On Monday, 26 May 2014 at 18:09:46 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 5/26/2014 10:30 AM, w0rp wrote:
On Monday, 26 May 2014 at 17:06:27 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
Youtube has solved all these problems - why not use it?
You can view .webm directly in recent Firefox or Chrome versions on Windows, you an also view .webm in IE9 and above provided you have the right codecs
installed. It's a perfectly acceptable format.

It doesn't work on the browser that comes with Windows. That makes it undesirable if you wish to reach the largest audience with the least friction.

Why restrict the audience if you don't have to? What is gained by using .webm that would offset the reduced audience?

It is gradually becoming the de facto standard for video on web. It can already be viewed directly in all modern browsers even outside of YouTube. It is usable on platforms where flash is now dead (the number of which is increasing). Vast (vast! even on Windows) majority of the audience don't use IE.

It doesn't have patent issues.

YouTube is (very slowly) moving to .webm too, after all they were the main reason for it.

I for one like videos that are don't all depend on a single platform and that I can download without resorting to hacks. And that I can view in my browser more seamlessly than what YouTube's flash interface can do.


With this kind of thinking we'd still be using $FORMAT where $FORMAT is the first format that became the de-facto standard in a particular area.

Reply via email to