Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 2nd Feb 2011 16:50 UTC
Internet & Networking Microsoft did two things today. First, it released an H.264 plugin for HTML5 video for Google's Chrome web browser which makes use of Media Foundation. The usefulness of this plugin is limited, however, since it's only for Windows 7 users. Much more interesting is that Microsoft has opened the door to out-of-the-box WebM/VP8 support in Internet Explorer 9.
Order by: Score:
This is getting boring
by Vanders on Wed 2nd Feb 2011 17:06 UTC
Vanders
Member since:
2005-07-06

Who bears the liability and risk for consumers, businesses, and developers until the legal system resolves the intellectual property issues;


To answer the question: no one. Who are exactly the same group of people who bears the liability and risk for consumers, businesses and developers of H.264

That aside, nice use of a loaded question. What intellectual property issues do Microsoft believe require resolving here?

Reply Score: 5

RichterKuato
Member since:
2010-05-14

If they do though, that would be really cool.

Also, I thought MPEGLA did indemnify people from unknown patents.

Reply Score: 1

shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Nope, not at all:

http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/FAQ.aspx

Q: Are all AVC essential patents included?
A: No assurance is or can be made that the License includes every essential patent. The purpose of the License is to offer a convenient licensing alternative to everyone on the same terms and to include as much essential intellectual property as possible for their convenience. Participation in the License is voluntary on the part of essential patent holders, however.

Reply Score: 4

pgeorgi Member since:
2010-02-18

Also, I thought MPEGLA did indemnify people from unknown patents.

Patent holders can request damages for uses "up to now", and either licensing of the patent for the future or that the patented invention is no longer used.

How should anyone indemnify against that?
Patent holder comes up, requests gazillions of USD for the violations up to now from vendor (cut down to something slightly more reasonable by some judge) and that they cease to use the patent (for however long the patent continues to grant the monopoly).

So now the MPEG-LA not only pays for damages but also for lost income by its licensee because they have to stop using the licensed technology (eg. h.264)?

Also note that patent licenses need not be non-discriminatory: Some rogue patent holder could put mpeg-la licensees out of the market selectively (by refusing to license), while licensing its patent for others (even for free, except when doing business with the victim).

Reply Score: 1

Happy as Enduser
by ramasubbu_sk on Wed 2nd Feb 2011 18:00 UTC
ramasubbu_sk
Member since:
2007-04-05

As a enduser finally I'm happy that I would be able view WebM & H.264 content in all the browser. Including IE 9.

Thanks

Edited 2011-02-02 18:00 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Happy as Enduser
by shmerl on Wed 2nd Feb 2011 19:00 UTC in reply to "Happy as Enduser "
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

The only culprit remaining is Apple.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Happy as Enduser
by TheGZeus on Wed 2nd Feb 2011 19:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Happy as Enduser "
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

So the only people left out are cultists.

I see no problem.

(semi-sarcastic)

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Happy as Enduser
by lemur2 on Wed 2nd Feb 2011 23:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Happy as Enduser "
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

So the only people left out are cultists. I see no problem. (semi-sarcastic)


... are Windows XP users "cultists" now?

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Happy as Enduser
by TheGZeus on Wed 2nd Feb 2011 23:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Happy as Enduser "
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

No, just... fighting to support something that doesn't want to support them, like classic Amiga users.

They exist, but there's no reason to hold back everyone else.
Hell, why would anyone use Internet Explorer in the first place???

Seriously, Microsoft doesn't care about XP any more, give it up. Leave Windows, or upgrade. It's over. The battle is lost.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Happy as Enduser
by lemur2 on Thu 3rd Feb 2011 00:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Happy as Enduser "
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Seriously, Microsoft doesn't care about XP any more, give it up. Leave Windows, or upgrade.


... or run Opera, Chrome or Firefox 4 as your web browser.

It's over. The battle is lost.


No point talking to me ...I don't run XP. However a significant slice of those who access the web still do.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Happy as Enduser
by TheGZeus on Thu 3rd Feb 2011 01:36 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Happy as Enduser "
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

So. you knew about the alternatives, and don't use XP...

Just trolling, then?

