News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Chromium Blog: More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change. Parent comment

Re:Chromium Blog: More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change by bonaldi on Friday January 14, 2011 @10:46PM (#2106384)
It's not the actual codec that matters. It's that if you have one given codec end-to-end throughout your entire workflow and it lets you drive everything from broadcast to mobile phone, why would you then support an oddball outlier without any proven technical advantage and with no new audience?

Of course you can plug in another transcoder on the end of the output chain, but why not just serve the h264 holdouts yet more Flash and keep your existing archive and workflow untouched?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Chromium Blog: More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change by prodigal_erik on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @05:18AM (#2115318)
I wouldn't spend real effort keeping transcoding out of a pipeline. One codec end-to-end for all audiences is not the normal state of affairs but a convenient aberration. Sooner or later (I doubt it'll be more than a couple of years) somebody's going to achieve 95% of the quality with 50% of the power budget, or fully capitalize on the redundancy of 3D footage, or something like that.
[ Parent | on HN ]