"able to play mainstream HTML5"
Correction :"able to play nonstandard HTML5"
there I fixed it for you like you want to 'fix' it for us, by completely inverting the meaning.
Microsoft has reinfected Google's Chrome browser with the patent-encumbered H.264 video codec, banned by the search giant last month. On Wednesday, the world's largest software company released a plug-in for Chrome that allows Windows 7 PCs to play video using the proprietary format that's part-owned by Microsoft and Apple – …
Correction :"able to play nonstandard HTML5"
there I fixed it for you like you want to 'fix' it for us, by completely inverting the meaning.
because the user has to install it, if they installed it without permission, or seemingly obvious permission, that would be wrong.
but a user who wants to play h264 content on their computer by installing this plugin, is totally ok with me, it's like when I wanted to play content that windows media player didnt support, I downloaded vlc and the k-lite codec packs....
so whats the problem?
There is no problem. If MS and Google are the kids in the playground having a tussle, El Reg is part of the surrounding crowd which is gleefully shouting "Scrap! Scrap! Scrap!".
Someone was always going to write a plug-in for Chrome to do this.
It's better MS doing it than anybody else.
Because they pay the license fee, can't sensibly demand a fee from anybody else and it's a PR disaster if they drop support for it when it's popular.
How much doing this could dilute non-H.264 support. Maybe their altruistic tendencies will prompt Apple and Linux versions shortly.
Wonder how long it'll be before someone finds a security flaw in it.
Presumably MS have also released a Firefox plugin considering it currently has more market share than Chrome? Or is this _formally_ a pissing contest?
Is there any where I can see the the user-base for H.264, 'cos it seems to me that only OS X and Win7/Vista (ignoring mobile users) users get H.264 out of the box? So as far as I can tell, Flash still seems to be the best* way to deliver video over the interwob to desktop/laptop clients.
*best in this case meaning least likely to fail.
There is an equivalent plug-in for Firefox.
for the 'low down dirty tricks' that Google played on thing with the Bing search results thingy.
Now I wait with anticipation for Google's retaliation.
This is for Stevie B.
Pooor Microsoft. Somebody needs to stick up for them.
Does anyone think that Google will give a rats ass? They said *they* wouldn't support it, but doubt they'd ban someone from developing a plug-in. I'm assuming that Chrome can cope with MP3 files, and hopefully this is through a 3rd party plug-in if they're following the same logic as H.264 - otherwise I'd suspect they're doing it to p1ss off Apple/MS.
Find it somewhat odd that they'll continue to include Flash by default though.
"Does anyone think that Google will give a rats ass?"
They shouldn't! Google have got no grounds whatsoever for complaint about MS using plugins to crowbar features into their browser. Remember Chrome Frame?
They get h264 support in Crome without needing to cough up for a licence.
"The plug-in is designed to let users running Chrome on a Windows 7 machine – but not on a Windows XP box.. "
I could have sworn there was an OS in between...
No-one in their right mind would call that an OS.
"I could have sworn there was an OS in between..."
Ahh, so you're the one who bought V.... Vest? V-something....
We don't mention the V word anymore.
We don't mention Mistake Edition either.
Since the standard is not decided upon Microsoft are, typically, pushing their own proprietary standard. Unfortunately they will win :(
Like you say, since no standard is decided upon, so Google and Mozilla are just as guilty as Microsoft as pushing a proprietary one.
Wouldn't it be a nice world if all browsers supported both formats?
What do the bookies in the UK have for odds on how long it will take to get a plug in or cracked codec for H.264 that will work on an XP box?
Sorry to say but I have a perfectly good XP SP-3 box that does not nag the shite out of me when I want to run a program that M$ hasn't created itself. I don't really want to "browse" for a codec since that is one of the fastest ways to get infected I know.
A plug in or reliable source for a codec would be welcome.
I for one welcome our video compression overlords IF they would be platform independent.
"not nag the shite out of me when I want to run a program that M$ hasn't created itself."
Funny I've installed about 50 - 60 programs and I don't see a sinlge nag box. Oh sorry your either to thick to turn the UAC down or you just some retard that listens to his mates in his schoolyard (who are to thick to turn the UAC down), or maybe you just don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
The reason (i'm guessing) it's W7, is something to do with Windows XP being a decade old and not really supported any more. Just a guess.
PS you can still use ie8 to view it.
Pot, meet kettle.
"Oh sorry your either to thick" should be "Oh, sorry, you're either too thick".
