Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Offers H.264 Plug-in For Google Chrome

Posted by timothy on from the windows-users-hearken dept.

Apparently Firefox was just the beginning: Pigskin-Referee writes "Microsoft has released a Windows Media Player HTML5 Extension for Chrome so as to enable H.264-encoded video on HTML5 by using built-in capabilities available on Windows 7. As you may recall, less than two months ago, Microsoft released the HTML5 Extension for Windows Media Player Firefox Plug-in with the same goal in mind. Even though Firefox and Chrome are big competitors to Microsoft's own Internet Explorer, the software giant has decided Windows 7 users should be able to play back H.264 video even if they aren't using IE9. Here's the current state of HTML5 video: Microsoft and Apple are betting on H.264, while Firefox, Chrome, and Opera are rooting for WebM. Google was actually in favor of both H.264 and WebM up until earlier this month, when the search giant decided to drop H.264 support completely, even though the former is widely used and the latter is not. The company also announced that it would release WebM plugins for Internet Explorer 9 and Safari. Although IE9 supports H.264, excluding all other codecs, Microsoft is making an exception for WebM, as long as the user installs the corresponding codec, and is helping Google ensure the plug-in works properly."

47 of 332 comments (clear)

  1. Microsoft supporting choice? by drb226 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Something strange has been going on at Redmond, WA lately. And I like it. It seems like a reversal of roles for Google to be reducing end-user choice and Microsoft to be making up for it.

    1. Re:Microsoft supporting choice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Google is pushing an open codec while Microsoft is pushing a closed one. It's to Google's benefit to have an open web, and to Microsoft's to close it off as much as possible. Not much has changed.

    2. Re:Microsoft supporting choice? by Threni · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Either that or they're hoping all their shit is going to crash Chrome and give it the same shocking reputation for security, speed and standards compliance that IE has always had.

    3. Re:Microsoft supporting choice? by CRCulver · · Score: 2

      Companies were banding together patents that they claimed to relate to VP8, but it's undecided if their patents are indeed relevant.

    4. Re:Microsoft supporting choice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here we go again, confusing what open and closed mean and conflating "patent encumbered" with "closed". h.264 is an OPEN STANDARD. WebM may be an open standard some day, but today it is not and the docs released so far (while a good start) are not even intended as standards documents and WebM has not been submitted to any standards body at all so far. Yes, h.265 is patent encumbered but is an open standard. WebM is currently considered by Google to only be encumbered by patents that Google owns and is freely licensing. It remains to be seen whether WebM will remain this way as MPEG-LA is soliciting patents now for a possible WebM patent pool. It is possible that WebM will remain only encumbered by the patents that Google is willing to license for free. It is also possible that it won't be and license fees will be required for that. Nobody knows yet. At this point, WebM is a closed codec because there are not enough specs and no standard for which someone can create a compatible codec of their own.

    5. Re:Microsoft supporting choice? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, actually Office was available for the Mac in 1990 and not for Windows until 1992 (version 3.0) was the first Windows version.

    6. Re:Microsoft supporting choice? by node+3 · · Score: 2

      Your open standard definition is as defined by Microsoft, not most standard bodies.

      Like the ISO?

      You guys are doing the thing you complain about everyone else doing. Namely, confusing "open" and "free". WebM is more free than H.264 (although H.264 is free in many cases). H.264 is more open than WebM.

      Furthermore, no one gives a shit whether the standard is open for input.

      About the same amount that give a shit that their hardware and software came with a small licensing fee for H.264. Far more people care about the video quality and the impact on their devices that their video has, and H.264 trounces WebM here.

      For one thing, 'open' standards are often worse off because of it.

      Wait, did you just say that open standards are worse off because they involve open collaboration?

      Secondly, you aren't going to be able to afford the $100,000 to whisper your desires to the corporate oversight committee anyway.

      The proof is in the pudding. Compare WebM with H.264, or if you want a more open source comparison, Theora.

      You're making all these arguments for why the open standards process is bad, but when it all boils down, the best video codec out there was borne out of that very process.