I know people use XP. My statements on XP users still stand.

It's obsolete.
Should it be? Not my decision.
Not even the users' decision. It's Microsoft's decision, and it's each user's decision whether or not to use their software.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Happy as Enduser
by lemur2 on Thu 3rd Feb 2011 04:01 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Happy as Enduser "
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

So. you knew about the alternatives, and don't use XP... Just trolling, then? I know people use XP. My statements on XP users still stand. It's obsolete. Should it be? Not my decision. Not even the users' decision. It's Microsoft's decision, and it's each user's decision whether or not to use their software.


All of this is perfectly correct (except the bit about trolling).

However, your original comment which kicked off this whole sub-thread was, and I quote:

So the only people left out are cultists.

I see no problem.


My point was that your original claim was incorrect. The people left out are not simply those who you would label "cultists" ... there are also those people who choose to still use XP.

Funnily enough, these two groups, both those who you would label "cultists" and those people who choose to still use XP, still both comprise of people. Hence, there is a problem.

You see, my non-trolling interest is people ... not corporate profits but people, and their needs and interests. So there you go.

Edited 2011-02-03 04:08 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Happy as Enduser
by kaiwai on Wed 2nd Feb 2011 22:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Happy as Enduser "
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

The only culprit remaining is Apple.


Yeah, god forbid me missing out on the tsunami of videos that are available in WebM as we speak.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Happy as Enduser
by TheGZeus on Wed 2nd Feb 2011 22:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Happy as Enduser "
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Yeah, like... YOUTUBE.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Happy as Enduser
by nt_jerkface on Wed 2nd Feb 2011 22:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Happy as Enduser "
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

That just means he can keep using Flash.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Happy as Enduser
by qbast on Thu 3rd Feb 2011 12:23 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Happy as Enduser "
qbast Member since:
2010-02-08

Until Steve bans it on MacOSX too.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Happy as Enduser
by steve_s on Thu 3rd Feb 2011 09:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Happy as Enduser "
steve_s Member since:
2006-01-16

The only culprit remaining is Apple.


Safari plays all its HTML5 media using QuickTime. Install a QuickTime component that supports WebM playback and Safari will play WebM video. Such a component has been available since August.

There is no real qualitative difference between how one can playback WebM in Safari or IE9.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Happy as Enduser
by lemur2 on Thu 3rd Feb 2011 09:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Happy as Enduser "
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"The only culprit remaining is Apple.


Safari plays all its HTML5 media using QuickTime. Install a QuickTime component that supports WebM playback and Safari will play WebM video. Such a component has been available since August.

There is no real qualitative difference between how one can playback WebM in Safari or IE9.
"

Apple is a culprit because of iOS, not because of OSX.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Happy as Enduser
by WereCatf on Thu 3rd Feb 2011 10:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Happy as Enduser "
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Apple is a culprit because of iOS, not because of OSX.

I am quite sure Apple will roll out support for WebM on iOS quite soon, but as they are so good at milking the cow they will only allow WebM on new hardware and using that as one of the selling features. You know the whole "Upgrade to the NEW iPhone 5 and get EVEN BROADER support for online videos" all the while deliberately not enabling the support on older devices.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Happy as Enduser
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 3rd Feb 2011 11:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Happy as Enduser "
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

They will get HW support for it anyway, since Apple buys off-the-shelf graphical chips, and the makers of those have all pledged to include WebM support.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Happy as Enduser
by dvhh on Thu 3rd Feb 2011 23:23 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Happy as Enduser "
dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

Are you aware of the change of temperatures in Hell now ?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Happy as Enduser
by brichpmr on Thu 3rd Feb 2011 11:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Happy as Enduser "
brichpmr Member since:
2006-04-22

"[q]The only culprit remaining is Apple.


Safari plays all its HTML5 media using QuickTime. Install a QuickTime component that supports WebM playback and Safari will play WebM video. Such a component has been available since August.

