Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 16th Oct 2009 21:26 UTC
"HTML5 defines a standard way to embed video in a web page, using a video element. Support for the video element is still evolving, which is a polite way of saying it doesn't work yet. At least, it doesn't work everywhere. But don't despair! There are alternatives and fallbacks and options galore."
Thread beginning with comment 390050
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: That didn't look so hard
by StephenBeDoper on Mon 19th Oct 2009 18:08
in reply to "RE[7]: That didn't look so hard"
Member since:2005-07-06
"Of course the content producers matter, they're the ones who will ultimately decide what formats/methods they'll use to provide content to users. I'd say it's one of those "it takes two to tango" situations.
Sure. They can decide to distribute their content as collection of colored dots painted on the backs of turtles if they want to... see how they works out for them. "
They could, but I can't think of a single reason why anyone would - unless we're talking about content producers who are deliberately trying fail.
The point is they can do whatever they want, but the only thing that will in the end make them _money_ is to do what makes customers want to pay for it.
Absolutely, which is the primary reason why no one would "distribute their content as a collection of colored dots painted on the backs of turtles"
DRM does NOT make customers happy, nor does any other method of limiting what can be done with paid for data.
The only point that I contend was the one that I addressed - I can assure that I'm not defending DRM.
It only "takes two to tango" if both parties actually want to. If you dance partner decides your an a**hole and leaves your kinda screwed...
Sure - a concept that applies to both content produces and content consumers.
RE[9]: That didn't look so hard
by galvanash on Mon 19th Oct 2009 22:12
in reply to "RE[8]: That didn't look so hard"
Member since:2006-01-25
Sure - a concept that applies to both content produces and content consumers.
I don't agree with that. What you say is true, but only to a point. It does not go both ways equally. The consumer chooses the product, producers don't (and can't) choose their consumers. They can go through all sorts of hoops to try and lure them and such but ultimately they are hanging on to the short end of the power stick.
The inordinate amount of power Hollywood and the music industry historically have held is due to near total control of mass distribution - something the internet is bringing a rather swift end to...
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-01-25
Sure. They can decide to distribute their content as collection of colored dots painted on the backs of turtles if they want to... see how they works out for them. The point is they can do whatever they want, but the only thing that will in the end make them _money_ is to do what makes customers want to pay for it. DRM does NOT make customers happy, nor does any other method of limiting what can be done with paid for data.
The studios like to think of it as selling media - but people don't buy media, they buy content. That disconnect has always existed, but until recently the studios have managed to hide it well enough that most people didn't notice the difference enough to care - that is changing rapidly.
It only "takes two to tango" if both parties actually want to. If you dance partner decides your an a**hole and leaves your kinda screwed...