Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why IE9 Will Not Support Codecs Other Than H.264

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the time-is-of-the-ess dept.

jlp2097 writes "There is a new article up on Microsoft's IEBlog explaining why IE9 will support only the H.264 codec: 'First and most important, we think it is the best available video codec today for HTML5 for our customers. Relative to alternatives, H.264 maintains strong hardware support in PCs and mobile devices as well as a breadth of implementation in consumer electronics devices around the world, excellent video quality, scale of existing usage, availability of tools and content authoring systems, and overall industry momentum – each an important factor that contributes to our point of view. H.264 also provides the best certainty and clarity with respect to legal rights from the many companies that have patents in this area.'"

76 of 436 comments (clear)

  1. H.264 by sopssa · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is actually the same thing that has been said in the older HTML5 discussions on slashdot too.

    Ideologically Theora would be great. It's open and patent-free (supposedly). But it's not as good as H.264. We have already used H.264 with Flash and MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 from MPEG LA. It hasn't created any problems and its technically better. It would be better to have an open source and free codec, but people need to work to create it. Ideology doesn't go far in corporate world, and in my honest opinion, H.264 is better for end-user because it uses less bandwidth and provides better quality and is supported in a lot more devices already.

    If MPEG LA would start asking website owners and end-users for fees it would basically mean this was their last iteration in video codecs. MPEG LA also uses patents owned by other companies, so they have a saying over it. I don't think they would be that stupid.

    1. Re:H.264 by ircmaxell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's the key point here. The article is a PR spin to try to make it seem like MS is protecting users. But in reality, it's an artificial limitation. They could quite easily make it a plugin system where it would ship with one or two codecs, and users could "install" others if they choose (in fact, they could make it semi-automatic. When it finds a video with a codec it doesn't have, it tries to find it, sort of how it works in Linux)... But no, they make the choice for us. It's the same with Apple's rejection of Theora... It's not about providing the best experience for users. It's about binding developers hands and removing choice. They tried to do it with ActiveX, but most sites rebelled which launched Flash into the limelight. They did it with their Quirks mode. They did it in IE8 by cherry picking the CSS 3 features they "thought were useful". Stop trying to make choices for us, and leave us (the developers) to choose what's best...

      --
      If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
    2. Re:H.264 by ZaphDingbat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Microsoft has an opportunity here to support a codec that free browsers-- such as Firefox-- may not be able to support, given the codec's licensing restriction.

      If YouTube never works with free browsers, the proprietary browser makers all get a major boost.

    3. Re:H.264 by ircmaxell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      From how I read that, it was akin to using flash. So if you used the tag, you could only use H.264. If you used the embed tag or the object tag, then you could use a plugin like flash or Windows Media (just like now). IMHO, that kind of defeats the point of the tag. Unless I misread/misunderstood that part...

      --
      If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
    4. Re:H.264 by sillybilly · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It causes harm to the patent owners not being able to push it as the one and only standard, and then fully locking down all video content in the world. As long as there are other video formats to convert to, any patent assault simply creates a mass exodus. So this is a preemptive move to an oncoming showdown. They are growing frustrated at the inability to jerk the rest of the world around and tell them to pay up, so now we get abuses like this:using monopoly in one domain to gain monopoly in another. This is what happens when the Microsoft-Apple-etc. IP Consortium gets full monopoly, pretending to be straw-man competition to each other: All your content are belong to us, either to me, or my cousin right over here. So payup mofos. Maffiozo style. What changes in the world from yesteryear?

      By the way, I was born in a commie block country where we only had one government provided car model, stuck in the 50's design, the only difference being the color, if you were looking for variety. With a 7 year waiting list. The statistical planning committee of the 5 year communist economic congress has come to the conclusion that only manufacturing "the best", "the most efficient", and "most economical" car model cuts down on economic waste. All they had to do was weigh the pros and cons and vote on what this best thing for everyone is, and then there is no reason to make anything else that's "suboptimal." All knowing, all wise, omnipotent infinite wisdom. With pHd's in Economics from the top universities of Moscow, decorated with 50 golden stars, party achievement awards. Making everybody drive a shitty car stuck in the 1950's. Then the Berlin wall came down, and the Glasnosty and Perestroika were done with. Call it whatever you want, the car sux a fat one. I don't care about your ideology, if the stuff I'm sitting in sux, and don't tell me there isn't anything better, because I see you, Mr. Party official, ride around in a black Mercedes Benz. You don't even believe your own preaching, but you're telling me the car I'm sitting in is what the pHd economic summit committee declared as optimal. You know what, let's change, you ride around in this car, and let me ride around in that non-committee non-mandatory, customer-focus-driven, customer-picked free market produced, through all that "waste" of "unsuccessfull" models that were comparatively suboptimal.

      Come to the USA, there are many cars. No waiting lists. Arguably some cars are "better" than others, just like some video codecs are better than others, but there is a "price" you pay for "better" such as losing some freedoms that things like a Theora codec would provide. I abhor any kind of totalitarian centralized control. I love the jungle, the variety.

  2. In other words.... by jkrise · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Don't be surprised to see a spate of patent attacks on Ogg Theora... which we may or may not fund ourselves.

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    1. Re:In other words.... by erroneus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We may find many reasons to "hate microsoft" but I seriously doubt Microsoft will actually assert charges of patent infringement against anyone... ever. Microsoft's involvement in the software patent arms race was quite reluctant and I suspect that is still the case. Microsoft was first bitten by the software patent trend by the people who held the patent on "double-space" back in the day. There were a lot of people who were quite tickled and delighted to see the giant attacked for this. I was among them. I wasn't then able to see down the road to the hell of software patents that we are seeing today. Had we, the IT community at large, sought to limit and even deny software patents from the beginning, we might have less trouble than we have today.

