[whatwg] Google's use of FFmpeg in Chromium and Chrome
Håkon Wium Lie
howcome at opera.com
Mon Jun 8 01:58:37 PDT 2009
Chris DiBona writes:
> this issue is actually not about submarined patents (more like
> aircraft carrier patents) or tricky corner cases for the lgpl., but
> that the internet users prefer more quality in their
I'm not so sure. YouTube is very popular despite the fact that its
video clips resemble the transmission from the moon landing in 1969.
And JPEG2000 achieves better pictures/megabyte than JPEG, but internet
users are not calling for it.
Saving a megabyte here and there is less important than having a video
format that is free and open for all to use. Dailymotion.com has
understood this and their recent offerings using <video> and Ogg
Theora is laudable . This was exactly what I've been hoping for,
and arguing for, since the <video> element was proposed .
At Google, you have a unique opportunity to be part of this. You have
the video clips, the disks, the processing power, and the talent to
launch a service that will firmly establish <video> and Ogg Theora as
the video solution for the web.
However, it seems that Google doesn't care much for having a free and
open video format. Most of the bits you put out on the web are in
patent-encumbered formats, and this doesn't seem to bother you.
Rather, you promote patent-encumbered formats in your new experimental
The web is based on free and open formats. Google would not have
existed without the web. It will be a terrible tragedy if you tip the
scales in favor of patent-encumbered formats on the web. We expect
higher standards from you.
Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª
howcome at opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
More information about the whatwg