There is no real qualitative difference between how one can playback WebM in Safari or IE9.
"

Apple is a culprit because of iOS, not because of OSX. [/q]

As I view high quality H.264 videos on my iPhone 4, the thought that Apple is 'a culprit' re iOS never crosses my mind.....only the satisfaction of a well-engineered solution that doesn't kill battery life.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Happy as Enduser
by lemur2 on Thu 3rd Feb 2011 11:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Happy as Enduser "
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

As I view high quality H.264 videos on my iPhone 4, the thought that Apple is 'a culprit' re iOS never crosses my mind.....only the satisfaction of a well-engineered solution that doesn't kill battery life.


It isn't a well-engineered solution at all if it doesn't accomodate a very large contingent of users (Windows XP users), and it doesn't allow one of the major browser writers (non-profit Mozilla) to implement a solution.

On your limited-size iPhone 4 screen, if a player (especially one with GPU hardware acceleration of rendering) were allowed:
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Mozilla-releases-Firefox-4-B...
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2011/02/latest-firefox-beta...
WebM videos would be rendered with every bit of the same quality as H.264, to the extent that you could not tell the difference in a blind test.

Edited 2011-02-03 11:46 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Happy as Enduser
by brichpmr on Thu 3rd Feb 2011 22:42 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Happy as Enduser "
brichpmr Member since:
2006-04-22

"As I view high quality H.264 videos on my iPhone 4, the thought that Apple is 'a culprit' re iOS never crosses my mind.....only the satisfaction of a well-engineered solution that doesn't kill battery life.


It isn't a well-engineered solution at all if it doesn't accomodate a very large contingent of users (Windows XP users), and it doesn't allow one of the major browser writers (non-profit Mozilla) to implement a solution.

On your limited-size iPhone 4 screen, if a player (especially one with GPU hardware acceleration of rendering) were allowed:

XP is basically at end of life....Win 7 is the way to go on that platform. H.264 is just swell as baked into iPhone 4. WebM is not needed on my platforms of choice...ymmv.
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Mozilla-releases-Firefox-4-B... href="tel:1182139">1182139.html
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2011/02/latest-firefox-beta...
WebM videos would be rendered with every bit of the same quality as H.264, to the extent that you could not tell the difference in a blind test.
"

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Happy as Enduser
by lemur2 on Fri 4th Feb 2011 01:01 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Happy as Enduser "
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

XP is basically at end of life....Win 7 is the way to go on that platform. H.264 is just swell as baked into iPhone 4. WebM is not needed on my platforms of choice...ymmv.


Although it is absolutely true to make the observation that XP is basically at end of life, it doesn't matter that this is so.

The fact remains that about half of the web browser clients in use right now, today, are browsers installed under Windows XP.

http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-ww-monthly-201001-201101

Almost all of these users cannot play HTML5/h.264 web video.

If you were to serve HTML5/h.264 web video, that is a very large set of clients to miss out on.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Happy as Enduser
by shmerl on Fri 4th Feb 2011 02:44 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Happy as Enduser "
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

It's not a problem of what only you need. It's a problem for developers, who can't use one format to deliver to all users (WebM), and because of that need to clutter servers with a whole bunch of duplicate options. So Apple is a culprit for causing this problem.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Happy as Enduser
by lucas_maximus on Mon 7th Feb 2011 14:03 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Happy as Enduser "
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It isn't a well-engineered solution at all if it doesn't accomodate a very large contingent of users (Windows XP users), and it doesn't allow one of the major browser writers (non-profit Mozilla) to implement a solution.


It is a well engineered solution, the problem is legal, not technical.

WebM videos would be rendered with every bit of the same quality as H.264, to the extent that you could not tell the difference in a blind test.


However he does not have a hardware decoder for WebM in his iPhone, so his battery will last all of 5 minutes playing it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Happy as Enduser
by shmerl on Fri 4th Feb 2011 02:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Happy as Enduser "
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Any idea how to do it with mobile Safari on iOS? That's the real problem.

Reply Score: 1

how is google not open
by TechGeek on Wed 2nd Feb 2011 18:12 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

How is Google's WebM not open? Not to sound like a Google fanboi, but thats a really stupid thing to say. WebM is under the BSD license meaning anyone and everyone can use it in any type of product. Just because Google is lax about working with the community has no impact on WebM being open. Now you could say Google is being a bad community member, but then again, they bought WebM and turned around and gave it away for free.

