Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 14th Nov 2012 22:12 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 542705
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-03-08
It's not a matter of quality, it's a matter of inertia.
H.264 is around because the various companies that were involved in the matter decided to support it at a time where the only alternative was Theora (which, indeed, made sense). And AAC went along the way because it is comes for free with H.264 video support.
Changing to any other codec will be painful now, because no one took the time to make a proper codec-agnostic video decoding infrastructure in web browsers and SoCs. Hacking away hard-coded support for one codec is simply faster and cheaper. Thus, I am ready to bet that by the time HEVC is around, even if it is as good as the MPEG-LA claims it to be, it will encounter exactly the same issues as WebM today.
If audio and video quality was truly an issue, everyone would be using Vimeo over Youtube
Edited 2012-11-16 07:14 UTC