Wikipedia To Add Video 165
viyh writes "Wikipedia will be adding a video option within two or three months, according to the MIT Technology Review. '... a person editing a Wikipedia article will find a new button labeled "Add Media." Clicking it will bring up an interface allowing her to search for video — initially from three repositories containing copyright-free material — and drag chosen portions into the article, without having to install any video-editing software or do any conversions herself. The results will appear as a clickable video clip embedded within the article.' They will be requiring all video to use open-source formats. This is in hopes of getting content providers to open up their material to gain wider exposure on the Wikipedia website. There is also an in-browser editor that removes a lot of the headache often associated with any kind of video editing. With the new Wikipedia system, 'people will be able to easily inject media into pages, in a way that wasn't possible before,' says Michael Dale, a software engineer from Kaltura, the company assisting with development of the tools."
No Male (Score:4, Funny)
"Clicking it will bring up an interface allowing her to search for video"
So they only allow females to add videos!?!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:No Male (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Note that this problem already exists with sound samples that are allowed on Wikipedia. And I'm not aware of it being a problem.
Re:No Male (Score:5, Funny)
If only that was a joke... [wikimedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If only that was a joke... [wikimedia.org]
Why does the "No Penis" template page contain an image of a penis?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do signs meaning "No parking" have an image of a parked car...?
Re: (Score:2)
That would work in this case (for English anyway). Might confuse people though. The penis 'image' is a bit more, how shall we say, definitive.
Re: (Score:2)
Gendered language sure is horrible, isn't it? I mean, when it's not gendered like you.
Re: (Score:2)
Gendered language sure is horrible, isn't it? I mean, when it's not gendered like you.
Breaking with language conventions is horrible.
The convention is that plural pronouns use the masculine.
Do neo-feminists make all nouns feminine in gendered languages like French? It's just being immature.
Re: (Score:2)
Using the masculine form as a generic is pretty much standard practice, the alternative to push for isn't to simply switch the gender of that standard practice to have female pronouns everywhere, instead you could try promoting a gender-neutral pronoun. I believe I've seen "yo" suggested for that purpose...
That or accept that grammatically, the way it's gone down is to have 'masculine' pronouns serve dual use as both masculine and neutral - you can try alternatives like "huwoman" or "herstory", but it doe
Rather not. (Score:5, Insightful)
I like wiki because it's such a clean, fast, text layout with nothing special. I don't see how this is going to improve things.
Re:Rather not. (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed. This will also make Wikipedia's bandwidth cost skyrocket, and if I remember correctly they're on a lean budget.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Google has never provided servers or bandwidth to wikipedia. Yahoo provided some servers at one point. Since wikipedia doesn't carry ads google has little incentive to suppot it
In practice bandwidth demands will likely be limited by how hard it is to produce encyclopedic videos and harder still to produce ones people want to watch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Rather not. (Score:4, Insightful)
They're all inherently evil, except that google is smart enough to know that a good image counts.
I'm pretty far to the left here, and really dislike most corporations, greed, and economic sociopathy, but I'd say you are wrong there.
There is nothing in the idea or structure of a corporation that makes them innately evil. I doubt your incorporation papers have a hidden sub-clause demanding you be "evil", and I really doubt that many existent corporations set out to do evil. Corporations are morally gray.
It how they choose to act which would color them as good or evil, not their very existence. Just like pretty much all human constructs, it exists as a neutral tool, its ultimate ethical/moral value comes from the use of it.
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing in the idea or structure of a corporation that makes them innately evil.
Maybe not innately evil, but certainly innately amoral. By law, a corporation may only perform actions that directly or indirectly increase profits. It cannot do things just because they are "right" or "good", it must always maximize profits, using all legally available means. Otherwise the shareholders can sue.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Its even wider than that. Here are a few examples of corporations that do not maximise profits:
1) Oxfam
2) the Mozilla Foundation
3) bishops of the Church of England
4) cities
5) some cooperatives and mutuals
6) some professional associations (some are unincorporated associations)
7) educational institutions such as schools and universities
It is also perfectly possible for a profit making corporation to have other objectives (such a guaranteeing editorial independence at Thompson Reuters), or to sacrifice profits
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations are obligated to generate as much money as possible.
