Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 14th Jan 2011 22:33 UTC
Google I didn't plan on this, but there's really nothing I can do. Unless you want me to write about the upcoming ten billionth download from the iOS App Store, you'll have to settle for this. On the Chromium blog, Google has clarified its decision to drop H.264 support from the Chrome web browser, and in it, Google basically repeats the things that those concerned about the future of video on the web have been saying for a long time now: H.264 on the web kills innovation.
Thread beginning with comment 458062
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: The new Microsoft
by Lennie on Sat 15th Jan 2011 02:51 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: The new Microsoft"
Lennie
Member since:
2007-09-22

First of all, Mozilla could pay for it. But they don't want to, they are all about no compromises the open web and they want to make sure the open source project stays open and can be easily applied/adapted for other projects.

Second, Google will not switch Youtube over to WebM, they will just change their design to use the video-tag with 2 codecs and failover to flash.

Atleast at first. :-)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: The new Microsoft
by woegjiub on Sat 15th Jan 2011 03:57 in reply to "RE[6]: The new Microsoft"
woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

How rich, exactly do you think Mozilla is?
5M is a lot of money for a company that gets most of its revenue from having google as the default search provider.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: The new Microsoft
by Lennie on Sun 16th Jan 2011 13:18 in reply to "RE[7]: The new Microsoft"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

You have no idea how much revenue they've already received do you ? To give you an idea a quote from Wikipedia:

"In 2006 the Mozilla Corporation generated 66.8 million dollars in revenue and 19.8 million in expenses, with 85% of that revenue coming from Google"

But as the reply from Beta already said: "Mozilla can’t pay for it, because they cannot licence the codec to all users of their source code."

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: The new Microsoft
by Beta on Sat 15th Jan 2011 12:15 in reply to "RE[6]: The new Microsoft"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

First of all, Mozilla could pay for it. But they don't want to, they are all about no compromises the open web and they want to make sure the open source project stays open and can be easily applied/adapted for other projects.

Mozilla can’t pay for it, because they cannot licence the codec to all users of their source code.
I’ve seen this comment repeated a bit recently, it’s clear you and many don’t understand how ‘paying for it’ works.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: The new Microsoft
by Lennie on Sun 16th Jan 2011 13:19 in reply to "RE[7]: The new Microsoft"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I did mean just the distribution of the Firefox browser and I knew this. I was just trying to mention Mozilla has a lot of money. :-)

Reply Parent Score: 2