Originally posted by jabberwolf:

---

Originally posted by inverse137:

---

Originally posted by ROMaster2:

---

Wow, really Google? REALLY?

---

Umm, you are complaining because Google wouldn't go with something they had to pay royalties for and instead bought another compression algorithm and then made that algorithm open source?

Dude, you're a republican, aren't you?

---

Um dude, its a removal of something that gives consumer choice.
This is a small fee, that is negligable, but if avoided - will have google try to force their standard as the only option on their OS.

So in light of facts, availability, cost, and restriction of choice, you must be Democrat.

---

Originally posted by jhgsz8i7:

---

spam edited by ddp

---

Originally posted by xnmalletx:

---

Yea, I don't get that party affiliation thing either.

---

Originally posted by jabberwolf:

---

Originally posted by inverse137:

---

Originally posted by ROMaster2:

---

Wow, really Google? REALLY?

---

Umm, you are complaining because Google wouldn't go with something they had to pay royalties for and instead bought another compression algorithm and then made that algorithm open source?

Dude, you're a republican, aren't you?

---

Um dude, its a removal of something that gives consumer choice.
This is a small fee, that is negligable, but if avoided - will have google try to force their standard as the only option on their OS.

So in light of facts, availability, cost, and restriction of choice, you must be Democrat.

---

Originally posted by Totalogic:

---

Originally posted by inverse137:

---

Umm, you are complaining because Google wouldn't go with something they had to pay royalties for and instead bought another compression algorithm and then made that algorithm open source?

Dude, you're a republican, aren't you?

---

Ummmmmmmm, he wasn't complaining, he was satirising. And with your ignorance, Democrats the world over cringe at your defence of them...

You must be ignorantican. (An IGNORANT American)

---

Originally posted by lissenup2:

---

Spammers can simply.........in 3 words..........GO F THEMSELVES!!!!!!!!!!!!! Leeches!

---

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:

---

Originally posted by jabberwolf:

---

Originally posted by inverse137:

---

Originally posted by ROMaster2:

---

Wow, really Google? REALLY?

---

Umm, you are complaining because Google wouldn't go with something they had to pay royalties for and instead bought another compression algorithm and then made that algorithm open source?

Dude, you're a republican, aren't you?

---

Um dude, its a removal of something that gives consumer choice.
This is a small fee, that is negligable, but if avoided - will have google try to force their standard as the only option on their OS.

So in light of facts, availability, cost, and restriction of choice, you must be Democrat.

---

This is more correct, great point!

Google is going to shoot themselves in the foot here making their product more proprietary and less industry standard. Competition is a good thing but their limiting to only one format is a mistake I think.

Chrome really isn?t a good browser I?ve used it and it is a dangerous browser, too open to the internet and Google. Plus Google keeps changing their standards of how their browser structure is and they aren?t always good changes, but are radical changes.

---

Originally posted by nonoitall:

---

I'm good with their decision. There is no guarantee whatsoever that H.264 will continue to be a fluffy, rainbow-colored codec of goodness that we're all free to use once the next few years go by.

Video on the web is at a critical juncture right now, where what's 'standard' is being redefined (or really just defined, since Flash was only a de facto standard). And this move tips the scale in the favor of an open standard that's not going to line some patent holders' pocket books a few years down the line.

The only thing that this really affects is web sites that only provide H.264 video in via HTML5. (IE, web sites that do not use Flash.) Since HTML5 video is still in its infancy of adoption, this is a far better time to make a move like this than several years down the line when Flash-less H.264 has become deeply intrenched in the web (and potentially our wallets).

Those who want to use a non-standard codec (H.264) will still be free to do so with a non-standard player (Flash), which seems pretty appropriate to me.

---

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:

---

Doing a good job, that is laughable when this is their platform;

"Instead of a traditional software development cycle where features are crammed into each release or delay the release, Chrome puts out a new release no matter what every six weeks."

This supports my arguments that the platform structure is poor and radically changing but to make a release just to make a release is plain out right lame! So nothing changes but da*mit we are putting out a release, doesn't even begin to make sense unless you are a marketing fool possibly.

---