MS Releases New Media Player Firefox Plugin

SilentChris writes "Microsoft today released a new Media Player plugin for Firefox that resolves the problems users of the older version were experiencing. According to the company's Port 25 blog, it's backwards compatible with Windows Media Player 6.4. The plugin is for Windows XP and Vista only, but if you have to watch WMV video at least it's less likely to crash your browser."

Comments

Unlike the state of Florida or parts of it

[zappepcs]

I simply say NO to .wmv files... meh, no big loss so far as I can tell.

Re:Unlike the state of Florida or parts of it

[@madeus]

Know why proprietary stuff is better sometimes? It's called technical support. Good technical support doesn't make a worse product better.

It's only better if it is actually better at what it's supposed to do, otherwise it's still worse.

I already have a pretty good idea of what I'm doing, and it's pretty simple to determine the cause of any problem with software I mind find. I know how to debug third party software on Unix and Windows, identifying the fault usually isn't that hard. It's fair to say I'm probably better at diagnosing odd problems (the sort that actually prompt someone competent to contact the vendor) than some random joe technical support.

The technical support center will almost certainly make me want to jump through a large number of time wasting hoops to be sure I'm not a moron. Sometimes that process can take days, or even weeks - even when it's obviously their crummy software.

Past that, the problem is getting bugs fixed once you've found them and technical support can't help you with that (typically vendors don't really care about bugs unless they are easy to fix or effecting a large number of customers - otherwise it goes on to the bottom of the 'to do' list).

Wow.

[P2PDaemon]

Wow. I'm actually pleasantly surprised. Did anyone see this coming?

Re:Wow.

[TopSpin]

Did anyone see this coming? Yes. Two reasons: a.) flash is dominating online video because it's lightweight and cross platform and b.) Firefox can no longer be ignored.

I know a is true because (probably) like you, I'm watching a lot of online video, and I'm much more likely to do so if it's flash. I know b is true because clients of the company I'm contracting for have just (yesterday) decided to shift priorities and get a port of an existing ActiveX control running in Firefox, rather than develop the next release of the IE software.

Microsoft doesn't want WMV to become irrelevant simply because it doesn't work without IE. It doesn't address the cross platform issue but at least Firefox+Windows users won't be hindered.

We just saw a story here about Firefox holding 25% of the European market. You can't walk away from that when Adobe is lunching on your market share. No way.

Who needs Media Player?

[Seumas]

Thanks Microsoft, but I've already got VLC.

Re:Who needs Media Player?

[JohnnyBGod]

This is good news for Windows users, but actually, in Ubuntu, VLC's plugin is useless, for some reason I'm not really aware of. MPlayer's works... when it wants to.

Re:Who needs Media Player?

[geekoid]

Did you use the method listed here to install:
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-ubuntu.html

mplayerplug-in

[Anonymous Coward]

eh.. so what's wrnog with mplayerplug-in?

Meh

[Jekler]

It smacks of desperation that Microsoft tries so hard to exclude Linux from any software they release. If they don't loosen up that strangle-hold, their company is going to choke to death.

It's sad that a company with so much money and talent is completely unwilling to adapt to the times. They're clinging to an age of computing that has long since passed. 10 years ago, web tools, platform interoperability and independence, and transparent company operations could have been classified as a trend, but those practices are now solidified.

It would just be nice if Microsoft made even a single genuine move towards cooperation instead of their current modus operandi of "exclusion at all cost".

Re:Meh

[mandelbr0t]

Microsoft desperate? I wish.

But they have decided that there are enough corporate Firefox deployments that they can't afford to lose those potential WMV viewers. Any other pressure just slides right past Microsoft; they don't pay, so they don't matter.

Re:Meh

[TheCRAIGGERS]

So.... you're expecting Microsoft to spend money to help out the competition?

Yes, usually format owners want their format to be usable on as many platforms as possible. However, in this case, they already have dominance. I don't see how supporting Linux is going to help them at all, and they probably see it the same way.

The flip side is there probably aren't too many Linux users out there that would use it anyway, especially when mplayer works just fine usually. I know I wouldn't use it.

Re:Meh

[hpavc]

Its something they can point to in court that will save them a lot more than it cost to develop it.

Wonder who will get blamed for the arbitrary code executions in the thing, Firefox or Microsoft. Every vulnerability/bug media player has will likely point to Firefox, instantly overnight Firefox's vulnerability/bug list will jump in size.

wmv files???

[simp]

/me looks around surprised. Everything is in flash players these days, isn't it? And if I want good quality video I download it from the newsgroups.

Damn, just broke the first rule of newsgroups.

Re:wmv files???

