HTML5 Video

Article
04/29/2010

There’s been a lot of posting about video and video formats on the web recently. This is a good opportunity to talk about Microsoft’s point of view.

The future of the web is HTML5. Microsoft is deeply engaged in the HTML5 process with the W3C. HTML5 will be very important in advancing rich, interactive web applications and site design. The HTML5 specification describes video support without specifying a particular video format. We think H.264 is an excellent format. In its HTML5 support, IE9 will support playback of H.264 video only.

H.264 is an industry standard, with broad and strong hardware support. Because of this standardization, you can easily take what you record on a typical consumer video camera, put it on the web, and have it play in a web browser on any operating system or device with H.264 support (e.g. a PC with Windows 7). Recently, we publicly showed IE9 playing H.264-encoded video from YouTube. You can read about the benefits of hardware acceleration here, or see an example of the benefits at the 26:35 mark here. For all these reasons, we’re focusing our HTML5 video support on H.264.

Other codecs often come up in these discussions. The distinction between the availability of source code and the ownership of the intellectual property in that available source code is critical. Today, intellectual property rights for H.264 are broadly available through a well-defined program managed by MPEG LA. The rights to other codecs are often less clear, as has been described in the press. Of course, developers can rely on the H.264 codec and hardware acceleration support of the underlying operating system, like Windows 7, without paying any additional royalty.

Today, video on the web is predominantly Flash-based. While video may be available in other formats, the ease of accessing video using just a browser on a particular website without using Flash is a challenge for typical consumers. Flash does have some issues, particularly around reliability, security, and performance. We work closely with engineers at Adobe, sharing information about the issues we know of in ongoing technical discussions. Despite these issues, Flash remains an important part of delivering a good consumer experience on today’s web.

Dean Hachamovitch
General Manager, Internet Explorer

Comments

Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
I'm going to say the same thing every time this 'only one codec' bull comes up... ... and why the **** don't you just support any codec the user happens to have installed on the machine. Windows has nice robust media services as part of the DX9/newer spec - DXVA - ***** USE IT!!! There is NO LEGITIMATE EXCUSE for IE to not support in the VIDEO (or OBJECT) tag to not support any video container or codec that WMP does.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
да вы там поахуевали все что ли?
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
OMG, why you always make something different? Why web developers must hate IE? Please make IE10 similar to FF, and people will use it. :S IE говно. :S
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Wait, somebody still uses IE? Why?
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Matt: I'm still waiting for intelligent arguments from you. Probably it will be an endless wait as you're a troll and nothing else. Just like you're proving that you don't know anything about the subject, you're proving that you couldn't know I'm a graduated computer engineer, so I'll forgive you for this :-)
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
To all the idiots criticizing this move as MS lining its pockets, wake up. Any royalties MS will receive equal about .00000000001 of MS's revenue. They go proprietary, you morons criticize it. They go with the defacto standard, you morons criticize it. For most of you anything with an MS in front of it is enough to reject it. Get a life.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The thing is though as it has been pointed out, The industry has accepted H.264, please list to me a list of Blu Ray Movie that were encoded in Ogg/Theora. Now what would be a great model for IE9 would be for IE9 to use the computer's codecs and decode the videos through the browser. I'm still waiting for creation of HTML tags through CSS.
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
Bunu Okumalısınız. Lütfen Listenizi uyarın! Sivrisinek ve tarım ilaçları, başta kanser olmak üzere bir çok hastalığı tetikliyor. Daha fazla bilgi için http://www.kanser.ca/
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
BA VISA 4217 6424 5976 4650 NOV 2013 107 AMEX 3731 362016 97001 JULY 2013 6856 6741 RUSSELIA CT., CARLSBAD, CA 92011
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
January 01, 2003
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/video.html I see here H.264, MPEG-4, Theora, Vorbis, Speex, FLAC, Dirac codec and Ogg, Matroska containers. Internet Explorer 9 will be support all this codecs and containers, right?