      In any case, we might suspect Microsoft of funding attacks against open source technologies, I doubt Microsoft will ever directly assert software patents themselves.

      In my mind, in fact, I see Microsoft joining in the fight against software patents. It is as big a pain in their ass as it is for many others... probably bigger because they have a rather big ass.

    2. Re:In other words.... by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We may find many reasons to "hate microsoft" but I seriously doubt Microsoft will actually assert charges of patent infringement against anyone... ever. Microsoft's involvement in the software patent arms race was quite reluctant and I suspect that is still the case. Microsoft was first bitten by the software patent trend by the people who held the patent on "double-space" back in the day. There were a lot of people who were quite tickled and delighted to see the giant attacked for this. I was among them. I wasn't then able to see down the road to the hell of software patents that we are seeing today. Had we, the IT community at large, sought to limit and even deny software patents from the beginning, we might have less trouble than we have today.

      In any case, we might suspect Microsoft of funding attacks against open source technologies, I doubt Microsoft will ever directly assert software patents themselves.

      In my mind, in fact, I see Microsoft joining in the fight against software patents. It is as big a pain in their ass as it is for many others... probably bigger because they have a rather big ass.

      More likely, anyone with any possible patents against Theora is waiting for someone with money to implement it. RIght now, there's hardly any money in any of the companies doing Theora, and suing just gets you no money at all. Mozilla? Xiph? Relatively poor, and probably good lawyers to get patents overturned. Not a good result.

      But get a Google, Microsoft or Apple supporting Theora, and these guys have cash. Patent infringement? Cha-ching. Either licensing or back profits. Everyone and their dog with patents will be trying to figure out how they can cash in. Or any of the big hardware guys - Intel, ATI, nVIdia, plus all the others - Broadcom, etc.

      Not to say H.264 is any better, but there are patent pools and the like, and probably some form of protection against patent infringement.

      Maybe that's all that's needed - patent liability coverage - implement Theora and be covered against any potential patent lawsuits. It's one thing to say that no patents were infrtinged, but another to back it up. Hell, it can be funded by a smally royalty (they already pay for h.264).

    3. Re:In other words.... by init100 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I seriously doubt Microsoft will actually assert charges of patent infringement against anyone... ever.

      Specific charges, with patent numbers specified, we might perhaps not see. Vague charges without specifics has already been seen multiple times, e.g. when they claimed that OSS infringed on hundreds of Microsoft patents, and that OSS will be made to pay in due time.

      Microsoft's involvement in the software patent arms race was quite reluctant and I suspect that is still the case.

      It may have been reluctant at first, but soon they realized the FUD value in patents. Using your patents to offensively intimidate others (i.e. not defensively in response to a patent infringement lawsuit) clearly shows that whatever reluctance they may have had in the past is now completely gone.

    4. Re:In other words.... by Bogtha · · Score: 2, Informative

      We may find many reasons to "hate microsoft" but I seriously doubt Microsoft will actually assert charges of patent infringement against anyone... ever. Microsoft's involvement in the software patent arms race was quite reluctant and I suspect that is still the case.

      Microsoft has filed an action today in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and in the International Trade Commission (ITC), against TomTom NV and TomTom Inc. for infringement of Microsoft patents.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    5. Re:In other words.... by CannonballHead · · Score: 2, Informative

      I thought TomTom started that patent infringement thing, and Microsoft responded to them by counter-filing?

  3. The patent lawyers succeeded by microbox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    None of us people who actually create things and do the work wanted to see software patents become a reality. But the businessmen and lawyers have had their way with us. Now we just have to do all the extra work to create working computer systems, while a few individuals go laughing to the bank.

    More than anything else, I think the H.264 nonsense demonstrates the lock-down that will mark a new era of the software industry.

    --

    Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    1. Re:The patent lawyers succeeded by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wouldn't worry much. IE is becoming less and less relevant every day. For one it's loosing marketshare on the desktop, but also very importantly is the fact that mobile devices are quickly becoming the preferred medium that people use to interact with the web. I know lots of people who are doing their everyday tasks (check Facebook, email, bank balances, etc) on their phones and are barely touching their computers - if they even bother to have one. Microsoft (and with it, IE) has an absolutely dismal marketshare in that space, and they don't look to be improving.

      IMHO, while IE still has a (slipping) majority, if we're talking about something that's going to be used for the next decade, I'd be FAR more concerned with what Safari, Chrome, and to a lesser extent, Firefox, plan to do than IE.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    2. Re:The patent lawyers succeeded by CowboyBob500 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Rubbish. As always during discussions like this you're only talking about the USA. There is a world outside where these problems don't exist. Maybe the US software industry will get locked down, but in reality, not only does the rest of the world not care, but it will use it to its advantage. Time to make sure your passport is up to date.

      --
      Listen to my latest album here
    3. Re:The patent lawyers succeeded by ducomputergeek · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And it's not just video codecs. Want to create an application that stores, processes, or transmits credit card data? You had better have about $50k in cash ready ready to pay for PA-DSS or PCI-DSS Level I certification. And that is the starting point. The documentation process pretty much means that Opensource, by its very nature, will never be PA-DSS certified. We're in the process of taking an opensource project we forked and getting it PA-DSS certified. Small development team of 4 people and it is a nightmare. While we ship the source code on every install CD the development process itself is pretty much restricted to a BSD-like invite only approach.

