Microsoft Tips the Scale In Favor of HTML 5

aabelro writes "Dean Hachamovitch, General Manager for Internet Explorer at Microsoft, has announced that IE9 will use only the H.264 standard to play HTML 5 video. Microsoft seems to have become very committed to HTML 5, while Flash loses even more ground. The announcement came the same day Steve Jobs detailed why Apple does not accept Flash on iPhone and iPad."

Comments

wow

[Anonymous Coward]

for once microsoft do something that makes sense. Though it would be nice to have support for an open video standard...

Re:wow

[delinear]

for once microsoft do something that makes sense. Though it would be nice to have support for an open video standard...

Or, to look at it another way, Microsoft stay true to form and support proprietary standards which put open source competition at a disadvantage...

Re:wow

[AHuxley]

Apple and MS both recall the Adobe font lock in.
They escaped lock in mess that and want out of flash too.
Apple wants free html5 to lock you in at other levels.
MS wants to replace flash developers needs with in expensive back end lock in.
IE is just the media player and html5 the push, if you want to create, MS has a sliding scale of costly closed solutions for you.
Want to sell online, I am sure MS can bait you with quick low cost start up flash like code and then milk you dry.
The web page is the new desktop and with clouds MS hopes gather drops to form a revenue stream.

Re:wow

[Raffaello]

Makes sense for their bottom line you mean. Hasn't it occurred to anyone that you now have both dominant OS vendors supporting HTML5? Do they both want their proprietary platforms replaced by HTML5 and the net? Are they really that stupid?

Or maybe, just maybe, they know something that naive Web platform advocates don't:

HTML5 will always lag behind native applications in performance and features, and MS and Apple will be sure this is the case in their implementations, so the web platform will be no real threat to Windows, Mac OS X, iPhone/iPad OS, Windows Mobile, etc.

IOW, both Apple and Microsoft are big supporters of HTML5 over Flash because they know that you'll never get native app performance and features using HTML5, so HTML5 is no threat to their platforms. OTOH, Adobe has no such vested interest in Microsoft's or Apple's OS platforms, so it is distinctly possible that you might end up with native performance and features with Flash.

Just take a look at these tests comparing HTML5 animation with Flash animation on mobile platforms (Android and iPhone). Flash destroys HTML5 (25 fps v 5-10 fps). Both Apple and Microsoft are afraid of Flash because it represents a much higher performance, more fully featured web platform than HTML5. Like Java before it, Flash is a web platform with enough performance and features that web apps using it threaten traditional OS platforms. This is what Microsoft and Apple are afraid of, and they're certainly not supporting HTML5 because of their philosophical belief in "open standards."

Re:wow

[cowscows]

Performance aside, why would anyone want there to be a dominate web platform that's controlled by a single company, unless you happen to work for that single company?

Flash has basically been, for the past 5+ years at least, the Windows of interactive/animated/etc. web content. It's a platform that was in the right place at the right time, and was just barely good enough to become a major standard. All this despite the fact that everyone is constantly complaining about how much it sucks, and nobody likes it. And there's not much anybody can do to truly fix it, except for Adobe, and it's taken them years to get it to work decently on any mobile device.

Seriously, does anybody besides Adobe want Flash to become the dominate platform for anything other than little browser games? Sure, Apple and MS are fighting against it for self-interested reasons, but those reasons seem to align rather nicely with what is good for the internet as a whole, which is to have as much be open standards as is possible.

Re:wow

[jedidiah]

> Performance aside, why would anyone want there to be a dominate web platform that's controlled by a single company, unless you happen to work for that single company?

The potential for Apple or Microsoft to abuse the market becomes greatly diminished.

This is why Apple is trying to hide from Flash. Microsoft simply would like to do the same.

An open hardware-neutral standard would be preferable for sure. However, this is not one of the immediately available options.

Of course Microsoft wants to go back to the time when the equivalent of Google Maps was Windows only.

Apple thinks they are in the same position as Microsoft now.

Re:wow

[mario_grgic]

Except performance problem can be worked around as easily as installing a better browser. Firefox for example. Google who has vested interest in anything web has their own browser as well based on same technology as Apple's Safari. So, this argument doesn't stand to scrutiny too well.

Re:wow

[Raffaello]

Because the real power behind a web platform is Google, not Adobe. If necessary, Google will provide an open source implementation of the Flash spec, and everyone will write to that, not to any Adobe-only version.

Apple is betting on its hardware/software integration platforms. It is paid for by consumer dollars - i.e., your money, and wants hardware and software vendor lock in.

Microsoft is betting on its software paltforms. It is paid for by your money. It wants software vendor lock in.

Adobe is betting on a web platform. it is paid for by advertising dollars. It wants software content creation vendor lock in (not even software platform vendor lock in - just tools to create the content).

Google is betting on a web platform. It is paid for by advertising dollars. It wants advertising vendor lock in - not software platform lock in, not even content creation lock in, just advertising channel lock in.

I think the last two, who have many common interests, are a much better deal for both consumers and developers. Consumers get lower priced hardware because with a web platform, hardware is commoditized. Consumers get lower priced software because with a web platform, software is commoditized.

Developers get to choose whatever tools they want as long as they target the web platform.

The only down side is that computing becomes like commercial TV in the last century - largely advertising supported. Personally I think this is better than hardware/software vendor lock in.

Re:wow

[slimjim8094]

H.264 is perfectly open-source, but patent encumbered. There's a tremendous difference. You do yourself a disservice to confuse the two.

What you're describing would be true if they supported only WMV, but absolutely false for h264.

Re:wow

[ink]

All this despite the fact that everyone is constantly complaining about how much it sucks, and nobody likes it.

That's not entirely true. Graphic designers generally LOVE Flash because of the Flash builder, Illustrator, Photoshop and the rest of Adobe's creative suite. There aren't any tools that I know of that put that kind of artistic power in hands of non-techies. CS5 does target HTML5, but it does so by using the canvas tag and a lot of JavaScript -- not by outputting "native" HTML5.

This is also what puzzled me about Jobs' claims yesterday that the iAds were all done only in HTML5. I know many advertising content creators; not many could pound out raw HTML5 that would be as impressive as the demos for iPhone OS4's ads.

In order to kill Flash, someone will need to come out with a vector-timeline-tweening GUI builder that doesn't require the developer to touch JavaScript. Perhaps Adobe will do this with Dreamweaver, or maybe Apple will release an "XCode for artists" at some point. Until then, however, don't expect Flash to disappear.

Re:wow

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I suspect a different motivation: Silverlight.

Using Flash as a video player is, by a fair margin, the most trivially replaced function that isn't addressed by pre-HTML5 web standards(stupid shit like Flash based menus and random site chrome is, of course, even easier to replace; because it could have been done in standard HTML+javascript ages ago; but that is largely a lost cause). However, that (quite simple) function is also a huge driver of Flash installation. Basically, if you want to watch video on the web, you need to install Flash. Once you have flash, you bolster Adobe's install base stats, serve as a target for much more sophisticated Flash-based applications, and bolster Adobe's efforts(through AIR) and similar to have a quasi-unified webapp/desktop-app runtime based on Flash and their various content creation tools.

Microsoft has its own, competing quasi-unifed webapp/desktop-app runtime, based on .net, winforms, and the like. Unlike AIR, it much more closely ties the user to Microsoft, and Microsoft platforms and technologies. Therefore, they want to destroy AIR and Flash.

By indicating support for HTML5, which will support the relatively trivial video use cases(youtube style stuff, without Serious DRM mandated by paranoid content providers), they substantially reduce the motivation of users to download Flash and corporate IT departments to install and support it. Since Silverlight comes by default in newer MS OSes, they get increased marketshare vs. Flash/AIR.

Since HTML5 makes possible advanced web applications, but still lags in easy tools vs. Flash or Silverlight(which won't stop Google and their ilk; but will stop Joe Flash Monkey, or Bob corporate intranet developer), HTML5 can be safely supported without destroying Silverlight.

That is my theory. Yeah, h.246 as the html5 video codec of choice puts mozilla in a tough spot; but it isn't as though there won't be some workaround(patent violating 3rd party builds, plugin that exposes system codecs, whatever.) in short order. It isn't good; but it isn't a huge threat. I'd say that this is about kicking Adobe while Apple is already holding them down...

Re:wow

[Raffaello]

1. This places an additional burden on open source browsers to keep pace with the underlying platform WRT performance. History shows they will likely lag significantly.

2. This doesn't address features at all. Both Apple and MS will make sure that the HTML5 spec is always significantly less featureful than the native application platforms.

The result will be that the highest quality applications will need to be written to native platforms, not an OS neutral web platform. This means hardware and/or software vendor lock in, which is just what Apple and MS want.

This is Java all over again. MS embraced and extended it. They paid a billion in damages for doing so, but it was money well spent to cripple a potentially game changing, OS neutral platform.

Apple claimed to be the best Java platform bar none. You could even write native cocoa apps in java. Then, when Apple had leveraged their "open standards" act to attract enough developer mind share, they began systematically treating Java as a second class citizen. Launch a java app and get a frightening warning:

  "! The application SuchAndSuch is requesting access to your computer"

You don't get this kind of warning running a native app of course.

And now you can't write cocoa apps using java anymore either. What a surprise.

MS Does embrace and extend. Apple does embrace and marginalize. Same end result.

Apple and MS are not your friend - they want your money. Google is not your friend either, but at least they don't want your money - they want advertisers' money. The lesser of two evils.

Re:wow

[buttle2000]

There's a difference between Free and Open Source .
From what I've heard, H.264 is not free.

Re:wow

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Performance aside, why would anyone want there to be a dominate web platform that's controlled by a single company, unless you happen to work for that single company?

Because that one company can enforce a standard, in a way that w3c cannot.

I tend to be anti-fork, because that way leads to compatibility issues. I'd rather one group be responsible for the rendering engine/Flash/what-have-you.

Seriously, does anybody besides Adobe want Flash to become the dominate platform for anything other than little browser games?

Sure. But then again, I don't want anything to do with interactive websites with the exception of video.

People bitch a lot about Flash for the same reason they bitch a lot about VB (esp. VB Macros). Non/bad programmers churn out a lot of crap, so the signal-to-noise ratio is really low. Keeping it isolated in a plugin I whitelist, as opposed to being part of every website, is great. Quite a few websites break with Javascript off. Few websites break with Flash off. Please keep all your crap code in Flash with the rest of the page isolated.

Re:wow

[jvillain]

Couldn't have summed it up better myself. Spot on.

Re:wow

[cgenman]

Also, HTML 5 isn't an adopted standard yet: it is still in draft form. It won't be a standard until 2012 or so.

And then it will be years before you can assume that all of your users can view HTML 5. Internet Explorer 6 is 9 years old, and still has 10-20% of the browser market.

I want web standards to replace flash as much as the next guy. But realistically speaking, that's still years off.

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think "you can look at the source but you need to pay us to use it" is any kind of open-source license since it restricts end-use even though it doesn't hinder distribution. OSI licenses typically include "you grant a worldwide royalty-free non-exclusive license" clause for that reason.

If you meant an open standard with open documentation, and open working group, you shouldn't do us a disservice and confuse the two. They can openly write as many patents, licence fees and international trade restrictions as they want, they do that to avoid members backstabbing each other through selective communication, and to stand together to strengthen the patent position.

Re:wow

[mrsteveman1]

It's better than Flash, which was neither of those things.

Re:wow

[drinkypoo]

Flash based menus and random site chrome is, of course, even easier to replace; because it could have been done in standard HTML+javascript ages ago; but that is largely a lost cause).

As shitty as flash is, trying to do complex animation in Javascript is even shittier. This is largely because it has been so slow for so long. Things are improving in this area but there's a long way to go yet. Flash is slow and bloaty for small, simple things; Javascript is slow for large, complex things.

Re:wow

[Randle_Revar]

Only an implementation of a codec can be open source.

