I grew up with Esperanto, and I don't really see a reason to use it as a pun in this context. It's a nice and useful language and everybody has the option to use it or leave it.<p>The parallels (to VP8) with the blog post pretty much end there, as you don't actually have to pay your pants off with royalties to some group, just because you are teaching English (h264).<p>I really like ironic humor, but this one didn't get to me.
If English was as only developed and entrenched as H.264 is currently when Esperanto was introduced, I know I would be willing to take the very minor setback.
Nice parodi, but besides the (huge) costs of switching, Esperanto (with an Ascii character set rather than the the current (Polish?) letters) would properly be better by far than English.<p>At least we would have no more grammar fights - the entirety of Esperanto grammar is significantly shorter than the linked article.<p>And don't worry, you would still have Wikipedia [<a href="http://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/" rel="nofollow">http://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/</a>].<p>As for Klingon, well I guess that remains a pipedream.
English -> Chinese might have been a more apt analogy, particularly as China are pushing heavily for royalty free standards (and will simply take your patent if you try to hold up the standard) as part of their plans for world domination.
It is a good analogy but it would be more appropriate to use a theocracy or a benovelonet dictatorship that wants to take over the world. It cam free everyone of dangerous choices that way.
Brilliant, I like how this is a spoof of what Google is doing with h264 .<p>Of course, facebook's been doing this the whole time and it's been pissing people off, but most of those people were developers who signed on to this ever-changing environment.<p>Deprecating a format that most people use is a little harsh. On the other hand, it is once again a symptom of intellectual monopoly protected by the government. Apple can charge people for the codec, and google won't have it. Makes sense.<p>I would like to highlight this fact. A lot of the problems we are encountering are symptoms of intellectual monopolies (as Thomas Jefferson preferred to call it) granted by the government. The activities of the RIAA, Interval Licensing, pharma companies, and Disney may grab headlines, but they are perfectly viable in a system that is set up to grant, and then go to great lengths to enforce, copyright and patent protection.<p>How can we in the west criticize China's "zi-lu" laws, discount Baidu and Tencent for following their country's laws (see <a href="http://www.quora.com/Why-does-Facebook-get-so-much-more-hype-than-Tencent-when-Tencent-is-bigger-in-terms-of-market-cap-usage-and-reach" rel="nofollow">http://www.quora.com/Why-does-Facebook-get-so-much-more-hype...</a>) but at the same time pass laws like this:<p><a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/u-k-passes-internet-disconnection-law" rel="nofollow">https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/u-k-passes-internet-di...</a><p>and this:<p><a href="http://www.zeropaid.com/news/91378/feds-seize-domain-names-of-counterfeiters-and-pirates/" rel="nofollow">http://www.zeropaid.com/news/91378/feds-seize-domain-names-o...</a><p>Seems due process goes out the window when copyright is involved. The same western nations that are against censorship of the internet in China, censor the internet as soon as copyright comes up. I am not sure this situation is very stable -- something has to change.