LATEST CHATTY HEADER
Subscribe to Shacknews Mercury starting at $1/month!
Chrome Shack Community Guidelines Chatty Search
Scroll down to join the conversation.
New to Shacknews? Signup for a Free Account
Already have an account? Login Now
Subscribe to Shacknews Mercury starting at $1/month!
Chrome Shack Community Guidelines Chatty Search
Scroll down to join the conversation.
http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/more-about-chrome-html-video-codec.html
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 202 replies.
Why does Flash suck? Because it's closed and developed solely by Adobe whose devs apparently can't code their way out of a paper bag.
Wouldn't it be great if instead of Flash we'd had a tech of similar capabilities but open source and fixed and extended by large communities?
This move aims precisely to change the future of video codecs from option 1 to option 2. Flash at this point is a lost cause: unless you're a megalomaniac like Steve Jobs, you're forced to admit that Flash is pervasive and integral to today's web. The best Google can do there is to at least try to sandbox it and ship updates for it faster. But <video> is not a lost cause. Hardly anyone uses <video> yet. Now is the time when its future will be set. If you think h.264 has problems -- which not everyone does -- then the more pressure against it that can be applied sooner the better.
Whether this move by Google is sufficient pressure to actually change the future is unknown. But accusations that because Chrome ships Flash Google must be lying, be completely uninterested in openness, and have a hidden agenda don't hold up logically.
The post has been reported. Thank you!
You must be logged in to post.
You must be logged in to post.