I can't help but wonder if it's a tactical move, trying to pressure the consortium into better licencing terms... On 13 Jan 2011 13:09, "Reinier Zwitserloot" <[email protected]> wrote: > It's obviously a win for consumers because WebM or OggTheora winning the > format war is a vastly superior situation for us consumers to be in, > compared to anything controlled by the MPEG-LA consortium, such as H.264. > > We could all chew the fat about why google is doing this (and by all means, > do! - interesting stuff to read), but we'll never know for sure. What I do
> know for sure is that (A) continuing to ship flash out-of-the-box is > inconsistent, (B) This is a problem for the current crop of mobile devices > (as in, if H.264 ends up losing), and (C) In practice you need to serve both > OggTheora and H.264, which is annoying but an inevitable part of format > wars. > > If I were google, and if my assumption that supporting H.264 is virtually > free for google is correct (and that's a big if), I'd ship with both H.264 > and flash, but disable them out of the box. Enabling them is as simple as > going to preferences, 'advanced' tab, and clicking the appropriate check > boxes. That's a simple enough deterrent to pressure content providers into > offering OggTheora or WebM. > > -- > 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]<javaposse%[email protected]> . > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > -- 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.
