Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
when Microsoft does it!!
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?
Alanis Morissette claims prior art
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
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.
an attempt to force a new language on the entire world.
You mean, like,
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
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.
Palm trees and 8
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.
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
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.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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.
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm