Adobe goes corporate open source against Ogg Theora

Adobe goes corporate open source against Ogg Theora

Summary: The corporate nature of the Adobe effort is emphasized on this page, where it lists "plug-in partners" from the worlds of advertising, publishing, and analytics. Its goal is to drive the Adobe Flash platform. That means Adobe's Open Video Player, code-named Strobe.

SHARE:

It may have been upstaged by Microsoft but Adobe's strategy with its Open Source Media Framework looks very similar.

That strategy is to co-opt the term open source, make it corporate, and maintain dominance of the future.

Microsoft is supporting Linux tools so Linux can live in a Windows world, and Adobe is delivering an open source project so that open source, as a concept, can live in its world of corporate media.

At stake in this case is the standard for video in HTML 5.0. The World Wide Web consortium has a bias in favor of royalty-free, open source standards. While the H.264 codec had market dominance, it had no open source street cred.

The corporate nature of the Adobe effort is emphasized on this page, where it lists "plug-in partners" from the worlds of advertising, publishing, and analytics. Its goal is to drive the Adobe Flash platform. That means Adobe's Open Video Player, code-named Strobe.

It has already achieved big success since HTML 5 stopped specifying Ogg Theora in June, meaning no codec is currently specified. Don't say no is a big step on the way to saying yes to H.264.

In the standards war open source is a necessary coating. We will now see whether open source is just that, a cloak on corporate ambition, or a true bottom-up phenomenon driven by communities like Ogg Theora.

Topics: Enterprise Software, Open Source

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

7 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Absolutely, and it gets worse...

    This is just Adobe PR trying to pre-empt a possible win by "rtmpdump" at the SourceForge / OSCON awards (to be announced on the 23rd).

    For details on what Adobe *really* thinks about Open Source and Open Standards, read the message on the second half of this page: http://flazr.com
    studmantra
  • Open Source is a con

    Using "Open Source Software" as a marketing term, any company can do that and seem to get away with it. That has always been a concern and now it is coming true. "Free Software" on the other hand actually allows users some rights to the source code, the software, the distribution of that software...

    Free Software is the only model which can free us from this baloney that Adobe, MS, and other try to shove down the throats of semi-aware consumers.
    lefty.crupps
  • Proprietary formats are much more free...

    to the user than than open source in some ways. Open
    source has a lot of costs associated with it and in its
    development and who is to say that once it gains traction
    that its developers won't crawl out of the woodwork
    demanding compensation? You can bet on it!

    An ISO standard like H264 may have costs for those using
    it to make money, but in that we gain quality,
    performance, stability and interoperability. To me it beats
    being at the mercy of frameworks like MS and ADOBE that
    encapsulate ISO standards like H264 in their proprietary
    special sauce or the cloudiness of open standards like
    OGG.
    CowLauncher
    • meh, FUD

      I?ll quote you randomally
      ?ISO standard? - some ISO standards are royalty free, so this is a red herring.

      ?H264 may have costs for those using it to make money?
      It has costs for all uses, whether you?re trying to make money or not, MPEGLA have set viewing figures, time durations, etc, that determine your fees.

      ?but in that we gain quality?
      A reasonable amount. Arguably not as much as we have gained over the last decade.

      ?performance? Theora has less decoding complexity, so it?s better performing.

      ?stability? er, what?

      ?interoperability? both codecs are well defined and have multiple installations - admittedly H.264 has more in this regard.

      ?To me it beats being at the mercy of frameworks like MS and ADOBE that encapsulate ISO standards like H264 in their proprietary special sauce? Did you actually visit the links? WMV this, silverlight that, Adobe etc...
      johndrinkwater
    • Compensation?

      [i]Open source has a lot of costs associated with it and in its development and who is to say that once it gains traction that its developers won't crawl out of the woodwork demanding compensation? You can bet on it![/i]

      You mean, something along the lines of an SCOg trying to say they owned all the intellectual property in Unix, and therefore Linux? Yeah, that went over like a lead balloon.

      Or are you like some of the Moon Landing Hoax conspiracy buffs, and point to some cheesy website that claims "No Open Source programmer has a paying job - they all collect welfare"?

      You are confusing open formats (open standards) with Open Source, something that Dana didn't highlight in the blog. But then again, he assumes his readers are perhaps intelligent enough to know the difference...
      NetArch.
  • RE: Adobe goes corporate open source against Ogg Theora

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out with Wikipedia selecting Ogg Theora as the codec to drive its video content. I wrote a blog on the topic just the other day (http://tiny.cc/YGeYR).
    JohnHermansen
  • RE: Adobe goes corporate open source against Ogg Theora

    It has already achieved big success since HTML 5 stopped specifying Ogg Theora in June, meaning no codec is currently specified. Dont say no is a big step on the way to saying yes to H.264.<a href="http://ipadbagblog.com/"><font color="white"> k</font></a>
    zakkiromi