Linked by Kroc Camen on Thu 29th Apr 2010 23:04 UTC
Internet Explorer I am almost flabbergasted by the spin and blunt-face upon which this news is delivered. We were just discussing the pot calling the kettle black with Apple / Adobe and now Microsoft have also come out in favour of a closed video format for an open web--IE9's HTML5 video support will allow H264 only. Update Now that the initial shock is over, I've rewritten the article to actually represent news rather than something on Twitter.
Thread beginning with comment 421621
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 29th Apr 2010 23:17 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

I left this comment on the MSDN blog:

"This is a very sad day for the open web. Microsoft will support HTML5 (yay!) but only a patent-encumbered, proprietary codec (boo!) anyone apart from Apple, Microsoft, and Google won't be able to support (due to the prohibitive licensing cost and/or the non-Free nature). So instead of Flash, we're now crippling the web with another proprietary technology.

I guess I was hoping against my better judgement. Microsoft is a licensor of the MPG-LA, and as such, you guys profit from having as many H264 licenses sold as possible. I had just hoped that due to recent positive steps from Microsoft with regards to openness and standards, we'd see some enlightenment here.

Due to the emphasis on "only", I'm assuming IE9 won't tap into DirectShow/Media Foundation codecs? I.e., if a user has a Theora codec installed, IE9 will make use of it?"

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment
by modmans2ndcoming on Thu 29th Apr 2010 23:24 in reply to "Comment"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

hmm...

Firefox can support h264 all they want... they just need to use the host OS's h264 codec.

OS X, Windows and Linux all have h264 support so FF needs to suck it up and use the codec on the OS.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 29th Apr 2010 23:26 in reply to "RE: Comment"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

OS X, Windows and Linux all have h264 support so FF needs to suck it up and use the codec on the OS.


Linux does NOT have H264 support - at least, not legally, and not out of the box. No major Linux distribution out there ships with H264 support because doing so would violate US (and possibly other countries') laws.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment
by WereCatf on Thu 29th Apr 2010 23:53 in reply to "RE: Comment"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

OS X, Windows and Linux all have h264 support so FF needs to suck it up and use the codec on the OS.

Except that Linux doesn't have a license for H.264. As such it's still illegal in the US and anywhere where software patents are valid.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Comment
by poundsmack on Thu 29th Apr 2010 23:25 in reply to "Comment"
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

this does suck. later releases of IE9 will suport other formats (at least 1 other, VP8). Microsoft will be playing a wait and see aproach for 10. if other formats are taking the place H264 they will likely include them, but MS is hoping that H264 destroys the others so that they don't have to do more work.

Microsoft and Apple want to stear the web here and i can understand why they are doing this from a technical stand point and an industry business stand point. BUT! as an advocate of choice, of open standards, and of having options, this does upset me...

we will see how this plays out, and believe me, MS hasn't totally ruled out suporting more codecs, they just won't do it off the bat.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment
by segedunum on Fri 30th Apr 2010 00:03 in reply to "RE: Comment"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

if other formats are taking the place H264 they will likely include them, but MS is hoping that H264 destroys the others so that they don't have to do more work.

Microsoft have already lost by including h.264. No one is using Windows Media or Silverlight as an option, which is what they really want, and are not likely to either. Their statements in the article are more borne out of frustration than anything else. h.264 was simply the least bitter pill.

Microsoft and Apple want to stear the web here...

Unfortunately for them both, they don't have any content to dictate what they want.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Comment
by macUser on Fri 30th Apr 2010 00:08 in reply to "Comment"
macUser Member since:
2006-12-15

I left this comment on the MSDN blog:

"This is a very sad day for the open web. Microsoft will support HTML5 (yay!) but only a patent-encumbered, proprietary codec (boo!) anyone apart from Apple, Microsoft, and Google won't be able to support (due to the prohibitive licensing cost and/or the non-Free nature). So instead of Flash, we're now crippling the web with another proprietary technology.

I guess I was hoping against my better judgement. Microsoft is a licensor of the MPG-LA, and as such, you guys profit from having as many H264 licenses sold as possible. I had just hoped that due to recent positive steps from Microsoft with regards to openness and standards, we'd see some enlightenment here.

Due to the emphasis on "only", I'm assuming IE9 won't tap into DirectShow/Media Foundation codecs? I.e., if a user has a Theora codec installed, IE9 will make use of it?"


Comparing Flash to a video codec is not a 1 to 1 comparison though. A video codec does one thing. For the most part HTML5/CSS3/javascript will do everything Flash does. The video codec is only one piece of that and can be changed out without affecting the other parts. Flash is Flash is Flash.

Reply Parent Score: 4