3 ms·

But most browsers will support all of them: Safari and IE will use whatever is in the OS, and Chrome supports both. Only Firefox (and Opera) has decided not to

by nanairo 16y ago

But most browsers will support all of them: Safari and IE will use whatever is in the OS, and Chrome supports both. Only Firefox (and Opera) has decided not to support AVC. To me Firefox sounds like they want things their way and they can't compromise in any form. They won't use whatever is installed in the OS, nor will they include a codec they have to pay for. If they wanted they could implement it as a plug-in, and then FOSS people will be able to use it like they use Flash. It seems Firefox can't choose between compromising on either principles (be that free software, or no external dependencies) and therefore is forcing everyone else to adapt to them.

masklinn 16y ago
> Only Firefox (and Opera) has decided not to support AVC. And Chromium. Because Google's h.264 license only covers the Chrome they distribute themselves, which leads us to... > To me Firefox sounds like they want things their way and they can't compromise in any form. They don't have the money to pay for it, and even if they did the money would only cover Firefox distributed by the Mozilla Foundation themselves in binary form. Which means for instance that no unice out there would be covered (neither linux nor BSD) as they pretty much all repackage upstream and each of them would have to pay for its own license. So that option is dumb, to start with. As to the OS stuff, as I said above that implies the capabilities of firefox would be widely different depending on the OS and its precise configuration. Not to mention most of the Firefox userbase is still on Windows XP, which doesn't get Microsoft's built-in h.264 support.
- recoiledsnake 16y ago
  >They don't have the money to pay for it, I find that hard to believe. They get a whole bunch of money from Google and last known, were paying their CEO about $500k an year even in the days when they were asking donations for the NYTimes ad.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- blasdel 16y ago
  Nobody compiles Chromium that way — it has a dependency on libavcodec (ffmpeg), and everyone just links it with the version already installed on their system. If you're a freetard running gNewSense, you'll only have support for WAV, Vorbis, and Theora in OGG containers. Everyone else will have support for every codec under the sun.

by nanairo 16y ago

masklinn 16y ago

> Only Firefox (and Opera) has decided not to support AVC. And Chromium. Because Google's h.264 license only covers the Chrome they distribute themselves, which leads us to... > To me Firefox sounds like they want things their way and they can't compromise in any form. They don't have the money to pay for it, and even if they did the money would only cover Firefox distributed by the Mozilla Foundation themselves in binary form. Which means for instance that no unice out there would be covered (neither linux nor BSD) as they pretty much all repackage upstream and each of them would have to pay for its own license. So that option is dumb, to start with. As to the OS stuff, as I said above that implies the capabilities of firefox would be widely different depending on the OS and its precise configuration. Not to mention most of the Firefox userbase is still on Windows XP, which doesn't get Microsoft's built-in h.264 support.

recoiledsnake 16y ago
>They don't have the money to pay for it, I find that hard to believe. They get a whole bunch of money from Google and last known, were paying their CEO about $500k an year even in the days when they were asking donations for the NYTimes ad.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
blasdel 16y ago
Nobody compiles Chromium that way — it has a dependency on libavcodec (ffmpeg), and everyone just links it with the version already installed on their system. If you're a freetard running gNewSense, you'll only have support for WAV, Vorbis, and Theora in OGG containers. Everyone else will have support for every codec under the sun.