Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Tips the Scale In Favor of HTML 5

Posted by kdawson on from the no-pan-for-the-flash dept.

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."

64 of 325 comments (clear)

  1. wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:wow by delinear · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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...

    2. Re:wow by AHuxley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:wow by Raffaello · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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."

    4. Re:wow by cowscows · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    5. Re:wow by mario_grgic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
    6. Re:wow by Raffaello · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    7. Re:wow by slimjim8094 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    8. Re:wow by ink · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
    9. Re:wow by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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...

    10. Re:wow by Raffaello · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    11. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    12. Re:wow by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

    13. Re:wow by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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

    14. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    15. Re:wow by V!NCENT · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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

      --
      Here be signatures
    16. Re:wow by somersault · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.."

      --
      which is totally what she said
    17. Re:wow by amn108 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

    18. Re:wow by LordVader717 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  2. It's a Trap! by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:It's a Trap! by 6031769 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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).

      --
      Burns: We're building a casino!
      McAllister: Arrr. Give me 5 minutes.
    2. Re:It's a Trap! by camperdave · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  3. Re:Goodbye Flash by arogier · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    http://www.aaronrogier.net
  4. Unsurprising by whisking · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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 :)

  5. Re:Youtube by self+assembled+struc · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  6. What does this have to do with Flash? by bbqsrc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Disagree != mod troll.
  7. Wait, also by bbqsrc · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    Disagree != mod troll.
    1. Re:Wait, also by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
  8. Re:Goodbye Flash by TerranFury · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  9. Can you turn it off? by lfp98 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Can you turn it off? by bemymonkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Can you turn it off? by delinear · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Can you turn it off? by Stooshie · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    4. Re:Can you turn it off? by EzInKy · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    5. Re:Can you turn it off? by ukyoCE · · Score: 3, Insightful

      about:config ...we can only hope.

    6. Re:Can you turn it off? by markdavis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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!

  10. The bright side by bcmm · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  11. Re:Goodbye Flash by Animaether · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  12. Re:Youtube by YA_Python_dev · · Score: 3, Informative
    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.

    --
    There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
  13. Re:Only H.264? by dzfoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Carol vs. Ghost
    ...Can you save Christmas?
  14. Follow the money before you rejoice by c0d3g33k · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

  15. Huh? by mister_playboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

    --
    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    1. Re:Huh? by mister_playboy · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm a GIMP user myself

      Damnit... :P

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
  16. Re:Only H.264? by westlake · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  17. Re:Only H.264? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  18. Re:Goodbye Flash by binarylarry · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
  19. Re:Goodbye Flash by IBBoard · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?)

  20. #include standard /. HTML5 video corrections by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 4, Informative
    • 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).

    --
    I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
  21. Re:Goodbye Flash by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  22. Re:Goodbye Flash by javilon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --


    When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
  23. Re:Only H.264? by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Informative

    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!

  24. Teach them a lesson by tak+amalak · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    Wait...

    --
    Don't lead me into temptation... I can find it myself.
  25. Re:Only H.264? by nine-times · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

  26. P* on Apple by bynick · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  27. Flash isn't going to disappear -_- by MasaMuneCyrus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  28. Re:Goodbye Flash by CondeZer0 · · Score: 3, Informative

    > 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.

    --
    "When in doubt, use brute force." Ken Thompson
  29. Re:Only H.264? by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  30. Cutting off nose to spite face by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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..

    --
    I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
  31. Re:I need some clarifications about HTML5 by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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).

  32. Re:Goodbye Flash by NatasRevol · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  33. Re:Only H.264? by mzs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

  34. Re:Goodbye Flash by metamatic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  35. Re:Only H.264? by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  36. Re:Youtube by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.