On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 16:57, Ian Forrester <ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk> wrote: > Somewhat related to the discussion already going on? > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/jan/25/firefox-open-video-support > > Idealists or pioneers? > > Interesting block at the bottom, > > "Web video has never really been open, unencumbered and free. We've had Real > Networks RM format, Apple's QuickTime, Microsoft's Windows Media Video (now > standardised as VC-1), the DivX and XviD codecs, and Adobe Flash among > others. There might never be one open standard, simply because some content > owners will want to include DRM (Digital Rights Management) copy restrictions. > > However, the web would benefit from having an open, unencumbered and free > video format that enabled HTML programmers to include a video as easily as > they now include a headline or a photo, wouldn't it? How do we get to that?" >
What I don't understand is that of the three main desktop platforms Firefox gets installed on - Windows and Mac - both have H.264 decoders *on the machine already* in the form of Windows Media and QuickTime APIs. Microsoft and Apple have presumably solved whatever licensing problems exist for H.264 decoding. Urgh. This kind of stuff shouldn't be a problem. Really. So, to watch one type of video online, I use Firefox and to use another type of video online I use Safari or Chrome. And because standards bodies, browser manufacturers and patent holders cannot resolve their differences sensibly, it's back to the good old days. Paul Downey (@psd) nails it when he says that standards are peace but the standards process is war. -- Tom Morris <http://tommorris.org/> - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