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
"Just a name", did you read the article? My guess is you just have some type of auto-reply. You seemingly did not read the w3.org page either "The type attribute gives the type of the media resource, to help the user agent determine if it can play this media resource before fetching it.". There is nothing stating what format has to be supported.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
We've been critical of Microsoft in the past but at the moment we're really excited about the direction IE9 is going in. Keep up the good work.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
"The future of the web is HTML5" The future of computing is HTML5. "We think H.264 is an excellent format." I bet you do. "H.264 is an industry standard…" But not a standard. "The distinction between the availability of source code and the ownership of the intellectual property in that available source code is critical" Yes, it is. But you don’t go on to mention anything more about source code in your post. "Today, intellectual property rights for H.264 are broadly available through a well-defined program managed by MPEG LA" Of which you are part of. "The rights to other codecs are often less clear, as has been described in the press" What codecs, what isn’t clear, what stories in what press? "Of course, developers can rely on the H.264 codec and hardware acceleration support of the underlying operating system, like Windows 7, without paying any additional royalty." But they will need to purchase a licence to encode their content for commercial uses, esp. after the grace period (2016).
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
Sam, you not read my comment? My guess is you just have some type of auto-reply. :)

I JUST see this list of codecs and containers.
I JUST ask "IE9 will be support all of it?"

Anonymous
April 29, 2010
This is a chance for IE to show some leadership and embrace forward looking (and content producer friendly) codecs at little cost to themselves but instead of showing some fortitude and business insight, Mr. Hachamovitch is playing the lapdog to Abobe. Ugh.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
I remember when ActiveX was the de-facto industry standard sigh
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
Just a name, what Sam was getting at is that the article clearly states that H.264 is the only supported format, so there was no need to ask whether other formats are supported. Even in your second post you're still asking whether IE 9 will support more formats.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
"The rights to other codecs are often less clear, as has been described in the press." Wow. That's the most awkwardly circumspect sentence I've seen in a long time. It's too bad technologies cannot compete on straightforward practical terms (cost, quality), and instead are decided on FUD-ridden political battlegrounds.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
Just a name: The article clearly states IE9 will support h264 only. Kroc: 2016 is when the issue will be up for review again. MPEG makes major decisions on issues like these once every several years, and the next time will be in 2016. It's not a case of "free until x, non-free after", like people enjoy interpreting it as. It's highly unlikely they'd change their decision when that time comes.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
h264 is fine for me personally, but can I ask what the issue would be in supporting any and all codecs that the user has installed on their PC for use with the video tag? That way, if the user wants j.random codec to work, they can just install it themselves. i.e. the browser supports any and all codecs, even if MS only supports (in the sense of technical support) h.264
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
Funny how none of you are leaving comments on Steve Jobs's post, or suggesting that MS use webkit...
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
H.264 is not a standard, nor open!
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
@planetarian: Great! Can we have your address so we know whom to send licensing bills to if you are wrong?
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
"In its HTML5 support, IE9 will support playback of H.264 video only." Is that decision set in stone? You're still pretty early in the development cycle. Would an open VP8 make the cut?
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
Chris, haha, it's funny, you forgot about the audio and container for video tag in HTML5. Or IE9 will not support audio and playback pure H264 stream without container and audio? :D I still ask: what other codecs and containers IE9 will be support?
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
Who would have thought Microsoft would pick a closed, proprietary format? I'm stunned! To the shock of no one, Microsoft is behind the curve yet again.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
As a developer that is currently working on upgrading the automated video module in the CMS for our clients to now output HTML5 video tags (outputs mp4, ogg, and flv since we have a lot of those, converting to the various formats where needed), I am very glad that Microsoft didn't pick something out of left field. I honestly get both arguments. I truly hope that VP8 can eventually save the day and simplify things. Though even if it does surpass H.264 in performance and is removed from legal headaches, I think the hardware acceleration and the industry standard factor will keep Microsoft and Apple from ever supporting it.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
This is a sad day for the Open Web.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
> "The rights to other codecs are often less clear, as has been described in the press" > What codecs, what isn’t clear, what stories in what press? It's a good question. Microsoft, what you answer?
