3 ms·

> I would hope they would support everything practical to support And how practical is it to support a for-pay format when you're in the business of giving you

• epistasis 14y ago
  Mozilla doesn't have to pay for anything, as they can use codecs that exist on the supporting platform, precisely as they are doing on Windows, and will do on Mac. But if they wanted to pay the decoder license fee for every one of Mozilla's 400 million users, Mozilla has annual revenue of more than $100 million, and the most that they would be charged is $6.5 million [1]. However, on Windows and Mac, this is not necessary, so they would only need to pay the $0.20 to $0.10 per for Linux. http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avcweb.pdf http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avcweb.pdf
  • nitrogen 14y ago
    It's not the decoder fee alone that was a problem for Firefox, it was the patent encumrance (problematic for an internationally distributed open source browser), not to mention the requirement for some content producers to pay a separate license just to be able to take advantage of the encoder licenses they already paid for with their camera and editing software. Also, instead of getting cheaper over time, MPEG-LA can raise the H.264 rates by 10% every five years (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/a-closer-look-at-the-costs-and-fine-print-of-h-264-licenses/2884 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/a-closer-look-at-the-costs-an...).