5 ms·
Then can we also look at how far the standard would have advanced as open-source? Maybe considered that H.264 is in fact NOT an open standard? I want to live i
by tomlin 17y ago
Then can we also look at how far the standard would have advanced as open-source? Maybe considered that H.264 is in fact NOT an open standard?
I want to live in the magic world where open-source development moves as fast as proprietary as well, but I can't.
- Daishiman 17y agoYou must love working with IIS.
- tomlin 17y agoIIS is terrible. Microsoft innovates at the speed of open-source. No contest there.
- jrockway 17y agoThere are plenty of Free implementations of H.264.
- tomlin 17y agoWho's using them? Adobe isn't. Firefox, WebKit? Nope.
- jrockway 17y agoChromium on Linux uses ffmpeg's (open-source) h.264 implementation. Firefox doesn't use it because they are making a policy stand, "Theora or nothing." Technically, h.264 would work fine, it would just be illegal to distribute in countries with software patents. mplayer also uses ffmpeg's h.264 code, and I am sure VLC does too. In other words, every open-source video application that can play h.264 uses an open-source h.264 implementation. Remember, there are no technical problems with h.264. It is a good algorithm with plenty of good (and Free) implementations. The problem is that the group that patented h.264 wants money every time you encode a video with h.264, upload a video encoded with h.264, and play a video with h.264. Because the Internet will suck when this happens, people are trying to ensure it doesn't. (Killing Adobe will help, because they make money from giving away h.264 licenses that they already paid for, and hence are demanding that Theora not be in the HTML5 spec they are writing.)
- tomlin 17y agoThank you for your thorough insight. I appreciate a good explanation with facts :)