Re:wow

[nyctopterus]

While I generally agree with your post, I think you're wrong about graphic designers loving Flash, specifically Flash the content creation tool. I think most of them would love to see a complete replacement -- I know I would. The most common complaints are that it's buggy and slow, it's drawing tools are a complete mess (neither like Photoshop or Illustrator, but an ungodly compromise between the two), and that it's keyframing, timeline, and motion tools all suck (compared to, say, After Effects).

Adobe tries to make out that their applications work together seemlessly, so it seems like you could use After Effects as your animation program and export to Flash. In reality, it's all broken.

One of the biggest complaints I have about Flash is that neither Macromedia nor Adobe could make up their mind as to whether it's an IDE or an animation application. Hence, it sucks at both. Years ago before they bought Macromedia, Adobe bought a Flash-animating application called Ground Zero (I think they released it as LiveMotion). It was for animating, and it was a joy to work with. Fast, as hell, really easy to use animating tools. They killed it after version 1.

So, to sum up, I think the market is wide-open to replace Flash, even the content creation tool. There's not a lot of love for it.

Re:wow

[Frools]

Yeah seriously, why doesnt this idea come up more often?
Why cant browsers just function like any other media player and use already installed system codecs?
Or if you really want it to be noob friendly why not include libavcodec or something and use that instead of having to pick one codec?

Re:wow

[IamTheRealMike]

Actually SWF is open as well since 2008. So there are 3 open standards being discussed here. The key question is how many organizations are in charge and what patent royalties do they leverage, not how open it is. Arguably h.264 is far less proprietary than Theora, as it's a collaborative work of many different companies working as part of well recognized international standards committees, as opposed to Ogg which is controlled entirely by Xiph.

Re:wow

[Requiem18th]

Seriously, does anybody besides Adobe want Flash to become the dominate platform for anything other than little browser games? Sure, Apple and MS are fighting against it for self-interested reasons, but those reasons seem to align rather nicely with what is good for the internet as a whole, which is to have as much be open standards as is possible.

As buggy as flash can be on linux, flash as been a blessing to my linux experience. Thanks to flash, all my browser games that I played on Windows are still playable on linux, it's mostly thanks to flash that I have thousands of games at my reach.

Flash has also been an enabler of video in linux for which I'm thankful. Before the rise of the embedded flash player. The primary means of streaming video were the RealPlayer plugin and integration with the Windows Media Player.

Because of this I consider flash a positive thing. Would it be better if it was an open standard? Yes and it's a shame it hasn't become more open. The SWF format is, AFAIK open, there even are competing flash building tools, although they are special case tools, neither as flexible or as good as the Flash IDE.

So it really was just a case of being more open with the standard. In fact I'm half expecting the rise of html5 to drive more openness in the SWF format.

Re:wow

[slimjim8094]

I completely agree. I'm not at all happy that it's patent-encumbered. In fact, I don't like software patents at all... though I will admit that if any software should be patented, it's H.264. There's some cool tech in there.

And I wasn't trying to confuse the two. In fact, I was making clear the distinction. OSS can be patent-encumbered, and unpatented software can be proprietary. They are two different things.

Replace H.264 with MP3 instead, if you like, and re-read the anti-MS post above. It's really the same situation as the early years of MP3 - a far superior, but patented, codec takes over everything.

Now there's superior and truly free audio codecs as well. Let's hope the same thing happens with audio.

Re:wow

[bonch]

HTML5 will always lag behind native applications in performance and features, and MS and Apple will be sure this is the case in their implementations, so the web platform will be no real threat to Windows, Mac OS X, iPhone/iPad OS, Windows Mobile, etc.

Apple can't make sure its HTML 5 implementation "lags behind native applications in performance and features" because WebKit is open source. Also, for a company you claim is threatened by the web, they sure show it in a strange way with frameworks like SproutCore.

IOW, both Apple and Microsoft are big supporters of HTML5 over Flash because they know that you'll never get native app performance and features using HTML5, so HTML5 is no threat to their platforms. OTOH, Adobe has no such vested interest in Microsoft's or Apple's OS platforms, so it is distinctly possible that you might end up with native performance and features with Flash.

Let me get this straight. Somehow, Flash is going to give native performance and features despite being cross-platform and Adobe having no vested interest in Microsoft's or Apple's platforms? Yet HTML5, an open standard, is going to lag behind? This is completely backwards.

Flash sucks on the Mac. It crashes, it spins up the fans, and it drains battery life. Meanwhile, watching HTML5 video on YouTube is fast and quiet. Blame Adobe for making Flash suck so hard that Apple abandoned support of it.

Are you a Flash developer? I only ask because every time I see someone actually arguing in favor of Flash over HTML5, they turn out to be Flash developers who are just looking out for themselves. Your post is pretty silly.

Re:wow

[ink]

Lord knows I'm not a graphic designer. :-) They seem to love Flash, but that may well be because there's nothing better for vector-based "web" design. Hopefully someone will step up to the plate and build that tool; I'm sure they could live with the millions of dollars in revenue that they'd reap.

Re:wow

[nasch]

You forgot one part of the MS technique. Isn't it embrace, extend, extinguish?

Re:wow

[UnknowingFool]

If it were up to MS, they would rather have everyone use Silverlight, but if the choice is between Flash or HTML5, MS would prefer that everyone use HTML5.

Re:wow

[Dynedain]

In order to kill Flash, someone will need to come out with a vector-timeline-tweening GUI builder that doesn't require the developer to touch JavaScript.

Apple Motion Export as h264 and playback in an HTML5 container. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple is already working on direct to HTML5 export for Motion.

Re:wow

[shutdown -p now]

It makes sense, but there's one other elephant in the room.

IE market share has been slowly but steadily declining. This comes both from it being deficient to other browsers from users' perspective (UI, and especially performance), but it also comes from it lagging behind on standards support.

Consequently, it's not currently in a position where it can be used to push "de-facto standards" (like ActiveX). And, while it definitely can block adoption of new, standardized tech, such a block would only last for limited time - and would, in fact, accelerate the demise.

So, at this point, IE has to start competing on its merits. Some bits of that is already seen in IE8 (process isolation was a nice innovation). And supporting HTML5, CSS3 etc at this point is crucial to be seen as competitive.

As you rightly note, this doesn't replace Silverlight. For one thing, the latter has DRM, which many video providers want. For another, for rich UI development, it's still much easier to use then the mash-up of HTML5/CSS3/JS, especially given the tools provided

Re:wow

[Dracker]

Animation outside of video is largely inappropriate for the web to begin with.

Re:wow

[bluefoxlucid]

You know those CSS/JS menus, you roll the pointer over them and the menu drops down automatically? Like the ones on http://cmsmadesimple.org/

They do that by putting a Flash animation at the top of the site now, like at http://www.sonataarctica.info/

Re:wow

[cowscows]

Google certainly is a big player in all of this, but nothing I've seen from them leads me to believe that they are capable of taking over flash. They can write all of the specs that they want, but as long as Adobe has the best flash IDE, they'll have all the sway over the standard. All the various other flash environments and players that exist are a result of flash's popularity, not the cause of it.

Maybe I'm missing something that they've done, but I haven't seen anything from Google that would lead me to believe that they have any experience in building interfaces for the sort of creative design type work that Flash is geared towards. Maybe they could surprise us, or buy out a company that could do it, but if they're going to go to all that trouble to develop said software, why don't they just direct that effort towards an HTML 5 development environment, and not have to worry about Adobe at all?

Re:wow

[sillybilly]

Besides software patents being stupid, at least Adobe provides a Linux version of Flash, and any kind of patent bs issues are handled by them. Though I have no idea what flash does in the background while it's running on my computer, it could be screwing me totally. So open source is welcome, to inspect what the heck is going on, but I hope Google provides an h264 linux codec to linux, and fight the total bs patent battles with the armies of marketroid lawyers from MS and the like, and shield me from any such harassment and abuses. Or they create a patentless codec to use on their youtube, the likes of ogg instead of mp3 and the myriad of other proprietary formats coming from ms and apple, all wanting to hijack the standard, and milk the internet cow for themselves.

If anything, Adobe positioned themselves in a spot - establishing a proprietary standard over the so far open and free internet - that both MS and Apple are vying for. The first step is getting something proprietary or at least patented pushed onto the internet. Once people can't live without it, turn on the cash flow from it. Kind of like mp3, gif, and the likes did it - push it for free, and start asking for a fee late in the game. Adobe got through the push it for free phase, and just when it is about ready to start charging, and asking for a per-click-per-minute fee, the big boys are x-ing it out of the game very fast. They wanna do that kind of charging, but they don't wanna pay up to somebody else. Imagine the kind of money you can make when you 0wn da internet because everyone is using your patented video/display method to view everything, and they are paying to you by the minute. Can you say 1 trillion dollar yearly revenue eclipsing that posted by Exxon?

One wonders how on Earth the Internet got this far without asking for a per minute fee. I guess it's been going through that push it for free phase, kind of like drug dealers do it. The only way the internet is gonna stay free is if you can maintain ways to live without it.

Re:wow

[perryizgr8]

this is a major point, imo.
about 4 years ago, i heard of flash. i promptly proceeded to download flash 5 from our favorite tpb.
it was amazingly easy to create all sorts of animations and simple games. and actionscript is almost identical to javascrpt.
i would like to know if there is such an easy and refined way to create html5 today?

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

This is 4-digit ID bullsh!t (debunked by AC, mind you). There are a lot of people who got deceived by amateurish "web design" agencies that sold them pricey Flash garbage. The result? Because these amateurish web agencies used proprietary crap, the website their customer paid $$$ for do not work on the iPhone nor on the iPad.

And Apple is big. Apple is huge, recently just passed MS in market cap. That's how big and relevant Apple is.

So those poor people who bought proprietary Flash crap now begin to realize they're losing customers/potential customers/sales with their proprietary Flash garbage websites.

Flash shall disappear when customer will come to these amateur web agencies and tell them: "The website we ordered you does not work on my iPhone. I want a website that works on the iPhone / iPad or I'm taking my $$$ somewhere else" (read, a less amateurish web agency that understands how to use HTML5 to do a better website).

This is *already* happening: not only we begin to see HTML5 website that works perfectly fine on the iPod/iPad, but we also begin to see more and more powerful "web apps".

This is where we're going: away from the amateurish Flash-developer to more traditional software developers, and the web just became the new desktop. There's no room for Adobe Flash's "creative" noobs there.

Google knows it. MS knows it. Apple knows it.

I honestly think Adobe knows it too and they're peeing in their pants: because they're facing three juggernauts who're out to destroy Flash. Go Google. Go MS. Go Apple. Destroy Flash please.

Re:wow

[V!NCENT]

I don't see the problem, really... all we need is to lure people into using Linux, ship a user friendly OGG video editor (now in Ubuntu 10.04) and also some GUI widget that prompts the user "Do you want to install missing codecs from www.someh.264.site.com? (y/n)" Ok, Ok, Ok and we are compatible with h.264, but IE is not compatible with the rival OGG.

Problem solved... locked in product... Eventually this will happen...

Re:wow

[V!NCENT]

PS: make it GPLv3 with the "all you patents are belong to the world" clause and Micorost can either not become compatible with OGG, or surrender their patents. Both would be awesome! =D

Re:wow

[elrous0]

H.264 is perfectly open-source, but patent encumbered.

That's a pretty trivial distinction if you're Mozilla and you're trying to build a free browser to support it. What does it matter how open it is if they can't afford to pay to use it?

Re:wow

[icebraining]

Because if the user doesn't have them (read: XP users; yes, they're still plenty) it will fail, and that's not how it's supposed to work.

As for libavcoded, how does it solve the problem?

Re:wow

[somersault]

I kinda see this as an advantage - Google could simply serve up Youtube videos in OGG Theora format only, and if you try to visit it in IE9 it could say "we're sorry, your browser doesn't seem to properly support web standards, try one of these instead.."

Re:wow

[John Betonschaar]

It's open in the sense that anyone can get the full specs, for free. There's nothing secret or magic about it that will make it hard for someone to write a complete codec for h264. So yes, it IS an open standard.

