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 421685
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Tough
by lemur2 on Fri 30th Apr 2010 02:08 UTC in reply to "Tough"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

I'm afraid IE dictates no standards whatsoever when it comes to internet video. If Microsoft had bought YouTube then that might have been different but that's another story. I'm sure they'd love the standard to be WMV rather than h.264 despte their defence of it, but alas........... Google can see the writing on the wall, which is why they're mulling over and working on VP-8 before they start getting YouTube and themselves into something they cannot go back on later. Whatever YoutTube supports, that's pretty much it and others will follow and if IE won't support what these sites use then IE is the first thing to go up against the wall. Microsoft have nothing to swim against the tide with. Sorry Microsoft, but you're simply not that important here.


VP8 can only become the standard video codec for the web if Google release it for use (and implementation for that matter) by anyone, royalty-free.

Royalty-free is a requirement for web standards.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Tough
by aesiamun on Fri 30th Apr 2010 04:21 in reply to "RE: Tough"
aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

You keep saying that but fail to back it up with any proof.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Tough
by henderson101 on Fri 30th Apr 2010 10:39 in reply to "RE: Tough"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Royalty-free is a requirement for web standards.


You keep saying that. Over and over again. Repeatedly. It won't make it any closer to something the average user actually cares about though. That is what is important here. That the average user's hardware includes the correct chipsets, software codecs and such to decode the video without lag or stuttering.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Tough
by darknexus on Fri 30th Apr 2010 10:54 in reply to "RE[2]: Tough"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

"Royalty-free is a requirement for web standards.


You keep saying that. Over and over again. Repeatedly. It won't make it any closer to something the average user actually cares about though. That is what is important here. That the average user's hardware includes the correct chipsets, software codecs and such to decode the video without lag or stuttering.
"
Actually, it's true according to the w3c. Why do you think H.264 was ruled out at the very beginning as the standard codec for HTML 5? Of course, the w3c totally fscked up and was too afraid to put their foot down and require a standard codec for HTML 5 compliance... So here we go again, back to the mid 90's and the codec hell. Wonderful. HTML 5 was one of the most promising developments for an open web, but thanks to the w3c we're going into a complete regression. I wonder how many different players and codecs we'll end up needing before this is all over and the next Flash comes around, repeating this cursed cycle ad infinitum until we stop letting corporate types sit on the web standards committees?

Reply Parent Score: 1