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
"The rights to other codecs are often less clear, as has been described in the press" Only in the eyes of h.264's proponents. Those claims have been broadly and soundly refuted.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
Another reason added for why no one should use IE anymore. Another push on the steady, 5-year long decline. Another nail in the coffin.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
"In its HTML5 support, IE9 will support playback of H.264 video only." Of course, you should have x264 support ship with iE9, but you should consider at least leaving the door open to other codecs via plugins or a similar mechanism. Wikipedia, for example, is committed to using OGG theora; I respect that iE9 has chosen not to ship with a Theora codec, but please at least allow some mechanism for me to see wikipedia media in iE9.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
So it looks like you sir want to continue to watch IE market share shrink! Good luck to you. I'll be enjoying my non-IE browsers.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
I can understand cross-platform browsers having trouble with multiple codecs, given that there are several media frameworks to support, codec licensing concerns, etc etc ad nauseum. But this sounds more like an intentional troll than a final decision. To my knowledge, IE9 will support only one OS architecture, which has access to Microsoft Media Framework. Therefore I can only assume that using any available MFT sink is simply too far-fetched, or that you are intentionally crippling IE9 rather than leveraging other Microsoft technologies. My guess is that this is a pre-release strategy, or just baseline support used to test IE9 before it's eventual release. Otherwise, IE9 will already be outdone by all of it's competitors by this metric, and as better codecs are released IE9's video support will become obsolete and customers will be forced to use a plugin again.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
I cannot believe the whining on this thread. I'd like to say good job IE team on using an open standard. To others, open does not equal free. It is not like MPEG, which also constitutes universities and research institutes, is going to start charging outrageous fees to bankrupt every site on the net. There is a pretty good chance that it will continue to be free past 2016.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
Is H.264 being pushed because Microsoft stands to make money out of licensing fees for anyone who chooses to implement H.264? It's not open. It shouldn't be pushed as a standard for the web.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
@Str1f3 >> "I'd like to say good job IE team on using an open standard" Please, look up what Open Standard really means... >> "It is not like MPEG {...} is going to start charging outrageous fees to bankrupt every site on the net." Are you solely counting on good faith for that one?? well, think again: http://www.linuxinsider.com/rsstory/69312.html?wlc=1272592294
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
<blockquote> The rights to other codecs are often less clear, as has been described in the press. </blockquote> That is some really bad hand-waving. Microsoft should probably try to get a PR guy for IE with a bit more FUD talent.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
Dean, I think it's quite dangerous for you to say "developers can rely on the H.264 codec and hardware acceleration support of the underlying operating system, like Windows 7, without paying any additional royalty." when the Windows 7 H.264 codec is licensed only for non-commercial use. See http://download.microsoft.com/Documents/UseTerms/Windows%207_Ultimate_English_c44ca3df-8338-4a2f-a176-39d2e68986c4.pdf THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE AVC, THE VC-1, THE MPEG-4 PART 2 VISUAL, AND THE MPEG-2 VIDEO PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSES FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (i) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ABOVE STANDARDS (“VIDEO STANDARDS”) AND/OR (ii) DECODE AVC, VC-1, MPEG-4 PART 2 AND MPEG-2 VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY OR WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE SUCH VIDEO. NONE OF THE LICENSES EXTEND TO ANY OTHER PRODUCT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH PRODUCT IS INCLUDED WITH THIS PRODUCT IN A SINGLE ARTICLE.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
@rdean, "The rights to other codecs are often less clear, as has been described in the press" "Only in the eyes of h.264's proponents. Those claims have been broadly and soundly refuted." Only in the eyes of Theora's proponents. Those claims have NOT been broadly and soundly refuted, other than in the eyes of FANATICAL Theora proponents.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
It's good to know how frightened MS is of Google and Mozilla, frightened enough to cut off their nose to spite their face, by dropping support for their own .NET sandboxed video codec system. That system, so recently touted as the Next Big Thing, would have required using .NET for unsupported codecs, but it looks like that's not enough lock-in anymore. MS made its fortune by selling an open platform on which even competitors could produce applications. Say hello to the new Microsoft.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
H.264 a deal-breaker? That... doesn't really make sense. For developers, they'll lose traffic from IE9 users because the developers have failed to cater for them. For users, they'll be catered for by the minority of websites that will not support H.264, while still being able to use H.264-capable websites. In the scheme of things, it's certainly not a big deal. Besides, IE9 is not going to be the last version ever of IE. If H.264 does require royalties past-2016, the IE team will probably add support for another codec in the next IE so that web developers still have an option to continue distributing plug-in free video for free.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
next post will be about WOFF in IE9. :) good job!
