| |||||||||||||
Bingo!Bingo!Posted Jan 18, 2011 0:27 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) by JEDIDIAH Parent article: More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog)
It's the intentionally crippled and limited platforms that would have the most problems. Yup. Things like TV sets, mobile phones, etc. You know, the devices which are actually used to watch video by non-geeks. Where hardware support is paramount because it makes tangible difference on your battery life or your monthly energy bill. This is a problem artificially created by the same people that created the earlier mess with exclusive single vendor proprietary codecs and the special plugins needed to deal with them. Sorry, but no. When you present a "non-crippled" platform which can play and encode HDTV video in realtime using less then one watt of power - we can start talking about "openness" and "pluggable codecs". Till then it's not an option. Because simple fact of life is: today there are more users of web-enabled mobiles then there are users of personal computers. Tomorrow (or, mre likely, in the next 2-3 years) these devices will start showing video - and what they'll support in hardware will be used on the Web.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||