If you knew a person who behaved that way, you'd probably call them evil. If you knew of a whole class of people who, to the man, acted that way, you'd DEFINITELY call them evil.
At best, corporations ar
Re: (Score:2)
I would define evil as a person completely lacking in empathy. (I have heard a famous profiler say the same thing)
A corporation legally fits that description nicely, in addition to lacking anything other than fiscal responsibility for its actions.
They're evil.
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing in the idea or structure of a corporation that makes them innately evil.
No, they just all happen to be ;-)
Who makes the decision to be evil? Who holds them accountable for that decision? As far as I can tell, if the CEO orders the company to do evil in the name of profit, he isn't failing his fiduciary duty, so it's only the board of directors which can have a say, after the fact. Which kind of person sits on the board of directors? Are they the kind of person we expect to be ethical?
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want to see that stuff, use greasemonkey or similar (heck, perhaps even just user CSS) to hide it. Heck, you could do it with adblock, perhaps with element hiding helper.
Re: (Score:2)
Talk about a terribly complicated way to make something simpler.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to think that there would be no negative repercussions to the embedding of whatever plays the video; we'll see how it plays out.
Re: (Score:2)
Wiki is a type of thing, not a thing. You mean wikipedia.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe the'll add a comment section [phdcomics.com] too.
Then people can express how they feel about your NPOV.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it will be optional.
I can see a problem (Score:3, Funny)
The "Porn" entry bring down the whole Wikipedia site in the first hour.
Re:I can see a problem (Score:5, Informative)
It's already begun... [wikipedia.org] (sauce [nsfw] [encycloped...matica.com])
Hipocrisy or something near that. (Score:4, Insightful)
It amazes me that the company [kaltura.com] that "promotes" open source uses a proprietary or not fully open method (read Flash), to deliver video. What's going on?
Wikipedia will use "open-source formats" (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know/care about kaltura, but from TFA:
Re:Hipocrisy or something near that. (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't go FOSS because it's FOSS. Go FOSS because it's superior.
Not all FOSS is superior. I trust they'll use the best video streaming for the job, with priority placed on being open source.
Flash has the best video streaming available at the moment, and the best compatibility. Hard to beat that for a website trying to reel in customers.
Re:Hipocrisy or something near that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Its also proprietary, requiring a license to use their tools.
Its an abusive technology, allowing no view controls other than blocking or de-installing flash all together.
With the advent of HTML5, flash is NOT the way to go.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
With the advent of HTML5, flash is NOT the way to go.
Flash uses H.264, which is said to use half the bandwidth of Theora. And a lot of people use a PC where they don't have administrative rights to install an HTML 5 viewer.
Re: (Score:2)
And a lot of people use a PC where they don't have administrative rights to install an HTML 5 viewer.
Download and unpack this:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/smplayer/smplayer-portable-0.6.7.7z [sourceforge.net]
(Via [sourceforge.net])
Problem solved. :)
Blocking portable apps (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
noexec doesn't prevent me from writing scripts and executing them. (Unless the interpreter lives on a noexec partition.)
When I get my Windows box back online, I'll be sure to play with that SRP stuff.
Check the past few Slashdot stories (Score:2)
If you don't know yourself but think the claim made by someone else is interesting then say who it is you mean.
Slashdot has run a few stories over the past month about HTML 5's video element. Several people who have posted comments to these stories have found that Theora needs a bitrate that much higher than H.264 for the same level of quality.
x264 2-3x Theora (Score:2)
I'd say current versions of Ogg Theora take 100-200% more bandwidth to deliver "good" quality as current versions of x264. Codecs converge at higher bitrates, and no doubt Theora is techically capable of good quality at a sufficiently higher bitrate. But it'll take a lot more bits to get there than other codcs. Theora's bitstream is based on VP3, which is over a decade old now, and we'd generally expect a refined vresion to come out as MPEG-4 part 2 efficiency (like Xvid/Divx without B-frames).