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
I understand that as a part of MPEG-LA you might want to support H264, but why support H264 exclusively? How difficult is it to add support for Ogg/Theora? And don't claim that Ogg/Theora is patent encumbered, or at a risk - it's way better than the mess H264 is. I think Microsoft should start a user poll and see what the feedback of the community is, before making such rash decisions.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
Oh so you mean I'd still need to use Google Chrome in order to see more content on the web? Well that's a shame... oh well.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
From MPEG LA: "no one in the market should be under the misimpression that other codecs such as Theora are patent-free. Virtually all codecs are based on patented technology, and many of the essential patents may be the same as those that are essential to AVC/H.264. Therefore, users should be aware that a license and payment of applicable royalties is likely required to use these technologies developed by others, too"
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
follow link. count how many webkits there are in the world. notice how some chrome sites don't support safari, some safari sites don't support chrome. wonder -- what it mean, tell Microsoft use webkit? which webkit?
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
Well, Okay. Let's think, the future if this problem could not be solved.

IN 201X - In HTML5, If web developers wants to play video on their own web page, they will have to make two video files. One of those video has Ogg Theora codec, and another has H.264 codec. Same contents, different codecs. More (almost double) disk space required. Oh, that's fantastic, isn't it?

Anonymous
April 29, 2010
@streamingmedia.com: Name one or it is just FUD … which applies to h.264 as well.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
@Jason Knight: "There is NO LEGITIMATE EXCUSE for IE to not support in the VIDEO (or OBJECT) tag to not support any video container or codec that WMP does." How about better security due to less attack vectors? ... sounds pretty legitimate to me. I'm not necessarily saying they should only support one format, but your argument is ignorant.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
Stop ruining the industry we work in by apathy and hanging on to licenseables. The world is already dragged back by MS products.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
if you only support H.264 codec, does this mean, that you don´t support audio-tag and sound in video, because they need another codec?
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
The day IE died. I will encourage people to start using Open Web formats and putting a 'get a 21th century browser' button right next to it.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
I really thought, that the IE could become a good browser again. I believed in this, but you do, what you always do. You try to block your open source competitors. Why won't you use system codecs so when a user has a theora codec installed, use it. Don't hurt the web again, as you did with IE 6. Please!
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
The ITU-T H.264 standard and the ISO/IEC MPEG-4 AVC standard (formally, ISO/IEC 14496-10 - MPEG-4 Part 10, Advanced Video Coding) are jointly maintained so that they have identical technical content. H.264 is a standard, but not free. The only free part (referenced in some comments is for the "broadcast" of h.264, not encode or decode.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
The decision to use H.264 on the web was taken some time ago not by Microsoft but by Google when they used it in Youtube.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
@BBaker true. And Microsoft can release a version of IE (or even update) that supports whatever codec youtube starts using. I don't see why Microsoft gets the bashing when it is actually Google's decision. The most important video website in the world already runs with H.264 yet somehow Microsoft's unreleased browser has "destroyed the open web".
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
MS with its Internet Explorer have always been a brake on technological progress. If H.264 only becomes true, it seems to me that MS will keep on trucking...
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
@anon: Attack vectors? Then doing it like with ActiveX and adding a flag that has to be set in order for a Codecs to be available for playing videos on the web?
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
Please read this on codecs topic: http://www.osnews.com/story/23229/IE9_HTML5_Video_Will_Be_H264_Only
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
Where is VC-1 support ? Much lighter codec on devices not supporting hardware decoding.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
epic fail, shame on IE 9 how about to support ogg theora?
