Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I doubt Consumer Reports or the tech media would have much to gripe about WebM hardware decoding support being added to new iDevices, since there is no compelling WebM-exclusive content to which current device owners would be deprived access, (we'll leave Greenpeace out of this, as it's often difficult to rationalize their behavior). There is little risk to Apple's reputation with their customers by hedging their bets and including WebM support; only potential increased component costs, less optimal power consumption and patent litigation.

On the latter, I'd estimate the risk that the MPEG LA would go after an MPEG 4 licensee (and member of the MPEG organization) for violating the patents they have already licensed to be fairly slim; one might expect them to focus more on non-MPEG-licensed vendors distributing WebM decoders and encoders. So if the power usage and component costs are reasonable, there should be little obstacle for Apple.



The author's proposal is that Apple adopts WebM and drops all support for h.264.

That would mean that (amongst other things) all video content from the iTunes Store would have to be reencoded for WebM and the YouTube app on iOS would stream WebM instead of h.264. But that way, older Apple products won't have access to the majority of online video, or if Apple provides software decoding, battery life will suffer significantly.

I can't imagine Apple even considering such a move, but if they did, don't you think the press would have a field day?


The article's author was simply trying to make a point, not implying that Apple was in any way likely to actually drop support for h.264. The post I was responding to never addressed the possibility that Apple might do such a thing. Let's get real here.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: