Since when has Apple supported open standards simply because it makes sense to do so? Apple almost invariably chooses closed over open.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment...
Apple believes that it is essential to continued interoperability and development of the Web that fundamental W3C standards be available on a royalty-free basis. In line with the W3C's mission to "lead the Web to its full potential," Apple supports a W3C patent policy with an immutable commitment to royalty-free licensing for fundamental Web standards. Apple offers this statement in support of its position.
It's powerful and persuasive stuff, worth reading in full. They only removed this statement from their website about 6 months ago.
Multiple companies, including Apple (and Nokia, which ain't exactly a minor player in the mobile market) objected to HTML5 mandating support for a particular codec, largely on the grounds that we don't really know the patent situations of any of the allegedly-unencumbered codecs.
Meanwhile, multiple people objected on the grounds that mandating a current (or, really, several-years-old now since that's what it is) codec in a spec that's not expected to go final for at least a few more years, and which has an expected useful life of around a decade, is just frankly stupid. It'd be like having a spec used today mandate XBM as the standard image format because that was the least-proprietary thing available 15 years ago when early browsers were being written.
Now it's my turn to call bullshit. "We don't really know the patent situations of $x" could be used as an argument against ANY piece of software or standard $x. Unless there is real evidence for such concerns, it's FUD.
Does Google want a Free, interoperable web? Then they should take the money they'd spend re-encoding all of YouTube into VP8 and instead spend it on lobbying to eliminate software patents. Then they could just use whatever's the best option from a technical perspective and we could stop having codec shitstorms every six months.
This is what groups like the MPEG-LA want us to think, but I'm not so sure. The Ogg Vorbis codec used for WebM audio has been in use for a decade, and has shipped in dozens of software and hardware products, some from large companies with big pockets. MPEG-LA made the same vague threats about patent pools against Vorbis, but they never followed through.
Xiph.org conducted a patent search early in the Vorbis process, and believes Vorbis does not infringe on any patents. Google has done their homework on VP8 as well. If they did it right, then VP8 is no more vulnerable to unknown patent threats than any random piece of software. (Sadly, any random piece of software is somewhat vulnerable.)
For that matter, there's no guarantee that H.264 is invulnerable from patent trolls who aren't members of the licensing pool. MPEG-LA doesn't indemnify licensees against third-party patents.
Any random piece of software is vulnerable.
Look, if Google's serious about the threat software patents pose to openness, there's an obvious thing they should be doing, and it isn't "switch the video codec we use in our web browser". Until I see them doing some serious (i.e., big-money) lobbying to abolish software patents, I'm going to assume the whole openness thing is just marketing bullshit designed to play into geeks' stereotypes of them and Apple.
MS didn't commmit to anything, Mozilla essentially blocked H.264 from becoming specified codec too. All had reasonably sound reasons to hold their respective position. Not everything can be explained as good vs. evil.
Even Microsoft's better than this.
edit: could whoever downvoted me explain why he did so?
Isn't the point of HTML that all browsers handle it similarly? If that link is restricted to one browser, it isn't better than all the "Designed for IE6" sites you used to see in the early '00s, and absolutely no evidence of Apple being "fully behind HTML5".
The site you cite is meant specifically to show how Apple is doing with their HTML5 implementation. There is simply no point in viewing it in another browser. Viewing it in, say, Firefox would tell you nothing at all about how well Apple has implemented HTML5 in Safari.
This is completely different from the "Designed for IE6" sites. Those sites were generally presenting information that was useful to people regardless of which browser they were using.
And yet they're converging to implementing all of it.
The site you cite is meant specifically to show how Apple is doing with their HTML5 implementation.
Then it's a Safari demo, not an HTML5 demo. The Microsoft demos use HTML5 and yet work just fine in other browsers.
Those sites were generally presenting information that was useful to people regardless of which browser they were using.
How is seeing HTML5 working in Firefox or Chrome not useful to people?
Correct, which is probably why Apple says: "The demos below show how the latest version of Apple’s Safari web browser, new Macs, and new Apple mobile devices all support the capabilities of HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript".
"This demo was designed with the latest web standards supported by Safari. If you’d like to experience this demo, simply download Safari. It’s free for Mac and PC, and it only takes a few minutes."
Come see web standards! Using a specific browser.
No company supports open-source if it directly conflicts with their perceived interests. Some companies just take a wider view than others.