Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Makes Chrome Play H.264 Video
nk497 writes "Chrome users will be able to play H.264 video — thanks to Microsoft. The software giant today unveiled the Windows Media Player HTML5 Extension for Chrome, which will let users of the Google browser play H.264 video after it was dropped from Chrome over licensing issues. 'At Microsoft we respect that Windows customers want the best experience of the web including the ability to enjoy the widest range of content available on the internet in H.264 format,' said Claudio Caldato, Microsoft interoperability program manager."
Microsoft has interesting priorities... "Lets release a plug-in for a third party browser to fix a perceived short coming..." as opposed to "Lets fix the problems and short comings in our products". Slow clap for Microsoft.
Microsoft's H.264 addon for Firefox has a bad memory leak.
See http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/971988-memory-leak-in-html5-extension-for-windows-media-player-firefox-add-on/
So this might be bad for Chrome.
Anything that increases choice is a good thing.
It's not like there isn't a very well documented interface to IE. Why don't you write an Ogg Theroa plugin for IE, rather than complain that Microsoft wrote something that is both in their interest and useful for users that do want to use h.264 as well as use Chrome?
Or use the VLC media player plugin, which - at least according to the Wikipedia page on Theroa - lets you view that format in IE and Firefox.
I still believe that every browser should rely on the codecs installed on the OS. Every platform (and optionally the user) can then choose what they want.
Developers: We can use your help.
Theora is also quite useful, given that the Wikimedia projects only accept free formats. You're not going to be able to upload your video in H.264 there, and they're a big enough player for this to actually matter.
will it report which videos i choose to watch on youtube to microsoft ? so that they can use it to 'improve their results' in any potential video service they may be launching, depending on what youtube shows ?
Read radical news here
Patent risk from submarine patents: neither h.264 nor WebM offers any protection from it.
Patent risk from MPEG-LA for h.264: significant, as it can decide to raise prices / start charging for content at any time. Bait and switch is their strategy.
Patent risk from Google for WebM: none, they offered irrevocable indemnification:
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Ogg Theora is technically highly inferior to H.264.
That may be so, but when comparing non-technical merits, is Ogg Theora highly superior to H.264? That should be part of the equation too.
All it has going for it is religion and ideology.
Troll.
Why should Microsoft support your particular belief system over the beliefs of anyone else?
Because it might be better for users.
Why, especially, should they want their users to have a much worse experience watching internet video?
Even the latest version of Microsoft's browser (IE8) is a piece of shit. Microsoft has already demonstrated that the user experience is not their top priority.
That means one must wonder what Microsoft's true motivation is.
How about adopting (or adapting) a belief system that leads to better products instead of worse ones?
Oh, so you advocate moving away from IE entirely?
And? Windows comes bundled with tons of old, obsolete, and inferior codecs, many of which never were mainstream in any reasonable sense of the word. Either Microsoft is for giving more choices or its for technological superiority. Yes, it's not black and white, but it's also the case that Theora being free makes the lack of inclusion either a sign of a choice on their part or a belief that Theora is so underused that it ranks below a ton of old codec; that's a little hard to believe.
Because they said they were for choice and choice inherently involves trade-offs? Or are you suggesting Microsoft should drop support for everything but H.264? I mean, if it's all about quality per bit, then H.264 is the current best technology.
The second I see Microsoft chose and endorse a competitor's product because it's superior, we'll talk. As it stands, Microsoft's action seems more an attempt to ingratiate themselves with H.264 supporters while simultaneously mocking Google and Chrome. That's certainly their right and choice. But, it's not about generally giving more choice to the user. I'd be happier if Microsoft would just be honest and say they believe Google made a bad choice.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
I consider H.264 support in any browser to be of negative utility. It encourages the prevalence of a heavily patent encumbered format on the Internet, which is bad for everybody, except possibly a few large players like Microsoft (though ultimate I don't think it's in their best long-term interests either).
So, in my opinion, they just added a freedom exploit to a previously useful browser.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop