Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 20th Apr 2011 09:20 UTC
Permalink for comment 470745
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 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-09-18
Remember how Adobe announced long, long ago that they'd support WebM in Flash? If they'd finally make true on that promise, YouTube could very well just switch off h.264 support without affecting it's user-base.
...save for most current-gen mobile phones and tablets which can't view WebM videos either because their manufacturer is stubborn and no one can do the job for them (iOS and WP7 devices) or because devices do not get updated to the latest firmware (Android devices without Flash)
So a few more years to wait... "
it's not because the manufacturer is stubborn. last i checked they don't even make a hardware decoder for webm. which is why google shouldn't force webm down everyones throats. it's not like webm isn't covered by patents. as long as youtube keeps supporting h.264 while we have phones and devices that can decode it, then i'm ok with this.
i personally think they should just use h.264 for everything. 1. patents don't last forever. 2. h.264 has broad hardware support. from blueray players, to tablets and android phones, iphone, car stereos. 3. i know some people are like, but firefox wont include h.264. well then that's what plugins are for.