      90% of PA-DSS is documentation. A lot of that documentation revolves around your development process including interviews with the developers to make sure that things like code reviews are indeed implemented and that requires at least 2 developers since the person who writes the code can't review the code, technical support cases are documented, if any cardholder data is used for troubleshooting, it is properly and securely deleted, etc..

      And I see more of this coming down the line in the name of "data security". While it won't kill Opensource, it is going to make it pretty damn hard for a weekend hacker to create something.

      Now don't get me wrong, after a year of dealing with PCI-DSS and six months of PA-DSS, I fully understand why their standards are the way they are and for the most part it's mostly a good thing. However the fact that it takes at least $10k (and as much as hundreds of thousands of dollars for PA-DSS) pretty much means that the project has to be maintained by a company that is making money off the product in some way.

      BTW, the only Opensource project I know of that is PA-DSS certified is Magento. And ONLY the Enterprise edition ($8995). The Community Edition is NOT.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    4. Re:The patent lawyers succeeded by BZ · · Score: 3, Informative

      We're talking about H.264 here, right? You may want to read http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/bz/archives/020400.html

  4. So, its for the DRM then... by Phrogman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The last phrase quoted is likely the key one - Microsoft is very focused on providing as much DRM as possible, and if this codec has the most potential in that regard from their POV, thats likely why they are supporting it. I am sure the Entertainment industry has been talking to MS about this and urging them to keep pushing on DRM type solutions.

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    1. Re:So, its for the DRM then... by internic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe some of you in the know out there can enlighten the rest of us: What makes a codec more or less conducive to DRM?

      I would have thought DRM would be implemented outside the media data itself and the codec would only be come relevant once system has decided to give the user access and decrypted the data. Perhaps in some systems once they've doen the lossy part of the signal processing they do the compression and encryption as a combined operation? Or does the whole thing work an entirely different way?

      --
      "You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
    2. Re:So, its for the DRM then... by moongha · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is nothing about a codec that makes it amenable to DRM. This is uninformed fear-mongering.

      DRM is incorporated at the wrapper level. For example, the 'Fairplay' DRM used by Apple is proprietary to Apple and has nothing whatsoever to do with H264.

    3. Re:So, its for the DRM then... by dave420 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't like DRM? Then don't watch DRM content. It's that simple. DRM doesn't give you less content, as people who currently use DRM simply won't publish anything unless they can use DRM. The choice is between having DRM & more content, or having no DRM & less content. DRM is not forced on everyone producing audio and video for the internet, it is, however, there should someone feel the need or desire to use it. It's an option.

  5. Someone explain this to me. by Pojut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ::begin displaying ignorance::

    What advantage is there to restricting IE9 to only H.264? How can natively supporting more codecs be a bad thing?

    --
    Living With a Nerd
    1. Re:Someone explain this to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Microsoft doesn't want to touch Theora because they suspect (or know) it's about to be targeted for legal action. Natively supporting a codec that carries negative legal ramifications could come back to bite them in the ass later: no one wants to support another codec out of the goodness of their heart now, and especially one not widely used nor likely to benefit that many customers since nearly everyone else on God's green earth is using H.264, just so that they can get slapped with infringement suits later for including code that violates some arcane MPEG-LA patent. Supporting Theora would be an imprudent decision on Microsoft's part for now. H.264's patent issues are well known and can be bought off easily through licensing, on the other hand, and it's well supported by nearly everyone and immensely popular with consumers; Microsoft can cover itself legally and market its browser to the widest possible audience with H.264, so it's a smart decision on their part.

      Ideology matters little in the pragmatics of business, and Microsoft's not going to bend over backwards to clear up the currently clouded patent status of Theora and defend it against what's increasingly looking like inevitable attacks from well-funded groups of patent holders who legitimately or not (does it even matter anymore?) will shove a case through some godforsaken East Texas docket... especially not when there aren't more than a handful of people actively using Theora anyway. Hell, most people probably won't ever even see a Theora video in their whole lives. Why should Microsoft waste its time?

    2. Re:Someone explain this to me. by Sleepy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because Microsoft made a deal with MPEG-LA, that's why. MPEG-LA makes money off patent licensing.

    3. Re:Someone explain this to me. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Informative

      FTFA:

      Several comments speculated about Microsoft’s financial interest in the codec. (Microsoft participates in MPEG-LA with many other companies.) Microsoft pays into MPEG-LA about twice as much as it receives back for rights to H.264. Much of what Microsoft pays in royalties is so that people who buy Windows (on a new PC from an OEM or as a packaged product) can just play H.264 video or DVD movies. Microsoft receives back from MPEG-LA less than half the amount for the patent rights that it contributes because there are many other companies that provide the licensed functionality in content and products that sell in high volume. Microsoft pledged its patent rights to this neutral organization in order to make its rights broadly available under clear terms, not because it thought this might be a good revenue stream. We do not foresee this patent pool ever producing a material revenue stream, and revenue plays no part in our decision here.

  6. youtube by alabandit · · Score: 5, Funny

    in an unsurprising move, tomorrow morning Youtube and face book decide h.264 will not be used for video on there sites...

    --
    "You are still innocent until proven guilty. What's changed is what they do to innocent people." by notnAP (846325)
    1. Re:youtube by Scyth3 · · Score: 2, Funny

      their this is basic 3th grade English people!

      Basic "3th" grade, eh?

