[whatwg] The issue of interoperability of the <video> element

On 6/26/07, Spartanicus <mk98762 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Desktop client content support will determine the format most content
> will be published in.

Interesting claim, however Apple so far has introduced AAC (high
quality drm-less) and MPEG4 for large audiences (OK, YouTube MPEG4 is
merely announced and not technically shipping, but in a week that
changes) both targeted at mobile devices.

What have you done for the web lately? (I don't count scaring
companies that are trying to contribute here) that one announcement
has probably done more for me as a consumer of video content since VHS
rentals (I never collected many DVDs and didn't use NetFlix)

> Making a different choice for the mobile segment
> is not only very costly, it will deny mobile access to the majority of
> web audio and video content.

The mobile web historically has made such amusing choices (WML,
thankfully dead). However picking a path which isn't viable to the
concerns of those markets means mobile customers lose freedom (pick
your definition, i don't really care, practically it's availability,
technically it's ability without paying through the nose) - WML was
created because bandwidth was expensive (bandwidth is still expensive
for most mobile customers). Eventually Google created a nice mobile
portal (and maybe Google/Apple will make a mobile video conversion
portal too) so that mobile customers could get access most of the web
(downsampled) without going broke.

> IMO the mobile sector will follow suit
> unless there are insurmountable problems using the same format there.

The mobile sector has shown a willingness to go in directions which
don't necessarily serve anyone well. It has certainly shown a tendency
to go off in its own direction which doesn't match the general world
(wml? 3gp video/audio? ring tones that cost more than cd sound
tracks?). What evidence do you have to show that the mobile sector
ever follows suit in reasonable time?

> I'm not particularly concerned with Apple's decision not to support an
> open free format. As I said what players with a small market share do is
> IMO irrelevant in relation to what will become the de facto standard of
> publishing audio and video content on the web.

I'm sorry, I seem to have missed an introduction, which big player are
you and why is it OK for you to dictate terms to anyone? (full
disclosure: I work for Nokia - I don't represent Nokia. I contribute
to mozilla.org - I don't represent mozilla.org. I work to improve
myself - the ideas described in these communications do not
necessarily represent my views, my employer's, my associates', my
affiliates' [if applicable], or those of anyone else I know.)

> >We tabled the ogg discussion
> >a while ago, this advocacy is a huge waste of electronic bits.
> Agreed with regard to the criticism of Apple.

Sorry, this was ambiguous, I've chosen to take it to mean that you
agree people shouldn't criticise companies for being concerned with
laws and the risk of lawsuits.

> Couldn't disagree more with regard to fighting for
> open and free web content formats.

I believe an aim of whatwg is a viable implementable standard that
reflects the realities of the web while encouraging innovation. MPEG4
is part of the web (a growing part too).

Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 05:09:30 UTC