The past d
Re: (Score:2)
> Its also proprietary, requiring a license to use their tools.
With the correct UI, Flash could be completely optional.
I highly doubt that wikipedia will require you to use Flash, but it is the player that is most widely installed.
Re: (Score:2)
If Real Networks and Apple wasn't that stupid, Flash is in fact 7-8 years behind in terms of video streaming...
But, of course, both are stupid and I don't even mention Windows Media department of MS. While calling everyone stupid, in this context, Sun is the number 1 stupid for wasting the embedded browser Java market regarding the real potential of Java. It wasn't supposed to make dancing bears or flashing ads you know.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't go FOSS because it's FOSS. Go FOSS because it's superior.
One major reason FOSS is superior is that it avoids lock-in,. which it does because it is FOSS.
Open formats with proprietary software can do the same, but leave room for sneakiness.
That's value-dependent (Score:2)
Don't go FOSS because it's FOSS. Go FOSS because it's superior.
Not all FOSS is superior.
If you value software freedom over functionality, free software is superior exactly because it's free software.
Flash has the best video streaming available
Embedded {H.264, .wmv, .avi}, played with mplayer? My "Flash experience" is Flash+Firefox, and that's pretty bollocks. On the other hand, mplayer handles every single piece of crap you throw at it.
Re: (Score:2)
Is Wikipedia trying to "reel in customers"? Since when?
The website with a flash interface is trying to reel in customers. Keep on topic.
I'll support either Theora or H.264 for Wikipedia. They'll probably go with Theora because of the openness, which is fine as long as they can handle the extra bandwidth usage.
Re:Hipocrisy or something near that. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm all for driving Flash out of existence, since Macromedia/Adobe should have never been allowed to acquire the near monopoly on web video they have. Adobe has also been a horrible steward of their responsibility especially when its come to Flash player support for devices like smart phones.
But the flip side is you might recall back to what video was like before Flash. Every freaking web site you went to had a different video standard, video player, and you were usually forced to launch a video player which either wasn't integrated in the browser or was integrated badly. Flash only succeeded because it fixed a completely broken thing on the web where Apple, Real and Microsoft in particular were trying to acquire their own monopolies on web video.
For this to succeed Wikipedia needs to compel a new video player standard other than Flash and proprietary codecs like H.264, and insure near universal availability of the solution they create as an integrated browser component, either built in to the browser or as a plugin.
I'm kind of curious if HTML/5 is going to be able to achieve that lofty goal across all the warring browser factions in the world, especially IE and Microsoft. Not sure JavaFX counts as open. What other standard is their other than HTML/5.
You also have the little problem that all existing video is going to have to be transcoded if you reject H.264, VP6, MPEG, WMV, AVI and Flash H.263 as acceptable formats. It sure isn't going to be easy to add video to Wikipedia if Joe and Jane user have to transcode the video to add it, or is Wikipedia going to automatically transcode video as they get it to their open standard.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If someone at our TV had this genius idea of RE-encoding a maximum compressed format to another maximum compressed one, he would be fired in less than a commercial break time.
Of course, not accepting H264, MPEG, H263 is pure ideological and will satisfy number of elitists who can't even tell difference between SD and HD broadcasts and even brag about it.
The reality you mention was one of the main reasons why Nokia (and couple of sane companies) insisted on using h264 in video element. There is no way you wo
Re: (Score:2)
But the flip side is you might recall back to what video was like before Flash. Every freaking web site you went to had a different video standard, video player, and you were usually forced to launch a video player which either wasn't integrated in the browser or was integrated badly. Flash only succeeded because it fixed a completely broken thing on the web where Apple, Real and Microsoft in particular were trying to acquire their own monopolies on web video.
Actually, I remember most sites usually offering a choice between at least two of Windows Media Player, Real Player, and QuickTime (not sure why they did not just use HTML fallbacks), all of which had responsive, native controls and properly used hardware acceleration (which at the time was just hardware overlay [wikipedia.org], not decoding help). Explain to me again how Flash was an improvement in usability?