  7. Re:360? by jonesy16 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Xbox 360 has supported H.264 for over a year now ...

    http://support.xbox.com/support/en/us/nxe/gamesandmedia/movies/videofaq/viewvideoplaybackfaq.aspx

  8. Some more information by masterwit · · Score: 5, Informative

    I for one am no expert in this subject, so here are some links I ended up reading:

    wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC

    a decent article that could provide one with some insight on the patent "wars to come": http://www.vcodex.com/videocodingpatents.html

    a random google search to a blog post with a good bit of information, but also opinionated: http://www.0xdeadbeef.com/weblog/2010/01/html5-video-and-h-264-what-history-tells-us-and-why-were-standing-with-the-web/

    cnet on Microsoft's stance: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20003838-264.html

    Lastly, does anyone have a good article on Opera's stance? - I had heard they are against it, but not much more than that...

    --
    We should start a new Slashdot and return control to the geeks. It actually wouldn't be that hard to get some users to
  9. Is there a better, open, alternative? by onionman · · Score: 3, Informative

    From what I've seen of Theora, it's the performance limit, not the open source nature of it, which makes it a non-starter for many platforms. I've read some rumors about Google supposedly pushing their own open-source codec, but I haven't seen any actual products. Do they exist? Is there an open alternative that can compete with H.264 on a wide range of platforms?

    1. Re:Is there a better, open, alternative? by mcrbids · · Score: 3, Insightful

      From what I've seen of Theora, it's the performance limit, not the open source nature of it, which makes it a non-starter for many platforms.

      And what, pray tell, have you seen of Theora? Are you talking about the whiney, highly inaccurate piece here a few weeks ago that threw out just enough jargon to sound relevant, but managed to compare apples to bicycles in the process? Perhaps you should see the rebuttal?

      TL;DR: Many of the "points" raised were barely coherent, let alone verifiably accurate.

      Ogg is an efficient, open-sourced, non-patent-encumbered container format. Theora is an efficient CODEC for video. The way patents are worded, it's tough to prove the non-patent-encumbered nature of just about anything, but that's what it was designed to be, and there are certainly no particular technical issues with its adoption except perhaps that hardware implementations are still not commonplace, even if they are available.

      If the industry adopts H.264 widely, we'll all regret it in a few years.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    2. Re:Is there a better, open, alternative? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And what, pray tell, have you seen of Theora?

      Huh? That isn't even about Theora. You said it yourself, it's about Ogg, the container, and why it may or may not suck.

      Theora is a video codec, and is best compared to MPEG-2 in terms of performance. Compared to H.264, it's obsolete, and that would be the performance limit the OP was referring to. The simple fact is, Theora can't approach H.264 in terms of quality for low-bitrate applications, and guess what? Low-bitrate is the name of the game when it comes to internet video streaming.

  10. Less anti-MS headline: by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 5, Informative
    Why IE9 Will Not NATIVELY Support Other Codecs Than H.264.

    From the article:

    Of course, IE9 will continue to support Flash and other plug-ins. Developers who want to use the same markup today across different browsers rely on plug-ins. Plug-ins are also important for delivering innovation and functionality ahead of the standards process; mainstream video on the web today works primarily because of plug-ins. We’re committed to plug-in support because developer choice and opportunity in authoring web pages are very important; ISVs on a platform are what make it great. We fully expect to support plug-ins (of all types, including video) along with HTML5. There were also some comments asking about our work with Adobe on Flash and this report offers a recent discussion.

    I love linux and think MS is rapidly falling behind, but let's not go overboard here.

    --
    I call it 'The Aristocrats'
  11. It's already paid for by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are several reasons for this decision. H.264 support in Windows is already paid for (if I'm not mistaken $25 million bucks annually) and taking into account the current software patents laws in the US Microsoft doesn't want any more headache facing lawsuits having implemented support for other codecs [read Theora] which patents status isn't entirely clear and there are no powerful organizations which will protect Microsoft if some company [troll] discovers Theora is infringing their patent portfolio.

    The last and probably the most important reason is that H.264 is already an unwritten standard on the Internet and this codec has an unparalleled quality and can be used for pretty much any situations (mind that *all* other existing current codecs are inferior).

    1. Re:It's already paid for by tepples · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Microsoft doesn't want any more headache facing lawsuits having implemented support for other codecs [read Theora] which patents status isn't entirely clear

      Theora is patented by On2, a Google company. These patents are licensed permissively to the public.

      and there are no powerful organizations which will protect Microsoft if some company [troll] discovers Theora is infringing their patent portfolio.

      What organization will protect Microsoft, Apple, and other MPEG-LA members if some NPE not in MPEG-LA discovers that H.264 infringes?

  12. There's no better choice, unfortunately. by LaminatorX · · Score: 2, Interesting

    MPEG-LA's patent portfolio is sufficiently mighty that a competing video codec would have to be designed from the ground up with the specific design goal of avoiding infringement in order to escape it's shadow. This has not been done with Theora or any other codec that I'm aware of.

    Combine this with the fact that MPEG-LA's licensing terms have been sufficiently reasonable that you can get $100-300 gizmos with hardware decoders built in, there's little reason why for anyone to oppose it on practical rather than philosophical grounds.

  13. Ogg is inferior by wazzzup · · Score: 2, Informative

    The obvious reason Microsoft has standardized on h.264 is its support for DRM. However, Ogg Theora is inferior to h.264 by any standard of measurement except for licensing.

