in reverse -- will drop H.264 support in Chrome

  Publié: janvier 11, 2011, 11:25pm CET par Joe Wilcox

  By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

  Would someone please stop the "Twilight Zone" music from playing. I'm hearing it now following today's Google bombshell (Yes, there is other news besides Verizon iPhone): Chrome will soon no longer support the H.264 codec. Google supports Flash Video, but Apple has abandoned it. Apple supports H.264, and Google is giving it up. Someone pinch me when there is something resembling sanity among these companies' positions. Perhaps Firefox can save us all and our online video streaming. No, wait! Mozilla also spurns H.264. Well, gulp, Internet Explorer anyone?

  Apple's Flash abandonment is nutty enough, at least in the here and now, given how widely Adobe's technology is used on the Web. H.264 also is pervasive, making Google's plan as out of touch, from a user experience perspective. Then there is Google's support for Flash to consider. Am I missing something or isn't H.264 a primary Flash codec?

  Google's position on H.264 is strange because the stated reason is openness or lack of it. Rather than H.264, Google is opting for the WebM audio and video codec, which is a fairly recent but open entrant. "We expect even more rapid innovation in the web media platform in the coming year and are focusing our investments in those technologies that are developed and licensed based on open web principles," Mike Jazayeri, Chromium product manager, asserted in a blog post. Excuse me, isn't there something contradictory here? What is open about Flash, or some of the other technologies Google supports?

  "To that end, we are changing Chrome's HTML5 [video tag] support to make it consistent with the codecs already supported by the open Chromium project," he continued. "Specifically, we are supporting the WebM (VP8) and Theora video codecs, and will consider adding support for other high-quality open codecs in the future. Though H.264 plays an important role in video, as our goal is to enable open innovation, support for the codec will be removed and our resources directed towards completely open codec technologies."

  One commenter to the blog post, going by handle Andrex, called Google's video codec changeling a "ballsy move." Commenter Abe challenged: "Your move Apple." In the tit-for-tat skirmish between Apple and Google over web video, the H.264 abandonment warrants response.

  "These changes will occur in the next couple months but we are announcing them now to give content publishers and developers using HTML5 [video tag] an opportunity to make any necessary changes to their sites," Jazayeri emphasized. My question: What should be the real definition of open -- open availability or open licensing/development? By the measure of open availability, Google's H.264 position makes as little sense as Apple's regarding Flash.

  Several other commenters to Jazayeri's blog post captured my sentiments and surprise. "Well, that [is] a violent move: that leave[s] the site's owner with the choice of staying with Flash player + H.264 alone or to double encode their videos -- one in WebM for half the browser market, the other in H.264 for the rest of the world," writes commenter, Jean-Pierre. "I know YouTube is doing it, but for the rest of the world, that's not a cheap enough move. Aren't you afraid to simply kill the HTML5 video tag?"

  "Ugh. This is a move by Google where they care more about the open source 'community' than they do actual users of their browser," Commenter Shidoshi griped. "Let's be real here: WebM has a long way to go before it will have any serious amount of traction...Like it or not, H.264 is becoming the standard, and dropping support for it for no good reason is ridiculous."

  Of course, many people have said the same about Flash, and that didn't stop Apple from giving Adobe or anyone else using the technology a big middle finger. Google, or the Chromium team anyway, is making a philosophical stand -- and one that might eventually move more developers to open codecs. But in the here and now, particularly with so many devices offering hardware that supports H.264, the Chrome user experience may suffer in a few months. Of course, someone can always release a H.264 extension, giving Chrome users the video they want and allowing Google to keep purity with the open-source community and to pursue other development goals.

  What about Android's browser? Google could drive open codecs' adoption by also dumping H.264 there and working with WebM and phone manufacturers and chip suppliers to offer hardware support for the codec.

  What do you think of Google's plans? Please answer in comments.

  Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
  
  
  
• 

  First U.S. LTE plans could be bad news, say consumer groups

  Publié: janvier 11, 2011, 10:29pm CET par Tim Conneally

  By Tim Conneally, Betanews

  Advocacy groups Free Press, Media Access Project, and New America Foundation sent a complaint to the Federal Communications Commission Tuesday regarding the policies of MetroPCS, the nation's fifth-largest wireless operator, and the first one to activate its LTE 4G network. The groups complain MetroPCS' new "unlimited" wireless broadband service plans fall through loopholes in the FCC's new net neutrality plans, and could set a precedent for unfair content blocking.

