4 ms·

I agree. This is just a move by Cisco to prevent the adoption of free codecs. But why do you say that Mozilla resists free codecs? They are shipping with The

by fafner 13y ago

I agree. This is just a move by Cisco to prevent the adoption of free codecs. But why do you say that Mozilla resists free codecs? They are shipping with Theora, Vorbis, Opus, WebM/VP8 support and are quite active in that area. Meanwhile they were forced to adopt H.264 platform support because all other major browsers including Google Chrome and mobile platforms including Google Android use it and a large amount of Youtube videos are only available through H.264. Google either lacks the will or capability to make a dent. If they'd ship Android without H.264 support then vendors would simply patch it back in. They said that Chrome would stop supporting H.264 but nothing happened. YouTube still uses H.264. (And Chrome stable still doesn't seem to support Opus.)

e12e 13y ago
> I agree. This is just a move by Cisco to prevent the adoption of free codecs. Well, yes. From Cisco's point of view, I'm guessing it's just ensuring that it can sell it's video conferencing gear (that users will be able to use them via webrtc etc). Much better for them than having to invest in hardware accelerated webm or whatever. Sad, but true.
NatW 13y ago
>This is just a move by Cisco to prevent the adoption of free codecs. Perhaps in part, but in addition to motives mentioned by others, Cisco obviously also benefits from increased use of bandwidth. When more people use video, it drives network equipment sales.