| |||||||||||||
Well, you are missing some facts here...Well, you are missing some facts here...Posted Jan 18, 2011 0:47 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog) by jmorris42 Parent article: More about the Chrome HTML Video Codec Change (The Chromium Blog)
Google won't have to lean very hard on Adobe to support WebM. Well, if you recall what Adobe said back when WebM was first introduced... I don't know how exactly negotiations went, but Adobe already agreed to play mediator: Flash may play H.264 in a world where browsers don't support it in <video> tag (Firefox, Opera, now Chrome) - and it may play WebM in a world where browsers don't support WebM in a <video> tag (Safari, IE9). It makes it significantly more relevant short-term - and obviously Adobe likes it. Long-term is actually has no effect: "tough stance" against WebM will buy Adobe no friends and may make it less relevant in the future.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||