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
@bitland: the video codec is Theora. It is (or will be) supported by Firefox (since 3.5), Chrome/Chromium (since 4), Safari (since 4), and Opera (in 11). It is under the BSD license (like Windows TCP/IP tools). It is under a royalty-free, irrevocable, unlimited patent license by the original creator (On2's VP3). It is compatible with the W3C license. It's as unreliable as h.264 patent-wise: only submarine patents. And since VP3 exists since before 2001, it will not be subject to such for as long as h.264. Other elements (Ogg container, Vorbis audio codec) have already be used at MS (Halo for the PC), so there is no restriction on them. Apart from the "Not Invented Here" syndrome. Sorry Dean, your post spreads FUD - nothing else.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
Will you support Theora via plugin? I really dislike you're going with the IP FUD against "other codecs" which we all know is Theora. Since you're MPEG-LA beneficiary, I don't trust that your fear is genuine. You're just pushing format on which you'll be able to collect royalties.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
I thought that a new, open Microsoft was rising up... I was wrong. Microsoft, shame on you... ...You could have waited for Google's announcement re: open-sourcing the VP8 codec next month at its Google I/O conference... ...but you didn't, did you? You decided to step up earlier, just to block another important Open Web technology. Microsoft, do you even realize that you could have conquered back the hearts and minds of web developers? ...Do you? Do you realize that, with this decision, you'll lose more than you stand to gain? I hope Google will upgrade YouTube to have only VP8 videos and then advise IE users to just switch to VP8-capable browsers: Firefox, Google Chrome, Opera. ...Now this would / will be interesting to see.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
The future of web videos is ogg theora or an opensource version of vp8. If IE9 doesnt support vp8 or ogg theora, their users wont be able to watch most of the videos avaible on the web in the future. IEs market share already dropped from 86,8% (2002) to 34,9 (march 2010) (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp) in two years nobody will use IE anymore. IE isnt the "standard" web browser, so we shouldnt bother what it supports or not. Just tell your visitors that if they dont switch from IE to firefox or chrome they wont be able to view your videos and soon IE will be nomore.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
Please implement Theora, it is not good for the web. Have a royalty free codec.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
And I continue not to use Internet Explorer, seeing the piece of garbage it really is.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
H.264, great! But please also consider VP8.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
@Dean Hachamovitch "The rights to other codecs are often less clear, as has been described in the press." So you take legal decisions based on what's written in the press!?? The legal situation surrounding Vorbis (audio) and Theora (video) have always been clear. You should contact the persons responsible for their management: http://xiph.org/ Inform yourself before making such ridiculous statements. Microsoft should stop resorting to FUD to justify their shortsighted decisions.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
if youtube works in VP8 and wikipedia in theora, ie9 stillborn. Knok Knok, is anybody there?
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
@Dean Hachamovitch "Microsoft is deeply engaged in the HTML5 process with the W3C." --Then you known that there isn't a recommended CODEC. Why are you forcing this on the general public and on the rest the people working on HTML5 "In its HTML5 support, IE9 will support playback of H.264 video only." --A very shortsighted decision. How about the audio part? How about your own CODECs? Are they too under less clear licensing rights? How about your own operating systems that lack H.264 support? You talked about Win7, but what about WinVista and WinXP? "H.264 is an industry standard" --That might be, but it's not a web standard, it's was not approved by the W3C. Nor it's open. You have to license it to make a implementation. And you have to pay for creating, playing and distribution (although distribution royalties on the web have been delayed until 2016). That's not open. W3C requires royalty-free technology! "...developers can rely on the H.264 codec and hardware acceleration support of the underlying operating system, like Windows 7, without paying any additional royalty." --But only for playing and only for Win7. So how about other purposes and how about WinVista and WinXP? Your zero-tolerance towards allowing any other CODEC is stupid! You cannot state that you support openness and then act by moving in the opposite direction, unless you like been called a hypocrite...
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/video.html H.264, MPEG-4, Theora, Vorbis, Speex, FLAC, Dirac codec and Ogg, Matroska containers. IE9 will support playback of H.264 video only. So, how exactly is Microsoft "deeply engaged in the HTML5 process with the W3C"?