Re:wow

[drinkypoo]

You can do effects with a flash rollover that you can't do (At least, not reasonably) with Javascript. I think they're dumb but to claim that there's no appeal to Flash, or that it doesn't do anything you can't do with other means is to miss the point, and also, to be wrong.

Re:wow

[bluefoxlucid]

Yes, jiggly windows, fade-in, fade-out, custom shadowing, shiny shit, bloom, etc. That doesn't mean I care that you made little highlights run along the border and made everything sparkle.

And a lot of sites just implement drop-down menus that roll down at a set speed instead of instant pop-out; it takes a function and some state tracking in JS to do that not-painfully, and I'd assume it also takes some programming to do in Flash. Granted we're talking about something that requires some forethought, but not thousands of lines of code. I call that abuse.

Re:wow

[amn108]

Little use having "open" SWF, when there is one ubiquitous player called Adobe Flash Player which defines the format, as in "an SWF is valid if it plays in Flash Player" as opposed to "an SWF is valid if it conforms to specification". Which is further supported by Adobe specifying that one can indeed develop SWF players, as long as these are "compatible" with whatever behavior the Flash Player exhibits towards these same SWF files.

But since Flash Player itself is not open source, there is a great amount of frustration in getting to know exactly what behavior constitutes the right one for a playing SWF.

Do you get it?

Re:wow

[Dr Herbert West]

I know-- let's bring back LiveMotion! It was a "flash killer" back in 2000, it's had ten years to sharpen its claws, brooding, waiting for revenge... LiveMotion, your time has come!

Re:wow

[mschuyler]

all we need is to lure people into using Linux, ship a user friendly OGG video editor (now in Ubuntu 10.04) and also some GUI widget that prompts the user "Do you want to install missing codecs from www.someh.264.site.com? (y/n)"

You can't be serious. What do you think Grandma is going to say when she's prompted to install "missing codecs." My Grandma would say, "What the fuck is a codec?" Yours might be more polite, but regardless, prompting for codecs is NOT going to lure any average person, i.e.: Non /. type person, into using Linux. That's laughable and is a perfect illustration of why Linux isn't there yet.

Re:wow

[Changa_MC]

I pay $55 a month for 768Kb internet access. Where do you live that internet access is free?

Re:wow

[impaledsunset]

Yeah, right. Where's the (-1, Bad wishful thinking) option? First, Google would never do that. If it did, VP8 would be more likely than Theora. Microsoft can add either codec whenever they like, they won't lose that much from doing so, although I assume they would much prefer to support only H.264. Oh, and Google is unlikely to break IE, especially on purpose, unless its market share drops a fucking lot. And Theora would be bad for all those of us who want to want to get the quality that H.264 offers at current bandwidths, so, again, it would have to be "VP8" to get me on your boat.

That's a no, no, no, no and no.

Re:wow

[SanityInAnarchy]

There are open-source implementations of WMV. I don't see the difference.

Re:wow

[somersault]

I thought the only 2 choices for HTML5 were Theora or H.264? And the whole point would be that doing this would drop IE's marketshare "a fucking lot", which was my whole point. It's pretty anti-competitive, but it would be funny to see Microsoft on the receiving end of their own tactics to get rid of that godawful browser.

Re:wow

[impaledsunset]

You can stick whatever codec you want in HTML 5. The available choices depend on what the other parties are supporting. So yeah, these two are the only feasible choices right now, although some would say that Theora isn't, other would say that H.264 isn't, or that both aren't. But Google could push VP8, which would be much more likely than pushing Theora.

Re:wow

[mattack2]

Because you can still find/report bugs (with fixes, potentially), and find security holes, etc.

Re:wow

[svick]

Fortunately, Silverlight is not based on WinForms, but on WPF (kind of).

Re:wow

[Shin-LaC]

Apple and MS are not your friend - they want your money. Google is not your friend either, but at least they don't want your money - they want advertisers' money. The lesser of two evils.

So you're saying that you'd rather be a product than a customer?

Re:wow

[miggyb]

Except Google is already completely behind h.264 and would get a lot of bad rep if they switched "just because"

Re:wow

[devent]

Since when is SF pre-installed? Wouldn't it be a great security risk for everyone and wouldn't it be an anti-trust case, like with IE?

Re:wow

[Volguus Zildrohar]

microsoft do something that makes sense

Oh sure. This is just typical of Slashdot.

When Apple does something, Steve Jobs is the devil, it's nothing but evil monopolistic corporate greed, etc etc. But when Microsoft - the overhyped darling of Slashdot - does the same thing, suddenly it 'makes sense'!

Re:wow

[Bungie]

Let's not forgot about good old Liquid Motion, yet another "flash killer" from that era.

Re:wow

[Paradigma11]

Since when is SF pre-installed? Wouldn't it be a great security risk for everyone and wouldn't it be an anti-trust case, like with IE?

it isnt.

Re:wow

[V!NCENT]

Rofl... just click "OK", which is perfect Windows user behavior xD

Also... where do you get your codecs from in Windows and how? That's ten times more complicated, fool -_-

Re:wow

[LordVader717]

Open-source doesn't mean what you think it means.
Specifically, it doesn't really apply to a video compression standard. If nobody could read the H.264 documentation, well then it wouldn't even be a standard.
H.264 is a standard.
It would be "open" if others were allowed to use and expand upon it without having to pay fees.

Re:wow

[LordVader717]

Nope. That's just a plain ol' standard. If it were secret, well then it wouldn't be much of a standard.

Re:wow

[frankjos]

I really don't think any of this is because Microsoft wants to support anything open-source. Everything that Microsoft does is calculated to benefit Microsoft and only Microsoft. The only reason they have done this is to push their own Silverlight product.

Re:wow

[NoOneInParticular]

Yes, and with HTML5 embraced, there's ample opportunity to extend it to MS-HTML5.

Re:wow

[sillybilly]

I use it to watch youtube on puppy linux. The nice thing about puppy linux is the layered filesystem, to where a reinstall is as simple as starting a new personal file, as the OS layer never changes.

Btw, I forgot to mention how MS flocked to the GNU PNG image format as soon as they were assaulted with patent lawsuits over Unisys' LZW GIF patents. That's all we need to do with H264 too, come up with an equivalent or even better open codec.

Yes it took money, time and effort to come up with the GIF LZW format, same with the GNU PNG format. Did MS consider the harm they did to Unisys by not paying them the fees they wanted to collect, and instead blatantly using someone else's work, for free, without paying them a dime? Can they at least show a donation to nonprofit GNU on their tax deduction, as a fair compensation and retribution for coming up with PNG, equivalent or at least comparative to what they truly deserve for that work?

Re:wow

[sillybilly]

A few corrections are due here: PNG is not exactly GNU PNG, but close enough in stance and philosophy to be called sibling-like related. PNG originally stood for "PNG is Not Gif." It is an internet phenomenon, like Linux and most "free" software, it was developed by volunteers in 1995 as soon as the submarine patents on Gif's surfaced, to be a patentless, open and "free" replacement to royalty demaning Gif's. Moreover MS did not "flock" to PNG, they were even a bit sluggish with the adoption. They may in fact have licensed GIF, and simply added PNG support because of the technological superiority to GIF's. Nevertheless the lessons learned in PNG vs. Gif might be interesting in regards to H264. Of course there is a way to mysteriously take out and make disappear all the developers who exhibit volunteering tendencies, and these days, the same PNG vs. GIF might go down differently, with all those freedom-touting voices gone. Lots of people die mysterious deaths, suddenly, unexpectedly and very young. These days.

Goodbye Flash

[el_jake]

Now there is no way Flash will survive. Good. Damn good.

Re:Goodbye Flash

[arogier]

This says nothing about abandoning flash, just only allowing H.264 video with a video tag.

Re:Goodbye Flash

[tepples]

What makes flash so attractive is the environment it uses to create animations.

Then perhaps Adobe should write a vector animation player in JavaScript that targets SVG or Canvas and then instead of exporting your .fla to .swf, export it to a .json file that the JavaScript vector animation player loads.

Re:Goodbye Flash

[TerranFury]

For this purpose -- vector animation -- Flash honestly is the best thing out there and I'm not sure I want to see it go (though open standard are always good). I think people are more up in arms about Flash video in particular, which is too widespread given that it's both proprietary and a resource hog.

You definitely raise an interesting point though, and I wonder if an OSS project to do what you describe exists. Googling turns up this note on the inkscape roadmap which indicates that this is in their long term plans. Apparently another project, MadSwatter also exists, but I know nothing about it.

Given the amount of time it has taken for the Gimp to become a strong competitor to Photoshop, I do however suspect that Flash's reign in the vector-animation arena is hardly over.

Re:Goodbye Flash

[jcupitt65]

Adobe have demoed outputting simple animations has html5 canvas:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v69S22ZBBqA

Re:Goodbye Flash

[Animaether]

Did you just not read the post you replied to, or what?

This says nothing about abandoning flash, just only allowing H.264 video with a video tag.

You can still use Flash as long as there will be a Flash plugin for IE9. There's no reason to think there won't be - so go ahead, just use the object tag as you have been.

The only scale this might tip is the Theora vs h.264 thing as MS announced that as far as the video tag goes, they will only accept h.264 datastreams . Unless this in itself can be extended using plugins, this means a great majority of people who browse the web will be limited to viewing those h.264 datastreams. The significance (closes vs open, etc.) is probably lost on those people, though... so why would Microsoft care to support a second non-industry-backed datastream if there's no push for them to do so.

Re:Goodbye Flash

[Anonymous Coward]

Video mediated via Flash is Flash's number one use case. The only reason most people install Flash is to watch video in their browser. With the need for Flash for this use case being consistently eroded, the only reasonable conclusion is that Flash is at the beginning of its decline. It'll still be around for the next five years, but it will quite quickly become a niche approach to video on the web.

Re:Goodbye Flash

[dave420]

That was only in the Windows 3.1 beta, and was removed from the final code.

Re:Goodbye Flash

[arogier]

Alright, there was some degree of amphiboly in my wording. The meaning intended was that Microsoft is not abandoning flash, but with the HTML 5 video tag it is only allowing the H.264 codec to play.

Re:Goodbye Flash

[binarylarry]

Increasing Silverlight's market share is what this is about.

Basically, Microsoft is going to embrace HTML5 and use it to hurt Flash, it'll then start to phase HTML5 support out once Flash's market share starts to take a large enough hit and talk about how HTML5 doesn't have enough support or doesn't "have all the features our users demand," then it will start to pimp Silverlight, integrated it with the next Xbox and so forth and remove "upgrade" all the devs to their Expression platform for developing Silverlight apps.

Re:Goodbye Flash

[IBBoard]

Unless this in itself can be extended using plugins, this means a great majority of people who browse the web will be limited to viewing those h.264 datastreams.

I wonder how many of those viewers and publishers will be correctly licensed? There have been blog posts from mainstream sites pointing out that some licenses (even for very expensive video editing software) don't actually cover people for everything they think it covers them for in h.264 production and distribution.

IIRC there was even some real stupidity where one end violated their license if the other end had been done without an official license (license violations when viewing with a licensed viewer videos that were made without a license?)

Re:Goodbye Flash

[Motard]

Flash use will diminish if it's not needed for video. Silverlight won't be harmed by using video standards, but video was never what Silverlight was about.

Now that Jobs has staked out the native apps + HTML 5 position. Microsoft will take this shot at Adobe while staking out the cross-platform position. Silverlight will compete with HTML 5 while coexisting with it, much as Flash has done.

Re:Goodbye Flash

[squiggleslash]

What makes flash so attractive is the environment it uses to create animations.

What makes Flash attractive to webmasters is that it's ubiquitous, and that it implements DRM. While HTML5 may supplant one of these (ie all web browsers will become able to render regular embedded video), the DRM angle will remain an issue for the time being, and despite the bravado of those refusing to support it, it seems improbable that all major sites (especially in cases like Hulu.com and Amazon.com) will allow non-Flash video for the foreseeable future, except in extremely limited cases where the destination platform is so locked down (ie iPad) that the ability of a user to save the streamed video is almost impossible.

