3 ms·

If all browsers did that, web codec development would move at the same glacial pace as Windows version updates, not to mention losing any semblance of uniformit

If all browsers did that, web codec development would move at the same glacial pace as Windows version updates, not to mention losing any semblance of uniformity and all possible hope of changing the status quo in any meaningful way away from patent-encumbered codecs.

GHFigs 16y ago
web codec development would move at the same glacial pace as Windows version updates I'm not convinced that that is the case, but even if it were, the state of things with bundling codecs is being limited to what Google and Mozilla say is ok for them. You, the user, have no say in what you can view. This might be acceptable if you have supreme confidence in them (where is the next free codec going to come from, anyway?) but frankly I don't think they've earned it. not to mention losing any semblance of uniformity I find this extremely dubious. The incentive to publish in a format viewable by the widest audience applies regardless of what format that happens to be. Flash became ubiquitous for web video precisely because it was the most useful at achieving this aim, not because any browser decided to forbid other plug-ins. I see no reason to think that this incentive would dissolve if codec support was left open-ended. changing the status quo in any meaningful way away from patent-encumbered codecs This is is an ideological demand, not a spec requirement or a technical necessity. Which is my point: that is why these browser vendors are doing this. Not because they are forbidden from supporting h.264 (compare Epiphany) but because they're trying to push an ideology under which h.264 is heathen.
- spiffworks 16y ago
  The whole point of moving things to the browser was to remove any lockin advantages a specific platform might have. That is the reason Flash gets so much hate from anybody who doesn't use Windows. Going back to OS-specific codecs would limit codec choice to what the OS vendor considers kosher. And lest we forget, its far harder to switch operating systems than it is to switch browsers. If you don't like Chrome, Firefox or Opera, nobody's stopping you from using IE or Safari. > bundling codecs is being limited to what Google and Mozilla say is ok for them What you are suggesting merely takes the power out of the hands of browser vendors and puts it in the hands of the os vendors. I trust Mozilla, and to a far lesser extent Google, more than I ever will trust Microsoft.
  - GHFigs 16y ago
    Going back to OS-specific codecs would limit codec choice to what the OS vendor considers kosher. Not true. e.g.: http://xiph.org/dshow/ http://xiph.org/dshow/ http://xiph.org/quicktime/ http://xiph.org/quicktime/ Why am I not free to do this with h.264 in "open" browsers?

GHFigs 16y ago

web codec development would move at the same glacial pace as Windows version updates I'm not convinced that that is the case, but even if it were, the state of things with bundling codecs is being limited to what Google and Mozilla say is ok for them. You, the user, have no say in what you can view. This might be acceptable if you have supreme confidence in them (where is the next free codec going to come from, anyway?) but frankly I don't think they've earned it. not to mention losing any semblance of uniformity I find this extremely dubious. The incentive to publish in a format viewable by the widest audience applies regardless of what format that happens to be. Flash became ubiquitous for web video precisely because it was the most useful at achieving this aim, not because any browser decided to forbid other plug-ins. I see no reason to think that this incentive would dissolve if codec support was left open-ended. changing the status quo in any meaningful way away from patent-encumbered codecs This is is an ideological demand, not a spec requirement or a technical necessity. Which is my point: that is why these browser vendors are doing this. Not because they are forbidden from supporting h.264 (compare Epiphany) but because they're trying to push an ideology under which h.264 is heathen.

spiffworks 16y ago
The whole point of moving things to the browser was to remove any lockin advantages a specific platform might have. That is the reason Flash gets so much hate from anybody who doesn't use Windows. Going back to OS-specific codecs would limit codec choice to what the OS vendor considers kosher. And lest we forget, its far harder to switch operating systems than it is to switch browsers. If you don't like Chrome, Firefox or Opera, nobody's stopping you from using IE or Safari. > bundling codecs is being limited to what Google and Mozilla say is ok for them What you are suggesting merely takes the power out of the hands of browser vendors and puts it in the hands of the os vendors. I trust Mozilla, and to a far lesser extent Google, more than I ever will trust Microsoft.
- GHFigs 16y ago
  Going back to OS-specific codecs would limit codec choice to what the OS vendor considers kosher. Not true. e.g.: http://xiph.org/dshow/ http://xiph.org/dshow/ http://xiph.org/quicktime/ http://xiph.org/quicktime/ Why am I not free to do this with h.264 in "open" browsers?