What Flash did help with is that it had its own codecs which were more advanced than the ones that came with Window
Re: (Score:2)
"Explain to me again how Flash was an improvement in usability?"
How would you run Windows Media Player on ... Linux. Don't think Linux supported Quicktime for a long time and when it did it was a big download. Real went through an extended period where their software was totally hated by nearly every one for their sleezy business tactics.
If Flash did nothing else right they made it possible for just about everyone on Windows, Mac and Linux to have seamlessly integrated video in their browser without even h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> all of which had responsive, native controls
Lol. More like they were slow-loading and designed to stick their logo and shitty "stereo component" UIs and other branding crap in the middle of your page design.
If the user-experience of any of these plugins was any good, one of them would have taken over and Flash video would have never gotten off the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol. More like they were slow-loading and designed to stick their logo and shitty "stereo component" UIs and other branding crap in the middle of your page design.
As opposed to Flash where something as simple as seeking through a video doesn't work right? Try seeking in YouTube to a specific spot: it appears to only let you seek to various somehow pre-chosen spots about 3 seconds apart. For extra fun, while a video is downloading, try to seek towards the end of the downloaded part; that often gets it to restart downloading with that place as the start. Full screen doesn't work for me either, but I suspect that is a Linux-only problem as otherwise it would be relative
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yes, QuickTime and Windows Media are well known for their seeking [BUFFERING] ability, which was often disabled anyway.
Flash video certainly isn't perfect, but the quick loading time and ability to create your own UI killed the media player plugins in terms of user experience. (Unless you have some other explanation for why 99% of the sites that used those plugins have moved to Flash.)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you embed mp4 file, Windows people will be required to install "evil quicktime" and as we know, mp4 is also somehow evil because the organisation has patents on it.
So, by embedding Flash (which is totally documented I hear), they can play Theora thing and Ogg inside it. As it is GPL now, they could choose Sun Java technology and use Java player, trust me a huge amount of people from newbie to technical has Java installed. Of course, that time they would be blamed for using "bulky java" (as, there i
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh well, VLC works for anyone, Java mp4 player works too and so as anything. It wasn't my point, it is all about the feedback they would get if they embedded that or that. It is always negative of some kind. Also please forget about telling people to install some huge media player for a video, it won't happen. Even virus writers know it so they trick people with "codec install" :)
After reading some comments, I agree it should have been video tag. World's one of the largest, most popular sites happens to be
Re: (Score:2)
Big improvement (Score:2, Funny)
Less is more. (Score:4, Insightful)
And presumably also, every band on Earth will have a sample of their video on every page they can get away with, as well as every company that now successfully uses Wikipedia to astroturf their products will get a nice demo video up too.
It seems that as each month passes wikipedia becomes less and less relevant, and less reputable. Wholly because of bad administrative decisions.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe it's a bit dodgy when it comes to the important stuff, but Wikipedia is an invaluable repository of pop-culture trivia. Simpsons, Star Trek, or Family Guy questions? I know where to look. And just the other day I needed to know the name of Dagwood Bumstead's daughter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And presumably also, every band on Earth will have a sample of their video on every page they can get away with
In the same way that they advertise their band on every page? Except they don't. Same for the companies. (Yet the sad thing is that other people whine about Wikipedia precisely because too much stuff is deleted...)
It seems that as each month passes wikipedia becomes less and less relevant, and less reputable.
You are mistaking your preference, and your opinion, with actual general fact. Like it or n
Title is misleading (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That Morris C8 video plays back like a broken slideshow. All I see is buffering... some movement... buffering etc. It's horrible.
Another Tool (Score:5, Funny)
It's always nice to see new tools in the toolbox. I just wonder what kind of edit wars we can look forward to seeing. Could they be like this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_anus [wikipedia.org]
Re:Another Tool (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sorry, but not everybody is going to actually look at that link, and it is far too fucking priceless to be just referenced. So let's post the juicy parts:
Re: (Score:2)
I'll leave the link out shall I ?