  Last week, MetroPCS unveiled new 4G LTE service plans which cost $40, $50, or $60 dollars. Each of the plans offers unlimited talk, text, and 4G Web browsing, but then the company puts up vague content barriers without defining what the usage cases are, and what consumers have access to.

  "This is exactly the way we expected carriers to 'test' the FCC's resolve with respect to wireless network neutrality," The Media Access Project's Senior Vice President and Policy director Jay Schwarzman said Tuesday. "Unless the Commission responds decisively, MetroPCS' competitors are likely to follow suit."

  The group's letter to the FCC cites MetroPCS' terms and conditions:

  "We shall determine in our sole discretion what data usage constitutes Data Access and reserve the right to alter, make additions to or deletions to what type of data usage, or protocols, constitute Data Access without notification to you. Data Access may include, for example, multimedia streaming and video on demand services, as well as certain multimedia uploads, downloads and gaming services and applications."

  The organization says that this gives MetroPCS the power to decide what constitutes "Data Access," and could result in users on certain tiers being blocked from certain sites and services despite the fact that they're lawful to access.

  "MetroPCS's practices are particularly problematic because, as the company itself recognizes, it disproportionately serves lower-income subscribers, the same audience that is increasingly relying on mobile access to the Web," said Free Press Policy Counsel M. Chris Riley. "A walled garden in mobile broadband leaves a large number of Internet users on the wrong side of the digital divide."

  Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010
  
  
  
• 

  Can you switch from AT&T to Verizon iPhone without paying hefty termination fees?

  Publié: janvier 11, 2011, 7:27pm CET par Joe Wilcox

  By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

  No, but you can act like you did. The iPhone's high resale value can cover early termination fees and possibly cost of a new handset from Verizon.

  In December, I abandoned AT&T and iPhone 4, returning to T-Mobile with the Samsung-manufactured, Google-branded Nexus S. AT&T charges a $325 ETF for smartphones, which is prorated depending on number of months left on the contract. I signed up for new AT&T service is June, making my December ETF $275. That set the minimum price for which I would sell iPhone 4.

  I took the eBay auction route, by putting the 32GB iPhone 4 up for just 24 hours with $410 starting bid. I based the starting bid and reserve price based on average selling prices for the device that week. Twenty-four hours later, a woman living in the United States bought the phone for $525; I expedited shipping for Christmas. Of course, eBay gets its cut -- and PayPal, too -- putting my net around $450.

  A week earlier one of the phone geeks at my local T-Mobile store sold his unlocked iPhone 4 on Craigslist for $710. He listed it at $750, which I thought was outrageous. But buyers from other countries will pay that much, because it's less and/or unlocked option -- for example, just south of San Diego in Mexico, he said. The phone geek also switched to Nexus S.

  So, what's the going rate for iPhone 4 on eBay? While writing this post one auction finished, after 30 bids, for a new 16GB iPhone: $598. If that was you, and you're ETF was $275 and new Verizon iPhone $199, you would be able to cover full switching cost (when adding tax and eBay/PayPal fees) and still have a little left over. Sure, you're still out the original cost of the device. But that's the price for switching. On the bright side, any cases or peripherals purchased for the older handset should work fine on the new iPhone 4.

  Verizon's iPhone will be available Feb. 10, 2011. Will you buy it?online surveys

  But these eBay auctions can be unpredictable. Another auction ended while I was writing this post with zero bids for a used 16GB iPhone 4. Starting and ending bid: $599. The seller should have set a lower starting bid and included more photos. But who knows, he might relist and catch a buying wave. In my experience watching eBay auctions, shorter placement is usually better for hot gadgets.

  AT&T isn't going to let you get away without giving up blood. But you can minimize the number of pints by selling your older iPhone 4. Remember to carefully wipe the data. You don't know what Russian hacker might be the eventual buyer. ;-) Five hundred bucks used might seem like lots to you, but it's not for many overseas buyers -- particularly in markets where handsets are usually sold with carrier commitment but where Apple/wireless provider demands it.

  Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010