Reply Score: 6

RE: how is google not open
by TheGZeus on Wed 2nd Feb 2011 19:09 UTC in reply to "how is google not open"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Who said that, and where?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: how is google not open
by TechGeek on Wed 2nd Feb 2011 20:53 UTC in reply to "RE: how is google not open"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

If you read the article, that was one of the claims that Microsoft was making against Google. That they weren't really being open because they weren't working with the community.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: how is google not open
by TheGZeus on Wed 2nd Feb 2011 21:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: how is google not open"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

What community?
How is H264 any different...

I didn't think someone would comment on FUD at this point in history, so I thought it was a comment on something that... mattered.
Sry.

Reply Score: 3

Sabon
Member since:
2005-07-06

MS is just trying to make themselves look relevant. For me that stopped being a possibility years ago. They can release anything they want. I'm so not interested.

Reply Score: 1

MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Yet you're interested enough to post that you aren't. Hmmm....

Edited 2011-02-03 11:54 UTC

Reply Score: 4

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Yes because M$ are have the proprietry suckwarez ...

If you actually paid some attention to what Microsoft are doing with Web Development tools, they are doing some damn interesting stuff. However many on OSNews have a "Anything but Microsoft attitude".

http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/

Have a read. Some very interesting stuff that makes dev's lives easier.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Wed 2nd Feb 2011 20:53 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

Coming soon: An all new hello-we're-just-installing-stuff-without-your-permission-don't-mind -us war.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Kroc
by avgalen on Wed 2nd Feb 2011 21:42 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

You mean that everyone that has Quicktime on his system will soon have iTunes, Safari and a WebM plugin for all?

wait, would that be a good or a bad thing?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by Carewolf on Fri 4th Feb 2011 15:42 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

Yeah, what is wrong with user installed software. Flash doesn't work out of the box in any major browswer either, but users still manage to somehow install it when it is needed. I do not see the problem the of having users download needed codecs, as long as the browser like IE9 (and my own Konqueror incidentily) just plays anything it has a codec for.

I _do_ see a lot problems in making browsers mediaplayers and ship mediaplaying capabilities with the browser.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by smitty on Fri 4th Feb 2011 18:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

Yeah, what is wrong with user installed software. Flash doesn't work out of the box in any major browswer either, but users still manage to somehow install it when it is needed. I do not see the problem the of having users download needed codecs, as long as the browser like IE9 (and my own Konqueror incidentily) just plays anything it has a codec for.

I _do_ see a lot problems in making browsers mediaplayers and ship mediaplaying capabilities with the browser.


Note that IE9 won't actually play everything you have a codec for. MS is limiting it to only supporting their own h264 codec and Google's WebM codec. Anything else is ignored. That's probably a good decision on their part, considering all the buggy and security-hole ridden codecs the average user has on their machine.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Wed 2nd Feb 2011 22:09 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

Where does it say in the article that h264 makes use of DirectShow given that DirectShow has been deprecated in favour of Media Foundation?

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb970511%28v=VS.85%...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 2nd Feb 2011 22:26 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Whoops, sorry. Should be Media Foundation.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by jabjoe
by jabjoe on Thu 3rd Feb 2011 09:31 UTC
jabjoe
Member since:
2009-05-06

Google wrote that they “believe the Web will suffer if there isn't a truly open… community developed alternative.” That’s different from their WebM submission to the Internet Engineering Task Force (here), which says the WebM specification is not binding, only Google’s code is: “If there are any conflicts between this document and the reference source code, the reference source code should be considered correct. The bitstream is defined by the reference source code and not this document.” Reverse engineering a standard from sample source code is a poor practice.

The Internet Engineering Task Force’s Web site warns people about referring to submissions like the WebM one as a standard: “some people refer to [these] as ‘standards’ even though the RFCs are not standards, usually to fool the gullible public about something that the person is selling or supporting.”