Weird story gender... (Score:2, Insightful)
Strange, apparently a "person" can only be female.
I know, I know, if it said "he" no one would notice, but obviously this person was going out of their way to say "her", so why not just go with "they"? I know it's not grammatically correct (according to an English teacher I had) but at least it works, and it should be correct.
Anyway, it just annoys me when someone goes out of their way to try to end the male gender bias only to throw in female gender bias instead of making it gender neutral.
-Taylor
Re:Weird story gender... (Score:4, Funny)
Strange, apparently a "person" can only be female.
I know, I know, if it said "he" no one would notice, but obviously this person was going out of their way to say "her", so why not just go with "they"? I know it's not grammatically correct (according to an English teacher I had) but at least it works, and it should be correct.
Anyway, it just annoys me when someone goes out of their way to try to end the male gender bias only to throw in female gender bias instead of making it gender neutral. -Taylor
Usually, they're college males hoping to get laid by progressive chicks.
It never works that way, btw.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They is more correct than she, if you're referring to a group.
Re: (Score:2)
They is more correct than she, if you're referring to a group.
Well, in the sense that "she" is completely incorrect when referring to a group, yes.
And "they" is technically completely incorrect when referring to one person, but people use it all the time, and I like it more than any other option (god forbid, in writing anyway, someone say "s/he"). I wish "they" was just correct.
-Taylor
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. I don't really get why people avoid "one" anyway though. Here in the UK, it's usually avoided because people don't want to sound "posh", since only the aristocracy really use "one". However, when people are already showing off their brains by writing a thesis or some article on the virtues of video formats on a world-renowned encyclopedia site, it makes a lot of sense to simply use one then too.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. I don't really get why people avoid "one" anyway though. Here in the UK, it's usually avoided because people don't want to sound "posh", since only the aristocracy really use "one". However, when people are already showing off their brains by writing a thesis or some article on the virtues of video formats on a world-renowned encyclopedia site, it makes a lot of sense to simply use one then too.
"One" isn't always correct either though. Imagine a conversation between you and someone else:
You: Hey, my friend just called.
Someone else: What did *he/she/one/they* say?
Only "they" sounds reasonable!
-Taylor
Re: (Score:2)
"One" isn't always correct either though. Imagine a conversation between you and someone else:
You: Hey, my friend Chris just called.
Someone else: What did he say?
You: _She_ said 'people always think I'm a boy, do you think it's because of my beard?'
!
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. I guess it should be "What did your friend say?", but that's long-winded for modern use.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"They" is hereby correct by declaration. If somebody doesn't like it they can bite my shiney metal... pen. If it ever comes up, you can site this post.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've noticed this 'politically correct' way of writing documents nowadays. I assumed it was deluded female tech authors trying to make some kind of point. Its not grammatically correct (according to my old English teacher - she said "In English, He embraces She") as the masculine form always includes the feminine. Like "mankind" means women too. "Womenkind" on the other hand is very exclusive.
Pity us poor men, we don't have a gender bias, we have to share it with women, while women get their own.
So, yeah, i
Re: (Score:2)
nope. One is correct English grammar, the other is made up nonsense. If the author was referring to a single person who was explicitly female, then that's ok. As they were referring to a single generic gender, then the correct form is to use the masculine term.
It isn't about preference, its about doing it right. If I misspelled every word here, you'd be right to be annoyed with me (even if I claimed I was standing up for people who can't spell). If "everything Yoda-style wrote I", then you'd also be right t
Re:Weird story gender... (Score:5, Insightful)
So you acknowledge that all three possibilities offered by the English language are flawed, but you still criticise the author for picking one you evidently have a problem with?
For heaven's sake - get over it.
Re: (Score:2)
So you acknowledge that all three possibilities offered by the English language are flawed, but you still criticise the author for picking one you evidently have a problem with?
For heaven's sake - get over it.
