3 ms·
irrelevant. no one is arguing about "why" or "standards". the bottom line is that that it's the nature of the beast; it creates [your choice quantitative adjec
by catshirt 16y ago
irrelevant. no one is arguing about "why" or "standards".
the bottom line is that that it's the nature of the beast; it creates [your choice quantitative adjective] inconvenience.
- jokermatt999 16y agoYes, it is inconvenient, but I'd say it's more justified than the IE inconvenience. They didn't implement h264 because of concerns about how it would restrict distribution, worries about fees, and the fear of another patent encumbered (aka "free") format become standard. Microsoft didn't implement these features pretty much every other browser has because of...what, time constraints?
- rbanffy 16y ago> irrelevant No, it's not. There is a reason not to implement h.264 - it's patent encumbered and eventually there will be licensing costs that will make free implementations impossible. There is a difference when company G takes a stand against a bad standard and company M that can't implement simple features correctly despite the fact that it can dedicate humongous resources to its development.