Re:Goodbye Flash

[javilon]

It is clear that the move is not against Flash, the Flash plugin will always be there.

It is a preemptive move against Google's VP8 in particular and open source in general. Basically they are creating a problem for Firefox (which has stated that they won't support H.264) and trying to stop Google's VP8 before it can be successful.

Re:Goodbye Flash

[Motard]

Exactly. Although I don't think they'll phase out HTML 5, they'll just make it obsolete by competing with the committee controlled standard with a more agile proprietary one. All while coexisting with HTML 5.

Then, they'll just be a few killer Silverlight apps away from having Apple's customers clamoring for Silverlight support.

Re:Goodbye Flash

[nine-times]

Lots of Flash proponents claim that Flash needs to continue to be used for video on the web because otherwise the system will be fragmented between different different video codecs. If everyone is standardized behind one codec, it takes care of one of the big supposed objections to moving from Flash to HTML5.

Re:Goodbye Flash

[jedidiah]

Actually, the ipad/iphone is only about half of the smart phone market and shrinking.

That's based on browser numbers rather than sales numbers. Although if you herd all of the
relevant cats you might find that Android has bigger sales numbers too. It's hard to tell
with all of the media noise generated in favor of Apple.

The phone market has always been a diverse place where people change products nearly at
the drop of a hat. It's almost like a proper free market.

Re:Goodbye Flash

[CondeZer0]

> It is a preemptive move against Google's VP8 in particular and open source in general. Basically they are creating a problem for Firefox (which has stated that they won't support H.264) and trying to stop Google's VP8 before it can be successful.

They are also creating a problem for Opera, Linux distributions, and other minor browser vendors that can't afford the hefty license fees or the risk of being sued.

And most importantly, it creates problems for content producers and distributors that are forced to use a format with a license that could change any moment the patent holders feel like it. People keeps saying that you are not charged for serving H.264 on the web, but that is now, and this could change any moment and anyone building a business knows that kind of uncertainty is a *big* problem.

Re:Goodbye Flash

[rxan]

No matter the technology, you can't control what people use it for.

Goodbye to Flash?

Hello to unblockable HTML5 ads. Hello HTML5 web apps that end up looking X different ways in X different browsers. Hello to extremely varied performance accross different browsers. Hello HTML5 pop ups!

Oh, and with less hardware integration than Flash.

Hello innovation!

Re:Goodbye Flash

[IntlHarvester]

It is a preemptive move against Google's VP8 in particular and open source in general.

Problem with this competitive analysis is that MS's tools supported H.264 long before Firefox/Chrome supported any video whatsoever.

If anything, this is the obituary for MS's own proprietary strategy with VC-1.

Re:Goodbye Flash

[NatasRevol]

Guess what? Flash doesn't run on Android right now either (beta only, released *maybe* this year). Or BlackberryOS. That makes up about 90% of the smartphone market.

Either way, it's byebye Flash.

Re:Goodbye Flash

[Abcd1234]

What makes Flash attractive to webmasters is that it's ubiquitous, and that it implements DRM.

DRM? Really? Weird, because I've got this handy little tool called rtmpdump that, with a little manual effort, let's me trivially retrieve any flash video, even if it's streamed via RTMPE and supposedly "protected" (I regularly use it to pull down, for example, extended Daily Show interviews for playback on my Myth box).

Granted, webmasters might *think* their videos are protected. But they're not. Flash DRM is a complete sham by it's very nature (how can you claim a video is protected when, along with the content, you have to give me all the information necessary to decode it?).

Re:Goodbye Flash

[jvillain]

It is a preemptive move against Google's VP8 in particular and open source in general. Basically they are creating a problem for Firefox (which has stated that they won't support H.264) and trying to stop Google's VP8 before it can be successful.

Well if youtube goes VP8 and you can't watch youtube with IE, people will just start loading firefox, chrome, opera or what ever browser they think will work for them. In Europe they will just pick some thing other than IE from the list when they do an install of windows. Acting like the 800lb gorilla doesn't work so well when you are the 700lb gorilla and the 800lb gorilla is is standing beside you.

Re:Goodbye Flash

[Mister Whirly]

You mean like the ability to do streaming Netflix on a Mac? Netflix uses Silverlight to do their streaming video.

Re:Goodbye Flash

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Getting h264 support is not *just* about affording hefty license fees. Its the dirty contract you have to sign with MEPG-LA. A contract that does not allow redistribution of the "license" at the very least.

Re:Goodbye Flash

[Anonymous Psychopath]

Well if youtube goes VP8 and you can't watch youtube with IE, people will just start loading firefox, chrome, opera or what ever browser they think will work for them.

No, they won't. They will scream at Google for not making videos work in their browser. They don't understand and do not want to understand what a video codec is. They will not blame Microsoft, they will blame Google/Youtube. If you doubt this, just go read the comments at Youtube for an hour. You'll see what I mean.

Re:Goodbye Flash

[metamatic]

They are also creating a problem for Opera, Linux distributions, and other minor browser vendors that can't afford the hefty license fees or the risk of being sued.

Browser vendors should just call the OS-supplied multimedia frameworks.

On OS X you don't need h.264 patent licenses, just call QuickTime. I'm assuming Windows provides h.264 decoder frameworks as well, if not then use QuickTime on Windows. For Linux, there's gstreamer etc.

There is no reason for the browser itself to have h.264 codecs in. That's as bad for performance as using Flash to play it back instead of native media frameworks; exactly the crap we're trying to avoid with HTML5.

Re:Goodbye Flash

[DdJ]

I see it as an attack on both Firefox and Adobe at the same time.

So, before it looked like if you wanted to reach almost everyone with your content, you had to do HTML5/H.264 and also Flash. If you just did Flash, you left out all the iDevices, and content providers are increasingly unwilling to leave them out. If you just did H.264, you got all the iDevices, Android, almost certainly WP7, and Safari and Chrome on the desktop, and Opera on some desktops. You didn't get Firefox or IE, which meant you didn't get most Windows users, and there's no way content providers are leaving out Windows users.

After this move, HTML5/H.264 will get you just about everyone except the Firefox users.

Content providers have three real choices if they want to get everyone. Doing HTML5/H.264 is essentially mandatory. That leaves out Firefox users. So content providers can (a) tell Firefox users to get a real browser, (b) provide a Flash interface just for Firefox users, or (c) provide an Ogg version in addition to the H.264 one.

Different subsets of the providers will opt for different choices. All three will happen to some extent. As a result, Flash use will go down (but won't be eliminated), and Firefox users will have a less-than-complete browsing experience (unless they relent on the "we won't let you fall back to the OS's built-in codec support" thing).

Two birds, one cup^H^H^Hstone.

Re:Goodbye Flash

[CondeZer0]

> For Linux, there's gstreamer etc.

Except that gstreamer and co can't *legally* be distributed without a license if they include h.264 playback.

Yes we all know there are opensource implementations of h.264, but people that use them are in most cases breaking the law.

And again, this does not address the even bigger problem of content producers that are still at the mercy of the patent holders.

Re:Goodbye Flash

[squiggleslash]

Cool, does it work with Hulu?

I'd ask about Amazon VOD but I'd be more wary of using it with that, given that Amazon knows where I live ;-)

Re:Goodbye Flash

[shutdown -p now]

Except that gstreamer and co can't *legally* be distributed without a license if they include h.264 playback.

GStreamer doesn't have to include H.264 support. It just has to be an extensible framework (well, guess what...) that allows third-party codecs. A legal H.264 codec can then be purchased (e.g. from Fluendo) where needed - this will probably be the route taken by companies building devices on Linux - or, if the person lives in a sane country where software patents don't apply, they use the corresponding FOSS codec.

Re:Goodbye Flash

[shutdown -p now]

Now there is no way Flash will survive. Good. Damn good.

Actually, it's the other way around. Since 1) Firefox doesn't support H.264, 2) Flash doesn't support Theora, and 3) Firefox supports Flash, this means that Firefox will just be served a Flash-based player from the same H.264 stream that will be fed directly via HTML5 Video to IE/Safari/Chrome.

Re:Goodbye Flash

[Abcd1234]

Dunno, I've never tried. If Hulu is using Flash's standard RTMPE mechanism, then yeah, it should work just fine. The tool requires four inputs:

1. The URL for the original flash player.
2. The uncompressed size of the flash player.
3. The SHA256 hash of the original (compressed) flash player.
4. The rmtp(e) URI to the flv.

For step one, after downloading the swf, use flasm to decompress it (it'll output the size to the console):

flasm -x player.swf

For step two, use openssl to compute the hash:

openssl sha -sha256 -hmac "Genuine Adobe Flash Player 001" player.swf

Then fire up rtmpdump as follows:

rtmpdump --swfhash [hash] --swfsize [size] --swfUrl [url] -r [rtmp(e) URI] -o [output name]

And a little while later, you should have a lovely, fresh flv on your hands.

Re:Goodbye Flash

[leoxx]

"A patent pool is being assembled to go after Theora and other 'open source' codecs now." - Steve Jobs

Apple and Microsoft, working together against open source. How delicious.

Re:Goodbye Flash

[icebraining]

I'm assuming Windows provides h.264 decoder frameworks as well

Yes, and I'm assuming that's what IE9 will do. But XP doesn't have it, though, and they are still 52% of the OS market share.

Re:Goodbye Flash

[icebraining]

Google already has Chrome ads in Youtube. If they put a warning saying "You have to download Chrome to watch videos on Youtube, click here" won't people do it? It's the same with Flash already.

Re:Goodbye Flash

[Belial6]

Then the obvious solution is for MS to ship an h.264 codec for XP. There cannot be more work to make a decoder for XP than there is to support it in Win7, and if they are distributing it for XP anyway, there isn't a license issue. So, there is no excuse for embedding the video decoder in the browser as opposed to the OS itself.

Re:Goodbye Flash

[commodore64_love]

>>>only allowing H.264 video with a video tag.

This seems dumb. Why shouldn't I be able to include (video) startrek.flv (/video) or (video) startrek.ogv (/video) in my HTML and IE9 play it? Why block that functionality?

Youtube

[fredan]

How is IE users gonna watch youtube, in VP8 format, microsoft?

Re:Youtube

[self assembled struc]

using the youtube flash player?

html5 != no flash

html5 is just a version of html which supports a video tag just like an image tag. it also supports the object tag. which means flash works in html5.

the only case where flash isn't going to work is where the operating system or browser does not have a flash plug in.

safari only supports h.264 in the html5 video tag as well. yet, youtube works just fine in it.

mozilla only supports ogg in the html5 video tag. yet, youtube works just fine in it.

Re:Youtube

[th3james]

Youtube is h.264. It even says they played back youtube video in TFA

Re:Youtube

[YA_Python_dev]

You're almost completely correct, but:

safari only supports h.264 in the html5 video tag

Safari supports whatever codec happens to be installed. By default Apple installs H.264 and not Theora (which is still available separately).

And, yes, I know defaults are powerful things.

Re:Youtube

[ByteSlicer]

html5 is just a version of html which supports a video tag just like an image tag

Among many, many other things...

Re:Youtube

[buchner.johannes]

That's why Flash was successful in the first place! It is the only way you as a website provider can do something and escape the mess of browser inconsistence and provide a service that works for all users.

Re:Youtube

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a great ethical stand to take

Yes, you're right. Obeying patent law is a good ethical stand to take. Some would say it's the only ethical position to take given that disobeying patent law would result in massive fines that would put Mozilla out of business.

Re:Youtube

[cgenman]

Could someone write a plug-in for older browsers that supports HTML 5? Say, that overloads the video tag and runs a mini-webkit in the space?

Convincing users to install a plug-in might speed adoption beyond waiting the 10 years for people to update their browsers.

Re:Youtube

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

safari only supports h.264 in the html5 video tag as well. yet, youtube works just fine in it.