"or you just some retard" should be "or you are just some retard".
"who are to thick" FFS, it's "TOO thick".
mummy take away your sugar?
What is the deal with The Register's bias on this issue? Microsoft is doing everyone a favour. loaded words such as "reinfected" and "patent-encumbered". WebM is most likely "patent encumbered" as well.
The MPEG people have been saying exactly that, however have yet to put anything on the table saying so.
The promise not to charge anyone for using H.264 is for END USERS ONLY.
There is nothing to stop them turning around later and demanding royalties for Opera and Mozilla at some later stage, when HTML5 is well establised, They are just not doing it at the moment.
Embedding H.264 in free software is just asking for the likes of Microsoft to come along and kill your project when it gets "Inconvenient".
TBH, I never understood why the old Amiga system of Datatypes became popular in the PC world. You end up having one codec for all programs, accessable by any program through a library with a standard API. Programs like Web browsers shouldnt really have any business doing their media decoding themselves (Including Sound, video and images)
They already charge browsers. Mozilla would be on the hook for $6.5 million dollars a year (for the next five years, after that it can go up by any amount till the patents run out in about 20 years) so we're talking over a hundred million dollars.
That's not even getting into the fact that Mozilla is a charity dedicated to the "open web" and W3C standards don't allow patent royalties, and that any other upcoming browser (or web based re-encoding tool or video editor) would also be on the hook, which a profit driven business would obviously think is a good thing to reduce competition (see Apple and Microsoft's stance) but is hardly appropriate for a non-profit. Or that products built on Mozilla's source would also need to find money to pay for this tax.
Thank you kindly, but I'd rather Microsoft not do me any favors.
Microsoft (one of the IP owners) supplies a codec plugin for free.
(as mentioned above for Chrome, I know, but the point is very relevant for FF too)
.... not to mention El Reg's loaded description of H.264 as being "closed", despite being developed by a standards body with input from many different organisations, despite being the most widely used video format on the planet with hardware support from millions of devices, and despite an openly available specification with many open source code for H.264 implementations being available.
"the patent-encumbered H.264 video codec"
I think you mean "the patent-indemnified H.264 video codec". Why will Google not indemnify against being sued for using WebM?
Hmm, lots of downvotes with no responses to argue against your post. Sounds like you touched a nerve, there.
H.264 isn't indemnified, though people often think it is.
Perhaps because people like Microsoft and Apple fans keep asking about indemnification for WebM and hoping you don't notice the hypocrisy?
From the MPEG-LA FAQ for AVC (aka H.264):
"Q: Are all AVC essential patents included?
A: No assurance is or can be made that the License includes every essential patent."
Good news for Chrome. Bad news for IE.
When, I'm looking at web pages, I prefer to have them actually work, and not have to switch between browsers depending on which video codec they happen to support. If Chrome is the only browser that supports both formats, then that is what most people will use.
I will sleep soundly at night in the knowledge that two industry giants have my best interests at heart.
Google have their "run Chrome in IE" plugin, now MS release plugins for Chrome. Hoping this feud will provide us entertainment for some time, both companies have money to spare on it!
Is most notable for it saying that Windows customers want the best experience of the web want this plugin for Chrome as it's says that Windows customers who want the best experience of the web use Chrome, not Internet Explorer. Imagine that!
This is such a non, story. Google hardly banned the codec, it only dropped official support for the codec, and more specifically in relation to the video tag in HTML5.
Microsoft is really clutching at straws now to try and take attention away from the fact that they have been caught copying Google search results. Look here everybody, nothing to see over there!
I doubt this has anything to do with the GoogleSlurp allegaions. MS is too big a company for things to flow that neatly that quickly.
Chrome may have dropped H.264 for cost reasons but MS writing a plugin... that's just following the bottom line.
H.264 is not free for use, it requires a paid licence to be able to use it. Guess who is part of the consortium that owns the patent pool and backs H.264? That's right, Microsoft is part of that group.
Consequently, I can only speculate that Microsoft producing such a plugin is for the purposes of not discouraging use of H.264 because if everyone moves off H.264, that's less licence cash...
The decoder license is only part of the picture. Look at the MPEG-LA license with regard to using the coder part for commercial content. There is a fee payment due on each item encoded for commercial use, and IIRC, it's not pennies.
