If one of the reasons Leo was sacked was the high Autonomy purchase price, then surely they should have dropped the purchase price to reflect that fact...or am I missing something?!?
6 posts • joined 17 Sep 2010
I don't use Safari on my MacBook given it's dubious "heritage" in this competition. However, given Safari on iPhone is your only choice, what do these exploits mean for that?!? Are the iPhone version or iOS sufficiently different from the OSX version so as not to be exposed?!?
Can Google turn WebM into a licensed product again?
If so, then smart move. HTML5 is the future of web video. If Google wants to put its effort behind moving to HTML5 and not Flash for sites like YouTube, then it makes sense for it to use its own codec (which it paid money for) to do that.
Most web video is YouTube in percentage terms, if you remove pr0n from the equation. Even sites like The Register use Youtube as it takes the backwork/bandwidth out of supporting video on your own site. The majority of browsers in use will support WebM, it just doesn't make sense to have it owned by a company as big as Google and NOT support it as far as Chrome, IE, Firefox, and Safari are concerned. Companies like Microsoft and Apple aren't going to effectively shut off their sites from it are they?
When/if Google move Youtube onto WebM, then they save money by not paying Adobe for the tools they use to encode videos into Flash, they don't pay for H.264, but they still get the advertising dollars in. They then are faced with the decision to start charging licensees to use WebM to create another revenue stream and which browser maker ISN'T going to use WebM when the largest video source on the net requires them to do so?
Think of their past, Google gave away Gmail for free and then found a way to monetize its use...what makes people think it won't do it for WebM?
...for a chance at some good press and potential votes. So she stands up against the huge corporate beast that is Google, fighting for the rights of the individual and championing the struggle against crime. She gets some good press with locals too stupid to realise that if Google acquiesced to this one request it would set a precedent for the whole of policing to follow. She gets good press with the Police as she's basically bashing someone else and not them.
Meanwhile, Google is quietly lobbying her big boss into handing over the NHS data into Google Health...go Google I say!!
Here's an interesting blog on why this whole thing is a non-issue:
If you type in a search for the best price for "x" then how is it wrong for Google to point you directly to those prices, cutting out the price comparison sites? If I wanted to do a price comparison then I'd either go direct to one of those sites, or google "Price Comparison Sites", which would return an unending list of such sites - even from Google.
Would you really expect to go into a shop and find them advertising other peoples' shops and prices. Most people use Google. Most other sites will struggle to get over that fact but it's just something they have to deal with.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020