Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 2nd Feb 2011 16:50 UTC
Permalink for comment 460837
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:
2006-04-22
It isn't a well-engineered solution at all if it doesn't accomodate a very large contingent of users (Windows XP users), and it doesn't allow one of the major browser writers (non-profit Mozilla) to implement a solution.
On your limited-size iPhone 4 screen, if a player (especially one with GPU hardware acceleration of rendering) were allowed:
XP is basically at end of life....Win 7 is the way to go on that platform. H.264 is just swell as baked into iPhone 4. WebM is not needed on my platforms of choice...ymmv.
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Mozilla-releases-Firefox-4-B... href="tel:1182139">1182139.html
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2011/02/latest-firefox-beta...
WebM videos would be rendered with every bit of the same quality as H.264, to the extent that you could not tell the difference in a blind test. "