Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 12th Jan 2011 17:44 UTC
Internet & Networking With yesterday's news that Google will be dropping H.264 support from the Chrome web browser, the internet was split in half. One one side, there's people who applaud the move, who are happy that Google is pushing an open, royalty-free and unencumbered video codec (irrespective of Google's motivation). On the other side, there are the H.264 supporters, who believe that H.264 is the one and only choice for HTML5 video. One of the most vocal and public figures in the latter group is John Gruber. Following his five questions for Google, here are ten questions for Gruber about WebM, H.264, and standards on the web.
Thread beginning with comment 458101
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
NeoX
Member since:
2006-02-19

[q
Actually, that is exactly what it means. Look up the patent policy at w3.org.
[/q]
irrelevant. It can exist on the web and be closed, otherwise flash would be incompatible. I don't like flash but it is part of the web.


Good thing webm is a separate project that's only sponsored by Google, then. Also, you didn't even address the fact that Google is a major content provider when it comes to video.

Ok WebM as a container is sponsored by Google, but WebM uses the VP8 codec, that was developed by On2 which Google purchased the company. So it is more then a sponsor they owned it and then released it to be open. I could care less if Google is a large content provider, that is why I didn't comment on that. I was referring to OTHER companies, not Google.


How on earth is that relevant? The requirement for an open web doesn't disappear just because most people don't know or care.

Oh, I see. Again most people don't know the web is supposed to be OPEN. It is not completely open as long as there are closed parts of it. And that was my point, who cares as long is the consumer gets a good experience.

You obviously don't get what I am saying and I am too tired to try to explain so I am done with this.

Reply Parent Score: 1

TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

...I am done with this.

Thank GOD...

Reply Parent Score: 2

NeoX Member since:
2006-02-19

"...I am done with this.

Thank GOD...
"
And just who are you? I have seen plenty of your debates, so you can hardly say a thing. Go Troll somewhere else because that is what you are doing with that comment.

Reply Parent Score: 1

PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

"Actually, that is exactly what it means. Look up the patent policy at w3.org.

irrelevant. It can exist on the web and be closed, otherwise flash would be incompatible. I don't like flash but it is part of the web.
"
I never said it can't exist. I said it's incompatible with an open web.

Ok WebM as a container is sponsored by Google, but WebM uses the VP8 codec, that was developed by On2 which Google purchased the company.

VP8 was released as part of WebM.

Oh, I see. Again most people don't know the web is supposed to be OPEN. It is not completely open as long as there are closed parts of it. And that was my point, who cares as long is the consumer gets a good experience.

The point is that the fundamental building blocks need to be open.

Reply Parent Score: 1