●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
Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All 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.
bysumdumass ( 711423 ) writes:
I'm not sure why we can't implement support for both or even more codecs. Can anyone tell me why this isn't possible?
The way I figure it, if both is supported, and agreement to assist in implementing support for the other can be reached and as long as the spec is documented, adding the functionality to the browsers should be trivial to any group capable of creating and maintaining a modern browser. We could actually implement a plug in scheme that allows functionality to be snapped in on the fly.
What am I m
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
byjhfry ( 829244 ) writes:
More importantly are these factors:
- Ogg requires ZERO licensing costs, which is very important to the Open Source community who want to create free products that do not produce revenue for the creator.
- Ogg is not currently hardware accelerated by any mainstream hardware (encode or decode) and therefore is not ideal for current generation netbooks or other low powered devices.
- Ogg does not produce quite the same quality as the patent encumbered options at low bitrates
These are the core arguments for and against ogg, the only royalty free option. If ogg produced very similar quality at the same bit rates and there was hardware on the market that encoded and decoded it then it would be the spec without contention.
If it were up to me, I would say write it in the spec as the standard and prey that demand encourages manufacturers to add hardware acceleration to their products. At the same time, start an OGG quality improvement campaign and try and get some massive attention paid to the development of Ogg Vorbis over then next few months while HTML 5 spec browsers are being developed and tested.
I believe that making it the standard would ensure that it gets the attention it needs to achive quality/feature parity with some of h264 and other competitiors.
Parent
twitter
facebook
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
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
-- Roy Santoro
●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...