●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load 500 More Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byditoa ( 952847 ) writes:
Perhaps it is a stupid question but why do the vendors have a say what goes into the spec and what doesn't? Isn't it up to them to choose to implement the spec fully or not? FFS just make it Ogg Vorbis/Theora and if Apple doesn't want to support it then Safari can just not support that part of the spec. It isn't like any of the browser are 100% complient anyway.
byhansraj ( 458504 ) writes:
Perhaps because there is no point having a standard if no one is willing to adopt it.
bynine-times ( 778537 ) writes:
Sometimes you put something into a standard as a way of pressuring people to adopt something. Make it the standard, and if Apple won't adopt it, make a big stink about how Safari isn't really HTML5 compliant.
I suspect that the problem is that companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Adobe have enough influence on the W3C to kill something like this.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bybeelsebob ( 529313 ) writes:
The problem is not that apple won't adopt it, it's that apple *can't* adopt it, and nor can nokia, and nor can sony erricson, and nor can RIM, and nor can any of the other smart phone makers. There is *no* hardware support for decoding Ogg Theora, that makes it totally unsuitable for the task at hand. Even ignoring the submarine patent risk and the fact that it's far worse quality than h.264.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bynine-times ( 778537 ) writes:
That's a good point.
It's just unfortunate that these companies didn't support Theora (or something comparable) in the first place. I'm sure part of the reason h264 is becoming so widely supported is that Apple threw their weight behind it.
I don't want to discount the quality edge that h264 provides, but often who chooses to support a format can overrule technological superiority when it comes to real-world adoption. And I can't help but feel like, with all the companies involved and all the money at the
bypbhj ( 607776 ) writes:
The problem is not that apple won't adopt it, it's that apple *can't* adopt it, and nor can nokia, and nor can sony erricson, and nor can RIM, and nor can any of the other smart phone makers. There is *no* hardware support for decoding Ogg Theora, that makes it totally unsuitable for the task at hand. Even ignoring the submarine patent risk and the fact that it's far worse quality than h.264.
So no hardware manufacturer would support Ogg Theora decoding if it were in HTML5?
We'd also have a strong case for optimisation of Ogg Theora by the leading manufacturers all adding their own optimisations to ensure longer battery life for products.
Submarine patents are a diversion - they could be found for pretty much any of the codecs or indeed any patentable technology.
(Codecs are generally just mathematical methods and shouldn't be patentable anyway! also if the compatibility clauses in European patent
byparoneayea ( 642895 ) writes:
You're right as for there being no hardware support for decoding Ogg Theora. I don't know enough about that to make a comment (I wonder if it is possible to make such a thing but whether or not it just hasn't been implemented). As for the rest though, the quality argument is simply not true [xiph.org]... it looks as if in some circumstances, in fact, theora comes out on top. But even if that isn't true, we can see that it's close enough that it isn't a significant difference.
As for the submarine patent stuff, that'
byLeif81 ( 765511 ) writes:
and the fact that it's far worse quality than h.264.
FUD. How about this for clarification http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/comparison.html [xiph.org]
● current threshold.
bySimetrical ( 1047518 ) writes:
I suspect that the problem is that companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Adobe have enough influence on the W3C to kill something like this.
The W3C is irrelevant. The WHATWG didn't start out as part of the W3C, and if the W3C tried to push it around it could just break off again. The contents of the HTML 5 spec are determined solely by Ian Hickson, currently employed by Google. His only oversight is a steering committee. I can't find who's on the steering committee, but I'm very certain that it includes no one from Microsoft or Adobe, and Mozilla plus Opera almost certainly have more votes than Apple.
The fact is, the HTML 5 standard is no
byyabos ( 719499 ) writes:
Why should it really be OGG or nothing? Why don't they use H.264 and if Mozilla doesn't support it then screw them? H.264 can be licensed, has hardware decoding making it better for embedded devices and less drain on your laptop battery. Apple and other companies aren't going to bother with OGG because I can bet you that in a few years there would be someone suing them saying their implementation infringes on some patents.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...