[blackmonday]

You know who's guilty of using crappy MS streaming media? None other than NPR.org. You have 2 choices - Windows Media or Real. How's that for crappy choices.

Re:wmv files???

[Abalamahalamatandra]

Just do what I do - decode the Javascript to find the actual location of the Real streams (I like the quality better than the WMV streams), then use command-line mplayer to stream it out and reencode it to MP3.

Now if Apple would just release tools or docs for creating enhanced podcast files for something other than a crappy command-line tool for OSX, I could make a rocking NPR podcast with skippable segments, but noooo...

Re:wmv files???

[Abalamahalamatandra]

Well, not to give too much up, and I won't post my script as that would be uncool to NPR, but...

I save off:

http://www.npr.org/templates/dmg/dmg.php?prgCode=M E&showDate=17-Apr-2007&segNum=&mediaPref=RM&getUnd erwriting=0

as a file with a .smil extension, which gives me a nice file to parse with segment titles, audio src tags and such.

The showcode you can see as the first JavaScript parameter on the webpage link to the audio, and if you leave the segnum parameter blank, you get all of it for that day's show.

Then I just iterate over those (my script starts parallel processes to do more than one at once for speed, NPR hosts on Speedera edge caching servers) and run:

mplayer -nocache -vc dummy -vo null -ao pcm:waveheader:file=out.wav (audio src url)

Then I do the same multiple-process thing with lame to convert the wav files to mp3.

This is script-based stuff for a Linux box, not for real-time browsing. But I would imagine that a GreaseMonkey script could easily piece together a URL like that from the JavaScript code linked to each story.

Re:And

[Goaway]

Remember, if you can't find anything real to criticize Microsoft for, just make something up!

Re:Who cares?

[MankyD]

With most online videos using flash based video players, who really cares that they even released this plug-in?

I would bet this is partly in response to that shift. For a little while at least, WMP was doing quite well on the web - it certainly beat out Real Player. Now that Flash has mature video capabilities and works/worked better in Firefox (and will in other browsers), many people have moved away from WMP.

I for one welcome our new plug-in overlords

[WillAffleckUW]

oh, wait, it's our old overlords.

Now I'm really confused.

Guess I'll just go watch those music videos I've been wanting to watch in Firefox ever since I reported some of the earliest bugs for playing media years ago ... YEAH! BABY GOT VID!

Re:And

[mandelbr0t]

No need to make anything up. The litany of Bill Gates' sins could take up an entire year if read out loud. Then we move on to Ballmer...

When you're on top of the world, people always try to pull you down. In most cases, the people are justified.

Fly on the Wall

[Tom]

Damn, that would've been an interesting fight to watch - the we-must-keep-our-media-format-dominance department vs. the we-must-keep-our-browser-dominance department. :-)

Zwha?

[eudaemon]

Nothing against Microsoft, per se, but half the security of my browsing experience
is that my Firefox has no Flash, MS, Acrobat, or Active-X plugins. If I really
want to see content because someone has a flash-only site or WMV content, it gets
downloaded and/or viewed on a UNIX machine. From a user account. On a machine I can afford
to reformat at any time.

WMV plugin? Why would I load that?

Re:Zwha?

[NDPTAL85]

Thats a bit paranoid don't you think?

Re:Zwha?

[dosius]

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you." (r: "Spoken like a true paranoid.")

-uso.

But does it run ON Linux?

[sygin]

Yes even the great MS overlords now realise that Firefox has gained enough traction to force their hand. They want WMV to reign supreme and this means Firefox support.

What would really surprise me is if it supported the Linux version of Firefox.

Or the better (free, as in choice) option

[VE3OGG]

Use VLC. Short of protected media (and really, I don't know too many people who use protected WMV), it seems to work wonderfully, and isn't dependent on a only two operating systems. If you want something more integrated, there is of course M-Player as well...

Re:Or the better (free, as in choice) option

[denis-The-menace]

I don't know too many people who use protected WMV
That's easy: Trojan writers.
There's this "feature" to install licenses for WMA/WMV files that permit the covert installation of Trojans, backdoors and other malware.

Stay away from .WMA/.MWV files like the plague they are!!!

Re:Or the better (free, as in choice) option

[fermion]

I now use VLC as a substitute for everything, even as a DVD player. All commercial players, WMP, Quicktime, Realplayer are suspect. They all have the ability to take over the computer and launch other apps, at least the browser. I know the integration can be helpful, but we are not in the 1980's. I do know how to open an application on my own.

