4 ms·

Chrome on Android doesn't support extensions at all, so that kind of invalidates that. Indeed, Chrome on Android is rather a piece of shit, so it's remarkable r

Chrome on Android doesn't support extensions at all, so that kind of invalidates that. Indeed, Chrome on Android is rather a piece of shit, so it's remarkable reading a thread by someone claiming that if only they could bring this to iOS they'd be winning. As to WebM, zero users are missing the lack of WebM. WebM was Google trying to boot-stomp a codec that offered virtually no compelling story for their own reasons, while offering a worse experience for the vast majority of users (e.g. worse energy profile given that little hardware has full hardware support).

ginko 5y ago
I don't care about Chrome. Firefox on Android supports extensions. >As to WebM, zero users are missing the lack of WebM. Let's just say pretty major platform I'm using daily uses webms extensively and the lack of support on iOS is a huge pain for me.
- defaultname 5y ago
  "I don't care about Chrome" Neat. Only you replied with that refutation when I specifically asked what people are missing on iOS vis-a-vis Chrome. Neat that Firefox supports those features, but that seems to be so little of a competitive story that its usage on mobile is absolutely minuscule. Which "major platform" is causing huge pain by the lack of WebM on iOS? LOL.
kmeisthax 5y ago
This is somewhat ahistorical. The concern was patent licensing fees and it impacted way more than just Google. H.264 is (and pretty much all MPEG standards are) a patent-encumbered format. Anyone who encodes, decodes, or otherwise uses the format needs to pay licensing fees to a confusingly-named patent pool called MPEG-LA. Google is entirely capable of paying those fees; random webmasters and Free Software hackers are not. The only reason why this didn't become as much of a problem as I'm making it out to be is because the H.264 pool had a very affordable or zero-royalty tier (can't remember which) for free Internet video distribution. At one point it looked like MPEG-LA was going to shitcan this tier, which would have basically killed every video site at the time except for YouTube. This wasn't an empty threat: previous ISO-standard formats like MPEG-4 Part 2 didn't come to an agreement on web video, so it was never used on the web. Macromedia wound up licensing On2 VP6 (WebM's predecessor) in Flash specifically because it had no known patent encumbrance. Today, we have H.265, which is a licensing nightmare even for premium video providers and hardware manufacturers that are ordinarily used to paying licensing fees. AFAIK it's something like 3 patent pools and a bunch of other companies now?

ginko 5y ago

I don't care about Chrome. Firefox on Android supports extensions. >As to WebM, zero users are missing the lack of WebM. Let's just say pretty major platform I'm using daily uses webms extensively and the lack of support on iOS is a huge pain for me.

defaultname 5y ago
"I don't care about Chrome" Neat. Only you replied with that refutation when I specifically asked what people are missing on iOS vis-a-vis Chrome. Neat that Firefox supports those features, but that seems to be so little of a competitive story that its usage on mobile is absolutely minuscule. Which "major platform" is causing huge pain by the lack of WebM on iOS? LOL.

kmeisthax 5y ago

This is somewhat ahistorical. The concern was patent licensing fees and it impacted way more than just Google. H.264 is (and pretty much all MPEG standards are) a patent-encumbered format. Anyone who encodes, decodes, or otherwise uses the format needs to pay licensing fees to a confusingly-named patent pool called MPEG-LA. Google is entirely capable of paying those fees; random webmasters and Free Software hackers are not. The only reason why this didn't become as much of a problem as I'm making it out to be is because the H.264 pool had a very affordable or zero-royalty tier (can't remember which) for free Internet video distribution. At one point it looked like MPEG-LA was going to shitcan this tier, which would have basically killed every video site at the time except for YouTube. This wasn't an empty threat: previous ISO-standard formats like MPEG-4 Part 2 didn't come to an agreement on web video, so it was never used on the web. Macromedia wound up licensing On2 VP6 (WebM's predecessor) in Flash specifically because it had no known patent encumbrance. Today, we have H.265, which is a licensing nightmare even for premium video providers and hardware manufacturers that are ordinarily used to paying licensing fees. AFAIK it's something like 3 patent pools and a bunch of other companies now?