Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google To Push WebM With IE9, Safari Plugins

Posted by timothy on from the first-one's-free dept.

surveyork writes with this "new chapter in the browser wars: 'Google in a defense of its decision to pull H.264 from Chrome's HTML5 revealed that it will put out WebM plugins for Internet Explorer 9 and Safari. Expecting no official support from Apple or Microsoft, Google plans to develop extensions that would load its self-owned video codec. No timetable was given.' So Google gets started with their plan for world-wide WebM domination. They'll provide WebM plugins for the browsers of the H.264-only league, so in practice, all major browsers will have WebM support — one way or the other. Machiavellian move?"

6 of 413 comments (clear)

  1. Even more IE plugins from Google? by suv4x4 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So.. I guess Chrome Frame was a success then? Strangely how the stats don't reflect that at all.

    so let's see how the future will play out then...

    On one side of the ring: H.264

    * Solid native support on the default browser of Windows - IE9.
    * Solid native support on the default browser of OSX - Safari.
    * Solid support on the rest of the browsers via the ubiquitous (95%+) and well known by the public Flash player.
    * Native support on mobiles.
    * Formally approved standard by ISO and IEC
    * Guaranteed free distribution on the web for free content, minor free for paid content.
    * Vast amounts of existing H.264 content, widely used in video editing apps, broadcasting, recording motion cameras and so on.

    On the other side of the ring: WebM

    * No native support on the default browser of Windows - IE9.
    * No native support on the default browser of OSX - Safari.
    * Solid native support on the rest of the browsers.
    * Spotty support on only some mobiles (don't expect it on Apple devices, Microsoft is on the fence).
    * Not formally approved standard by anybody, just an open code dump at this point.
    * Free to use, but questionable future if challenged by MPEG LA and others.
    * Almost no existing WebM content, spotty or missing support in video editing apps, not used in broadcasting, not used in motion cameras and so on.

    So uhmm, yeah, Google. I wish you guys good luck.

    1. Re:Even more IE plugins from Google? by Terrasque · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's strange that so few people have figured it out.

      Google is in the strange position that it got more bandwidth, more servers, more brains and more money than they honestly know what to do with.

      So they use the money on more talent, servers and bandwidth, and let the people work on their own ideas part of the company time. Anything that looks even remotely useful (strengthen their position, gaining mindshare, get their ads in more places) gets thrown out there.

      Examples:
      Gmail. Google Wave. WebM. WebP. Chrome. Chrome Frame. Google Maps. Google Apps. Google Reader. Android. Translate. Android App Inventor. Google Body. Google Mars. Google Earth. Calendar. Code. Groups. News. Books. Picasa. Docs. Analytics. Website optimizer. SketchUp. Voice. Sky maps. Google Video. Trends. Talk. Buzz. iGoogle. Goggles. Scribe. Code search.

      They're throwing an insane amount of random stuff on the wall, and then see what sticks. Some does, some does not.
      They have more resources than they can reasonably use, and this is the result. Have an idea that looks fun? Some example code? Good, here are some money, servers and practically unlimited bandwidth. See if you can make it work. A bit later Google Cakes pops up, and maybe it will find a use. And Google earns some more information and mindshare. And a new place to splash targeted ads.

      In the end, they make even more money, which they then put in talent, bandwidth and servers.. And the cycle continue. I sometimes wonder if they will hit a limit, or it will just go on and on.

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
  2. Re:Then has anyone decided to fork the H.264 build by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think you might be surprised what supports OGG. It never says it on the box or, when it comes to car stereos, on the faceplate, but sometimes it is there. My car stereo that supports USB plays ogg, and it surprised me when it worked because there is no information anywhere that it would. It's free so it simply gets put in, and maybe in some cases the bozos in management don't even know it.

  3. Re:But how will it be encoded? by Americano · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Define "important" & "near".

  4. As always, it comes down to content providers by dave562 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The more things change, they more they stay the same. Once upon a time, we used to visit webpages and were told that we needed to download Real Player to view the content on the page. Then we needed QuickTime. Then we needed Flash. Now we are going to need WebM.

    In the end, it doesn't matter what the browser vendors want to include with the browser. It will come down to the content providers and whether or not their content is compelling. If they are offering what consumers want, consumers will download whatever plugin they need. Downloading plugins is an established behavior.

    The only group who will be affected by this at all are the developers. They have to make the choice as to what video encoding scheme they want to use for their applications. So developers out there, how many of you care? On one hand you know that if you go with H.264, all IE and Safari users (read 90%+ of computer users) will be able to view your content without downloading a plugin. You will miss out Chrome users (assuming nobody comes out with an H.264 plugin for Chrome). On the other hand, you can choose WebM and presumably avoid the spectre of maybe, possibly, one day (but not very likely) having to pay royalities on H.264. You end up with some portion of the 90% of the market who are willing to download a plugin. Which do you choose? Or more realistically, which one does your employer hoist on you?

  5. Re:Then has anyone decided to fork the H.264 build by gad_zuki! · · Score: 4, Interesting

    >MPEG-LA has already claimed that WebM most likely infringes upon their patents. If you adopt it, you risk a danger that is actually likely and in MPEG-LA's interest,

    In other words if they lose in the marketplace against WebM they will try to win the courtroom with their stable of bullshit patents like "drawing to screen web-based device" and "putting data in framebuffer of mobile device"

    Stop defending software patents as being legitimate concepts in a debate over formats. They're roadblocks society has long overgrown. Suggesting that we should align ourselves with the larger mafiosio because he has more guns is stupid, shortsighted, and shows you to be a MPEGLA shill even if that isn't your intention.