I disagree profoundly with this. It's either a misunderstanding/ignorant, or just plain lying. I'm sorry but the reference implementation's code is the standard, which is why it's so important the code is open. History is littered with examples, many from Microsoft, of what happens when the reference implementation doesn't exactly match the "standard's documents", or the specifics of everything aren't all documented. MS themselves have used these standards' holes to create deliberately incompatible versions of standards. Adhering to the letter of the standard, but not to the spirit of it ("Work-to-rule"). There is no shortage of standards that are documented one way, but everything does it another because that's what the reference implimentation does. This is much harder to deal with when the reference implimentation isn't open code, just ask the Wine/Samba guys. The best that can happen is the docs are updated to what the reference implimentation does, the other way round isn't going to happen. Google know this.

There is no shortage of standards that are defined by what the first implementation does. Much of POSIX is a massive example of this.

In short, think of the reference impliementations code as documentation so good, it can be compiled. ;-)

To me, all this comes under, "read the code, not the comments", the comments are just to help you read the code, not to be read instead. The code is king as that is what is run.

To be honest, doesn't matter what MS say now anyway, they know they have to have WebM. WebM now seams unstoppable.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by jabjoe
by MollyC on Thu 3rd Feb 2011 11:57 UTC in reply to "Comment by jabjoe"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

So the code is the spec? There's no spec that one can implement independent of Google's code?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by jabjoe
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 3rd Feb 2011 12:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by jabjoe"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So the code is the spec? There's no spec that one can implement independent of Google's code?


ffmpeg had an implementation within a few weeks. Seems to me the "spec" is better than most "specs" other companies put out.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by jabjoe
by jabjoe on Thu 3rd Feb 2011 13:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by jabjoe"
jabjoe Member since:
2009-05-06

eh? Plenty of different code that takes the same input and delivers the same output. Google's code's output from the input is the correct output. Just have to match it, looking over the source of google's code will help you, but you don't have to copy the code, though nothing is stopping you.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by jabjoe
by vodoomoth on Thu 3rd Feb 2011 13:17 UTC in reply to "Comment by jabjoe"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

To me, all this comes under, "read the code, not the comments", the comments are just to help you read the code, not to be read instead. The code is king as that is what is run.

Not sure I agree, but comments, if they were written as they should be, are the first expression of the idea being implemented before code is written. We are humans before being coders and natural language text is closer to that condition than code. Not everybody, even amongst the most experienced read code like (or better than) they read plain text. At least for me, it's easier to read a two-line comment about what a function is supposed to do than to read its code, follow calls, deduce possibly wrong things because not all details are known, before understanding the intent.

Out of a recent experience, I think people excel at being bad at comments, that's why the code is still king and required days of reading before I had a good idea of what was of no interest at all. If you ask me, people are also bad at writing standards: I would only use MUST and MUST NOT, no should, may, etc. and include a way for each vendor/participant to implement extensions.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by jabjoe
by jabjoe on Thu 3rd Feb 2011 14:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by jabjoe"
jabjoe Member since:
2009-05-06

I have seen documents written before code, explaining what the project will be, why it's need, and very roughly how it will be done (I think any more then rough will be a lie, unless it's a clean-up rewrite). I have never seen comments written before code. What I have seen is code bases with no comments at all. Comments saying one thing when the code clearly does another, etc etc. I've seen code rewritten/refactored just so it was easier to read. In fact, I've done this more then a few times myself, often finding bugs while I'm at it (showing it needed doing). One code base from a few years back stands out in my mind where you literally couldn't read the code for the comments. It was like the result of interweaving a document and code. The best I've heard said is the "what" should be clear from the naming, the "how" should be clear from code, the "why", if not clear from the "what" and the "how" should then be documented. Sparingly one line comments in the code is ok, small blocks of comment above a function is ok, but don't obscure code with comments. Don't write documents in comments of code. Short and sweet is the key. Comments fall out of date quickly and soon become misleading. To me, the more the comments, the more it's saying refactoring is needed.

Some of us are dyslexic and find the code clearer than the comments. ;-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by jabjoe
by vodoomoth on Thu 3rd Feb 2011 16:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by jabjoe"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Why do I feel like we mean the same thing? A wise man would say "probably because you do".

