| |||||||||||||
Mozilla reconsiders H.264Mozilla reconsiders H.264Posted Mar 22, 2012 7:45 UTC (Thu) by alankila (subscriber, #47141)In reply to: Mozilla reconsiders H.264 by AndreE Parent article: Mozilla reconsiders H.264
WebM might have been bought and developed as a strategic weapon, to be deployed if necessary. Holding control of the codec used over one of the most important video sites on the Internet certainly gives you some leverage. Perhaps it was done merely to ensure that demands from the H.264 patent holders would be limited from above by the cost of performing full-on switch to WebM.
(Log in to post comments)
Mozilla reconsiders H.264 Posted Mar 22, 2012 10:15 UTC (Thu) by AndreE (subscriber, #60148) [Link]
If it was bought for that purpose, why the huge fanfare about it being patent and royalty free and about support open web standards? Why the promises re Chrome? Google buy plenty of technology for strategic purposes and to build up their patent portfolio and aren't shy about it.
It seems pretty clear that the initial plans have changed, and it would be nice to hear more from Google.
|
|||||||||||||