    7. Re:Microsoft supporting choice? by hedwards · · Score: 2

      More likely it's a scheme to ensure that H.264 continues to be the codec of choice so as to make it harder for free OSes and browsers to compete with them. H.264 isn't free despite the claims that a lot of people make. It's free if you've got a small number of licenses or to stream, but as soon as your user base grows beyond the threshold you have to pay for all the licenses and streaming isn't typically very useful, they do charge for encoding and decoding the streams.

      Which is one of the reasons that Google and Mozilla aren't so keen on it.

  2. No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I like freedom from patent-encumbered garbage.

    And it's sad that patent-loving idiot companies are all over WebM trying to "prove" it is patent-encumbered as well. Go fuck off. Seriously, this is what we need to tell patent trolls. OH PATENT WE'LL SUE! "Fuck off." BUT-- "FUCK... OFF."

    1. Re:No thanks by node+3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What do you use that isn't "patent-encumbered"? Your computer is chock full of patents, as is everything else computer-related (except maybe an Arduino). Do you use Linux? Do you use Flash on Linux? Do you have x264 or VLC installed?

      What kind of car do you drive? Do you have a TV? Microwave? Electric shaver? Normal disposable razor? What kind of pens and pencils do you use? Do you ever listen to the radio? MP3 player?

      Sure, you are a hypocrite, but I really don't have too much of a problem with that. Nor do I have a problem with you trying to lead an ascetically "pure" life. I *do*, however, have a huge problem with you trying to fuck over everyone else, demanding they live their lives by your ideology. If you don't want to take part in modern society, by all means, whatever floats your boat.

  3. Choice is good by anlag · · Score: 2

    Hard to argue with that, surely. I'm very far from a Microsoft fan, but credit where it is due.

    1. Re:Choice is good by Simon80 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I see lots of people saying this, but it's not true. This is designed to indirectly combat choice. Not the choice of what codec to use on the client side, but the choice of accessing the web from completely unencumbered operating systems, with no flash and no patented codecs, or from mobile devices that don't have flash support, or whose manufacturers haven't paid to include the H.264 codec on the device. This is the kind of choice that matters: people on the client side don't care about choosing what codec is used, they care about choosing the devices or operating systems they want to use. A codec that is free from patent royalties is easier to support in free operating systems, browsers, and in mobile devices, where the OS is included out of the box, and the device maker would otherwise need to pay royalties.

      Microsoft can still claim to be supporting choice, because they're helping web developers have the choice to use a patent encumbered codec. The use of this codec helps reduce consumer choice in what devices and operating systems they can use.

      What is each company's interest in supporting either side? Microsoft recognizes that anything that is good for alternative operating systems and devices is bad for their Windows monopoly, which is why they are pro-H.264. I'm not sure what Apple's motivation is, but maybe it's similarly because all of their devices and software support H.264, and they want to retain a competitive advantage, however small. Google wants the web to be an open standard, because it's what their applications use, and Mozilla can't properly support H.264 without compromising their attempt to offer a free web browser that works just as well on every platform they support.

    2. Re:Choice is good by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 2

      What is each company's interest in supporting either side? Microsoft recognizes that anything that is good for alternative operating systems and devices is bad for their Windows monopoly, which is why they are pro-H.264. I'm not sure what Apple's motivation is, but maybe it's similarly because all of their devices and software support H.264, and they want to retain a competitive advantage, however small.

      No, Microsoft is pro-H.264 because H.264 is the standard for video compression. It's an ISO standard. It is the dominant codec for DVD and Blu-Ray discs, for satellite TV, for broadcast TV, for cable TV, and for commercial streaming services. It is supported by pretty much all professional and prosumer video hardware and software, and a very large number of consumer devices that deal with video (portable players and gaming consoles).

      Note that Microsoft is also supporting WebM in IE9. Microsoft doesn't care what format video is in. They just want Windows to be the best place to view video. Hence, IE9 will support H.264 and WebM, and they are making sure that on Windows users of Firefox and Chrome can also handle both. The bottom line for Microsoft is that Windows users will get a good out of the box experience with video, whereas Linux users, and to a lesser extent Mac users, might have to futz around to get the same.