    Ars has a good article summarizing a comparison study between Theora and h.264. Basically, Theora produces much lower quality videos with larger filesizes and higher CPU utilization when compared to h.264 videos with identical bitrates.

    I've heard Theora advocates say "just jack up the bitrates until it looks good - we're in the age of Hulu so no big deal." I find that unacceptable. Theora will have to up its game if it wants to be a true competitor to h.264. All it has going right now is an open license.

    1. Re:Ogg is inferior by CoolGuySteve · · Score: 3, Informative

      You can wrap nearly any codec's stream in DRM as long as the container supports it. So DRM has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

      Do not conflate H.264 with DRM.

    2. Re:Ogg is inferior by negRo_slim · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The obvious reason Microsoft has standardized on h.264 is its support for DRM.

      Or perhaps they are unwilling to spend the development assets on adding more than one native codec when functionality can easily be extended for those so inclined with a plug in.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
  14. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  15. Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. by ceejayoz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But what's stupidest of all, of course, is that there are so many patent-free, open source options available for the vendors to standardize on.

    "Hasn't been sued yet" is different from "patent-free".

    Incidentally, HTML5 is a lot more than just video. Most of it is a great step forwards for web devs like myself.

  16. Re:360? by Goaway · · Score: 2, Informative

    MKV has nothing in particular to do with h.264, except that pirates like putting h.264 video in MKV containers. It's pretty obvious why Microsoft or anyone else has little interest in supporting it.

  17. Who cares? Theora isn't competitive. by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I just can't get interested in debating this stuff until Google open-sources VP8. Theora is a non-starter. It doesn't perform well and the marketplace already rejected it in enough places (i.e. virtually all portable devices) that it will never be a true competitor.

    Once Google open-sources VP8 and makes it free (gratis and libre) then we'll have a real horse race. I'd love to see VP8 hardware support fast-tracked for all devices (mobile and otherwise) so we can have a competitive free solution for video.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:Who cares? Theora isn't competitive. by thue · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So when the choice is between freedom and a slightly better performing video format, we choose the slightly better performing video format? God forbid that we have to actually make a minor sacrifice for freedom.

  18. MPEG-LA is doing a happy dance by ChipMonk · · Score: 5, Informative
    Not that Microsoft cares, but Free Culture just took a big hit. Money quote:

    there is something very important, that the vast majority of both consumers and video professionals don't know: ALL modern video cameras and camcorders that shoot in h.264 or mpeg2, come with a license agreement that says that you can only use that camera to shoot video for "personal use and non-commercial" purposes (go on, read your manuals). I was first made aware of such a restriction when someone mentioned that in a forum, about the Canon 7D dSLR. I thought it didn't apply to me, since I had bought the double-the-price, professional (or at least prosumer), Canon 5D Mark II. But looking at its license agreement last night (page 241), I found out that even my $3000 camera comes with such a basic license. So, I downloaded the manual for the Canon 1D Mark IV, which costs $5000, and where Canon consistently used the word "professional" and "video" on the same sentence on their press release for that camera. Nope! Same restriction: you can only use your professional video dSLR camera (professional, according to Canon's press release), for non-professional reasons. And going even further, I found that even their truly professional video camcorder, the $8000 Canon XL-H1A that uses mpeg2, also comes with a similar restriction. You can only use your professional camera for non-commercial purposes. For any other purpose, you must get a license from MPEG-LA and pay them royalties for each copy sold. I personally find this utterly unacceptable.

    And no, this is not just a Canon problem (which to me sounds like false advertising). Sony and Panasonic, and heck, even the Flip HD, have the exact same licensing restriction.

    1. Re:MPEG-LA is doing a happy dance by rinoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thanks for making this point.

      I certainly support creators' rights to earnings off of invention and have problems with many software patents I see from all my favorite vendors. But apart from normal hand wringing over patents this really takes the cake.

      Think if Microsoft or Apple charged you a license for everything you created using your computer! What if the printer manufacturer did the same? Why didn't film companies charge me for every photo I ever published when I used to use film?

      Insanity! Write your legislators, write companies, write, complain....

  19. Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. by Weezul · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Alright, answer me two questions : HTML5 is really the flash killer, yes? Isn't an open replacement for Flash an improvement over flash? I'd assume that HTML5's openness will help avoid Flash's spammyness, right? In particular, all the pop-up ads that circumvent the "Block Pop-Ups" button are using Flash now, so they'll all go away right?

    I'm not sure that HTML5 will beat the Flash plus FlashBlocker combo, but that's not realistic for most users, and variations on NoScript could accomplish the same ends.

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  20. Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is not insightful. HTML5 is a multi-vendor standard from the W3. The W3 only publish standards that are free of royalty standards (thanks to a big debate and campaign around the turn of the millenium).

    HTML5 video is a major leap forward. Previously video was usually locked away behind proprietary Flash delivery interfaces. Already I am finding I can browse Youtube via my web browser and see videos (before I had to use totem's plugin or youtube-dl) because of HTML5 support. The same applies with other video sites, such as Vimeo and dailymotion that have (beta) HTML5 video players. Further, thanks to HTML5 browser support, extensions now exist which can take embedded flash video players of certain sites and transform them in place into HTML5 video.

    HTML5 video is agnostic of codec - it does not specify what format video will be in, nor does it specify what formats browser must support. Just as the old IMG tag doesn't specify GIF, BMP, etc. The supported formats are whatever formats systems and browsers support. It would have been nice if W3 had been able to specify Ogg/Theora as a "must support" common-denominator format, but agreement could not be reached on that. That does NOT take away from the importance of HTML5 video.

