Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 12th Jan 2011 17:44 UTC
Permalink for comment 457411
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 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/15/13 23:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-02-19
This OSnews article is a little iffy to me. Some of the questions are little pathetic. Don't flame me it's just my opinion. Hey I am all for open standards but you H.264 is a standard in the video world and to remove it from the browser is just plain dumb. To make content makers encode the same video with multiple codecs is also dumb. Think about all the waste of storage, time and bandwidth. That's what Google proposes though.
With that you completely ignored Gruber's 4th question. I will quote it here for ya:
Do you expect companies like Netflix, Amazon, Vimeo, Major League Baseball, and anyone else who currently streams H.264 to dual-encode all of their video using WebM? If not, how will Chrome users watch this content other than by resorting to Flash Player’s support for H.264 playback?
Sorry but it does not seem reasonable to the content providers just because Google has a bug up its butt.
I get that these are FREE browsers but don't mistake FREE for non-profit as these free browsers are bringing in ad revenue and that is nothing to sneeze at. So free, in this sense isn't an excuse.