On Jan 13, 4:32 am, Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 5:40 PM, work only <[email protected]> wrote: > > Just two faced, Google you are drooping from being a Good company to a crap > > company. > > Because they are choosing to support an open standard instead of a closed > one?
To me, a standard either comes from a respected standards body or is widely used. WebM is neither of these. And I'm not sure that WebM is open - even if you can get the code and submit patches, Google still calls the shots. And I don't blame them for this - they pad more than $100 mio., so they can do whatever the hell they want with their purchase. Just don't tell me "it's an open standard". This reminds me of VC-1 one, the Windows Media Player video codec that Microsoft positioned as an alternative to H.264. If I remember correctly, then Microsoft initially said it was royalty-free because it didn't infringe on any patents. As it turned out, it did, so Microsoft set up a patent pool, just like the H.264 guys, and H.264 won. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