      Same goes for Apple. One of the major target audiences for Mac is creative professionals. They'd be laughed out of Hollywood if they tried to drop support for H.264. For web video, Safari uses Quicktime codecs, so handles whatever Quicktime handles. If a Mac user wants WebM, he will simply install a Quicktime plugin. So, Mac users who use Safari will easily have all their bases covered. I don't know if someone is going to to an H.264 plug-in for Firefox and Chrome on Mac like Microsoft is doing for Windows, so Mac users may not have it as easy as Windows users in this regard.

  4. Re:.. Not again by jedidiah · · Score: 2

    Then that is a moronic point.

    It is not the place of HTML to enforce stifling rules regarding data formats.

    It's simply not necessary. Despite all of the moaning and groaning, system decoders have always been able to handle diverse media types including video.

    The real issue is DRM and hiding content from the end user.

    HTML5 video does NOTHING AT ALL to address that issue.

    The platform vendor is in the best position to create decoders that exploit all of the features of the OS and underlying hardware. Being stuck with with some 3rd party blob decoder is just shifting the problem around.

    We shouldn't be stuck with the built-in video decoder. That's just as bad as being stuck with Flash.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  5. Use VLC instead by hcdejong · · Score: 2

    I want a plugin that intercepts HTML5 or Flash video and opens it in VLC instead of the browser window.

    For Flash video, this means it'll get played in by a player that performs decently (instead of the crappy Flash video we get in OSX browsers). And it means I get a decent UI to control playback, with real controls that listen to keyboard input and whose preferences can be modified, instead of the pathetic mouse-only 'controls' offered by Flash video code.

  6. Analysis by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It looks like it's just a NSAPI plugin, with a content script that converts video tags to object tags for all mp4, wmv, mp4v, and m4v files, and uses Windows Media Player to handle them. It's a bit of a misnomer to say it's HTML5; basically it converts the HTML5 back to HTML4.

    The best part is that it looks like the plugin can be invoked manually through an object tag, no video tag required. Now all three browsers (IE, Firefox w/a Microsoft addon, Chrome) can have WMP invoked at will, unsandboxed (Plugins aren't sandboxed by Chrome since most wouldn't work correctly, the one exception being a modified Flash). Great.

    1. Re:Analysis by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 2

      Oh yeah addendum: It's not hosted on the Chrome Web Store, probably because it uses a plugin. Extensions using plugins have to undergo manual review to ensure they don't have gaping security holes, and THIS plugin launches WMP, which is perhaps too large a code base to test thoroughly for that kind of thing (if Google would even want to). Microsoft probably didn't want to risk extension rejection by Google, I think.

  7. Re:.. Not again by Tx · · Score: 2

    Don't be so boring; it's battles like these that make life interesting. Will the mighty Google be able to gain enough traction for WebM to actually make a fight of this in the first place? Or is the de-facto-standard status of h.264 unassailable? Does the works-everywhere combo of Flash and h.264 now become even more the option of choice for web developers trying to keep their jobs simple, or will they persevere with HTML5 and cope with supporting multiple codecs? Tune in to future episodes to find out. It's like reality TV, except interesting.

    --
    Oh no... it's the future.
  8. Re:Missing the point by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Architecturally speaking, my understanding is that Microsoft's plugin simply exposes the (already bought and paid for) h.264 decoder that they ship with Windows 7. It doesn't remove the patent issues with h.264 in a broader sense; but Google and Chrome remain completely separate from any h.264-decoder-related code. Even if Google were to start shipping the plugin by default, on Windows Chrome installs, my understanding is that that still wouldn't expose them to any h.264 MPEG-LA trouble: they'd just be shipping a component that plugs into the decoder library available in Windows(Still using Directshow or a descendant thereof, I assume?).

    While, personally, I would prefer to avoid patent encumbrances as much as possible, there is actually a very good 'realpolitik' (and even arguably architectural) argument to be made in favor of this approach. While the ideal would be a single, patent-unencumbered, codec, this seems less than likely at present. Since the FOSS browsers cannot ship the encumbered codecs, and some of the commercial ones don't want to, they could simply ship a mechanism for handing the problem off to the platform's native codec system, possibly along with a matching implementation of their open codec of choice, and let the OS deal with it. Windows, OSX, and Linux all have viable candidates with which to interface, and doing so makes any patent issues Not Their Problem.

