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.'"

25 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 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
    3. 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....
  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
  4. 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?

  5. 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)
  6. 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

  7. 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
  8. 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'
  9. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  10. 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.

  11. 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....

  12. 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.
  13. 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.

  14. 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.
  15. 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!
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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();