Re:Or the better (free, as in choice) option

[Kalriath]

Actually, if Microsoft catches people installing trojans via the Licensing system, they revoke their license server. In case you weren't aware of what goes into getting the software to create protected WM* content:

1. Obtain Code Signing certificate from Certification Authority (Verisign, Thawte, or Geotrust only), which entails;
    a. Providing CA with registered company name, phone number and physical address
    b. Providing CA with copy of phone bill to allow them to call technical owner of said registered company
    c. Paying through the arse (about $500 USD) for certificate to be generated
2. Submit application to Microsoft. This is reviewed, then...
3. Microsoft sends a blank OCX file, which you then sign with your code signing certficate and return
4. Post back two copies of a signed contract which has your real name, registered company name, phone number, and physical address
    a. This contract says that you're dead meat if you distribute the software to ANYONE
5. Wait for MS legal to verify details and countersign agreement
6. Software is delivered to you via special extranet site which you probably didn't know existed
7. Software requires certificate to issue licenses which is generated by visiting a certain URL on WindowsMedia.com
8. Software can have its ability to issue licenses revoked at any time by revoking this certificate

As you can see, there's an assload of safeguards against what you say happens all the time, and Microsoft do revoke WMRM certificates for using them to install spyware or trojans. The contract then allows them to sue the person misusing the license manager SDK into oblivion as well, but I don't know whether they ever have or not.

If you're going to make a statement, make sure to back it up with real experiences or knowledge. Yes, I do happen to know how this process works. A company I work with had to go through it recently.

Re:Or the better (free, as in choice) option

[Breakfast Pants]

I'll just chime in with 'it happened to me'.

Re:Or the better (free, as in choice) option

[Kalriath]

And the bastard who did it had their license revoked, without a doubt. People don't pay Microsoft for access to the WMRM software, so there is no benefit in them allowing partners with access to it to damage it's (admittedly already quite bad simply because of what it IS) reputation with no gain for them OR anyone else. Microsoft once issued a press release about this after someone was caught doing it, saying they fully intended to both revoke the offender's license and prosecute. Sure, I realise that it doesn't help you much, but hell - at least they did what they could (including fixing the bug that allowed WMP to open license aquisition pages in the LOCAL COMPUTER zone in the first place). If someone's going to bash MS, the least they can do is pick one of the many REAL issues to get them for, there's no need to invent something.

Re:Or the better (free, as in choice) option

[hxnwix]

Right out of the gate, I have to ask why Microsoft decided that producers of DRMed content should be allowed to execute arbitrary code. I know, I know, MS would probably say something along the lines of:

It doesn't matter that they are perfectly capable of doing bad things with that code, and that a great many are strongly inclined to do exactly that. We'll eventually here about it (on the next business day or whenever) and submit a form 2731-43b to Verisign who will get around to adding the bad guy's cert to a CRL which you will probably download at some point. Once you have that CRL downloaded and installed, you'll be good to go - unless the spyware that we allowed onto your system mucks with CRL checking.

But anyway, look. Sure, we authorized Rapetech DickShove LLC and they totally screwed your system before we could stop them. But, I mean, is there any way we could have seen this thing coming? Certainly not unless we watch porn, which we don't.

OK, that wasn't very fair of us. Let me explain. Rapetech DickShove LLC's business PO Box checked out and someone answered the phone! Our lawyers thought they sounded nice enough!! What more could we have possibly done?! You clicked ok to the vista warning! Furthermore, spyware creators are just as capable of filling out stacks of forms and paying $500. And they'll get plenty of practice. Who is this masturbatory program meant to benefit? It doesn't even benefit masturbators!

Why now?

[MadJo]

Why would you need this plugin, when you have all sorts of different extensions dealing with this situation.
Like for instance: mediaplayerconnectivity.
Look you can use any player you like, and you don't need to have the browser open anymore, while playing the video.

I'm sorry Microsoft, but you are too little too late.

Does this still store history in IE history?

[LiquidCoooled]

I remember playing WMV files using proper media player ends up storing traces in Internet Explorers history list.
Strange considering I was using firefox.

Does the new one still have the same problem?

WOW!

[zappepcs]

I've got some servers that your management might be interested in, they're very expensive, but worth every penny, I promise!

Re:insightful??

[zappepcs]

I'll give it a go

1 - I didn't mod the comment up
2 - I'm not a tool
3 - I didn't bash MS, I simply said I don't roll that way. I figure if someone can't put their content out in at least two formats they didn't really want anyone to see it anyway. You see, HTML and your web browsing experience is protected by a general compliance with standards. With video content there are too many standards. I think that MPEG is a good standard, consequently I ignore those pesky .wmv and most of the .mov files too. Its nice that people can make up their own formats for stuff, but I'm also happy to not view it if I have to load their special player... oh well.