  9. Re:.. Not again by alostpacket · · Score: 3, Informative

    I know, Microsoft really needs to instal a dupe plugin for slashdot. Or maybe it could be part of the HTML5 spec. http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/02/02/175227/Microsoft-Makes-Chrome-Play-H264-Video

    --
    PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
  10. Re:Missing the point by Simon80 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, they could do that, but that would guarantee continuation of the current situation, where Linux users privately infringe patents, and everybody else running a business that needs to use H.264 has to pay royalties. Google and Mozilla are for whatever reason trying to rid the world of this indirect tax by pushing a free alternative, and we should celebrate this instead of questioning the short-term sacrifices they are making to accomplish this.

  11. Re:Missing the point by Simon80 · · Score: 2

    Besides, it's a WMP plugin. I don't expect to see Linux support.

    For Microsoft, lack of Linux support is a bonus. If they can look like they're improving interoperability while actually harming it, that's great for them. I suspect that any web developers that adopt the video element this early are aware of all of these issues, and are either offering multiple formats or a flash-based fallback.

  12. Gotta love it. by Beelzebud · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I love how with some people, everything MS does has to be bad, no matter what. Give users more choice? Booo!!!!

    This is a good thing. Choice is good. This doesn't render html5 as useless, as it just gives their users more choice.

    1. Re:Gotta love it. by 0123456 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I love how with some people, everything MS does has to be bad, no matter what. Give users more choice? Booo!!!!

      Users don't care whether the video is H.264, they just want to play it. Web sites put up video in a format that users want to play.

      If Windows users can play H.264 in their web browser and Linux users can't because it's patented to hell, then this clearly has the intentional or unintentional side-effect of encouraging web sites to use a format which Linux users can't view.

      I mean, seriously: why do you think that Microsoft would be releasing 'improvements' to other browsers out of kindness?

    2. Re:Gotta love it. by Beelzebud · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you can't watch h.264 on your Linux box, you're doing it wrong. Linux users don't need their hand held. Not everything is a nefarious plot to bring down the 1% of desktops that use Linux...

    3. Re:Gotta love it. by FuckingNickName · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I mean, seriously: do you think that Google has released 'WebM' out of kindness?

    4. Re:Gotta love it. by onefriedrice · · Score: 2

      I can play H.264. I can't play H.264 in Firefox with HTML5 tags, because Firefox doesn't support it due to patent concerns.

      Again, that's a limitation imposed by Mozilla (and the Chromium people). There is no reason they couldn't provide a fallback HTML5 video handler which piggy-backs off of system libraries that virtually all users of "desktop Linux" have already installed (i.e. ffmpeg). Such a mechanism is smart software engineering, and it would give the users the ability to decide which codecs they might want to use.

      In other words, if you can't play h.264 in your browser on desktop Linux, your platform (including your browser vendor) isn't providing you with enough options.

      --
      This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
    5. Re:Gotta love it. by jo_ham · · Score: 2

      It's not Microsoft's fault that your browser is intentionally not supporting H.264, for whatever reason it chooses to do so.

      Perhaps they should drop jpeg support too, since that is also "patent encumbered".

    6. Re:Gotta love it. by Eskarel · · Score: 2

      That's why they don't build a plugin, the reason they won't let you use your OS plugin is because they're stupid.

    7. Re:Gotta love it. by FuckingNickName · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Returning to a dumb terminal era where everything's controlled by the big server owner across the country is Google's aim, and that's the worst thing possible for the consumer. Well, no, it could be worse: Google could mine the data it collects as server operator and use it to deliver adverts. Oh.

      Microsoft has done great things for computing, helping (with various other firms from the '80s) to change the global technology landscape and realising the PC-on-every-desk vision. It does not always offer the best implementation, but it sure as hell spent a lot of the past three decades delivering. Over the past 5 years, Apple has occupied traditional Microsoft ground in popularising new platforms.

      Google, meanwhile, has produced... a slightly better search engine. It's like the modern RIAA - it's only powerful because everyone else's content goes through it.

