Google isn't keeping anyone from writing an H.264 plugin for Chrome, they're choosing not to support it. Apple has the luxury of those being the same thing (not supporting = not allowing) on iOS.
Are you implying that Gruber isn't biased? It's really neither here nor there, but I've been on HN enough to simply see the headlines with (daringfireball) next to it to roll my eyes at that notion.
(Note, I think John brings up some great questions. I think almost all the complaints about WebM, voiced here on HN, are ignorant of browser compatibility and Flash's support for WebM (though I still think the hardware decoding points that have been brought up are very valid), but the questions of timing and consistency across Google's product intrigue me)
If it's implied it's not intentional. I'll state forthright that Gruber's bias is worn on his sleeve. You'd have to be a fool to argue otherwise. But even someone with bias can ask straight forward questions. While Google and Apple may be engaged in some perceived "battle to the death", it doesn't mean that someone with an Apple bias can't ask valid questions about Google's decisions.
The OP accused Gruber of having an inappropriate agenda and not acting in good faith. I didn't read that between the lines in Gruber's post, so I'm curious why he/she did.
Are you implying that Gruber isn't biased? It's really neither here nor there, but I've been on HN enough to simply see the headlines with (daringfireball) next to it to roll my eyes at that notion.
(Note, I think John brings up some great questions. I think almost all the complaints about WebM, voiced here on HN, are ignorant of browser compatibility and Flash's support for WebM (though I still think the hardware decoding points that have been brought up are very valid), but the questions of timing and consistency across Google's product intrigue me)