Linked by Kroc Camen on Thu 29th Apr 2010 23:04 UTC
Permalink for comment 421700
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 11:39 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 11:32 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 19:39 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 11:43 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-17
If this were actually the case, then Google would have no reason to have purchsed On2.
Mozilla will not ship a h264 decoder within their product. The W3C will not recommend a royalty-encumbered standard. As for hardware support ... most GPUs can be programmed for any video codec via languages such as GLSL or GPGPU.
Rumour has it that Google and Mozilla might be about to get together and resolve the web video codec situation.
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/04/google-planning-to-...
You have a logical disconnect here. IE users running XP require a plugin to view video no matter what is used to encode & send that video. If an XP/IE user visits YouTube today, they are directed to install an Adobe Flash plugin in order to view videos. Most users do this without batting an eye.
If tomorrow YouTube were to switch to HTML5/Theora (rather than Flash), then all that YouTube/Google would need to do is direct their IE users to this plugin instead:
http://www.google.com/chromeframe
http://code.google.com/chrome/chromeframe/
There is no need for YouTube to abandon IE users.
Edited 2010-04-30 03:01 UTC