    I strongly suspect many of the people who argue against HTML5 video are people who are running proprietary video-delivery plugins in their browser.. I would ask such people to step back and reconsider the big picture:

    a) Proprietary plugins running in your browser, interpreting proprietary blobs downloaded from websites, to play videos from websites using whatever format (be it patent encumbered or not)

    versus

    b) Your browser, potentially (likely?) free software, using openly specified standards to interpret video-player controls, to play videos from websites using whatever format (be it patent encumbered or not)

    The 2nd option is a major step forward. I despair of anyone who argues that we should stick with option a because of the patent issues with /some/ video formats.

    Next step: If you're in the UK, we need to lobby the BBC Trust and OfCom to get them to require the BBC to deliver its internet TV services in an open format - rather than via Adobe Flash.

    --
    I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
  21. Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. by Jurily · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Alright, answer me two questions : HTML5 is really the flash killer, yes?

    Definitely not. But we'd all be happy if it was the flashbasedvideoplayer killer.

  22. Trojan codecs by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

    hey could quite easily make it a plugin system where it would ship with one or two codecs, and users could "install" others if they choose

    Malware posing as codecs is how you get shit like Antivirus XP on PCs.

  23. Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. by icebraining · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What will really happen is that *everybody* will use H.264, but they'll either use the native HTML5 component or the Flash player for Firefox and Opera, if they don't implement it too.

    --
    Dilbert RSS feed
  24. Theora in Chrome by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

    RIght now, there's hardly any money in any of the companies doing Theora, and suing just gets you no money at all. Mozilla? Xiph? Relatively poor, and probably good lawyers to get patents overturned. Not a good result. But get a Google, Microsoft or Apple supporting Theora, and these guys have cash.

    Google Chrome plays both Theora and H.264, and Google has both cash and "probably good lawyers".

  25. Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    People keep making claims like yours and the Theora developers keep SPECIFICALLY addressing those claims, and yet you APPHOLES keep making those claims.

    REFERENCE

    What provides protection for Theora is: (in no particular order)
    (1) Active avoidance of the well known and/or aggressively enforced codec IPR.
    (2) The preference for older techniques and with a strong prior
    art-history needed for (1) also provides some protection against
    unknown patents.
    (3) Theora and or VP3 have been shipped by a multitude of
    deep-pocketed entities (IBM; RedHat; Google; Apple[1]; Mozilla; etc)
    who would make much better litigation targets than you likely would.
    At least some of these have done their own reviews and decided to go
    forward.
    (4) The dynamics of patent enforcement discourage long-shot
    prosecution for patents that royalties are being collected on from
    other uses due to the risk of claim invalidation.

  26. Same applies to H.264 by loshwomp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If Microsoft could be sued for including a format then that is a good reason not too. The implication has been that Theora might infringe on some patents. It may, it may not. I don't know and likely nobody here does either.

    The same thing applies to h.264 or any other codec, for that matter. The only thing the MPEG license buys you is indemnification from the patents that the consortium knows about, and they explicitly make no guarantee that other unlicensed patents weren't infringed along the way. You're on your own for that.

  27. Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. by loshwomp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Hasn't been sued yet" is different from "patent-free".

    Sure, because those are totally orthogonal dimensions. You can get sued for using any codec (and you might even be a juicier target with something like h.264). When you buy an h.264 license, you're only indemnified against the patents the consortium holds, and you're explicitly not covered against anything else that was infringed along the way.

  28. Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. by Tridus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wouldn't it be more like they were a workaround to the W3C's thing with spending years focusing on standards that nobody intends to implement or use?

    --
    -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
  29. Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not myopic. The web video problem has 2 dimensions:

    1. The embedding/delivery dimension

    2. The codec patent encumbrance problem

    HTML5 video fixes the first and gives us a chance to wean the web off its addiction to a certain closed, proprietary plugin. With HTML5 the web can at least be accessible to free software (there are free implementations of H.264, even if there are patent issues).

    It doesn't fix the 2nd problem. However it doesn't make it worse, indeed it probably it makes it /easier/ to start tackling this issue. The major HTML5 video browsers *already* support Ogg/Theora - unlike Flash!

    I agree software patent issues are indeed a huge problem, but you can't always fix all problems in one go.

    --
    I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
  30. Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. by fusiongyro · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Professional web dev here. I first heard about HTML 5 a year or two ago, in the context of their adding a bunch of new elements (<nav>, <header>, <sidebar> and so forth) and removing all the presentation markup.

    Overall, HTML 5 is great. There are a few things from XHTML 1.1 which aren't going to be present which would be nice, but I can't name them offhand. The <video> tag was, to me, just a nice convenience. The war that's erupted over this is, IMO, kind of ridiculous; everyone should obviously support both if they can and Theora if they can't, unless legal issues materialize. And I think that's 100% FUD; the Xiph guys are meticulous about legality since it is basically the reason they exist. If anyone litigates Xiph, Xiph will win.

    More than that, the <canvas> tag is a big deal. I hope all of CSS 3 gets implemented too. Things are looking pretty good overall. I think this video hysteria will probably blow over, and Theora will be widely available, if not installed by default, available as a plugin.

  31. Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. by jo_ham · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The BBC were doing just fine, even with iPlayer - I was using XBMC to watch beautiful HD content until they switched on swf verification on their streams. If they disabled this, or just offered up h.264 without the flash wrapper I would be happy again.

