4 ms·

"Further, H.264 was a complete non-starter for Mozilla, and Firefox holds nearly 20% of the market. Using H.264 for HTML5 <video> would have guaranteed market

"Further, H.264 was a complete non-starter for Mozilla, and Firefox holds nearly 20% of the market. Using H.264 for HTML5 <video> would have guaranteed market segmentation and hurt the chances of a truly open future" Except Internet Explorer will continue to be the highest-marketshare browser for the foreseeable future, and IE9 won't ship with VP8 (though you can install a codec for it, I doubt regular people will). It does ship with H.264. Maybe Microsoft can be convinced to ship VP8/WebM in IE.

commandar 16y ago
>Maybe Microsoft can be convinced to ship VP8/WebM in IE. I certainly wouldn't discount it. MS made the H.264 decision well before Google announced WebM. It wouldn't shock me to see them cut a deal with Google if for no other reason than to put Apple at a competitive disadvantage.
- tzs 16y ago
  How would it put Apple at a competitive disadvantage? Safari uses Quicktime for video playback. If WebM becomes important, it will be easy for Mac users to get support for it.
ZeroGravitas 16y ago
If you extend last years trend for another 12 months then (according to Statcounters figures) IE, Firefox and Chrome will all have 30% of the market each, with IE heading down, Firefox level, and Chrome going up. Which means, somewhat surprisingly, that IE could be 3rd globally in the relatively near future. In fact the IE drop/Chrome rise appears to be accelerating, so it could happen sooner. http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-monthly-200812-201012 http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-monthly-200812-201012 But that's all versions of IE, IE9 won't be available on XP, and historically it's taken years for new versions to penetrate, so it'll be a much weaker force than Chrome and Firefox which complete updates in a few weeks and months respectively. Microsoft getting on board would be nice, but Adobe getting WebM into Flash would take care of the older versions of IE that are hanging around too.

commandar 16y ago

>Maybe Microsoft can be convinced to ship VP8/WebM in IE. I certainly wouldn't discount it. MS made the H.264 decision well before Google announced WebM. It wouldn't shock me to see them cut a deal with Google if for no other reason than to put Apple at a competitive disadvantage.

tzs 16y ago
How would it put Apple at a competitive disadvantage? Safari uses Quicktime for video playback. If WebM becomes important, it will be easy for Mac users to get support for it.

ZeroGravitas 16y ago

If you extend last years trend for another 12 months then (according to Statcounters figures) IE, Firefox and Chrome will all have 30% of the market each, with IE heading down, Firefox level, and Chrome going up. Which means, somewhat surprisingly, that IE could be 3rd globally in the relatively near future. In fact the IE drop/Chrome rise appears to be accelerating, so it could happen sooner. http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-monthly-200812-201012 http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-monthly-200812-201012 But that's all versions of IE, IE9 won't be available on XP, and historically it's taken years for new versions to penetrate, so it'll be a much weaker force than Chrome and Firefox which complete updates in a few weeks and months respectively. Microsoft getting on board would be nice, but Adobe getting WebM into Flash would take care of the older versions of IE that are hanging around too.