Microsoft Slams Google Over HTML5 Video Decision

jbrodkin writes "Microsoft is accusing Google of some heavy-handed tactics in the battle over HTML5 video standards. In an attempt at humor, a clearly peeved Microsoft official wrote 'An Open Letter from the President of the United States of Google,' which likens Google's adoption of WebM instead of H.264 to an attempt to force a new language on the entire world. Internet Explorer 9, of course, supports the H.264 codec, while Google and Mozilla are backing WebM. The hyperlinks in Microsoft's blog post lead readers to data indicating that two-thirds of Web videos are using H.264, with about another 25% using Flash VP6. However, the data, from Encoding.com, was released before the launch of WebM last May. One pundit predicts the battle will lead to yet another 'years-long standards format war.'"

Comments

Kettle, meet pot, pot, meet kettle

[arivanov]

Kettle, meet pot, pot, meet kettle - you are both black.

Re:Kettle, meet pot, pot, meet kettle

[hitmark]

Most of big media and a whole bunch of tech companies with ties to big media backs H264, sure. But then they can afford to fork over the license fees involved as they get payed pr "unit" sold, and can recoup it from there.

Google, Mozilla and the rest give their browsers away. This means that any license fees will end up being a running expense. And with the download rates they get on their browsers, that is a whole lot of red ink.

H264 is the last in the line that started with Edison's phonograph, a mental world where there are a few big broadcasters and millions of passive "consumers". Not so with the net, as anyone that can hook a computer to the net is a potential broadcaster! And trying to get a "pr use" license out of those, especially if the pricing is in the "big broadcaster expensive" range, is just not going to happen. Until the MPEG-LA steps up and states that the H264 will be licensed for free (price and use) for as long as the patents apply, this will continue to be a issue.

This is the equivalent of the catholic church having a patent on latin, and attempting to leverage a use fee from anyone writing something in that language.

Re:Kettle, meet pot, pot, meet kettle

[Whalou]

Dough or donut, there is no fry

Re:Kettle, meet pot, pot, meet kettle

[pyrr]

Oh, I don't know about that. I would rather just say Microsoft, "Pot, go f--- yourself."

I keep hearing about how "evil" Google is becoming, but supporting open standards to the detriment of patent-ridden corporate rubbish is not really remotely evil. No sir, "evil" would be buying all their competitors to cement their vendor lock-in, and boosting proprietary technology that furthers only their interests, which are attempts to squeeze as much money out of consumers as possible. Google is furthering its own goals while benefiting consumers at the expense of bloated corporations and patent trolls who were salivating over squeezing more money out of everyone. As far as business models go, Google seems to have more of a symbiotic relationship with consumers, whereas Microsoft is just a crippling parasite.

Re:Kettle, meet pot, pot, meet kettle

[igomaniac]

No, the insanity here is that Google and Mozilla refuse to use the codecs installed in the operating system that you've already paid royalties for (if they require royalties to be paid) and that automatically take advantage of hardware acceleration and any other features the OS offers for media playback.

What Google (and Mozilla) _should_ do if they want to play nice and not just hurt their competitors is to bundle a DirectShow/Quicktime codec for WebM in their Windows/Mac version of their browser. This would also enable all other applications on the OS to play WebM so it's a win-win.

It's not illegal

[bemenaker]

when Microsoft does it!!

66% + 25%

[gbjbaanb]

The hyperlinks in Microsoft's blog post lead readers to data indicating that two-thirds of Web videos are using H.264, with about another 25% using Flash VP6

yes, but once Google updates Youtube to only use WebM, I guess that'll show 91% of all online video to be in WebM format.

I wonder what Microsoft will say then?

Re:66% + 25%

[John Betonschaar]

You are both wrong. The most resource-intensive parts of a video codecs are handled by DSP's that are very specific to the codecs they support. While some parts of WebM will translate to current hardware just fine, some parts of the standard have been found not to translate to it at all. Just read this to educate yourself on the subject before assuming hardware WebM support will be a matter of a simple firmware update:

http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377

Another new format.. le sigh.

[GrBear]

Dammit, does this mean I need to buy the white album again?

Re:And in other news...

