Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 12th Jan 2011 17:44 UTC
Permalink for comment 457979
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 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-02-19
H264 is a closed standard. That makes it incompatible with the web.
Did I say that it was an OPEN standard? No I said it was a standard and it is. Just because a standard is closed does not mean it is incompatible with the web, THAT is nonsense.
They already are! They are offering videos in several bitrates and resolutions. They might as well do it in an open format.
No, you seem to have trouble reading. The article said encoding (codecs) not bitrates and resolutions. [/q]
And you are forgetting that Google is one of the biggest video content owners, through YouTube.
And you are forgetting that Google is one of the biggest privacy offenders too and has their hand in everything related to the web. They have too much power, IMHO.
What utter nonsense. Google is a content provider too!
Thank You. Is it nonsense to Netflix, Vimeo and the others, not to mention the MAJORITY of consumers who do not give a crap if a standard is open or closed only that one day they are going to get a message that they can't play the content because of Google playing internet lord. Consumer confusion is always good, isn't it and no big deal either huh?
Just my Opinion, and you obviously don't agree with it and thats up to you.
Edited 2011-01-14 20:32 UTC