Slashdot Mirror


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."

7 of 191 comments (clear)

  1. wmv files??? by simp · · Score: 5, Funny

    /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.

  2. Re:Meh by TheCRAIGGERS · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Or the better (free, as in choice) option by VE3OGG · · Score: 5, Informative

    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...

    1. Re:Or the better (free, as in choice) option by Kalriath · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  4. I wonder if... by Whuffo · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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?

  5. IE vs. WMP by BRUTICUS · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

  6. Re:Don't waste your time on the plugin like I did by Sam+Ramji · · Score: 5, Informative

    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