As someone else noted, Safari on OS X supports anything installed in Quicktime as I think Firefox should. I already had a Theora codec installed so when Apple updated Safari to do HTML5, Theora "just worked".

I understand the mindset at Mozilla. They are focused on being the same on every different computer a user has, regardless of that computer's capabilities. This is an understandable goal, but also what drives me away from Firefox. They don't take advantage of cool and very useful features of an OS, because other OS's don't have those abilities, or they implement their own version which is compatible between Firefox on Linux and Firefox on OS X... but not between all the other applications on a single OS. This is just that policy being extended to video and running into legal roadblocks because even though all the OS's can play H.264, mozilla can't integrate it into Firefox the same way on every platform, so they reject it entirely.

It's a Trap!

[amiga3D]

I can't help myself. I had to do it.

Re:It's a Trap!

[6031769]

Past performance would suggest so. However, it's enlightening to note that yet again Microsoft (and Apple for that matter) really hate other people's proprietary monopolies. I'm only really worried about how they're going to ruin HTML5 as a result of this (whether deliberately or accidentally).

Re:It's a Trap!

[camperdave]

It's a Trap!

Yes! It's step one in Microsoft's basic business plan:

1. Embrace
2. Extend
3. Extinguish
4. Profit!

So, the key is to anticipate how Microsoft might extend the protocol, and "head them off at the pass" by releasing Open Source variations as soon as possible.

Although, I suppose it's possible that Microsoft has learned the danger of becoming the defacto standard with shoddy products through its attempts to kill off XP and IE6... but I doubt it.

Re:It's a Trap!

[AnonymousClown]

That was Silverlight.

*grumbling*I spent all that time learning it */grumbling*

Par for the course with "new" technology. I guess it's usually safe to stick to open platforms.

Re:It's a Trap!

[denis-The-menace]

re:I'm only really worried about how they're going to ruin HTML5 as a result of this (whether deliberately or accidentally).

Just like MS and Netscape did with HTML-extension in the old days. It's the EEE method.

Re:It's a Trap!

[drinkypoo]

So, the key is to anticipate how Microsoft might extend the protocol, and "head them off at the pass" by releasing Open Source variations as soon as possible.

The problem with that in this specific instance is that patents prevent the long-term free use and any Free use of H.264. Microsoft is backing a horse intended to turn FoSS users into criminals and this time little but an overhaul of patent law can stop them. Of course, it's not like it's just Microsoft; the industry is pretty well united in their attack on FoSS in this case.

Re:It's a Trap!

[Blakey Rat]

Well, in that case, Microsoft "embraced" H.264 ages ago. The Xbox 360 has been able to play it since release, as has the Zune (for example.)

Re:Only H.264?

[tomhudson]

of course not - h.264 is a good way to strike back at open source. After all, it's got oodles of patents.

Figure it out:

1. Microsoft likes closed standards
2. Apple likes closed standards
3. Both only want to support h.264

html will become the new proprietary web. No thanks.

Remember

[Dunbal]

Step 1 is embrace. Look for extend real soon.

Re:Remember

[lwsimon]

I don't think that strategy will work real well these days - it depends on people being willing to adopt your proprietary extensions, and with all the focus on standards compliance in today's world, there will be few who do.

Re:Remember

[jlebrech]

Step 2 is to compile into some HTML5 and javascript from Visual Studio, maybe with a Flash studio-esque timeline and animations.

Expression Blend, HTML5 export comes to mind.

Re:Remember

[517714]

Take the population of SlashDot regulars, multiply by something between two and ten. That is how many people care about proprietary standards. Most of those will abandon their unwilliness for shiny ^h^h^h^h^h any halfway compelling reason.

Unsurprising

[whisking]

It is quite unsurprising they will support only h.264. They are a licensor in the h.264 patent pool (just like Apple) so it does not cost them anything and they actually get money when somebody licenses it, so it makes sense to endorse its use. If something else (theora, vp8,...) will actually win the html5 video format war, they can always add the support later. Obviously I am joking about this part :)

Re:Unsurprising

[CondeZer0]

I honestly fear that the only hope for some sanity is if the Supreme Court of the US abolishes the insanity that are software patents.

Re:Unsurprising

[c_g_hills]

Quite. It would make sense to simply use directshow or mediafoundation for decoding video so that any format for which the user has a codec installed would be supported. QtWebKit does this for example, so any web browser using Qt can take advantage of all the system codecs (as well as other pluggable backends, for example vlc).

Re:Unsurprising

[daithesong]

re: "They are a licensor in the h.264 patent pool (just like Apple) so it does not cost them anything"
You have evidence for this? A heavy user, but minority patent owner, can easily pay more than they get.

What does this have to do with Flash?

[bbqsrc]

Google only allows H.264 video to be played in its browser. It also supports Flash. I understand that supporting is killing Flash, but seriously, they're not mandating the use of HTML5 only like Apple. "Comparing apples and oranges" as they say.

Re:What does this have to do with Flash?

[Aladrin]

Google only allows it in its own browser because it's the only one that supports it so far. When others support it, they'll open it up for them, too.

Re:What does this have to do with Flash?

[DrgnDancer]

Neither is Apple, on the Mac. I'd be curious to see what position Microsoft will take for IE on the latest version of WinMo. Jobs made some valid points. It's still arguable that he and Apple should step back and let people hang themselves with mobile Flash if they want to, but he made good points.

Re:What does this have to do with Flash?

[0racle]

Sites like YouTube use Flash for one reason - to display video. The surge in the last couple of years of video on sites streaming only flv has massively increased the amount of flash on the internet. The HTML5 video tag is a direct competitor to this use of flash - if everyone can agree on a single codec.

Flash for creating highly interactive sites and online games isn't really threatened here, but if there is a cross web platform way to distribute video, especially since it works better, then Adobe can say good by to a really big reason for many sites to buy flash creation tools.

Flash is a hog and is overused simply to push video to anything, it will be good to see that go.

Wait, also

[bbqsrc]

Why the fuck is this categorised as Apple? It can't have less to do with Apple. Seriously.

Re:Wait, also

[characterZer0]

Check the author.

Re:Wait, also

[je ne sais quoi]

I think it's kdawson's subtle dig at all those people who bitched and moaned about how hypocritical Apple is for embracing an open standard (HTML5) over a closed one (flash) when their platforms are sometimes closed as well as the software they themselves produce. Somehow I guess we won't see much outrage about MS endorsing html5. They were a little more tactful than Apple was though: they hedged their bets by saying that flash is still useful. But then again, MS actually has a good working relationship with Adobe, that's a big contrast to Apple whose relationship has been strained (from a user's perspective) since Photoshop never got ported to cocoa for OS X.

As an interesting aside, this is coming fresh on the heels MS canceling its tablet, following great sales of Apple's tablet. I can see that this sign from a few years ago is still relevant today. Shit, the last time I was actually impressed by the innovation in an MS product, it was Windows 2000.

P.S. The irony is that Safari itself has multiple components that are actually open source, i.e. the html renderer is webkit and gui is editable using xcode, which is a lot more open than IE. I myself removed the brushed metal texture from Safari a few years ago back before ditched that look completely anyway. But a lot of /. users have decided that Apple is completely and irrevocably evil and thus can't possibly do any good features. I'm guessing there will be a lack of vitriol here though, despite the fact that IE is more closed than Safari, and historically has resulted in weak compliance for standards on the web, in fact, IE6 enforced a lot of non-compliance due to the OS monopoly and IE6's poor implementation.

Re:Wait, also

[apoc.famine]

I think it's kdawson's subtle dig..

I think it's incompetence.

so happy

[roman_mir]

I just had a tear I think, well somewhere on the inside of my mind... :)

finally, finally, man I hate Flash, I want everyone who used flash on their sites to suffer from this decision :) Sorry, just can't control my feelings of happiness right now :)

HTML5, here we go.

Re:so happy

[delinear]

I might share your enthusiasm about the iminent explosion of HTML5 development if I wasn't still supporting MS' decade old IE6. Flash isn't going anywhere until the vast, vast majority of users are using HTML5 capable browsers (and even then it'll still have a place for other uses - a lot of which could be done via HTML5, but when a company already has a bunch of Flash developers and HTML5 still supports the object element, why would they switch at great expense).

Re:so happy

[Nadaka]

Why do you need flash developers to stream bog standard video? It really isn't like you need to rewrite the player for every new stream.

Re:so happy

[Aqualung812]

I wasn't still supporting MS' decade old IE6

The good news is that there is sure to be some worms that will exploit IE6 and maybe after that the corporations will finally move off it it.

Re:so happy

[IntlHarvester]

What flash-based site only serves bog-standard video? They all have overlays and other interactivity.

Re:so happy

[Floritard]

Because HTML5, often lauded as a feature to feature replacement for Flash, certainly won't allow people to make poorly designed, annoying or intrusive content now will it? Do you really think that the death of Flash will somehow take with it every last ugly, bloated, gaudy piece of advertising spam or bad media you find on the web today?

Bad content makers are bad content makers. They will use whatever tools are at their disposal to cram their irritations into your eyes and ears. Stop bitching about specific technologies and talk to the people who manage the sites you visit.

As a matter of fact you might just miss Flash once you can no longer block content offensive to you which is no longer hosted in a containable browser plug-in but embedded directly in the code of the page you're viewing.

Don't worry!

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll half-ass it as they usually do, leaving us with an improperly implemented standard. If they do it just right, it could work in Adobe's favor, as the broken standard implementation will fragment everyone else.

Re:Don't worry!

[Low Ranked Craig]

That's highly likely I think. I fear that IE9 will become the new IE6.

So does that mean...

[DrXym]

... Microsoft are ditching Silverlight?

Of course not. I expect it suits them to promote HTML 5 with one hand while still trying to snare people with Silverlight on the other.

I just hope that when they talk HTML5 they actually mean it this time rather than supplying some half arsed implementation which deviates from the spec in significant ways.

Re:So does that mean...

[dingen]

I don't get what they want to achieve with Silverlight. If they truly make IE9 compatible with HTML5 and offer a decent Javascript engine, what will the benefits of Silverlight be? Isn't Microsoft shooting itself in the foot with this?

Re:So does that mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

Silverlight allows Netflix to stream video in a hard to rip format. (yeah, I know that there is at least 1 hack out there, but it is more bother than it is worth)

Re:So does that mean...

[geekoid]

Developers.
MS makes a shit ton of cash from developers, and they would rather get the money over Adobe.

Re:So does that mean...

[DrXym]

I don't get what they want to achieve with Silverlight. If they truly make IE9 compatible with HTML5 and offer a decent Javascript engine, what will the benefits of Silverlight be? Isn't Microsoft shooting itself in the foot with this?

I think the answer is that Silverlight, Java(FX), Flash etc. are still vastly more capable than HTML5 for rich content, especially graphics intensive content. My original remark was more to highlight the hypocrisy of espousing HTML5 when MS would like nothing better than to kill Flash and replace it with something just as proprietary.

Can you turn it off?

[lfp98]

The major advantage of Flash is that you can choose NOT to install it. With HTML5 decoding built into the browsers, are we all doomed to watch whirlygigs everywhere, all day long?

Re:Can you turn it off?

[mr_lizard13]

Just don't press play.

Re:Can you turn it off?

[bemymonkey]

Javascript is built into the browser, yet we have no problems turning that off, do we? :)

Re:Can you turn it off?

[Bragador]

If you have adblock plus, all you'll have to do is "ban" that video and voila!

Re:Can you turn it off?

[delinear]

There are plenty of plugins/addons for browsers that do dynamic DOM manipulation - I can't imagine it would be difficult to write a plugin that disabled the video element until/unless required.

Re:Can you turn it off?

[Stooshie]

what about autoplay="true". try overriding that in HTML5

Re:Can you turn it off?

[EzInKy]

In Firefox preferences you can disable loading images, why wouldn't there be an option to do the same with video?

Re:Can you turn it off?