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
"The future of the web is HTML5." Great to hear that, but isn't your decision to only support a codec that requires royalties anti-competitive towards free (as in gratis) software? I think you should support as many codecs as you resonably can using standard content negotiation and MIME headers. You should then auto-install codecs from your servers if the client doesn't have the particular one. Please reconsider.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
@Mitch, You are a bit mistaken in your post. Safari does not support OGG, and Opera has support for it now with version 10.5. Currently Chrome is the most accepting. It supports both H.264 and OGG for video and OGG and mp3 for audio (but not wave for some reason, which Firefox, Safari, and Opera 10.5 support). I'm interested in what Microsoft is going to support for the audio codec. I assume mp3 and maybe wave, but it would be nice to hear an official statement. To those begging for VP8, I do not see it happening in IE9 unless we would like to see IE9 get delayed. Maybe in an IE9.5 or IE10. Microsoft does need to make a cut off point for features at some point. Mozilla has been hurt in the past by new things coming out at the wrong time in their development cycle (e.g. the Acid2 and Acid3 tests came out to close to the release of Firefox 2 and 3 to be targeted in those releases). Google has only announced an intention to open source the license. Microsoft shouldn't even consider supporting it until after it has officially been done, and even than that is after talking to their lawyers. That all being said, on your March 16th post on HTML5 and hardware acceleration Microsoft claimed that they researched the Web Standards in use by the top 7000 Web sites and set out to hit those standards. I do find this post falls against that claim as Wikipedia is surely in the top 7000 and they do not support H.264 for video, but rather OGG Theora/Vorbis.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
What ... So clearly you guys are not going to conform to "open" video format standards. What happened to OGG? Are you guys really reading what the web standards community is talking about, or your pulling another stunt? I was once a Microsoft Student Partner, and I worked for you guys promoting products that I believed was right. I am really disappointed with the directions your team has been taking. It is like you don't even care about the future of the web. Look at Google on the amount of contributions they have been making to the web and HTML5 standards. I am really disappointed, I believe I fell into a trap being an MSP. Sure I was a kid, and you gave us free stuff, but I wish I never had wasted my time doing. I was hoping one day you guys will really care about the future of the Web. Clearly that isn't the case, we just see SVG affects and stupid H264 proprietary format.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
@Jack, Microsoft has already stated that IE9 will not run on Windows XP. It is just Vista they need to do work for.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
Let's wait for the Google answer...an open VP8 codec? (http://www.on2.com/)
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
I am sorry to say the truth to you: IE is dying. Your decision to be H.264 only will be irrelevant sooner than you can imagine.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
I take you got a free license for your customers with this exclusivity move and hope to hurt the open source community.. money buys, money talks
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
I'm still waiting for Googles move. They can easily force all major browser developers to support whatever codec they deem the right one, by simply make it the codec of choice on youtube. Bold move I know, but so was closing the office in China.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
The future of web is HTML5, but the old versions of the IE-Browser are the reason why HTML5 won't become reality in the next few years.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
@Brian LePore: install Safari 4+Quicktime. Go to http://openvideo.dailymotion.com. Enjoy. Longer explanation: Safari has built-in support for h.264. It can however make use of Quicktime if installed, and Quicktime can handle Ogg Theora. So, Safari can handle video tags with Theora streams. Rest of your comment: very true.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
Chris: W3Schools is not a source of representative browser share data, which they freely admit. Worldwide, IE still has 200% of the share of all Windows browser competitors combined. Brian: Frank Oliver from Microsoft already said the supported audio formats are AAC and MP3 in the comments on an older post. Microsoft didn't say that they'd support EVERY format and API used on EVERY one of the top 7000 sites, merely that the top 7000 is what they benchmark themselves against. Federico Pistono, as noted by many before you, the HTML5 spec does not require ANY particular codec. Jack: I doubt Dean cares what you call him, but yelling at Microsoft for refusing to support their own proprietary formats is pretty dumb. Supporting an industry standard is hard to fault vs. supporting their own formats. If Microsoft wanted to "collect royalties" as the FUD here suggests, their browser would support their own proprietary formats. It doesn't. FUD is FUD. The idea that Google is going to switch over YouTube to use VP8 exclusively is only espoused by people who have no idea how Google's business really works.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
I think it would be wise to support Theora and Vorbis as well, because it's important to have an open alternative as well.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
EVERYBODY ELSE supports Ogg. Therefore, IE should. IE needs to stop being the odd browser out.
