I don't think the reason was technical. Firefox has supported WebM (a subset of Matroska) for 11 years, and whatever code they had probably would have been enough for most Matroska files, assuming the codecs are also supported.
However, Matroska itself was only officially standardised last October despite being in use all these years. That was probably what convinced them to add support.
They are busy keeping up with engineering teams 4x their size for their browser competition.... (~500 engineers building Firefox vs ~2000 building chrome)
Of a million potential features, you can only choose a subset to work on. This one was likely low impact and a low enough use case priority that it got regularly bumped under higher priority work.
This is just the way... Well... Anything with limited resources works.
It's more than important. It's vital to me. I host TV series ripped from discs on my NAS through HTTP and play them back on another machine.
For years I used an extension which sends the URL to VLC for playback via HTTP. Nowadays I got rid of the extension and just drag and drop. That doesn't mark the link as clicked, though. It's hard to track the progress this way.
I wonder if this will help improve playback on Firefox when using Jellyfin. Maybe it will be able to play more directly and use less server resources, my NAS has relatively modest power.
Oh, Jellyfin works, don't get me wrong (and it has native apps too). But I welcome every little performance gain. The NAS already starts getting noisy even when it runs just simple docker images on idle.. it can get a bit annoying.
And, from what I heard, Plex tends to have a more resource-intensive idle state due to having more cloud-based features and background tasks.
It feels like using a browser to play video always take wayyyy more resource than a video player. Sending a link to vlc seems like an optimal option to me.
You are not wrong. However, how did MP4 get supported in the first place? Before 2010s, the expected user behaviour was still downloading an MP4 and play with a native player. Why the big gap between MP4 support and MKV support?
20 Comments
SeductiveTortoise@piefed.social · 13 pts · 342d
I've been using this format for, I have no clue, 25 years? Longer? What took them so long?
sjohannes@programming.dev · 25 pts · 342d
I don't think the reason was technical. Firefox has supported WebM (a subset of Matroska) for 11 years, and whatever code they had probably would have been enough for most Matroska files, assuming the codecs are also supported.
However, Matroska itself was only officially standardised last October despite being in use all these years. That was probably what convinced them to add support.
racketlauncher831@lemmy.ml · 14 pts · 342d
The AI Epic has so much higher priority, you know?
SeductiveTortoise@piefed.social · 4 pts · 342d
It's what
plantsCEOs crave!douglasg14b@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 342d
Prioritization probably.
They are busy keeping up with engineering teams 4x their size for their browser competition.... (~500 engineers building Firefox vs ~2000 building chrome)
Of a million potential features, you can only choose a subset to work on. This one was likely low impact and a low enough use case priority that it got regularly bumped under higher priority work.
This is just the way... Well... Anything with limited resources works.
Happy they finally got around for this.
lime@feddit.nu · -1 pts · 342d
probably licensing.
mereo@piefed.ca · 12 pts · 342d
It's open standard. No license is required.
lime@feddit.nu · 3 pts · 342d
fair enough, i didn't look it up.
ByteMe@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 342d
Seems important
racketlauncher831@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 342d
It's more than important. It's vital to me. I host TV series ripped from discs on my NAS through HTTP and play them back on another machine.
For years I used an extension which sends the URL to VLC for playback via HTTP. Nowadays I got rid of the extension and just drag and drop. That doesn't mark the link as clicked, though. It's hard to track the progress this way.
Lemmchen@feddit.org · 10 pts · 342d
Ever thought about using a media server like Jellyfin?
Ferk@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 342d
I wonder if this will help improve playback on Firefox when using Jellyfin. Maybe it will be able to play more directly and use less server resources, my NAS has relatively modest power.
AtariDump@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 342d
Plex (I know) with their native app works very well.
Ferk@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 342d
Oh, Jellyfin works, don't get me wrong (and it has native apps too). But I welcome every little performance gain. The NAS already starts getting noisy even when it runs just simple docker images on idle.. it can get a bit annoying.
And, from what I heard, Plex tends to have a more resource-intensive idle state due to having more cloud-based features and background tasks.
0_o7@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 342d
It feels like using a browser to play video always take wayyyy more resource than a video player. Sending a link to vlc seems like an optimal option to me.
racketlauncher831@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 341d
You are not wrong. However, how did MP4 get supported in the first place? Before 2010s, the expected user behaviour was still downloading an MP4 and play with a native player. Why the big gap between MP4 support and MKV support?
dwindling7373@feddit.it · 2 pts · 342d
How is that vital?
racketlauncher831@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 341d
Let's just say there were times I opened the browser after a long day of work just to enjoy an episode or two to prevent mental breakdown.
newcool1230@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 341d
Wish they would add support for HEVC
Carighan@piefed.world · 1 pts · 342d
It's been a long time since I came across matroska files in numbers, but this is pretty cool to have.