> My main argument against Ogg in the web is that it separates
> content to web and non-web.
Hmm, OK, I see that concern. But I already need to do that in that I
record and edit at high bitrate and have to reencode for reasonable web
rates anyway. I'm not going to stream at 25Mbit.
> I'd rather have Theora+Vorbis in MKV
> than Theora+Vorbis in Ogg, though more preferrably I'd use
> H.264+Vorbis in MKV for my web video needs if HTML5 <video>
> supported that properly in major browsers.
...but only if you don't have to pay for it! Ahhh.... somebody
does. Even in France.
> I'm quite sure many
> people would be delighted about this too, since it'd basically
> mean that their personal copy and the web copy can be the exact
> same file without compromising quality.
The day that MPEG-LA renounces its h264 patents, I'll dance in
the streets. The argument will be over, and everyone including
99.99% of businesses will have won. But I expect that not only
will MPEG find a way to keep milking it way past 2028, but by
then the entire patent pool will be pushing its new thing and
you'll be here arguing that we're not right in the head for
thinking Ogg NextGen can stand up against h265, and h265 isn't
really that much money, and everyone is using h265 anyway and you
can put h265 in MKV and not Ogg so Ogg sucks.
> How about you Xiph guys rather spend your time trying to kill
> software patents completely?
We'll get right on that.
> I bet you'd manage to get that done faster than improving Theora
> encoders to the point that they beat x264, and then we'd have no
> need to argue about whether something is patent encumbered or not