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 29, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
This big screenshot, shows OGG-video playback on Opera's new HTML5-TV ready browser. http://www.oggtv.com/HTML5-TV_example.png OGG-video is already in the "drivers-seat" on the web, OGG is in a prime position to build positive media companies and supersites on the web. The resized pop-up video, shows a clear video, even when scaled-up to a desired viewing size OGG is already a standard, ready for everyone to use, with a huge HTML5-TV browser support base.
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
Why not just use Windows codecs (those we see in 'Sound and Audio Device Properties')? I guess it's too late.
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
As Alex D stated earlier, Wake up people !
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
We need to purchase a license for commercial use of H.264. You should support Theora (and/or VP8 if Google will release it under a "liberal" license) too. Supporting H.264 video only, Microsoft will break the web AGAIN (apparently, you didn't learn anything from the IE6 lesson).
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
"IE9 will support playback of H.264 video only" This is short-sighted. Many providers will refuse to pay MSFT's (MPEG LA's) dubious licensing fees. Many users will want to play that video, so they will find an alternative to IE9. IE will continue its descent into irrelevance.
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
It would be really nice if them HTML5 standard dictated the codecs and containers to support, so not freedom will be left to implementors to choose which to support. But even now, if all the containers/codecs supports the same features (like additional audio tracks, text descriptions, etc..) it would only be a matter of encoding your video twice.
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
The issue is: which one is in the "drivers-seat" http://www.oggtv.com/communicate.html The "Super-Majority" of HTML5-TV browser playback supports OGG, hands down, (with more support coming). If IE9 cannot overtake IE8's 20% market soon, then it will not make any difference. With OGG in the situation of being used for International IPTV streaming channels, the "drivers-seat" situation will be dictated by HTML5-TV browser support. A huge OGG-video HTML5-TV support base, will dictate browser share. Starting media companies with OGG, allows business start-ups to have a huge market of already installed browsers, for now and in the future. http://www.oggtv.com/communicate.html http://www.oggtv.com/HTML5-TV_example.png IE9 will probably be forced to play OGG-video, or become irrelevant when people use other browsers in order to see HTML5-TV on the web.
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
If a proper icense required than I dont think people gonna prefer.
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
Good on you IE Team. There is hope for Internet Explorer yet.
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
Althoug H.264 (as possible part of HTML5 Video) must be licensed, I'm very pleased to read this message that IE will be able to display HTML5. Will be very nice when MS uses it's strength to open the H.264 format. That we'll have a very powerful Web.
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
Does this mean MS will look to HTML5 to deliver video instead of Silverlight?
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
G. Walter said "Will be very nice when MS uses it's strength to open the H.264 format." truly - Fantasy at it's finest, with a strong presence of Comedy. i commend you and wish you well in your pursuit of your new profession. sadly, i think SyFy is moving away from science fiction/fantasy these days. timing really is everything, it seems.
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
Well if Firefox supports a format other than H.264 for HTML5 video I will definitely use it just to break IE support and force people to switch. I hope Google hurries with open sourcing On2 codec so it can be adopted for HTML5 and be fully open source. Cheers.
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
Manuel: nope. The best part about the comments are the IEBlog is that you get to see experts and industry titans interact with those without experience or insight. Guess who holds their opinions more firmly?
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
It's awesome that IE9 is adding support for modern technologies but what's Microsoft going to do about all the IE6, IE7, IE8 browsers out there that won't support it. Make IE9 a mandatory Windows security update!! Thanks, designer of the web.
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
It would be good if we used the terms correctly, and not associated orthogonal concepts. Open-source: source code is freely available (true for a number of codecs, including Theora and H.264) Encumbered: subject to IPR, patents read on it (known to be true of the MPEG codecs) Proprietary: owned and defined by a single source (company); true, for example, of VPx codecs (contrast: standard, open standard) Standard: published by a standards body; sometimes loosely applied to specs published by other bodies. True of H.264, which is published jointly by ITU (a treaty standards organization) and ISO (The international organization for standardization). Open Standard: the same as standard; anyone is free to participate in, and influence, the process that results in the standard (this has to be true for anti-trust reasons) There are open-source implementations of encumbered standards. There are proprietary (apparently) unencumbered codecs. And so on.
