On: Twitter to developers: no new Twitter clients

[technomancy]

> When companies started releasing awesome APIs for free, we kinda wondered "what's the catch?". Years later, we're finding out.

H.264, anyone?

[po → technomancy]

H.264 was never without licensing fees and I don't think it can be considered a bait-and-switch. The catch is right there in the licensing terms.

[_delirium → po]

I think they were attempting to pursue a bait-and-switch strategy but ended up backing off. H.264 originally came with a "free for 5 years" license for certain kinds of non-subscription online video, which was renewed for a second 5 years in 2010. It was widely assumed that the intent was to start charging once everyone had been lured into being reliant on it.

But partly in response to competitors like WebM, they made the royalty-free license permanent in August 2010: http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2010/08/mpeg-la-counters-g...

[chc → po]

It's currently offered "for free" to many people. That's one of the big arguments people always make in the H.264 vs. Google debate — H.264 is just as free for most users, and surely the MPEG-LA would never turn around and change that.