Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft Clipchamp

clipchamp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 136 posts

Re: Microsoft Clipchamp

#73

Post by Traubenfuchs »

nix23 wrote: post #49

Just look at that Windows mess (ehh 'base' install) from the Site: https://images.ctfassets.net/b4k16c7lw5ut/95VgtrEkyNEPkTKQ0r... Candy Crush and McAfee....really Microsoft??

Also Paint3D which no one used ever?

They just completely stopped caring and anyone who has an idea for a quick buck or markering stunt seems to be allowed to put their shit into Windows or slap the Microsoft logo on it.

Re: Microsoft Clipchamp

#75

Post by tssva »

Polarity wrote: post #72
stavros wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it will, so the question becomes "why drive away Firefox when it works fine"?

we all know the answer

Because Firefox has such a small market share that it isn't worth spending the resources to support it.

Re: Microsoft Clipchamp

#76

Post by detaro »

tssva wrote: post #75
Polarity wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we all know the answer

Because Firefox has such a small market share that it isn't worth spending the resources to support it.

How is adding a thing that complains that the user is using Firefox less resources spent than not doing it?

Re: Microsoft Clipchamp

#77

Post by Krasnol »

jgtrosh wrote: post #41
Meph504 wrote: post #34

A rather simple utility that for some reason requires a login, I see no value in that when there are so many analogs that don't.

Though I agree with the sentiment, the core feature this seems to provide is stock video integration. And stock media services always require login.

You could make that optional with login.

But let's not pretend it's about that...they just want you data.

Re: Microsoft Clipchamp

#78

Post by TwoFx »

detaro wrote: post #76
tssva wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Firefox has such a small market share that it isn't worth spending the resources to support it.

How is adding a thing that complains that the user is using Firefox less resources spent than not doing it?

Adding the thing that complains is a one-time cost. It may work on Firefox now, but making sure that it continues working on Firefox is a continuous resource investment.

Re: Microsoft Clipchamp

#79

Post by cyxxon »

kuratkull wrote: post #40

Firefox users are asked to please stay away: It looks like your browser is not supported To use Clipchamp, make sure you're using the latest version of Google Chrome, or the latest Microsoft Edge

Works for me(tm). No, really - I just navigated to the page with Firefox 103 on Wind10/64 and just got a normal website for the editor, with download links, videos, etc. Nothing about me needing to use a chrome based browser. Maybe they changed this?

Re: Microsoft Clipchamp

#80

Post by krono »

bjano wrote: post #62
sorenjan wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your browser has limited support for this webapp. Please use the latest Chrome or Edge for better performance, stability, and more features. Using Firefox 105. What features are bad or missing in Firefox, and do you know if Mozilla is working on fixing them?

WebCodecs is missing. They say it's "worth prototyping" [1] but I don't know whether they are working on it. 1: https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/

As I understand it, Web Codecs is quite a ways away from being a web standard - it is currently just a draft[1] for a recommendation for a possible future standard.

Just beware of any major API changes or any indication that it might be dropped in its entirety!

[1]:https://w3c.github.io/webcodecs/

Post reply on HN