Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 19th May 2010 18:59 UTC, submitted by kragil
Internet Explorer This warrants a new post as far as I'm concerned, mostly because the original post is getting buried in updates and will soon drop below the fold. Microsoft has just announced it will support VP8 in HTML5 video in Internet Explorer 9, but only if the user has the DirectShow filter installed. Update: Yes, the updates keep on coming. Zencoder has added support for VP8. Update II: Zencoder's side project, video.js, offers a player that can fallback between h.264, OGG and VP8 on most browsers. Support for Android browsers is underway too. Update III: The H264 supporters' hardware argument for mobile is sounding moot too, since ARM explains on its blog that mobile devices with Cortex-A8 and Snapdragon processors "will be able to take advantage of WebM" through those chips' NEON SIMD engine.
Thread beginning with comment 425519
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Thanks MS
by apoclypse on Wed 19th May 2010 22:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Thanks MS"
apoclypse
Member since:
2007-02-17

Having a few opensource projects doesnt make Apple 'open'.
Also, Webkit, the most-mentioned apple foss project, is foss for the following reasons:
1) Its a fork of khtml which is LGPL. They could not have changed the license.

2) whole webkit's success was because of wider adoption of it by third parties. if it was closed, it wasnt going to have any success.

and that doesnt make apple open.


It doesn't make Apple open but your Logic is flawed. Apple could have created their own web engine if they chose to and/or licensed a commercial one. They chose KHTML because they saw some merit in the technology and chose to go with it despite it being LGPL. There are a lot of instances where Apple could have gone with the more closed solution and instead opted for the more open solution. If the LGPL was an issue for Apple they wouldn't have used it in the first place. 3rd party adoption is precisely because a huge company like Apple is actively developing the engine and throwing their resources behind it. Webkit isn't even the smallest or most memory efficient rendering engine out there, but it has support from a company that actively develops it and its opensource.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Thanks MS
by rhetoric.sendmemoney on Wed 19th May 2010 23:26 in reply to "RE[3]: Thanks MS"
rhetoric.sendmemoney Member since:
2006-01-22

Oh please. You are judging his logic but you just put your own spin on the same facts.
1) Writing an entire rendering engine would have been exponentially more expensive to develop and take years longer.
2) Apple did not pick KHTML because it was open source.
3) By your own admission Apple saw merit in KHTML _at minimum_ as a good base for Webkit.

While KHTML might not be as advanced as it is today without Webkit, Webkit would be a largely irrelevant curiousity without KHTML. It would be nothing more than another proprietary engine running in Apple's shroud of secrecy. Writing a rendering engine from scratch takes years of focused development - even for Apple. To devalue KHTML so implicitly is just emotional blindness.

Apple turned a solid open source project into a fine rendering engine. Both parties deserve equal credit, especially since one party didn't earn a dime off it.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: Thanks MS
by Shkaba on Wed 19th May 2010 23:33 in reply to "RE[4]: Thanks MS"
Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

I think your attempts in presenting a rational line of thinking is, ... well...wasted on the original poster. The same poster defends H.264 and everything that Apple does, to the point of posting things like "despite being licensed under LPGL" (wtf???) or ignoring all other contributors to webkit.

As for the news ... couldn't have arrived at a better time, also is it just me or is this a bit of wave (with long reaching ripple effects

Reply Parent Score: 4