(2) I'm not saying you invented the use of open or that Vorbis isn't open but that the word applies at least equally to traditional open standards. Open standard does not mean that there are now patents and the software people new to standardisation who believe otherwise are wrong. The attempt to appropriate the word (which you didn't start but you are continuing) isn't an attempt to debate on the merits. Patent encumbered standards can be compatible with many proper open source licenses.
(3) I don't know Opus or how good it is but it seems too new. The proposed standard RFC is only a year old and silicon specification lead times are often several times that.
All iPods support AAC in MP4 containers and have since the first iPod shipped so that is why I was comparing with AAC, MP3 is just for backwards compatibility in my view.
(5) Do you have any evidence for this.
2) Arguments about what's an "open standard" aren't new either. I hold - open standards means unencumbered by patents. Especially when applied to the idea "open Web requires open standards". Luckily, W3C adopted that position.
3) Ubiquitous common denominator in audio players is still MP3. They aren't forward compatible though, i.e. players which support just MP3 can't play AAC.
5) Clear evidence is that other manufacturers successfully implement open codecs. It's not a downside, it's a benefit (for them and for their users).
1) No. Sort of but I'm not sure they have achieved a monopoly. When have they banned competitive technologies? An alternative perspective is that they felt their technology and design were ripped off improperly and responded with the legal remedies open to them. Even so that show that their codec decisions were about control of anyone else. Vorbis is old but newer (at least the integer version) than AAC which matches it for quality. VO8 is newer and not much better than AVC. Opus is just too new. Apple doesn't use closed codecs, I won't concede the language to you.
2) W3C requires royalty free open standards which is great but does not make that the definition of open standards (although it is within the definition).
3) Yes and Apple support that too. It is old and poor by modern standards but I'm not sure of the relevance to this debate.
5) That is nice. I have the feeling that many of them may drop it in subsequent models if it was inconvenient. Again I'm not sure of the relevance of this to our disagreements.
Many times. One of the glaring examples - competing browser engines on iOS.
> Vorbis is old but newer (at least the integer version) than AAC which matches it for quality.
Yet, AAC can't be used in an interoperable way because it's patent encumbered. Vorbis can, but Apple still refused to adopt it. Control conflicts with interoperability. Open Web requires interoperability. Apple obviously doesn't care.
> I won't concede the language to you.
I'm calling them closed, you can call them restricted, non free or whatever codecs. The main point - you understood what was implied.
> W3C requires royalty free open standards which is great but does not make that the definition of open standards
Neither does anyone else make such definition. It's not formal and shouldn't be. The main point that it should be clear what's implied, to avoid word play, when some call standards "open" (so fitting for the open Web), while implying that they are encumbered by patents. It caused problems in W3C in the past.
Openness and freeness are separate axis.
AAC is interoperable, there are many implementations; open, closed source and hardware on Linux, Windows, iOS, Android devices and many more devices than support Vorbis so in many ways AAC is more interoperable despite not being suitable for zero cost codec distribution or GPLv3 compatible (probably some more licenses too, not sure about MPL and CDDL off the top of my head).
Yes Apple impose limits on their iOS platform with a mixture of reasons including, security, reliability and their commercial advantage. I don't think it is an arbitrary control grab but some aspects are for their commercial benefit. Note VLC on iOS will play ogg files.
Interoperability (required for the open Web) means that any participant should have equal ability to interoperate (legally). This includes both creators and consumers, including private individuals, open source projects, non profit organizations and anyone else. Patent encumbrance means that one has to pay for a license. This contradicts the requirement above, so it makes it not really interoperable in a complete sense. It wasn't without a strong opposition from Apple and Co, but these principles were accepted by W3C as a premise for the development of the Web (unfortunately this failed in case of DRM, but that's another story). Apple and similar minded managed to sabotage mandatory codecs for the video and audio tags though, making these principles easy to ignore (which they do).
Mozilla manifesto summarizes these points about interoperability and openness well:
On the interoperability scale (it isn't a binary yes/no) MPEG4 almost certainly wins by the pure range of devices supporting it from blu-ray players, mobile devices, RaspPi etc.
It is you that want to control other organisations to bend them to your ideological position via the W3C.
If you want open codecs to become ubiquitous the next generation is where the fight is now. I don't know of an HEVC beater out there but if there isn't one getting into silicon roadmaps right now you may have lost the next generation already.
A royalty free codec would be nice but for me a ubiquitous one is better. That is a valid disagreement that we have but it shows how Apple (and others) opposition to standardising on codecs doesn't need to be seen as an evil plot but a difference in prioties between different "good" choices.
No, they don't. Technical feasibility to interoperate is only part of the picture. I clearly said above, that any participant should have an equal ability to interoperate legally. This includes no barriers to enter. License is like a visa to a country - it's a barrier to enter (which makes it not open).
If it's still not clear, license means "only those who can afford can use the encoder" and etc. Only those who can afford is a barrier to enter. I hope this is clear. Open codecs ensure equal accessibility and no barriers to enter. Encoders and decoders are available to everyone equally.
Pushing Apple and Co to support open technologies? It's only a natural thing to expect, since now they have a disproportionate grip as gatekeepers (in this context - it's about controlling codecs with patents). That was the whole point above, and that's exactly why Apple opposes it so strongly. It comes back to the same thing - control. You can call it an evil plot on their part, a basic instinct (desire for power) or whatever. But they clearly are allergic to the idea of the open Web, because it leaves them less leverage and makes it better for the people.
> If you want open codecs to become ubiquitous the next generation is where the fight is now.
Google does a lot with enabling VPx support in hardware. It's more up to OS developers to support it in software now. Hardware (at least mobile SoCs) is shaping up well. With wider usage of WebRTC things will get even better, since WebRTC mandates open [free] codecs (here Apple and Co. didn't manage to sabotage it). The next big thing is Daala, which is next generation to both VP9 and H.265. That won't appear in hardware soon.
2) I didn't invent the usage of "open" as in "liberated". That's used in open Web, open technologies and etc. Usually some try to complain that free software is different from open source software and so on. While it's formally valid, most often you can deduce what's implied from the context. Open codecs imply liberated codecs. Open standard (in many contexts) includes being not encumbered by patents (surely, even closed codec can be implemented as open source, it doesn't make it free because of that). And that's not the case with proprietary codecs - they are patent encumbered. That's why they are not open standards. When something is discussed as open vs closed as in not having a public specification, it's usually pretty clear.
3) Vorbis is clearly innovative over MP3. We were talking about digital players, and most of them use MP3, not AAC.
Opus is clearly innovative over any above, including AAC.
4) I already explained, it's not about expenses. It's about control. It's not just about "taking actions that benefit other people". It's about taking the opposite - actions which damage others (i.e. HTML5 codecs mess). Apple can't escape being blamed for it.
5) Even if there is some benefit in limiting the number of codecs, it's not what drives Apple not to use open ones, especially when they are technically better.
So we agree that Apple doesn't see a benefit in using open codecs, but we disagree on their motivation or what exactly they see as a benefit. You view them equating benefit with reducing expenses. I think they consider control as the primary benefit.