  32. Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. by jeffmeden · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You are right, but at the same time you are completely ignoring the elephant in the room. Microsoft is putting HTML5 and *only* h.264 into IE9. This means that as HTML5 gets rolled out, it *will*have*patent*problems* for anyone who wants to do 'Free' video and doesn't want to convince their users to download a different browser.

    Meta-rants aside, do you see the problems coming down the road? This is the topic of the article, after all.

  33. Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    HTML5 video is a major leap forward.

    It's not really. What's the difference between an HTML5 video tag and a simple hyperlink to a video file, which has worked for as long as video files have been around?

    The HTML5 video tag requires your browser to be a video player too, instead of just handing off the video to your systems video player. This increases bloat. What do we get in return? We get videos embedded in a web page, instead of in their own window. Why exactly do I want that? If I'm watching the video, I only want to see the video. If for some reason I want to watch a video and browse the web at the same time, I have to create a new browser window anyway. I am having trouble coming up with any use case where embedded browser video would be preferable to an external video player.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  34. Re:So, MS does not even support its own codecs? by jo_ham · · Score: 3, Informative

    No, no conversion needed - you'll just install a plugin.

    The article is phrased in a very anti-MS way - IE9 will support any another codec via plugin, including the older WMV and other MS formats.

  35. Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is a very Apple-esque move on Microsoft's part.

    Sure, it makes sense for them to favor h264 over anything else. There is really no good reason for them to pretend that other formats do not exist.

    H*LL there could be legacy video files that people don't want to transcode. This isn't just about open systems zealots. Forcing one codec can be a nuissance in a number of ways.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  36. Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Uhhh...dude? You're just trading one butt banging for another. Hell if anything Adobe has been less douchebag about Flash than MPEG-LA, which has been "everybody owes us a check" if you actually do anything with it besides film grandma and never share. This will NOT wean anyone off of Flash, if anything it will make Flash even more powerful! Why? Simple, because MSFT and Apple refuse to support Theora, while FF and Opera refuse to support H.264. So what format can they all play? Hmmm...maybe, oh I don't know, Flash?

    If they would have set a minimum of Theora support I'd be right there with you pal, but Ballmer and Jobs wouldn't have it, so what you have is another IE6 clusterfuck where you either design the website with two standards, or you just stick with Flash. It really sucks, but what do you expect when you get the big boys in on it? But if we are forced to go with Adobe or MPEG-LA, I would strongly recommend we stay with Adobe. Better the devil you know than the ticking patent troll timebomb that is H.264.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  37. Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 4, Informative

    Read the blog - Microsoft have *not* ruled out IE9 supporting other codecs via plugins and what not. Indeed there's a suggestion (though unclear) that IE9 may support whatever codecs are installed with WMP:

    We’ve read some follow up discussion about support for more than the H.264 codec in IE9’s HTML5 video tag. To be clear, users can install other codecs for use in Windows Media Player and Windows Media Center.

    Further, IE9 is not the only browser. Chromium supports a wealth of formats by dint of FFMpeg; WebKitGTK+ browsers support a wealth of formats thanks to GStreamer support (or will do soon); Firefox only supports Ogg/Theora at the moment - hopefully though it will gain access to system media APIs in time (gstreamer, etc).

    I am baffled at how anyone can think that finally having an open delivery system, that can work with a range of formats, is *worse* than a proprietary system that only supports encumbered codecs (H.263+/VP3, VP6, H.264, MPEG-4p2), at least OOB and accelerated.

    Again, I'm curious if you're using that proprietary video delivery plugin on your system?

    --
    I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
  38. Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So because Apple and Microsoft refuse to support Ogg/Theora we should refuse to have /any/ video standard, and so ensure web video remains in the hands of proprietary blobs that can only usefully play patent encumbered video, thus ensuring Ogg/Theora can never see any significant use for web video?

    That's snatching defeat from the jaws of partial victory, I have to say.

    Further, the way I read the blog article, Microsoft most definitely do NOT rule out other codec support. Indeed, there's a suggestion that perhaps additional IE9 HTML5 video codec support is just a matter of installing WMP codecs...

    --
    I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
  39. Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 2, Informative

    HTML5 specifies a model for applying controls and transformations on the video.

    --
    I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
  40. Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. by tyrione · · Score: 2, Insightful

    HTML5 and WHATWG were a workaround to the W3C standards process because certain powerful interests didn't want to support the strictness of XHTML2.

    Now that WHATWG's efforts have been accepted by W3C and the superior standard of XHTML2 has been shelved, what can we do to try and make the web work properly?

    Sorry, but having floundered through a DECADE of XML and it's Bazillion offspring HTML5 was crying to be made.

  41. Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. by rtfa-troll · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If it were true that only the manufacturer had a license, you wouldn't have the right to create an H264 video at all. In theory every use of the patent; both manufacturing and actual video creation; requires an explicit license from the patent owner. In practice, normally, the manufacturer gets a license which covers all possible use of the equipment and covers you too.

    However; at the present moment the MPEG-LA isn't really making much money out of H264. They are just growing the market. So they are giving out very cheap and very limited licenses for now and planning for worse later.

    Think of this as being like GIF, where Unysis let the format become popular and then later started charging royalties. Except this time around, you don't get the chance to claim you didn't know about the patents because you've already accepted their free time limited license offer.

    --
    =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
  42. Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. by Creepy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, but, lets face it - Apple and Microsoft have a shared vested interest in promoting H.264 and detracting Ogg/Theora - Apple has a patent in the H.264 pool (and a pretty major one), and Microsoft has 30 US patents alone in that pool (and many non-US patents, as well - reference). Steve Jobs has even stated that he intends to create a group to go after Ogg/Theora for patent violations, saying anything to do with video is patented, and has been one of the biggest Ogg/Theora opponents from the beginning.