Just an addition: "Comments saying one thing when the code clearly does another" is the second biggest use I see to the comments (like the function comments I was referring to in my previous comment); the contradiction helps me find bugs! The first use I see: it helps me get down to the matter of interest faster and more easily.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by jabjoe
by jabjoe on Thu 3rd Feb 2011 16:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by jabjoe"
jabjoe Member since:
2009-05-06

If the problem is purely that the comment is wrong, which is normally the case, I'm not sure that's really a bug. Just a case of correct or delete comment. Don't think any one would argue a wrong comment is better than no comment. ;-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by jabjoe
by telns on Thu 3rd Feb 2011 16:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by jabjoe"
telns Member since:
2009-06-18

I often write comments before the code...

You make an outline of comments, then you fill in the code between the comments, and it is essentially self-documenting as to what the code is supposed to do.

Obviously those aren't the only types of comments that there are, but I do that, and I know other programmers that do that too.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by jabjoe
by jabjoe on Thu 3rd Feb 2011 17:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by jabjoe"
jabjoe Member since:
2009-05-06

Each to their own, but I've not worked with any I can think of who work like that. Do you keep updating the comments or remove them as if they where scaffolding?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by jabjoe
by telns on Thu 3rd Feb 2011 23:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by jabjoe"
telns Member since:
2009-06-18

Usually I leave them. Those tend to be fairly short and non-specific as to the means. They say what it is doing, not how, so rarely need changed, since "what" a section is doing is usually pretty static. You may rewrite the whole thing three times, but the goal probably doesn't change.

In contrast, comments that say "how" or "why" something is done I usually add later in the process, are more detailed, and need updated more frequently.

Another reason to keep them in is they tend to be valuable down the road. Asking yourself, "Now what is this trying to accomplish?" is a recurring refrain for me when looking at old code, or someone else's code. It also helps in case the code starts to drift away from the comment... sometimes the code is actually what has gone wrong (wandered away from its original purpose) not the comment.

Edited 2011-02-03 23:26 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Nice article Thom
by vodoomoth on Thu 3rd Feb 2011 13:18 UTC
vodoomoth
Member since:
2010-03-30

Another one under your belt.

Reply Score: 2

Thom made "out-of-the-box" up
by aargh on Thu 3rd Feb 2011 13:20 UTC
aargh
Member since:
2009-10-12

Nowhere in the IE blog post I have found any mention of forthcoming or even possible out-of-the-box support of WebM in IE.

Seems to me Thom made this up.

After reading the article, I've seen no change of Microsoft's position in this issue.

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Read my damn article, and you'll understand. Nowhere did I claim Microsoft actually said that. I *inferred* it. Can you grasp that concept?

Reply Score: 3

HowDoIShotWebM Member since:
2011-02-04

They made it clear that they support WebM in IE9.

This would allow third parties like OEM manufacturers to bundle a WebM codec with the system, not unlike what they do with Flash player, Adobe reader, etc.

So for PCs you buy from a store, in the near future you can get Windows 7 with IE9 and WebM out-of-the-box.

It's only for those who buy retail where it's not, and you can't buy a retail copy of Windows with IE9 anyway.

Reply Score: 3

Voting with my feet
by hankheathen on Sat 5th Feb 2011 09:57 UTC
hankheathen
Member since:
2009-05-13

I know there's little point posting my thoughts here, but that doesn't stop the rest of you, one-in-ten of whom actually have something valid and interesting to say. But I won't be hitting this site again, so I might as well say something before I go.

I can't pinpoint exactly when OSNews went from being an interesting little site to read about less mainstream OS developments, to an excitable Dutch teenager's blog, but over the last six months at least, the stupidity level of Thom's posts - especially with regards to standards - has gone off the charts. And the comments are even worse (except for mine of course; mine are as poignant and awesome as ever).

There's no evidence that any of you have any real understanding of how real modern media standards are actually established, by whom, or even why.

But I'll give you a hint - the process doesn't involve a raging battle between the forces of good and evil, nor is it about big organisations trying to f-ck over consumers.

If you seriously think that Google's play with VP8 is coming from anywhere other than a deep, abiding, almost autistic self-interest, then you are clearly on some serious drugs.

