Linked by Preston5 on Sat 27th Mar 2010 11:46 UTC
Multimedia, AV In January, we had read the various arguments regarding Mozilla's decision not to get an H.264 license. This has generated a lot of discussion about the future of video on the web. With Youtube, Dailymotion, Hulu and Vimeo having adopted H.264 for HD video, Mozilla and Opera should use the codecs installed on a user's system to determine what the browser can play, rather than force other vendors to adopt Ogg. Refusing to support a superior codec would be a disservice to your users in years to come. Why hold back the majority of your users because 2% of your users are on niche OSes?
Thread beginning with comment 415515
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
why not x.264 instead of theora?
by riha on Sat 27th Mar 2010 19:14 UTC
riha
Member since:
2006-01-24

Why argumenting about h.264 against theora and not "h.264 against x.264" as codecs instead?

Reply Score: 0

m1cro Member since:
2006-12-22

H.264 is the specification for a video codec. It's not actual software, it's just specs that others can use to implement a codec. x264 is an implementation of the H.264 spec (or at least of parts of the spec).

Reply Parent Score: 1

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Why argumenting about h.264 against theora and not "h.264 against x.264" as codecs instead?

Because X264 *is* an H.264 encoder and decoder? It implements the H.264 standard and, in countries where software patents screw everyone, X264 is not legal just as any other unlicensed H.264 encoder is not.

Reply Parent Score: 4

riha Member since:
2006-01-24

Ok, thanks.

I thought the x264 was an opensource version of it, as "legal" as divx or xvid is compared to mpeg4.

Reply Parent Score: 1