Video of my LDC talk @ FOSDEM'14

[Kiith-Sa via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Monday, 26 May 2014 at 18:09:46 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 5/26/2014 10:30 AM, w0rp wrote:
>> On Monday, 26 May 2014 at 17:06:27 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Youtube has solved all these problems - why not use it?
>> You can view .webm directly in recent Firefox or Chrome 
>> versions on Windows, you
>> an also view .webm in IE9 and above provided you have the 
>> right codecs
>> installed. It's a perfectly acceptable format.
>
> It doesn't work on the browser that comes with Windows. That 
> makes it undesirable if you wish to reach the largest audience 
> with the least friction.
>
> Why restrict the audience if you don't have to? What is gained 
> by using .webm that would offset the reduced audience?

It is gradually becoming the de facto standard for video on web. 
It can already be viewed directly in all modern browsers even 
outside of YouTube. It is usable on platforms where flash is now 
dead (the number of which is increasing). Vast (vast! even on 
Windows) majority of the audience don't use IE.

It doesn't have patent issues.

YouTube is (very slowly) moving to .webm too, after all they were 
the main reason for it.

I for one like videos that are don't all depend on a single 
platform and that I can download without resorting to hacks. And 
that I can view in my browser more seamlessly than what YouTube's 
flash interface can do.


With this kind of thinking we'd still be using $FORMAT where 
$FORMAT is the first format that became the de-facto standard in 
a particular area.