I'm fairly certain that things like TV-on-demand, adverts, commercial presentations, pornography and even free videos on an ad-supported site (think Facebook and YouTube) can be considered as a commercial use, so there is much money to be extracted from content providers. In order for the providers to consider H.264 over a free codec, they have to see almost a clean sheet of browsers supporting it at no cost to the end users. Otherwise they will not see it as an expense worth paying.
It is interesting that WinXP is being avoided. Probably trying to provide more leverage to get end users to fork out for another Windows license.
I would love to see a system for recycling transferable XP Retail licenses from scrapped systems, rather than them disappearing into the smelter with the system case. Anybody any ideas about setting something like this up before they all disappear?
Wow, who'da thought the way to get out of paying the licenses was "refuse to put them there, the supporters will just cover it for us!"
...Microsoft's blog on the subject, it was really done rather well. They are supportive of WebM, but they've quite rightly pointed out that just because Google asserts that it's patent free doesn't mean people wont get sued by others for using WebM. Google choose not to indemnify others (protect them against being sued) for using the codec either. Might be a bit of a money and mouth problem there.
Not only that, let's not forget H.264 is a superior codec with higher quality for lower bandwidth. Politics aside, the engineer part of me wants the best technical product to succeed.
What about the engineering part of you that wants the freedom to innovate?
Software patents are clearly hampering codec development, the legal threats to anybody that produces an alternative means that developers stay away from the field.
H.264 may be technically superior in quality, however its backers are spreading fear about using alternatives.
Google are good for standing right in the firing line with releasing WebM. The fight over H.264 verse anything else is not about technical excellence today. Its about technical excellence in the future.
What I find odd is that in reality its not the browsers that are going to decide, its the content. If Youtube went all WebM and had a banner offering the plugin for installation (like they do with flash player currently). 90% of the users of youtube would install it. Youtube like facebook and ebay have critical mass, they can decided the fate of millions.
...but h.264 will be decoded in the majority of instances entirely using gfx specific hardware meaning much lower power use along with superior performance and low CPU overhead.
This CODEC battle has come at exactly the wrong time, we were on the cusp of a unified and excellent video architecture. Why couldn't Google have used its mighty dollar to buy off MPEGLA instead?
Microsoft aren't right often, but they are this time.
No doubt you are dead set against the forced sale of Internet Exporer?
Or, did you mean after all consumers are illegally required to purchase IE? Then and only then you claim you want the best technical product to succeed?
How about giving each consumer the right to decide that issue at the time of purchase?
Microsoft claims to have the interests of consumers at heart. After they buy that is.
I like your reply. I would agree that software patents are a festering pustule of law. They're wrong and shouldn't be around in the first place. I do think patents are important to a point, but you can't blame companies for abusing them, ultimately it's government's responsibility to get law right, and they're driven by the people.
Time to support the EFF and lobby.
While I'm very happy to hear about H.264 getting better support, I would really like to see people supporting both standards. Since end users don't pay, let the site developers choose whether they're costs are spent on licensing or extra bandwidth for WebM.
I for one would be happy to use a codec that was larger and slower if it worked _everywhere_ and didn't require that I download and install a dozen different (incompatible) players, codecs, plug-ins and f***ing DRM.
I'm sick of content being distributed in 10 different formats, in 10 different containers, with 10 different DRM schemes. I'm tired of some clips in some obscure format that only works in VLC, or working on a PS3 but not a PSP even though they both (supposedly) support it. I'm sick of half-baked plugins that crash; of codecs that come with malware, and software that requires diligent searching on obscure nerd video forums to get to work.
Sick of it I tell you!
The next half-wit who devises yet another media format should be locked away in a dark room and forced to watch silent black and white movies for the rest of their life.
This is why is like MP3. It has many flaws, but at least you know it works in every damn player on the planet.
We would still be using motion JPEG, which is shit.
These video codecs are getting better all the time - lower bandwidth for the same quality, faster encode/decode etc.
H264 is really very good, and has features in it that haven't even been implemented by most codecs yet. (Better and smaller encoding). WebMM is also very good - perhaps not quite as good but very good nevertheless.
But there are constant developments going on to make them even better.
That's why there are so many different sorts.
There are a number of alternative to MP3 as well, but because music is relatively low bandwidth, there is not the incentive to change as there is with video formats. Bandwidth vs quality is the driver here.
End users should not suffer from the wars of industry giants. Now, with Google releasing webm plugin for IE, and Microsoft - h.264 plugin for Chrome, all is good with the world.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017