tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7329601.post3982729202277206847..comments2024-01-18T15:38:45.215+01:00Comments on robUx4: RĂ©sistancerobux4http://www.blogger.com/profile/17314970638635879042noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7329601.post-25842306547373924312012-04-01T22:30:56.118+02:002012-04-01T22:30:56.118+02:00I am deeply disappointed on how this thing played ...I am deeply disappointed on how this thing played out. However Robux4 made a good point that VP8 hardware decoding devices are about the reach the market, why pull the rug now? <br /><br />Firefox will never be on iOS, and turn over rate for android smartphones is pretty high so the momentum for VP 8 should swing back a little as the VP 8 decoding device penetrate the market. <br /><br />What I am more concerned about is H265. There has been a peep of any VP 9, and manufacturers already seems to be lining up for h265. Come on on2 and Google get your act together?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7329601.post-91435550993813068652012-03-27T07:59:54.497+02:002012-03-27T07:59:54.497+02:00Erunno, one fight after the other. If you read my ...Erunno, one fight after the other. If you read my previous post which followed Chrome's announcement Adobe were supporters of WebM. Once Google would have made the move, the pressure would then go to Adobe to add WebM support in Flash (even though it's dying on mobile). None of these moves have been done, at least that I know of...robux4https://www.blogger.com/profile/17314970638635879042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7329601.post-27332976519519979772012-03-27T07:59:24.766+02:002012-03-27T07:59:24.766+02:00Erunno, one fight after the other. If you read my ...Erunno, one fight after the other. If you read my previous post which followed Chrome's announcement Adobe were supporters of WebM. Once Google would have made the move, the pressure would then go to Adobe to add WebM support in Flash (even though it's dying on mobile). None of these moves have been done, at least that I know of...robux4https://www.blogger.com/profile/17314970638635879042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7329601.post-81245388697010480742012-03-26T17:51:32.130+02:002012-03-26T17:51:32.130+02:00No Mozilla at all is better than slightly compromi...No Mozilla at all is better than slightly compromised Mozilla.Mithriltabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17062347611302317825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7329601.post-60429808116680568522012-03-26T12:30:20.685+02:002012-03-26T12:30:20.685+02:00"There could also have been a public campaign..."There could also have been a public campaign to force "Do No Evil" Google to drop H.264 from Chrome within X months or else you go for H.264. That could have changed the outcome completely or at least put the blame for the failure on Google."<br /><br />No, it wouldn't changed anything. Brendan Eich already covered that point: If desktop Chrome were to drop H.264 support for the tag, its users would get the Flash-fallback automatically instead (Chrome bundles a customized Flash Player). AFAIK there have never been plans to drop H.264 on Android where the lack of the Flash fallback hurts Mozilla far more.<br /><br />The whole situation stinks but a slightly compromised Mozilla is still preferable to no Mozilla at all.Erunnonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7329601.post-52911752208169811562012-03-26T09:51:27.527+02:002012-03-26T09:51:27.527+02:00Thanks for taking the time to read and reply Asa.
...Thanks for taking the time to read and reply Asa.<br /><br />I don't blame Mozilla only. But I think the way it was handled is doing a lot of unnecessary harm. It sends the wrong signals: the WebM war is lost, use H.264, non RF technologies on the web can win with enough pressure.<br /><br />Like I said, I think the decision to go that road should have been taken collectively, at least discussed with other WebM core participants. There were ways to do it without harming WebM too much as said above. There could also have been a public campaign to force "Do No Evil" Google to drop H.264 from Chrome within X months or else you go for H.264. That could have changed the outcome completely or at least put the blame for the failure on Google.<br /><br />Now what we have is Mozilla afraid of missing the mobile train completely and making ill-advised move to win relevance. In the process you may gain some traction/support but also lose some from the ones who are closer to your core values.robux4https://www.blogger.com/profile/17314970638635879042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7329601.post-61470817740359002542012-03-26T07:34:41.661+02:002012-03-26T07:34:41.661+02:00At the defining intersection, Mozilla goes H.264. ...At the defining intersection, Mozilla goes H.264. You fear Chrome competition? You already lost the war, because you failed to listen for so long. And now you are losing your principles too. You want market share over proper and free web?Mithriltabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17062347611302317825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7329601.post-1170660610104162442012-03-25T20:08:42.217+02:002012-03-25T20:08:42.217+02:00I think you're wrong to blame Mozilla here.
...I think you're wrong to blame Mozilla here. <br /><br />Mozilla did more than anyone to hold out against 264. We went years without it while all the competition supported it and we lost users and developer mindshare. And for what? We weren't slowing the adoption of 264, it was actually accelerating.<br /><br />Our actions, which harmed our users and developers, were not effective in any way in causing a shift away from 264. There is nothing Mozilla could do alone, and we were alone, to move the Web away from 264. <br /><br />Some would have liked to see Mozilla die on that hill, slowly losing users and developers until Mozilla had no market and no say at all in other very important debates about the Web. <br /><br />I think that's short-sighted. There are plenty of other battles to fight where Mozilla can and will make a meaningful difference. Asking Mozilla to fight to its certain death in this one battle ignores the rest of the War.<br /><br />If Mozilla disappears, we'll have more than Facebook (your concern) to worry about. The Web will be at the mercy of *browser vendors*, 100% commercial, all with a huge stake in monitizing users.<br /><br />Mozilla cannot win every battle. That was true a decade ago. It's true today. And it'll be true a decade from now. But Mozilla must be around to fight when it can make a difference.Asa Dotzlerhttp://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asanoreply@blogger.com