News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Practical vs. Idealistic Scenarios for the Near-Term ... by magicalist on Thursday January 13, 2011 @07:58PM (#2102043)
you seem to be arguing that we should just keep using h264 unless things go bad, at which point we can always switch; do you not see the problem with that? even if MPEG-LA licensing fees never change, I'm with Mozilla (and google) on the fact that ensuring every video producer and provider will be paying license fees to put their content on the web for the next 17 years is suboptimal. codec choice is good, but until a royalty-free option is everywhere, I'd rather them play hardball.

speaking of mozilla, unless you run windows 7 and like microsoft firefox plugins, switching back to firefox won't do you much good on the h264 front.

Re:The Practical vs. Idealistic Scenarios for the Near-Term ... by alextgordon on Friday January 14, 2011 @12:44AM (#2102701)
You seem to be arguing that dropping H.264 <video> from Chrome will spur adoption of WebM. As many have pointed out, including the parent, a more likely scenario is it will spur adoption of Flash+H.264. Path of least resistance and all that.

Playing hardball is fine, but you've got to be sure you are actually playing and not merely whacking random spectators in the nuts.

Re:The Practical vs. Idealistic Scenarios for the Near-Term ... by tintin on Friday January 14, 2011 @07:46AM (#2103311)
I'm not sure this will happen. The only users who are unable to watch WebM are iPhone/iPad/Safari users. You can use WebM in IE9 (when you install the codec).

So as a webdeveloper the path of the least resistance for me will be WebM. You'll get support in Chrome, Firefox, Opera and IE9.