There! Feel better? I didn't even mention Mi^H^H those people from Redmond.

Now, if you want a bit more thought, do you get this angry when someone says they don't like Bridgestone tires?

Re:And

[marcello_dl]

>Remember, if you can't find anything real to criticize Microsoft for... ...you are in the wrong universe.

Re:Don't waste your time on the plugin like I did

[michrech]

I downloaded the plugin just to give it a try. Never had any problems with embedded video except at cnn.com I thought maybe the plugin would fix that problem. After installing and giving firefox a restart, it still won't work with the cnn.com and nothing else appears to be different. Not sure what the point of the plugin was, but don't waste your time with it like I did. It solved nothing from what it appears to me. Using Firefox 2.0.0.3 on Windows XP Pro SP2

Worked perfectly for me in Vista Enterprise. I didn't even have to restart Firefox (2.0.0.3). I'll be testing an XP machine I just put together shortly.

For those wishing not to use this update, for whatever your reasons, you can take three .dll files from an XP/WMP10 install and have working embedded video in Firefox under Vista.

Those three files are : npdsplay.dll, npdrmv2.dll, and npwmsdrm.dll

The last two are most likely optional, but I copied them anyway. The only drawback (if you can really call it that) is that the lower part of the embedded window are cut off by a few pixels, but it works perfectly fine.

Luckily for me, I'm surrounded by roughly 1800-ish XP machines, so I had no problems finding the files. I'm sure you all have someone you know with an XP machine that you could grab a copy of these files from.

This information is also available at various web pages if you look in Google.

I wonder if...

[Whuffo]

Do you suppose this special version of Media Player has a benefit to Microsoft? Of course it does; why waste programmers otherwise.

So what does Microsoft get from this - besides that ephemeral "protect WMV market share" stuff?

How about usage data? Media Player has been sending information back to MS for years; OS version, GUID, etc. Now they can also collect data about Firefox installs. I suspect that data has value to MS - and very well may be the reason for this unexpected release.

It's not as though Firefox users haven't been able to view WMV files, is it?

IE vs. WMP

[BRUTICUS]

could this imply that MS considers Media Player more important than Internet Explorer now? I mean I couldn't really see MS providing apple with a plugin for Quicktime. Is MS getting serious about the media player war...and MP3 players?

Zune 2.0

look at those DLL names

[r00t]

npdsplay.dll, npdrmv2.dll, and npwmsdrm.dll

All in 8.3 format. Filesystem problems? I guess Apple's "C:ngrtltns.w95" ad was a bit premature.

that punishment won't be effective

[r00t]

Criminals can get way more than $500 with that certificate. Criminals have been known to do identity theft on whole corporations.

So, by the economics of it all, this is a crime that pays quite well.

Re:Don't waste your time on the plugin like I did

[Sam Ramji]

The reason the new plugin is better than just installing the three older files (which are the NPAPI compatibility libraries shipped with WMP 6.4 and previous) is that it expands the programmatic access to the WMP component - it's now fully scriptable from Firefox, with forward/back/pause features etc.

So use whichever one you like, but I am personally a Firefox user and prefer the experience with the new WMP 11 plugin. YMMV.

Also, in case you were wondering why it's a .exe instead of a .xpi, after talking with the guys at Mozilla we realized that the user experience for installing a .exe was better and additionally fit the Firefox model better. It's a plugin, not an extension; if you review the Adobe plugins they are also delivered as .exes.

Sam Ramji
Director, Open Source Software Lab
Microsoft Corporation

Re:insightful??

[cecil_turtle]

2. Microsoft was looking at making this available for linux too.

The way you worded that doesn't sound very convincing - "was" and "looking at" aren't a strong sell. Plus VLC 0.8.6 supports WMV pretty well on Linux right now.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Clever strategy

[vga_init]

Microsoft has a clever strategy (they usually do).

What it boils down to is fighting Linux. I'm a regular Linux user myself, and I'm in the habit of recommending certain cross platform applications for my friends and family to use. Browsing the web? Get Firefox. Chatting online? Get Gaim. Writing a paper? Get OpenOffice.

These programs aren't right for everyone, naturally, but a lot of people actually do end up loving them. They can install them on Windows, try them out, and get comfortable with them. Later, when they are experiencing OS related issues, I can say "Oh, well why don't you install Linux?" Once they find out that Linux runs all the programs they use every day, they don't freak out or anything. It makes the migration completely natural.

Plugins like this are sneaky because Microsoft is saying, "OK, you're going to use Firefox... I see how it is. Let's tie it to our platform to make sure you stick with our other software."