Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 14th Nov 2012 22:12 UTC
Permalink for comment 542752
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-17
BTW, I don't argue that WebM is better than x264, because it simply isn't. There is a penalty to pay (somewhere) if you use WebM.
What I do say is that quality is NOT necessarily where one has to pay the penalty. It is always possible instead to pay the penalty in time to encode.
What I also claim is that, given the objective of, and indeed the fundamental RIGHT to, an open web, it is by far preferable to pay the penalty for using WebM (especially if one chooses time to encode as the currency of that penalty) than it is to pay the penalty for using H264/AAC (which is the encumbrances of royalties to be paid, and restrictions to open competition).