1. Masculine pronoun, standard English language - problem: some people think it's some sort of mark of misogyny
2. Feminine pronoun, against the convention of English - problem: if you're changing a convention you should have a reason other than thinking everyone [sic] is a misogynist bastard out to get you
3. Neutral pronoun, there isn't an appropriate one to use - problem: it's alright to use "they" but the grammar nazi's will eat you for breakfast
If you imagine that the gender of words is somehow carefully
Re: (Score:2)
If a worker needed to leave early, I would allow them to go.
If Dave needed to leave early, I would allow him to go.
etc.
obligatory xkcd (Score:2)
http://xkcd.com/145/ [xkcd.com]
It is not that incorrect. Anyway, it is the type of linguistical hacking that I appreciate.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
so why not just go with "they"? I know it's not grammatically correct (according to an English teacher I had) but at least it works, and it should be correct.
NO! Stop! Singluar "they" is good English grammar. It has been in our language for hundreds of years (it passes the Shakespeare test, i.e. he used it), and it is well-established today. Use it!
Re: (Score:2)
Strange, apparently a "person" can only be female.
I know, I know, if it said "he" no one would notice, but obviously this person was going out of their way to say "her", so why not just go with "they"? I know it's not grammatically correct (according to an English teacher I had) but at least it works, and it should be correct.
Anyway, it just annoys me when someone goes out of their way to try to end the male gender bias only to throw in female gender bias instead of making it gender neutral. -Taylor
Where have you lived the last ten years? This style has been established in technical writing long ago. An increasing number of people agree that it's silly to presume universal masculinity, so the gender of pronouns becomes available as an additional discourse marker.
For instance, a text on agile development might say, "When the on-site customer notices that his account name is being truncated, he can notify the project manager immediately, and she might either tell the designer that he should create a lar
Re: (Score:2)
Donations? (Score:5, Interesting)
Media is the missing element (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, links to other websites are fine, but the archival of human knowledge found in Wikipedia is important too. Links get broken, external media disappears... I'm sure WP would much rather have their own conte
Re: (Score:2)
Those are for-profit products that are anything but neutral on controversial topics. I think using You Tube would be fundamentally flawed. Every video would essentially be an advertisement for Google. How would
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There's just one problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently the feminists won and we're so fucking PC now that there are no males on the internet.
Let's face it: in English, if you talk about someone, you either have to specify his/her gender, or pretend they're more than one person.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:There's just one problem... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's no longer grammatically incorrect. It's widely accepted, and used in major publications. It's been used since the 15th century, and even Shakespeare used it.
Arise; one knocks. / ... / Hark, how they knock!
From Romeo and Juliet.
There are no fixed rules of grammar. Only a consensus as to what is right and wrong. As the consensus changes, so does our language.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose we could be like the French and assume the male gender.
I thought that was already the normal way of doing things. It's how we operate around things like "mankind" or "all men are created equal".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed! English has a perfectly good person pronoun: he in the subjective, him in the objective, and his in the possessive. It's not biased to write using that pronoun: it's standard. It's been used for centuries. You might say that Shakespeare used "they", but he used he far more often, as most writers did for centuries.
For fuck's sake, it's a pronoun. Changing it won't erase gender equality! Of course any sensible reader will interpret "when a scientist runs a PCR on his genetic sample" to mean a male or
Re: (Score:2)
Though now that i think of it from that perspective, D&D should probably use more of a 20/80 ratio given the demographic.
Re: (Score:2)
D&D should probably use more of a 1/99 ratio given the demographic.
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
unless the consistent goal is "always maximise the use of open source and minimise the use of anything else"?
That's indeed one of the goals of the Wikimedia foundation, it's in their charter. They are a 100% open source shop. After all, it's a "free encyclopedia", and the word "free" has many senses, all of which apply here.
Re: (Score:2)
Describe to me the harm that would arise against the good of humanity if Microsoft and Apple through customer demand were forced to implement Ogg Vorbis and Theora support in their browsers.
When you're done, you can continue by describing the harm that was inflicted on humanity when Microsoft was forced to start producing a web browser for Windows so that people wouldn't use non-Microsoft software.