Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 13th Jan 2011 06:32 UTC
Internet & Networking "The promise of HTML5's video tag was a simple one: to allow web pages to contain embedded video without the need for plugins. With the decision to remove support for the widespread H.264 codec from future versions of Chrome, Google has undermined this widely-anticipated feature. The company is claiming that it wants to support 'open codecs' instead, and so from now on will support only two formats: its own WebM codec, and Theora." Sorely disappointed in Ars' Peter Bright. Us geeks reviled web developers for sticking to Internet Explorer when Firefox came onto the scene, and yet now, the same arguments we used to revile are used to keep H.264 in the saddle. How us mighty geeks have fallen.
Thread beginning with comment 457512
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
It's all stupid!
by Anonymous Coward on Thu 13th Jan 2011 11:40 UTC
Anonymous Coward
Member since:
2005-07-06

I have always thought the video tag should support any type of video supported by the host Operating System's Multimedia components.

I can see browser vendors including their "first-class" video support for H.264, Theora, and/or WebM, but for video formats the browser itself doesn't recognise, it should see if there is a decoder installed on the system and use it if it's there.

That puts the responsibility back on the web developer to provide whatever video format will be viewable by most of its' customers.

If Google wants to use WebM on YouTube, it won't be any harder to install the codec than it is to install Flash if it isn't present. Same with Theora, and if they still want it to be Free beer, H.264.

The advantages are there too; if Netflix, for example wanted to serve movies as HTML5 video with some DRM infested codec, they could simply provide the decoder, and it would just work rather than needing to install Silverlight.

I wish companies would look at the big picture, and rather than trying to figure out what they want to support, think about what they have to do so they don't need to add another redundant component that is already provided by the OS to their browsers.

Reply Score: 2

RE: It's all stupid!
by ChoK on Thu 13th Jan 2011 12:16 in reply to "It's all stupid!"
ChoK Member since:
2010-06-02

Problem is, browser vendors can't fix a hole in a third-party codec so this can become a security threat. That's the reason why Google provides flash and a pdf reader with chrome. So they can fix security threat in a timely manner.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: It's all stupid!
by ephracis on Thu 13th Jan 2011 18:49 in reply to "RE: It's all stupid!"
ephracis Member since:
2007-09-23

Too bad I cannot mod you +1 after I've posted, but YES!

For the love of God, don't give us even more third-party security holes. Getting rid of flash is suppose to make the web BETTER. Not worse...

Do NOT let the codec pack of the week handle playback in our browser. Please, I get enough spam as it is!

Reply Parent Score: 2