And not good drugs either - I'm talking the kind of stuff that's produced in prison toilets.

Namaste, you hopeless dicks.

Hank out.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Voting with my feet
by smitty on Sat 5th Feb 2011 10:17 UTC in reply to "Voting with my feet"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

If you seriously think that Google's play with VP8 is coming from anywhere other than a deep, abiding, almost autistic self-interest, then you are clearly on some serious drugs.

Of course. Google's interest is in making the internet as strong as possible, because they realize that's where they make all their money - by enabling others to use the internet. (through search)

For that reason, they want to make sure that the next innovator (i.e. kid in a basement somewhere) is able to do whatever they want on the web, and not have certain things walled off only to existing parties who can afford to pay for all the licensing required.

The fact that Google has decided that an open video format is good for them doesn't mean it's bad for us - in fact it's actually great for us as well. The people it's bad for are those previously mentioned existing parties who have already invested heavily in the alternative. And perhaps very slightly annoying to the webmasters, etc., who have to keep track of all this.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Voting with my feet
by lemur2 on Sat 5th Feb 2011 12:59 UTC in reply to "Voting with my feet"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

If you seriously think that Google's play with VP8 is coming from anywhere other than a deep, abiding, almost autistic self-interest, then you are clearly on some serious drugs.


Here is Google's license terms for WebM:
http://www.webmproject.org/license/bitstream/
"Google hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer implementations of this specification"

In this context, "You" means everybody. Google garnts these permissions to everybody. BTW, the only way for anyone to lose these permissions (the bracketed clause after "irrevocable") is for someone to sue Google over WebM.

WebM is indeed in Google's self interest. However, Google doesn't happen to make money from charging people for video codecs. Rather, Google makes more money the more often and more freely more people use the web.

Happily, that means that insofar as WebM goes, Google's best interest, expressed quite succuinctly in the "perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free" terms of their license grant, happen to align exactly with the best interests of the overwhelmingly vast majority of people on the planet.

Edited 2011-02-05 13:05 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Voting with my feet
by brichpmr on Sat 5th Feb 2011 15:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Voting with my feet"
brichpmr Member since:
2006-04-22

"If you seriously think that Google's play with VP8 is coming from anywhere other than a deep, abiding, almost autistic self-interest, then you are clearly on some serious drugs.


Here is Google's license terms for WebM:
http://www.webmproject.org/license/bitstream/
"Google hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer implementations of this specification"

In this context, "You" means everybody. Google garnts these permissions to everybody. BTW, the only way for anyone to lose these permissions (the bracketed clause after "irrevocable") is for someone to sue Google over WebM.

WebM is indeed in Google's self interest. However, Google doesn't happen to make money from charging people for video codecs. Rather, Google makes more money the more often and more freely more people use the web.

Happily, that means that insofar as WebM goes, Google's best interest, expressed quite succuinctly in the "perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free" terms of their license grant, happen to align exactly with the best interests of the overwhelmingly vast majority of people on the planet.
"

It can be readily asserted that as time passes, XP users will purchase replacement computers; most of them running Windows 7 or OSX (or both); and even the least powerful of these will run Hi Def H.264 video out of the box. Of course, it's fine for Google to act in its own self interest. However, it is chasing a high speed H.264 train that left the station a couple of years....just sayin'

Reply Score: 1

RE: Voting with my feet
by TheGZeus on Sat 5th Feb 2011 14:56 UTC in reply to "Voting with my feet"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

I'm mildly autistic, and take offense at this.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by westlake
by westlake on Sat 5th Feb 2011 22:25 UTC
westlake
Member since:
2010-01-07

<quote>At the moment, the answer is "Flash, with video encoded in H.264". This will cost you however, because you have to pay royalties for sending out video encoded in H.264.</quote>

Only if you charge the viewer for it.

To simplify somewhat:

No royalties on video shorts (12 minutes or less)

Royalties on "feature length" titles are 2% of the retail price or 2 cents each, whichever is less.

Royalties on subscription sales are $0/yr for less than 100,001 subscribers.

If you are Disney, your H.264 royalties are capped at $6.5 million/yr.

Reply Score: 1