Strange parallels between Apple in 2012 and Microsoft in 1997.
So the big news coming out of the 2006 Consumer Electronic Show (CES) is that all the portals are now trying to go into the video space. Microsoft, AOL, and Yahoo have already made their announcements (as has Apple, which is not presenting at CES and is reserving its sparks for next week’s Mac World) and word has been leaking that Google will also get into the space. So it’s time to review, side by side what each player has to offer. Software The first thing I’m taking a look into is what are the software packages each offers: Apple AOL Google Microsoft Yahoo! Browsers supported None Firefox, Internet Explorer, Netscape or Safari Firefox or Internet Explorer Internet Explorer Internet Explorer or Netscape Media Players Supported iTunes, Quicktime Windows Media Player Google Video Player Windows Media Player iTunes, Windows Media Player Platforms Mac, Windows Mac, Windows Windows only Windows only Mac, Windows DRM Apple FairPlay Microsoft Windows-Media DRM Google DRM (based on OpenSSL) but providers can opt-out Microsoft Windows-Media DRM Microsoft Windows-Media DRM So it looks like we will be dealing with three different types of digital right management systems, making it difficult to actually have content play on every…Read More
There’s much discussion today about Microsoft’s legal problem with plug-ins. Most of the discussion runs around the fact that EOLAS claims to have a patent on plug-ins. But it may be good for Mozilla. Back when the patent was issued, Mike Doyle of EOLAS said in a message to www-talk, a World Wide Web Consortium mailing list that: Please note from our Web site that, in almost all cases, Eolas’ Weblet-related technologies will be licensed free of charge for noncommercial use. Well, looking at this, Mozilla could be in a very good position as the only browser currently not infringing. The other interesting thing is all of this is the fact that there seems to be some prior art. EOLAS may claim that they invented the method but it was available before they announced it and before they held the patent. The idea in itself was hardly new by the time they filed their patent. Much discussion (though I can’t seem to source that one) on some of the early web development mailing lists around 1993-1994 called for the implementation of an OBJECT tag instead of the IMG which was considered too limited (that tag itself being an invention created…Read More