    8. Re:Gotta love it. by RocketRabbit · · Score: 2

      Listen kid, Google did not write VP8 "in html." They wrote it in C. The only reason they did this is because they don't want to pay millions of dollars per year to the MPEG-LA, whose codec Google uses to make tens of billions of dollars per year just from Youtube. There may be a motivation to stop paying the dollar or whatever it is per Android phone too.

      However, Google has never actually legally indemnified Everybody Forever who wishes to implement a VP8 codec for their device. They have never promised ANY SUCH THING! They just said we are releasing a free codec, and enjoy!

      Sounds great, right? Except they really promised nothing and are just assuming people will trust them. The WebM codecs are not encumbered with any licensing fees now, but tomorrow or next week or in 10 years Google can change their mind. Of course it's free now, Google is essentially a crack dealer, and they will not charge until you are totally hooked.

    9. Re:Gotta love it. by jo_ham · · Score: 2

      As far as Jpeg and PDF go - I did *not* claim they weren't royalty free, I claimed they had patents attached to them. And while Firefox itself doesn't have much to do with PDF, it does have the ability to create PDF files (but for some reason can't read them - I suspect for security reasons). You're misreading what I said, either deliberately or otherwise, and I'm leaning toward the former since the post with the claim in it os only a couple of lines.

      Anyway, so, having been called on deliberately conflating open source and open standard, and citing yourself that there's no fixed definition (and that royalties are not incompatible with the term) you are not restating that the MPEG LA's terms are "incompatible with open source in general and the GPL specifically" and have left out the open standards part, whereas just a couple of posts ago you were claiming it was also incompatible with open standards too (which I guess is odd, since you yourself are stating that it's something that so far doesn't have a full consensus, yet still claim to be able to define accurately enough to state 'incompatibility' with). In other words, "if I disagree with a definition, I will call it the minority position". If we're purely going by pure numbers for the accuracy of a statement, then I'm going to have to say "Windows is clearly the best operating system since it is the most popular".

      Standards like USB and GSM, and on the codec side, H.264, AAC, HDV, etc are widely considered open standards by a widely accepted definition of the term. That some people (the FSF especially) claim that the term "doesn't count" and to use *their* definition as the actual cast-iron one is hypocrisy of the highest order.

      You state that Firefox "can't" include H.264, which is nonsense. The Mozilla foundation could easily afford the licencing cost (it is capped) and they can offer Firefox under a different licence for the build that contained H.264 support (for example, its own MPL licence which already has precedent for combining open source and proprietary/non-free code in the same application). They can then offer the normal "non-tainted" version under the GPL.

      It's not that they can't offer it, their position is purely ideological, and it's a position that I respect (far from being "someone who refuses to accept facts and change [his] position"), but I have looked at the wider implications of their stance. Their goal is a noble one, and one I support: the standardisation of the web on open standards that are also royalty free. I personally don;t believe that H.264 is the battleground to fight that particular battle on, though, although I'm not going to begrudge them their right to do so if they choose. All they are achieving in the short to medium term is the longevity of flash by trying to hobble H.264. Get rid of flash first, and get the HTML5 train properly rolling, then start dealing with codecs - the beauty of the video tag is the ability to easily offer up multiple formats if necessary. Thus, when something better than H.264 comes along (and the MPEG group is attempting to work on that right now, although getting flamed for it on slashdot, and getting confused with the MPEG LA) and then replace it.

      H.264 has "won" the codec battle in the medium term - it has hardware decoding support in myriad portable devices, it is technically extremely good (and it is still better than WebM and Theora), and it is supported by multiple large companies. If there is a compelling alternative in the future, they will go for it - this could be Dirac, which will be compatible with OSS, or it could be something else. Just because companies like Apple, MS, Sony etc have settled on H.264 now doesn't mean they will automatically go for the royalty-encumbered one next time - they will pick the best tool for the job, and unfortunately for OSS right now, that is H.264. It is "established" in the market, and will be a standard format until the next one comes along.

  13. Re:.. Not again by Pentium100 · · Score: 2

    Except browsers like Chrome and Firefox aren't actually using the system decoders.

