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

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

The only culprit remaining is Apple.

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

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

It's over. The battle is lost.

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.

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.

"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.

Look at the topic title ... XP users are left out of IE9. XP users are just as much end users as anyone else.

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

The only culprit remaining is Apple.

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.”

"Look at the topic title ... XP users are left out of IE9. XP users are just as much end users as anyone else.

"The only culprit remaining is Apple.

"[q]The only culprit remaining is Apple.

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.

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

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.

...if they use Firefox, Opera or Chrome they can only play HTML5/WebM.

Linux doesn't have out-of-the-box support for _websites_. What version/distro/_browser_ are you talking about? Stop speaking contrarian nonsense.

"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.

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.

What are you trying to say? So there many users of a legacy OS. So many of them aren't using a good browser. AND? Do you have a point?

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.