Hi /g/, Do you think Safari will ever play .webm? Why doesn't

money

Not until Apple invents moving images with sound.

apple doesn't want to pay licensing fees so they fuck over their users.

incidentally I just switched to ungoogled-chromium last week after using mostly Safari for ~4 years.
safari's 10.1 update introduced a bug where, whenever I drag anything, the page crashes and has to reload. and of course there's no easy way to roll back because apple.

File: 1489127412606.gif (899KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

899KB, 600x600px

>>59779134

>WebM is an open, royalty-free, media file format designed for the web.
>open, royalty-free

https://www.webmproject.org/about/

>>59779114
No. Apple is pushing MP4 hard on all their devices, so no.

WebM is owned by Jewgle and it's a shitty codec in general.

H.264 is superior.

why doesn't iTunes play FLAC files?

File: 1490555747495.png (44KB, 480x720px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 480x720px

>>59779249
It's still owned by Jewgle.

H264 is also royalty free to a certain extent. Only encoders cost money iirc

>>59779262
It plays ALAC which is open source.

>>59779127
http://www.apple.com/clips/
Going to be very soon then.

>>59779281
I know, but why did they make ALAC (which was proprietary for years) when FLAC already existed? It's not like ALAC is better in any way

>>59779267
It has more to do with the fact that Apple's already invested in h264, and all their video that they "sell" is already encoded in it.

>>59779127

kek, underrated

>>59779298
Because Apple doesn't like putting token "open source" software in their apps.

Even though FLAC is supported in other players, Apple keeps it simple with only supporting WAV/AIFF/ALAC/AAC and AC3 on the Apple TV (which has to be embedded with video)

>>59779311
No it's much bigger than that.

H264 is already really mature and one of the best codecs around. All the tools out there are good. H264 is literally a world standard, used everywhere.

WebM is a cucked format that looks like shit at the same bitrate. It's literally a meme codec like Cinepak.

H265 is the future anyway, but it requires higher processing power.

I feel as though a significant percentage of the thumbnails of the gif front page are being directed towards me in a negative manner.

Am I being paranoid? Should I be glad my browser cannot play .webm?

File: hqdefault.jpg (8KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 480x360px

>mfw the only thing I would lose by going with an iPhone would be webms on the go

>>59779127
You mean QuickTime?

>>59779351
FLAC the specification is public domain, so they could write their own FLAC codec instead of libflac, though.

Just install VLC on your iPhone and you can watch webm. It's a little cumbersome but it works.

>>59780270
they probably did

just made it incompatible on purpose

>>59779507
VLC plays them

>>59779134
>>59779259
>>59779364
WEBM IS A CONTAINER
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

If memory serves the reason Apple won't implement webm is because it has some pretty nasty patent issues which have gone unresolved.

Meanwhile h.264 works fine.

>>59779114
Because apple is exactly opposite to freetard.

>>59779114
>copy link
>past into ungoogled
profit

>>59779114
Facebook doesn't implement .webm.

>>59780622
>Free and open video format designed to provide royalty-free high-quality video compression for use with HTML5 video
You mean they can't find a way to patent and charge for it so they don't care?

WebM is a fucking useless format pushed by Google and gullible freetards.

I'm pretty sure the only reason moot added support for it at the time was because Mozilla was still resisting having H.264 support in Firefox, only to finally capitulate six months later.

Three years on and 4chan is still stuck with this dumb niche format instead of something that is universally supported.