[Kilrah_il]

Alanis Morissette claims prior art

Re:Well of course..

[TheRaven64]

Chrome, Firefox, and Safari all reject H264

Chrome and Firefox reject H.264. Safari only supports H.264. IE9 supports whatever you have codecs installed for, which is H.264 by default but can be WebM / Theora / whatever.

Re:competition

[Lumpy]

Good for you! Can you please pay the Licensing fees then for everyone?

I am certian that if you give Google a few Million they will see it your way.

Just a bad arguments....

[snaggen]

English doesn't have license fees, making it unusable for everybody that doesn't want to pay. If it had, I guess Esperanto or Klingon would suddenly seem like a better choice.

Forcing new languages ?

[alexhs]

an attempt to force a new language on the entire world.

You mean, like,

• C# ?
• MS Java dialect ?
• IE6 HTML dialect ?
• Silverlight ? ... Wait, just kidding about that one.

Patents

[betterunixthanunix]

If only it were a simple matter of technology, we could all agree with you. Unfortunately, H264 is a serious problem in the USA, because of software patents and license requirements. You cannot produce legal free software H264 editors in this country, nor can you import legally produced software from other countries. True, patent trolls will probably find a way to corrupt WebM, but at least they would have to put some effort in.

Re:Microsoft: A warning from history

[spinkham]

H.264 High Profile is undoubtedly more efficient them WebM. WebM quality should have an upper bound of about the same as H.264 Main Profile.

I think in that Mozilla, Google, and Opera are right on this one. This is about openness and innovation. H.264 stifles innovation, while non-patented codecs allow greater innovation.

Today, H.264 seems to make sense, but limits the freedom of people to build software, hardware, and services based around web video.

The lesson of the internet is that libre and gratis standards combined with connectivity help foster growth and innovation like nothing else we've ever created.

I support dropping H.264, at least until all browsers support a freely available codec. Free standards should be mandatory, and costly ones optional.

Unfortunately, the only way to help move some players to free standards is to refuse to support the paid ones.

I'd rather have the option of using both, but value the innovation of having free standards everywhere over that option as a short term tactical move.. That's exactly what Google, Firefox, and Opera are doing.

Re:competition

[Kjella]

BESIDES the licensing fees will disappear very soon. MPEG1/2/JPEG are already public domain if I recall correctly, and MPEG4/H264 will soon be an open standard too

MPEG1? Check.
MPEG2? *bzzzzzzzzt* 2023.
JPEG? Yep, was never patented to begin with.
H.264 soon? Well, if 2027 is soon.

And you didn't mention MP3, but that is 2012/2017 depending if you think the submarine patents are valid or not.

Re:competition

[John Betonschaar]

You don't get it. Video decoding hardware is very specific in what parts of what codecs it supports, and it can't be upgraded through software. The x264 devs already determined that WebM contains algorithms that don't translate well to efficient hardware, and that it will be a huge resource hog compared to current h264 solutions, until dedicated WebM hardware is released to the market.

As for the whole licensing discussion: I think everyone should pull their head out of their asses and stop spreading the H264 licensing and royalty FUD. The H264 patent pool serves only a single purpose, which is licensing H264 for use in commercial products and services. The terms are very clear, only if you make more than x amount of money (somewhere in the neighbourhood of a few hundred thousand dollars) you have to pay a very reasonable royalty fee as a compensation for using the work done by the MPEG group and ITU. I don't see what's wrong with that.

The only arguments against H264 that people can come up with are irrational, and hypothetical, and none of them make any sense at all. What if MPEG-LA reverses their decision and asks everyone to pay up for watchin youtube? What if MPEG-LA challenges open-source codecs in court to crush them? What if the lock the specifications and extort everyone hosting an H264 to pay up? None of these make sense unless you think MPEG-LA are codec fascists who are only out to screw everyone, instead of just trying to make money off a very advanced piece of technology that is widely regarded as the best you can get for video coding.

Does the fact that x264 negotiated a licensin scheme with MPEG-LA for 100% legal distribution of x264 for commerical purposes make any sens if they want to extort non-profit use? MPEG-LA is effectively taking x264 licensees now, or in other words: they make money off the commercial use of an open-source codec that's freely available for non-profit use.