Ken wrote:
> 
> Bill DeWitt wrote:
> >
> > "Rob Verweij" <rg.### [at] worldonlinenl> wrote :
> > >
> > > Well, then that's their loss.
> >
> >     Since one can only assume that one posts an image on a public forum
> > because one wants it viewed by that public, one can say that the loss is the
> > loss of the poster if that image cannot be viewed.
> >
> >     Clearly not a beneficial feature of the codex.
> 
> One might also argue that if one chooses not to keep up with advances
> in computer software and computer hardware one disadvantages onself
> unnecessarily and bears the responsibility for not being able to view
> animations encoded with a particular codex.

Bah. This is like putting out a movie only on Betamax and saying "if you
can't play Beta tapes, that's your problem". You may think you've made
it someone else's problem, but you are the one who'll get bitten in the ass.

BTW, it's "codec". A "codex" is something else entirely.

Assuming that the media creator wants his media to be as accessible as
practically possible, it's his duty to use a codec that's accessible to
practically everybody. Windows and the various APIs, hardware calls,
etc. associated with it are NOT standards, regardless of their present
market dominance, and therefore a Windows-only codec is no more valid
than a Mac-only one, or a Linux-only one, or a Nintendo-only one.

But ultimately, all arguments are worthless, since people will use
whatever they feel like using. If you want people to be able to see your
work, use Quicktime, or better yet, MPEG. If you want to be an ignorant,
irresponsible, short-sighted fool, and you're willing to sacrifice a
part of your audience to do so, then by all means, use DivX.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message