5 ms·
sorry, but that doesn't mean that there's a war with a single winner who has already won. people are encoding videos like this because the popular ways of playi
by treyp 16y ago
sorry, but that doesn't mean that there's a war with a single winner who has already won. people are encoding videos like this because the popular ways of playing videos are through flash and through the iphone.
once HTML5 video picks up, if a major browser (firefox) doesn't support h.264, we'll probably see people encode more than one format, unless something else gains widespread player support fast (vp8, i'm looking at you).
i don't think h.264 is going away, but i don't think it's surely a lone winner going forward.
- tzs 16y agoOr Firefox will get forked, and the fork will support using host OS video playback facilities, so will play whatever the host OS supports. That will get H.264 support in Firefox (or whatever new name the forkers give it, since they won't be able to use the Firefox name...) on 95+% of the desktops. Once someone writes a Flash video player that hooks into the host OS's video interface, that will get H.264 support for forked Firefox on 99+% of desktops. My money is on Ubuntu doing the fork, if Firefox remains stubborn.
- briansmith 16y agoIn many ways, Google Chrome is the ultimate fork of Firefox. It took almost all the good ideas of Firefox and dumped the bad code. If somebody was going to come up with a "new" brower, a de-Googled Chrome would make a much nicer base.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- stuaxo 16y agoThats not a fork, it doesn't use any firefox code, it's based on webkit. At best you could say that it's a fork of khtml.
- ZeroGravitas 16y agoUbuntu doesn't ship with H.264 decoders either, it's not in their interests to support encumbered codecs.
- ugh 16y agoMore likely, though, everyone will just use h.264 and fall back to Flash (since Flash plays h.264 without any problems) when the browser doesn’t support it.