GIF video has "privileged" support in browsers, because it used to be the only native video format, and that level of integration has been impossible with '90s QuickTime/RealMedia/WMW plug-ins.<p>And decade of this situation has conditioned us to think that only shitty video formats (like GIF, APNG, WebP with animation) can be allowed to have first-class support in browsers, and any video format that is technically competent must be kept isolated in special tags, must not work well with rest of the browser and must cargo-cult limitations of plugins of the '90s.<p>But browsers can and do support H.264/WebM natively now. Technically (patents aside) we could have <img src="video.mp4-or-webm"> work just as well as GIF (and maybe even faster given 10th of bandwidth needed and possibility of HW acceleration).
With a higher-end stretch goal of $20,000: Python native extensions, it is apparent someone doesn't understand Python. On a humorous note, isn't <i>import apngasm</i> part of the batteries included?
animated gifs are used instead of video, because the restrictions lend it to less cruft, fast(er) downloads and widespread browser support without plugins.<p>Building extensions/plugins to increase quality is not only missing the point, it's directly opposed to it.