    Well, it's not like they cannot use the system codecs. Which means that this is just a stupid choice, the same way that I would insist on buying a PC power supply that is designed for 110V then using it with a transformer that converts the 230V in the outlet to 110V and complaining that the power supply was quite expensive because I needed to buy it from the US and then needed to buy the transformer.

  14. Re:.. Not again by commodore6502 · · Score: 2

    Yes battles are interesting.

    But my worry is the "winner" will be an inferior standard, like how VHS beat Laserdisc, so we were stuck with blurry ~320x480 movies for the next 30 years. (LD did manage to hang-on but a lot of the movies I wanted were only available on vhs.)

    If there's going to be a war, let's pick the one that can produce the best quality even if limited to a rural America stream of 1 Mbit/s. That would be MPEG4 video with HE-AAC audio.

    --
    Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
  15. "But it works on my computer" by tepples · · Score: 2

    Well, it's not like they cannot use the system codecs.

    There are two problems here. First, Mozilla wants a page to work on the end user if it works on . For example, the end user might be missing a codec, which is likely if the end user is on Windows XP Home Edition, Windows XP Professional, Windows Vista Home Basic, Windows Vista Business, Windows 7 Starter, or any freely redistributable GNU/Linux distribution. Mozilla doesn't want web developers to give the excuse "But it works on all of our computers; try buying Windows 7 Home Premium and using that to view the web site." Second, Mozilla doesn't want users to blame Firefox if a defect in a system codec causes a crash or intrusion.

    1. Re:"But it works on my computer" by tepples · · Score: 2

      Also, for h264 I use CoreAVC

      I don't think Mozilla can afford to distribute a copy of CoreAVC to everybody who doesn't already own a copy of CoreAVC.

      Someone who watches videos on Youtube most likely also watches downloaded videos

      A lot of such downloaded videos will use MPEG-4 Part 2 (DivX/Xvid) or Windows Media Video, not necessarily AVC.

      So, instead it wants the users to blame Firefox for not showing some videos? Or if flash causes a crash?

      Flash Player doesn't crash Firefox anymore; it crashes the plug-in container. What kind of finger-pointing will happen with a message like "The plug-in Flash Player published by Adobe Systems Inc. stopped unexpectedly"?

  16. Put money where mouth is by tepples · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If there's going to be a war, let's pick the one that can produce the best quality

    Are you willing to buy everyone in the developed world a licensed encoder and a licensed decoder?

  17. Google is at least trying by tepples · · Score: 2, Informative

    At this point, WebM is a closed codec because there are not enough specs and no standard for which someone can create a compatible codec of their own.

    WebM is Matroska, Vorbis, and VP8. Matroska and Vorbis are already well documented, and Google is at least trying with VP8, having submitted a draft RFC to IETF.

    1. Re:Google is at least trying by RocketRabbit · · Score: 2

      No, Google sent a bunch of C code in an email. In its current form it is not very useful for somebody who wishes to implement their own version of the codec. It is really not explained at all in the way that an actual specification is expected to be.

      http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377 explains this all, but I am sure you know all this already.

  18. Re:Missing the point by node+3 · · Score: 2

    H.264 has no "patent issues". You want to use it, under certain circumstance, you pay to use it, just like countless other things you pay for. There's no "issues" here for 99+% of the people out there.

    The effects of the H.264 patents are minimal, and easily addressed. It's disingenuous to act like this is some major problem.

  19. Re:Missing the point by tepples · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You bought a license when you bought the OS that bought the license.

    The following operating systems do not include an AVC license: Windows XP Home Edition, Windows XP Professional, Windows Vista Home Basic, Windows Vista Business, and Windows 7 Starter.

  20. Re:.. Not again by Draek · · Score: 2

    It is not the place of HTML to enforce stifling rules regarding data formats.

    It is.

    The real issue is DRM and hiding content from the end user.

    HTML5 video does NOTHING AT ALL to address that issue.

    Sure it does, by promoting a standard that's able to be freely implemented by anyone willing, they make it less desireable to use plugins that support DRM instead. Which is all they can do, honestly.

    We shouldn't be stuck with the built-in video decoder. That's just as bad as being stuck with Flash.

