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.