[nick357]

Thats crazy talk!

Re:Can you turn it off?

[Anonymous Coward]

var arVideos = document.getElementsByTagName('video');
for (var i = arVideos.length - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
        var elmVideo = arVideos[i];
        elmVideo.autoplay = false;
}

Re:Can you turn it off?

[ukyoCE]

about:config ...we can only hope.

Re:Can you turn it off?

[Nadaka]

again, browser options should be able to control that behavior.

Re:Can you turn it off?

[Explodicle]

Greasemonkey.

Re:Can you turn it off?

[robmv]

manipulate the DOM with a Firefox/Chrome plugin that removes the video URL on document load?

Re:Can you turn it off?

[SunTzuWarmaster]

Here is a quick script that a browser plugin can run against pages before rendering that will turn off that flag.

sed -i s/"autoplay=\"true\""/"autoplay=\"false\""/

Or in python:
string.replace(str, "autoplay=\"true\"", "autoplay=\"false\"")

Or in java:
str=str.replaceAll("autoplay=\"true\"", "autoplay=\"false\"");

Your browser gets content from the webpage, then decides how to render it. For the same reason that Realplayer can simply ignore the DoNotCopy flag, your browser (or plugin) can ignore the autoplay flag, replace it, limit it to one/page, or anything else you can think of.

Re:Can you turn it off?

[markdavis]

I am sure there will be controls in about:config or whatnot to turn off the video tag (at least, I certain HOPE there will be). The bigger problem comes when the site designers start denying OTHER content when you refuse to allow video/animation/sound/etc. This already happens with Flash.... no Flash? No content! Either the site is written being dependent on Flash and they have no non-Flash site, or they autodetect you don't have Flash and pop-up an oh-so-helpful screen telling you were you must download it before you can continue. Infuriating.

By the way- thin clients and video/audio/animation do not mix well at all, which is why there will always be a need to [forcibly] turn it off. Unfortunately, cutesy animation is now being done with AJAX'y stuff and (as far as I have seen) there is NO effective way to stop that stuff without adverse effects (tons of manual intervention, broken sites, etc). For example, no longer can you click on a picture and see a larger version instantly- now sites are "improved", so they have to grey the screen, make a transparent overlay, bring up a "window", show a cute animated busy icon (flower petals), then FADE IN the image. Give me a break!

Re:Can you turn it off?

[Randle_Revar]

NoScript can already block <video> and <audio> in the same way it blocks Flash, for starters

The bright side

[bcmm]

The bright side is that this codec idiocy might actually get people interested in fixing software patents.

Re:The bright side

[Randle_Revar]

It's nice to have dreams

Re:The bright side

[daithesong]

The patents in codecs are mostly on signal processing. What technology you use (hardware, software, firmware) is irrelevant, roughly as the phrase 'software patents' is meaningless.

Re:The bright side

[that_itch_kid]

Flamebait for a bit of sarcastic cynicism?

Webcam support?

[AHuxley]

With all this html5 love, where is the webcam broadcasting support?
What will all the live streaming sites do allow you to send your HD or almost HD UVC webcam out to the world?
http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-device/

Re:Webcam support?

[AHuxley]

Cute but I was hoping someone on slashdot could give a more realistic idea.
If UVC is open esp on Linux and HTML5 is open where is the open source broadcasting?
The dev has a few codecs, the webcams and html5.
Nobody has a device tag timeline?
http://devworks.thinkdigit.com//Internet/Native-webcam-support-to-come-with-HTML5_3834.html
"HTML5 is treading further further into Flash's domain, yet with nearly a decade to go till the specification becomes formalized, Adobe isn't going to be sleeping."

Re:Only H.264?

[dzfoo]

Dude, you do know that JPEG, GIF, and MP3 are all patent-owned standards too, right? Funny that they are all supported by browsers and are rather de facto standards in the "proprietary web".

      -dZ.

Apple?

[whisper_jeff]

I understand the submitter added a tidbit about Apple to increase the likelihood of the story making it to the front page but why does a story about Microsoft have an "Apple:" tag? This is a story about Microsoft and HTML5 - take your pick but neither of those is Apple.

And here I thought I was an Apple fanboi...

Follow the money before you rejoice

[c0d3g33k]

This move is as self-serving as ever, so be careful what you wish for as the Flash hate clouds your mind.

1. Microsoft doesn't control Adobe and I'm sure that bothers them. It sure as hell bothers Steve Jobs. So why not take them out while they are vulnerable?
2. Microsoft is part of the H.264 patent pool, so they will make money when the licensing bombs go off. Killing off a competitor (flash) so users and content providers have few alternatives and must pay up puts them right where Microsoft wants them.
3. Once flash is gone (or has greatly diminished influence/relevance), Microsoft is free to tweak things in a way that suits them better. Embrace, extend, extinguish.
4. HTML5 video has no established standard DRM solution which content owners crave. Flash does, so it's hard to get content owners on board with Microsoft's agenda at present. I suspect that Microsoft has something in the works to offer them, which will conveniently be exclusive to Microsoft controlled platforms, or licensable to those who play nice (Apple). Sorry Android (and Linux).

This makes me very nervous.

Re:Follow the money before you rejoice

[drinkypoo]

2. Microsoft is part of the H.264 patent pool, so they will make money when the licensing bombs go off. Killing off a competitor (flash) so users and content providers have few alternatives and must pay up puts them right where Microsoft wants them.

Modern flash video is H.264. Microsoft gets money whether it's HTML5 H.264 or Flash H.264.

Once flash is gone (or has greatly diminished influence/relevance), Microsoft is free to tweak things in a way that suits them better. Embrace, extend, extinguish.

Supporting HTML5 now means that Microsoft will annoy even more people than usual if they attempt to push nonsense over the web again. Doesn't mean they won't, but it's not simple.

HTML5 video has no established standard DRM solution which content owners crave. Flash does, so it's hard to get content owners on board with Microsoft's agenda at present.

This is probably flash's saving grace right now.

I suspect that Microsoft has something in the works to offer them, which will conveniently be exclusive to Microsoft controlled platforms, or licensable to those who play nice (Apple).

If you're presuming that they will later announce that H.264 is not the only video format they will support (even if the alternative is H.264+DRM) then that is not unreasonable. Don't think they'd be licensing it to Apple though.

Re:Follow the money before you rejoice

[curunir]

It's still notable that Microsoft didn't choose to support Windows Media in their HTML5 implementation. They could have easily supported both H.264 and Windows Media. And they could have easily extended HTML5 support to provide a Silverlight-like DRM implementation. If they'd done either/both of those, it would have created the possibility that sites would be created that would only work with Internet Explorer.

But they didn't. They chose to implement HTML5 in a way that was compatible with the other browsers from large companies. As nice as I think it would be to have a royalty-free codec supported everywhere, having a single codec supported everywhere is the next best thing. And Microsoft could have sabotaged that effort, but didn't. And for that, at least, I think they should be commended.

Now we just have to hope that the MPEG-LA will realize that it's in their best interests to become the de facto HTML5 standard video codec and offer a free (as in beer) license that can be used to when distributing free (as in beer) browsers.

Re:Flash != Video

[Stooshie]

Flash hasn't been like that for years. You think every browser is going to implement HTML5/JS in the same way? Are you going to have to write different code for each browser. Flash/Flex allows you to do that and create a desktop app with the same functionality for very little extra work.

Huh?

[mister_playboy]

Given the amount of time it has taken for the Gimp to become a strong competitor to Photoshop...

Are you from the future? I'm a GIMP myself, but come on...

Re:Huh?

[mister_playboy]

I'm a GIMP user myself

Damnit... :P

Re:Huh?

[bazorg]

"fugiu-lhe a boca para a verdade", as we say in Portugal :D

Re:Huh?

[pyrr]

Well, I think it is a valid point. What exactly is the average user going to get for an extra $200 (legit copy), 923MB of additional HDD space consumed, and that extra 15-20 seconds of load time that Photoshop requires?

GIMP can't do everything, but for what most people need and what they're able to make use of, it's every bit as good as Photoshop, which I would think makes it a strong competitor. Its biggest handicap to being a contender is that idiotic name, the secret fear that every GIMP user has, that they'll accidentally confess to being one. ;)

Re:Huh?

[Low Ranked Craig]

I'm sorry, but as a heavy Photoshop user I've tried to get stuff done with the GIMP that it just won't do. I'd have to say that GIMP is NOT a strong competitor to Photoshop unless you only use a very small small portion of Photoshop's features. Yes, PS is bloated and expensive, but I couldn't do my job without it.

Re:Huh?

[soppsa]

Shhh nobody likes to hear that here. For the people that would either pirate PS or use the Gimp to create logos for their blog or apply filters and color shifts to their phone and low-end camera pics, sure GIMP might be enough. But any of us who actually do graphics work or actual photo editing will attest that GIMP isn't even a weak competitor to Photoshop, its a competitor to the Photoshop Elements user base maybe, but Photoshop is really an impressive feat, and CS5 even more so.

Re:Only H.264?

[westlake]

Microsoft won't allow third-party codecs and/or plugins to do the job for them?

There are 811 licensees of AVC/H.264 video.

The global giants in brand-name consumer hardware production and distribution are all there.

Canonical is there.

If Shuttleworth decides Ubuntu needs H.264 to remain competitive on the desktop, the barrier to installing the codec by default is purely ideological.

Re:Only H.264?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you do know that JPEG, GIF, and MP3 are all patent-owned standards too, right?

The patents on GIF have expired. Baseline JPEG (which is what browsers support) is royalty-free. Closed formats are the exception on the web, not the rule.

#include standard /. HTML5 video corrections

[Paul Jakma]

• HTML5 != video codec

  That is to say, HTML5 is a way to embed video into web pages, along with controls. HTML5 doesn't say anything about the video codec that should be used, similar to how the IMG tag doesn't say what kinds of image formats are supported. Further, the videos that are loaded will almost certainly be in some container format, like Ogg, MP4, AVI, etc.. - not in raw codec data form.

  If the underlying system has a general media decoding system, and if the browser uses that, then the browser will support any kind of media supported by that underlying system.

• HTML5 is open

  It's an openly specified W3 standard. As a means to embed video into webpages, HTML5 video is much better than using the object tag to suck in a proprietary blob to then suck in the video.

• The H.264 codec is openly specified.

  H.264 is openly specified in standards drawn up by the MPEG and published by ISO. There are free software implementations of H.264. H.264 rather is encumbered by patents, the licensing for many of which is administered by the MPEG-LA. The patent situation is what things difficult for distributors/users, there is no lack of standards.

  Note that flash players often use H.263 and H.264 codec videos, and so have all the same patent issues for free software implementations (in addition to the problem of Flash not being fully documented, and not having any complete free implementations).

Re:#include standard /. HTML5 video corrections

[Tim C]

You're forgetting that HTML 5 still supports the object tag, so as long as there's a Flash plugin available for IE9 it will still support Flash. This isn't going to kill off Flash at all, just give sites a viable alternative. *That* may kill Flash, but in that case it'll be because the better technology won (where "better" = "more attractive in some compelling way")

Re:#include standard /. HTML5 video corrections

[Paul Jakma]

I didn't mean to give any impression that HTML5 did not support object and/or flash. Thanks for clarifying.

Re:Only H.264?

[Yvan256]

Can someone give this guy over 9000 insightful and informative points?

We have nothing to gain

[jeanph01]

It's just Microsoft that want to control the web in place of Adobe. Nothing will be gained for the user with this. That codec is managed by a patent pool.

I need some clarifications about HTML5

[zebslash]

Something I do not understand with HTML 5:

1) Why is the video codec type hardcoded in HTML5? Tight coupling has been known to be bad practice in many engineering problems, especially in programming. Avoiding such pitfalls is the base of object oriented programming, isn't it ? Wouldn't it be more logical to let HTML5 use media codecs availabl from the underlying OS?