    We shouldn't be stuck with the system decoder, either, which is why we need the aforementioned free format.

    --
    No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
  21. Quit treating Google with kid gloves by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google is behaving like any other company. Do you really think they've dropped h.264 because they love open formats? No, it's a strategic move with the ultimate goal of making more money - either through search, through monetizing your personal data, or both.

    If they were being altruistic, they'd have dropped Flash support and mp3 support at the same time. Heck, to really be pure they'd need to drop gif and jpeg as well. No, they dropped h.264 because right now their browser is trending upward, and they see a way to grab an edge versus both Apple and Microsoft.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Quit treating Google with kid gloves by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 2

      Plus as Google has acquired VP8 and WebM, the concept of them being 'open' is a bit misleading. Sure the code may be released, but any changes to the code will be irrelevant, as Google will decide and define all aspects of what is their 'standard'.

      Thus any innovation and future compatibilty will be all what Google wants.

      Sadly, if people do move to VP8 and WebM, Google will have a lot of power, and when they put in tracking and monitoring of video and data collection that goes directly back to them, there is no way anyone will be able to stop them.

      As for Microsoft and the H.264 support in Chrome and Firefox, it is a result of the Microsoft philosophy that the OS should just handle certain higher level functionality, which they increased with Windows7 adding in not only more codec features, but licensing and including the codecs for the developers and end users so that they don't ever have to worry about it.

      Due to the licensing restrictions in some of the OSS codecs, Microsoft can't include everything. However, Microsoft is doing a decent job of trying to cover most of the codecs especially ones that they can bite the licensing fees for the users and developers with Windows7 and WP7, which gives both OSes an edge for developers and helps consumers. (With my developer hat on, it is very attractive to be able to just use and play various audio and video content on WP7 in contrast to Android that has support for only a couple of semi-crap formats, and all other codecs shove the responsibility onto the backs of the Apps.)

      So by adding codecs as a upper level OS feature, Microsoft is making Windows more attractive and helping consumers in the long run, which is how they can put out the H.264 plugins since Windows7 already covers the licensing. -Also it is just a few lines of code because of Windows7's inherent ability to play the format.

      (If Microsoft had some self serving goal, they would be making VC1 plugins, and shoving VC1 content for HTML5, as it is their WMV format. And they are not.)

  22. Re:Missing the point by westlake · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes, they could do that, but that would guarantee continuation of the current situation, where Linux users privately infringe patents, and everybody else running a business that needs to use H.264 has to pay royalties

    There are no royalties on internal use of H.264 video.

    There are no royalties on H.264 Internet video free to the viewer. No royalties on sales of video shorts less than twelve minutes.

    The lesser of 2% of sales or 2 cents a title on feature length videos sold by title. Think about that the next time you go shopping for Pixar on Blu-Ray at Walmart.

    Subscription services with less than 100,000 subscribers pay nothing.

    Broadcasters and cable services serving more than 100,000 households and less than 500,000 have the option of a one-time charge per encoder of $2,500 or $2,500/yr.

    MPEG LA is major league ball.

    They do not want to hear from you until you are raking in the green.

  23. You're ignoring a simple fact by daboochmeister · · Score: 2

    What you say is true as far as it goes ... it's a strategic move that, if it pans out the way I'm sure they're hoping, WILL increase their profits. But you're missing that they've made a choice in basic company business plan - that their business plan is to benefit when computing advances in capability, and individual users are empowered to do more and create more with it. MS, Apple, etc. have business plans that really work best if they monopolize a whole segment of the computing market, and suppress innovation from competitors. I'll take Google's approach.

    --
    "Ahh! I see you're in that indeterminate Schrodinger state where - oh, uh ... never mind." Dave Bucci
  24. Then X or the kernel is defective by tepples · · Score: 2

    Flash Player doesn't crash Firefox anymore; it crashes the plug-in container.

    It might crash the system.

    If Flash brings down X or the kernel, then X or the kernel is defective. It's the job of X and the kernel to make sure a userspace application can't crash the system.

    Also, the codecs can also be invoked by a separate process so they do not crash FF.

    That's what I meant by "plug-in container".