- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 20:01:37 +1100
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Nils Dagsson Moskopp <nils-dagsson-moskopp at dieweltistgarnichtso.net> wrote: > Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com> schrieb am Thu, 25 Nov 2010 > 14:05:18 +1100: > >> Can the decision for a file format be taken completely separately from >> the codec decision for the <audio> or <video> element, I wonder? > > I believe the royalties for encoders are usually higher than the > royalties for decoders (where royalties apply, that is: with > proprietary standards). > > Also, I doubt that any self-respecting entities opposed to the > implementation of decoders for certain royalty-free A/V formats would > include the corresponding encoders ? the risk being that more content > would be created in formats that their own browsers could not render. Naturally a browser that doesn't decode MPEG-4 would not implement MPEG-4 encoding. Apple probably already pay the max royalties for MPEG-4, so they probably won't worry about MPEG-4 encoding support in Safari. Also, implementing WebM or Ogg Theora encoding is just as royalty-free as decoding them, so Mozilla, Opera and Google wouldn't need to worry there. So, the browsers would implement support for those codecs for which they already implement decoding support - maybe with the exception of Chrome which decode MPEG-4, but may not want to encode it, since it might mean extra royalties. It would be nice if we could all, say, encode WebM, but I don't see that happening. Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Thursday, 25 November 2010 01:01:37 UTC