2) Even if HTML5 has to define a video codec in their specifications, why Firefox cannot instead create a plugin that would take advantage of codecs installed on the system? They would avoid distributing a H264 decoder, but at the same time would be able to use the one the user would install separately (of course with disclaimers such as do it at your own risk, etc).

Can anyone enlighten me about this, or give me links?

Re:I need some clarifications about HTML5

[zebslash]

I'll answer to myself: regarding point 2, we have the opinon of a Mozilla dev against this idea:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/01/video_freedom_a.html

Re:I need some clarifications about HTML5

[CelticWhisper]

As I understand it, the codec type isn't hardcoded in the HTML, but it's still up to the browser to implement decoding and playback. This is where the Firefox/h.264 problem comes in - Mozilla has said that they won't implement h.264 decoding in FF because of patent issues. HTML5's video tag acts pretty much like an img tag - it points to the source file for the video but doesn't say a whole lot about what kind of video it is. More information here: http://www.w3schools.com/html5/tag_video.asp

Re:I need some clarifications about HTML5

[Abcd1234]

Why is the video codec type hardcoded in HTML5

It's not. It's no different than the IMG tag. ie, it's just a generic video container element with a well-defined DOM API.

Even if HTML5 has to define a video codec in their specifications, why Firefox cannot instead create a plugin that would take advantage of codecs installed on the system?

Because they're being stubborn and sticking to their lofty ideals, instead of trying to do what's actually best for their userbase (they've attempted to claim technical difficulties, but given other browsers like Chromium seem to manage it, their claims ring exceedingly hollow).

Re:I need some clarifications about HTML5

[e4g4]

http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1636910&cid=32043500

Re:I need some clarifications about HTML5

[mini me]

Why is the video codec type hardcoded in HTML5?

The spec is attempting to specify which types of videos are required to be available so that developers know exactly what type of video file they can present to all browsers.

Theoretically the browser can play videos of types beyond what the spec requires, but there is no guarantee to the authors of the content that the next browser will be able to play the same video.

HTML5 will also specify which image formats are required. While you can pretty much count on JPEG, PNG, and GIF support in most browsers today, there has previously never been a requirement for a browser to support any of those types. A more explicit definition about file formats ensures that browsers are predicable, no matter who the vendor is.

Re:Only H.264?

[tomhudson]

you do know that JPEG, GIF, and MP3 are all patent-owned standards too, right? Funny that they are all supported by browsers and are rather de facto standards in the "proprietary web".

You really need to do your research.

The GIF patent is long expired. Turn in your geek card - everyone who knows pretty much anything about the patent wars knows that. That alone shows you're talking trash.

Or you could try again. For example, show where the licensing authority says it's okay to make an open-source free version. Oh, you can't - because they refused!

Not challenging, just asking..

[PopeRatzo]

MS wants to replace flash developers needs with in expensive back end lock in.

Please explain. I'm curious about this. I've heard other people mention it, but I'm not sure to what they are referring.

Thank you.

Re:Not challenging, just asking..

[Cerium]

It's probably a reference to Visual Studio.

Re:Not challenging, just asking..

[V!NCENT]

Who, of all companies, does NOT want that? How about a little history repeats itself course? Let's begin with Word and Excel... Continue (y/n)?

Re:Not challenging, just asking..

[V!NCENT]

I suspect that Flash devs are working for a company and need to implement something for what the largest part of their market uses. Be it Flash, Silverlight or whatever else...

Oh whatever, I'm just mumlbing like an astro- errrr-, schizo on a bus...

Teach them a lesson

[tak amalak]

Adobe should just teach them all a lesson and take their apps off Microsoft and Apple's platforms! That will teach em.

Wait...

Re:Only H.264?

[nine-times]

Yes, there's a difference between a "closed standard" and a "patent encumbered standard". H264 is an open standard brought to you by MPEG, the same group that gave you MPEG video and MP3 audio.

All of this stuff has patents on it. The question is, how are those patents being enforced?

Re:Only H.264?

[dzfoo]

The GIF patent expired within the last decade. It was in full force during the 1990s, and yet the WWW survived.

      -dZ.

Re:Only H.264?

[jedidiah]

> If Shuttleworth decides Ubuntu needs H.264 to remain competitive on the desktop, the barrier to installing the codec by default is purely ideological.

Since Ubuntu has a proper package manager, the default "barrier" is highly artificial.

The first time you try to play a file with h264,the video player will sort everything out for you.

It could also install the video player itself for you too. It doesn't have to be there.

It's all automated quite nicely thanks to the Debian goodness that's under the covers.

P* on Apple

[bynick]

Don't you mean, "Why Apple does not allow you to install Flash on your device."? It's not like Apple has to pay to put Flash on the device.. they're prohibiting you from installing it from any provider. It's your device... you should be allowed to do whatever you want to with it. P* on Apple.

Re:P* on Apple

[StuartHankins]

Actually if they enabled Flash, then got lots of support calls (which is definitely possible) then they would pay a price. Also if there were problems, the "Apple" user experience would be harmed. So there are business reasons why this was done as well as technical and even political / personal reasons.

After all, if the experience is crap on Windows, you kind of expect it. If something doesn't work in Linux, you kind of expect it. If it doesn't work on an Apple product, people light things on fire and run through the streets naked.

Flash isn't going to disappear -_-

[MasaMuneCyrus]

I keep seeing this argument that the use of HTML 5 and the use of Flash is mutually exclusive. I understand that HTML 5 has video and some basic animation capabilities, but how, exactly, does this spell the end of Flash? Flash is a tremendously useful development platform, and it has many more capabilities than just online video.

Re:Only H.264?

[tomhudson]

Once Unisys found out that GIFs used their patented LZW algorithm, they DID require payments from companies producing software that generated GIFs:

The LZW compression algorithm on which GIF is based, was covered by a U.S. patent 4,558,302 owned by Unisys. When Compuserve first developed the GIF they did not know that LZW was covered by a patent.

Before 1994, Unisys was not aware that GIF used LZW. In December 1994, after Unisys discovered that GIF used the LZW, they announced that they would be seeking royalties on that patent; all commercial programs capable of producing GIF files would be required to pay a license fee to Unisys.

By this time, GIF was in such widespread use that most companies producing these programs had little choice but to pay. The desire for a format with fewer legal restrictions (as well as fewer technical restrictions such as the number of colours) led to the development of the PNG format, which has become the third common image format on the Web.

In late August 1999, Unisys terminated its royalty-free LZW technology licenses for free software and non-commercial proprietary software and even for individual users of unlicensed programs, prompting the League for Programming Freedom to launch the Burn All GIFs campaign to inform the public of the alternatives.

On June 20, 2003, the United States patent on the LZW algorithm expired, which means that Unisys and Compuserve can no longer collect royalties for use of the GIF format in that country. Those bothered with the patent enforcement dubbed this day GIF Liberation Day. The equivalent patents in Europe and Japan expired on June 18 and June 20 2004 respectively, with the Canada patent following on July 7.

So, "someone's gonna pay."

The owners of h.264 have already said they won't allow an open-source implementation that is freely downloadable without respect to the number of end users. Once you pass "n" users, you HAVE to pay the licensing fees. Also, since you can't pass along a copy of the software to other users, it's not compatible with either the GPL or the BSD licenses.

So your "point" actually backs up mine. Have a nice day.

Cutting off nose to spite face

[Paul Jakma]

If the underlying system has a general media decoding system, and if the browser uses that, then the browser will support any kind of media supported by that underlying system.

Oh, my understanding is the Mozilla chose not to use any such system. They directly implement Ogg/Theora support (via libtheora) - and so they support nothing else. Chromium uses FFMpeg, which has a wide range of support for video formats.

The Mozilla move to me does not make sense. I gather they're doing it because they want to promote an unencumbered codec over H.264. However, it seems to me this just completely hobbles the prospects of HTML5 video being adopted over flash. By tying together the embedding and codec questions, it seems to me they damage the prospects of *either* dimension going free. If you can "free" the embedding technology and wrest the web away from Flash, then you have *much* greater scope for next trying to do something about the codec situation.

Hitching problems together often makes them much harder to solve. Divide and conquer - splitting problems in more manageable, independent chunks - often is a better strategy.

Still need to see what Google does with VP8..

Re:Cutting off nose to spite face

[g1zmo]

Hitching problems together often makes them much harder to solve. Divide and conquer - splitting problems in more manageable, independent chunks - often is a better strategy.

When each of your sub-chunks involves touching each and every personal computing device on the planet, it's more sensible for Mozilla to draw the line in the sand where they did.

Re:Cutting off nose to spite face

[dangitman]

When each of your sub-chunks involves touching each and every personal computing device on the planet, it's more sensible for Mozilla to draw the line in the sand where they did.

So, H.264 is forbidden, but allowing Flash is perfectly OK? That's a very strange "line in the sand" to draw.

Tipping the balance

[Macka]

The only scale this might tip is the Theora vs h.264 thing

Well not quite just yet, at least not in terms of browser support. It will be 50-50 when IE9 ships. Focusing on the major browsers (they're the only ones that really count) in the Ogg Theora camp we have: Firefox, Chrome and Opera. And in the H.264 camp we (will) have: IE9, Safari and Chrome.

I suspect though that in reality, 1-2 years from now, when you factor in all the mobile devices that will only do hardware accelerated H.264 and the combined market share that IE9 + Safari + Chrome have, it will be a landslide victory for H.264. Mozilla and Opera will be faced with a very tough choice to either support H.264 in some fashion or slide into obscurity.

My personal opinion is that they should adopt it now, continue to build on their market share and work behind the scenes to establish a viable alternative to H.264 that matches or exceeds its performance at a much lower price point (free - or as near as dam it). It's the old chicken and egg thing - content publishers will only push content in Theora (or perhaps VP8) format if there is an established user base out there who they can target. If Firefox and Opera whither on the vine before an alternative codec is ready then you've already lost the battle. You won't get people to switch from IE9 and Safari to a browser to that doesn't play existing content because users don't see the value of free codecs. It's hidden from them.

Re:Tipping the balance

[Dan Ost]

Google can push whatever format they want just by making the youtube experience the best (or even just the default) in that format. Google's release of VP8, I think, should be interpretted as foreshadowing for their intentions.

If Mozilla doesn't support h264, then their almost 50% market penetration in Europe will motivate sites to support at least one format that Mozilla does support. Again, VP8 will likely play a large part in their plans.

In the end, there will probably be no clear winner, just a number of formats that are widely supported by websites and tools for easily moving content from one format to another.

Re:Tipping the balance

[TheTurtlesMoves]

My personal opinion is that they should adopt it now..

And how can Mozilla/FF do this legally? They can't.

Re:Tipping the balance

[Macka]

They can if they buy a license. They earn tens of millions of dollars a year so they can afford it. If they don't give users the browsing experience they expect then their users will switch. IE9 will provide hardware accelerated H.264 on the desktop so they will be setting the user experience bar high.

The vast majority of users are non technical and Closed .vs. Open source means nothing to them. They value two things: functionality and cost. The cost of an H.264 license is absorbed by the browser maker so to the user the codec (cost) is free. That leaves functionality. What do you think these users are going to do when they get a substandard browsing experience on FF and Microsoft peppers them with Ads about how much better their browser gives the users what they want? After years of taking a browser beating Microsoft will go for the jugular. You can put money on it.

Re:Tipping the balance

[Macka]

There's no way YouTube would drop H.264 and shock the majority of their users with "sorry but your browser doesn't support this format" type messages. There would be an outcry.

There will be a clear winner, and that will be driven by the content providers. It simply doesn't make good business sense to continue encoding many terabytes of content multiple times (chewing cpu cycles and disk space) when a single format can be viewed on all platforms by 100% of the users. Well, those that make the right browser choice.

YouTube are a business like any other with profit and losses to report. In the end pragmatism (and the demands of the shareholders) will force their hand.

Re:Tipping the balance

[TheTurtlesMoves]

They can if they buy a license.

No they can't. You have to sign the license agreement to buy a license. That license agreement prevents any kind of redistribution what so ever. It would be in violation of the OS licenses both Mozilla and FF have been developed under.