        Apple and Microsoft don't care about free and open standards in web browsers because it doesn't profit them - in fact, I imagine they'd like to cram as many proprietary patents in as possible so they can charge for tools to create them. With H.264 patented for at least the next 20 years, there is a lot of money to be had.

  43. Re:Define "better". by BitZtream · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Stop spreading FUD, you have no clue what you're talking about as the h264 license doesn't do anything like what you describe.

    Theora is arguable better/worse, and its an argument that is clearly not clear. There are no known patents and they've went out of their way to try and not be subject to any, thats good, but it doesn't change the fact that their still may be patents that effect it.

    You have no proof of either one of your claims. The first (performance) is a highly contested debug and the second is for all practical purposes impossible to prove.

    There is a lot of uncertainty and doubt involved ... unfortunately you're too blind to see where its at.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  44. Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Your external video player can scale videos anyway you want, or not at all. I'd also suggest that a one click "open with" dialog is a nicer interface than a web browser that starts a video as soon as you hit the page. Why is launching another app such a big deal?

    An external video is still problematic, unless we can agree on a universal format that every external external player on every platform can handle.

    There is one thing I'll say. It would be nice if there were a one click way to pass an URL to an external video player for streaming, instead of "open with" which downloads the file first and passes that file to the video player. This could easily be done with no changes to the protocol.

    Yep, agree on this point.

    Software should do one thing, and do it well.

    It depends on how you defined "one thing". Wouldn't you define "displaying web-based content" as "one thing"? Shouldn't then, by your definition, everything be handled by the browswer? Why not launch images in a separate viewer? It completely depends on whether you interpret video as part of the web content, or something external and separate. Why the arbitrary distinction between still and moving images?

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  45. Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. by Rakarra · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am baffled at how anyone can think that finally having an open delivery system, that can work with a range of formats, is *worse* than a proprietary system that only supports encumbered codecs (H.263+/VP3, VP6, H.264, MPEG-4p2), at least OOB and accelerated.

    Because as it stands today if a user/company wants to use a browser under, say, Linux, today, they won't get sued. They can install the shitty Flash plugin which the majority of web video today uses and they'll be safe. No one will bother them for that. Yes, it's proprietary, but there are few royalties involved.

    Under the new proposal, if the majority of web content moves to H.264, where does that leave the web content makers and the software writers? Steve Jobs has already hinted of potential impending lawsuits in this direction. If H.264 is patent-encumbered and lawsuits break out, it will have a far more negative effect than the current status quo does. Plus, a patent-encumbered codec cannot be Free Software, so I don't really see it as being a great leap forward.

    Yes, you're right, point number 1 (in your earlier post) is definitely a step forward. However, if it's paired with codec that is two steps back, I have a hard time getting excited. And until very recently I was -very- excited about the possibility of HTML5 killing video-over-flash, something I've desired for a long time.

  46. Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Informative

    it's my understanding that the canvas is the primary drawing surface for the page

    That depends entirely on the page. Canvas just defines a region that you can draw on. It might be the entire page, but then a Flash applet might be the entire page. Any web page not designed by a complete idiot (at least 1% of total web pages) will continue to use non-canvas elements except where drawing is needed.

    The real problem with the canvas tag is that JavaScript does not have a sane concept of encapsulation. You can block all scripts for a page, which will stop drawing on canvas, but will break other interactive elements (e.g. posting comments on Slashdot). You can turn off the canvas, so the context object is null, but that will break the scripts that try to draw to it. The nice thing about Flash is that you can disable it without affecting anything else on the page.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  47. Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 2, Interesting

    See Chris Dibona's explanation.

    --
    I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
  48. Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. by hkmwbz · · Score: 2, Informative

    What's the difference between an HTML5 video tag and a simple hyperlink to a video file, which has worked for as long as video files have been around?

    The fact that it's played within the page, and is part of the DOM, which means that you can do all sorts of stuff with the video which you can't with plugins. You can manipulate the video in all sorts of crazy ways.

    The HTML5 video tag requires your browser to be a video player too, instead of just handing off the video to your systems video player. This increases bloat.

    Oh no! "The IMG tag requires your browser to be an image viewer too, instead of just handing off the video to your systems image viewer! This increases bloat!"

    --
    Clever signature text goes here.
  49. Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. by greenbird · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The open source browsers will either have to get on board with h.264 or risk losing the majority of their users, and we'll see a return to the bad old days of IE dominating the web.

    I think you missed my point. While I agree with your premise above I disagree with your conclusion. Yes the other browsers, including the open ones like Firefox and Chrome, will have to support h.264. But they'll also support the other free alternatives. New startups tend to operate on a shoe string budget until they get popular enough for funding. So they'll tend towards using free codecs. If one of these start to get popular even more people will be switching off IE. It's not like the bad old days where MS had the power to attempt to fragment the web into MS only or everyone else. MS doesn't control h.264 and can't keep it secret and change it at a whim so no one else can support it. That's what they attempted originally with IE. In this case any browser is free to implement the only standard MS is going to support but they can support other unencumbered standards that are much cheaper to use. It will just take one web site that uses ogg to get popular and IE's numbers start dropping faster. Once IE's numbers drop low enough Google can switch youtube to ogg and MS will have to adapt or die. Either way I only see this as a plus in that IE's numbers will drop.

    --
    Who is John Galt?