Google's dropping H.264 from Chrome a step backward for openness

Re:Google's dropping H.264 from Chrome a step backward for o... by magicalist on Thursday January 13, 2011 @03:31AM (#2099233)

well, I'm not sure if I completely understand your line of reasoning, but note also, as clark-kent notes below, that Microsoft will also allow VP8 to be installed as a codec at the OS level and then work through IE9. The same will be true with Quicktime and Safari, but my understanding is that that is still hypothetical.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google's dropping H.264 from Chrome a step backward for o... by tres on Thursday January 13, 2011 @03:43AM (#2099253)

To be certain, lots of conjecture on my part. I just found it very interesting that Microsoft is essentially taking on the h264 licensing fees for Firefox by releasing a h264 plugin for the browser. (I'm assuming that MS will be footing the licensing fees -- or maybe they're just covered by a blanket $6.5 million fee, so it's just the cost of building the plugin that they really have to eat)

My extrapolation is a reach, but supporting h264 on Firefox doesn't make sense except if MS is seeing cash from h264 ubiquity.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google's dropping H.264 from Chrome a step backward for o... by btn on Thursday January 13, 2011 @04:21AM (#2099309)

Microsoft's Firefox add-on simply replaces the browser's <video> player with a Windows Media Player object, so the fees have already been paid for as part of their licence to include an H.264 decoder with all copies of Windows.

Supporting H.264 makes sense for Microsoft as a licensor of the patent pool.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google's dropping H.264 from Chrome a step backward for o... by danudey on Thursday January 13, 2011 @04:14PM (#2101343)

As long as there's a codec installed for QuickTime to use, Safari will support it in the <video> tag. The same is true of Theora - no built-in support, but if you install the codec it starts working.

[ Parent | on HN ]