There is more to a license than cash.

Re:Only H.264?

[dzfoo]

Of course someone has to pay. My point wasn't that it is free, my point is that in spite of the patent licenses and potential payments, the web succeeded.

      -dZ.

The Dud

[SuperKendall]

Microsoft is part of the H.264 patent pool, so they will make money when the licensing bombs go off.

Pick your poison - low license fees now that MAY increase at some point after 2016 (but probably will not because of all the lawsuits will ensue).

Vs.

Submarine patents waiting to strike any other format that dares become dominant.

The "license bomb" is a non-starter as an issue, there are too many companies involved that have too great an interest in seeing the fees kept low (and here I am only talking about the companies involved in h.264!!)

Why it will not work

[SuperKendall]

Basically, Microsoft is going to embrace HTML5 and use it to hurt Flash, it'll then start to phase HTML5 support out once Flash's market share starts to take a large enough hit and talk about how HTML5 doesn't have enough support or doesn't "have all the features our users demand," then it will start to pimp Silverlight,

And then IE continues to lose marketshare, since by that point all Adobe's Flash tools have transitioned to producing HTML5 output (things like Canvas support) and HTML5 carries on as a the default standard for vector and animated graphics on the web.

Re:Only H.264?

[dkf]

Once Unisys found out that GIFs used their patented LZW algorithm

It was possible to write GIFs that didn't use the LZW algorithm by exploiting the fact that all decoders worked the same way, but it was also inefficient. I remember being pleased when the LZW patent expired and we could scrap that crap.

Re:Only H.264?

[Thundersnatch]

IE and Windows media Player have respictively done the same thingsince the Windows NT 4 era. So?

Re:MS patented video codecs

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you schizophrenic? Because you're mumbling about random crap like a crazy person on the bus.

Re:Only H.264?

[mzs]

Do you understand that unisys charged for creating compressed gifs not viewing them? See how even when they started charging for open source compressors Navigator and IE could get away without paying? This is very different in the h.264 case. Right now there are all sorts of exceptions that allow people to create, serve, and view royalty free. It could potentially survive if only royalties needed to be paid for creating. It could also survive if source code were not permitted to be distributed, though what a blow that would be to open source. Right now the distribution of source code for simply decoding h.264 is already in a gray area. Do you now see how the situation is different and potentially much worse?

Re:MS patented video codecs

[Lunix Nutcase]

MS patented video codecs.

And those would be? Oh and before you mention WMV/VC-1, Microsoft holds only a tiny minority of the patents that make up the WMV/VC-1 pool.

Flash isn't just a video player

[Khashishi]

I don't know why it's treated as such. Videos are just compressed pixel data. In Flash, you can make vector-based movies, or interactive stuff like video games. I mean, just check out newgrounds. You can't do that with H.264.

Re:Flash isn't just a video player

[mini me]

But you can do those things with HTML5. Choosing a video format to standardize upon will allow HTML5 pages to reliably play video as well as all of those animations and interactivity that Flash is also capable of.

Windows Phone 7

[Redlemons]

This probably has something to do with Windows Phone 7 right? I mean, there are some nice H.264 decoder chips out there for portable devices, which will save battery life vs software decoding. (Steve Jobs told me!)

Two words: Greasemonkey, Adblock.

[Tei]

With flash, if you like a app, but It don't work exactly like you want, you are fucked.
With HTML5, if you like a app, but has a lame banner or other element you don't want, you can remove it.
We can remove banners from html pages, because html pages ar open. You can't remove banners inside flash.

Why do people think H.264 + HTML5 == NO_FLASH???

[l0ungeb0y]

This is a source of CONSTANT contention with my clients in the video space.
C-Level execs and even developers think that flash is DOOMED because of HTML5.

Why is it so hard to understand that the video tag is merely an interface spec for a built-in browser based video player?
If Site B wanted to co-opt Site A's H.264 mp4 video and put it inside a flash video player, there's nothing to stop them from doing that, even if the site lacks a cross-domain xml file, that could easily be circumvented by a simple proxy script, routing the video bits through Site B's server.
There is absolutely NOTHING that I see so far that is not a win for Flash.
Both MS and Apple are behind MP4, Mozilla and Opera are Ogg-Theora and Google is going both ways (MP4+Ogg)

And what about sharing? Is HTML5 supposed to kill viral video too? How do you embed video in another person's site? Ohhh ya... just copy the video tag. But what of branding and click-through traffic? The video tag only supports LEECHING, no way to enforce reciprocating traffic or proper credits for the content. Youtube like sites would simply not exist if HTML4 had the video tag and flash never came about with video support.

And what of DRM? Some people don't want Site B to show their content, but don't want to limit their audience to IE or any other browser specific DRM solution. How does HTML5 provide for DRM? Ohhh... wait... they don't. It's implementation specific.

All in all, I think this rally for HTML5 video as the flash killer is a grandiose clusterfuck of BS and I am appalled that the tech community has so far been so gullible to eat this turd sandwhich and not called it out as it really is: 1998 all over again with a shit-shine.

Steve Jobs is a tired old fuck who is on the wrong side of the internet video issue.
He's letting his grudge against Adobe and his thirst for a locked down proprietary Apple controlled App-store based world blind him to reality.

Flash is here to stay for the foreseeable future and the iPhone and iPad will suffer if Jobs stays at the helm past 2010.
Jobs' time has come, he needs to step aside and let the his products grow, banning technology is not the way to do it.
Otherwise, Android with Flash support featuring a 100% functional internet will destroy the AppStore empire he's built.

Re:Only H.264?

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

You realize that in Mozilla Browser in 1999 could display GIFs?

Why is h.264 any different?

Mozilla is really dragging their ass for no really good reason.

Yeah for Firefox & Chrome

[Boona]

I'm all for supporting open formats but this is a stupid move on Microsoft's part. Already people are moving from IE and, without flash video support, this will only make more people shift towards browsers who support the tech.

Re:Yeah for Firefox & Chrome

[shutdown -p now]

Where does it say that IE wouldn't be supporting Flash?

Re:Only H.264?

[tomhudson]

unisys only went after the programs that produced gifs. mpeg-la wants/requires end-user equipment and software to be licensed.

What is the best authoring software for HTML5?

[plowboylifestyle]

I guess my issue with HTML5 right now is that I'm willing to switch from flash, but I can't figure out how to author vector based, typography and video, intensive sites that run on HTML5 without coding them by hand.

Re:Welcome to 1995

[dwiget001]

Uh, GIF is free, hasn't been patent encumbered for roughly a decade now.

Re:Only H.264?

[daithesong]

re: "For example, show where the licensing authority says it's okay to make an open-source free version. Oh, you can't - because they refused!"
Citation please. reference code is *required* by the ISO and ITU standards efforts, and it is available to all. There are also open-source projects such as x.264. Finally, I do not believe that either MPEG or MPEG-LA would make such a statement (and they are, in case you don't understand this, quite distinct bodies).

This is a good thing

[Sitnalta]

Speaking as a video editor and one who routinely makes videos for the web, this move by Microsoft is a huge relief. H.264 has been the standard for low filesize, high quality videos for many years now. It's so ingrained into video editing programs like Final Cut, Avid and Premier that using something else is a huge pain in the ass.

At the end of the day, making an H.264 video is very simple and doesn't have all the fiddly bits that other codecs have. It just works. On everything.

It's like the battle between MP3 and OGG. It's no contest. There's a far larger ecosystem out there for one over the other. Even Microsoft recognizes that Apple has set the standard with the iPhone.

Re:Why do people think H.264 + HTML5 == NO_FLASH??

[xororand]

Some people don't want Site B to show their content

So they block the HTTP referrer of Site B.

Flamebait != "I disagree"

[drinkypoo]

I can see how you would think this is Flamebait; it isn't intended as such, we often use such a comparison to express a thought in this language, but anyway. It's clear that the moderation on this comment is abusive, intended to hide a competing idea. Astroturfer, or personal enemy?

Re:Only H.264?

[tomhudson]

Here we go - someone who doesn't understand the difference between an open standard and a free/libre standard. For example wrt ffmpeg and patent infringement

=====

Patent Mini-FAQ

A lot of legal questions surrounding patents arise when discussing multimedia technology. This mini-FAQ attempts to address these issues. Note that much of this discussion is based on precedent, or what has happened in the past under similar circumstances. Very little consideration is given to what could happen. If you use your imagination, you can visualize any dire scenario and cease doing any productive work.

Q: Does FFmpeg use patented algorithms?
A: We do not know, we are not lawyers so we are not qualified to answer this. Also we have never read patents to implement any part of FFmpeg, so even if we were qualified we could not answer it as we do not know what is patented. Furthermore the sheer number of software patents makes it impossible to read them all so no one (lawyer or not) could answer such a question with a definite no, those who do lie. What we do know is that various standards FFmpeg supports contain vague hints that any conforming implementation might be subject to some patent rights in some jurisdictions, examples for such statements are:

For H.264:

ITU draws attention to the possibility that the practice or implementation of this Recommendation may involve the use of a claimed Intellectual Property Right. ITU takes no position concerning the evidence, validity or applicability of claimed Intellectual Property Rights, whether asserted by ITU members or others outside of the Recommendation development process.

And for MPEG-4:

The user's attention is called to the possibility that, for some of the processes specified in this part of ISO/IEC 14496, conformance with this specification may require use of an invention covered by patent rights. By publication of this part of ISO/IEC 14496, no position is taken with respect to the validity of this claim or of any patent rights in connection therewith.

Q: Is it safe to use such patented algorithms?
A: Patent laws vary wildly between jurisdictions, and in many countries patents on algorithms are not recognized. Plus the use of patents to prevent the usage of a format or codec on a specific operating system or together with specific other software might violate antitrust laws. So whether you are safe or not depends on where you live and how judges interpret the law in your jurisdiction.

Q: Bottom line: Should I be worried about patent issues if I use FFmpeg?
A: Are you a private user working with FFmpeg for your own personal purposes? If so, there is remarkably little reason to be concerned. Are you using FFmpeg in a commercial software product? Read on to the next question...

Q: Is it perfectly alright to incorporate the whole FFmpeg core into my own commercial product?
A: You might have a problem here. There have been cases where companies have used FFmpeg in their products. These companies found out that once you start trying to make money from patented technologies, the owners of the patents will come after their licensing fees. Notably, MPEG LA is vigilant and diligent about collecting for MPEG-related technologies.

===== UTI are the people who actually develop the spec, the ITU-T Video Coding Experts Group .

Bottom line - if you want to implement h.264, be prepared to pay. But don't take anyone's word for it ... go ask them yourself. Ask if they (Apple, etc.) will give you permission to make a free version of an h.264 decoder that you can distribute for free around the world without paying a license fee. Tell them why YOU should be the first exception (x264 doesn't have theoir permission).

The only thing that end-users don't need a license for is to watch streaming video on the Internet (until 2015) - but the producers/streamers still need a license.

This has nothing to do with Flash...

[PhunkySchtuff]

This announcement doesn't mean that IE9 will not support plugins, especially Flash.
What this announcement means is that IE9 will natively play back H.264 video, with no additional codecs or plugins required. You'll be able to insert a video element into your html5 and IE9 will deal with it.
They're not doing anything to stop Flash from working, Flash will still be a plugin for IE9.

It means that Microsoft aren't doing anything stupid like saying they'll support the video tag, but only with videos in WMV, or in ogg theora or anything like that - they're committing to native support for h.264.

SF-JUG organizing HTML5 discussion at Microsoft!

[agargenta]

On a related subject, San Francisco Java User Group (www.sfjava.org) is hosting a 4-hour event on May 11th at Microsoft-SF on HTML5, with speakers from Google, Microsoft, and Kaazing. People seem to be excited about this because it will give them a chance to ask Microsoft about their commitment and plans for HTML5 in IE9. The event will be recorded and streamed. http://www.sfjava.org/calendar/12296585/ (Disclaimer, I am one of the organizers)