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
I started OGGTV.com in early 2008, before HTML5 video, this is why it has a dual-playback framework now. What happened next, was a group of web browsers started playing it directly with HTML5. OGGTV was early on the scene, to take advantage of HTML5 video playback, a year before the iPad, and other news. This is why I am showing OGG is in the HTML5 browser "drivers-seat" with this link. http://www.oggtv.com/communicate.html When you look at the list, the numbers just show it. (and you can even add Mac to the list) I am just showing the facts about OGG browser share. With a full screenshot to show the quality, even in a unoptimized encoding. http://www.oggtv.com/HTML5-TV_example.png It's just a fact, that OGG-video is in the "drivers-seat" with HTML5-TV browser support.
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
H.264 is a standard. Theora is not. There is a published specification, but that’s not the same thing. I don’t mean to put down On2’s work nor that of the Xiph foundation and volunteers, but there's a difference. Whether or not Microsoft should support non-standard video formats such as Theora, or other standards such as H.263, is a business decision ultimately up to them. Consumers have choice and are likely to exercise it if IE doesn’t display the video they care about — or, conversely, if a given web site doesn’t display in their chosen browser.
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
@terms: 'Open Source' can mean more than just a publicly available source code, ask the FSF. Also a codec has no source code, just a software implementation has.
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
@n00b: They'll want you to use Silverlight.
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
LOL html5 is about freedom, not about royalty fees http://openvideoalliance.org/ http://www.html5video.org/ A multi platform web browser is a mate. A non multi platform web browser is a toy. A today's web page must work with Gecko 1.9.0 and + layout engine. A tomorrow's web page must work with WebKit layout engine. Working with IE is interesting? Interesting for a web developer?
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
Gees, what a load of whining here, how naive are you people, Microsoft is a stock market listed company and is therefore tasked to make profits for it's stake holders. If you don't like the western market economy then you have the right to moan about Microsoft doing things to make money. Otherwise understand basic business and be thankful that the likes of Microsoft, Apple, Google and the like, make enough profits, to support the fact, that using this great service that's the web, to the most part FREE!
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
Great! Another H.264 supported...thank you for once more making the web dependent on a proprietary piece of code...has noone learnt anything from GIF?!?!
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
compare how many browsers support H.264 and OGG here http://www.youtube.com/html5 Safari Chrome Chrome Frame (for H.264 HTML5 video playback) Then go here: http://www.oggtv.com/communicate.html What you will see is a HUGE difference in browser share, (for now, until VP8 arrives this spring). Then you will see OGG + VP8 on double codec HTML5-TV websites. OGG-video, is already "baked-in", to a number of web browsers and open-source Linux desktops. With Windows and Mac helping Remember: OGG-video can be played back in several millions of HTML5 web browser installs now. VP8 will get a market jump immediately with Chrome and Firefox, so having a double codec OGG + VP8 website framework is a "extra" majority of HTML5-TV web-browsers. With Vista, Direct2D, service pack 2, and Windows7 needed, it will take some time for IE9 to overtake IE8's 20% market share, and for the iPad/Safari's (H.264) browser's market share, IE9 is not here yet.
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
Yes William Lacy I think you have done quite enough self-promotion of your ogg-based site. You can say what you want, it doesnt change the reality that there is hardly any theora video on the web.
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
@Will: Halo for the PC didn't make much: riiight... And the Xbox version (which also used Vorbis)? Has anybody sued Blizzard for their use of Vorbis in World of Warcraft, I wonder. No? Well then, WoW must not make Blizzard much cash. [/sarcasm] I was citing Halo because it can't be denied, and it's part of the Big MS Family. If you're looking for scale, look at WoW. Every and all music in it is stored as Vorbis. Even better, Starcraft II uses both Vorbis and Theora. How much will Blizzard make off these games? Almost as much as what MS does by selling Windows for a month? Will that be enough to excite patent trolls, do you think?
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
It's great to hear Microsoft is embracing HTML5 in future versions of IE. Just wanted to chime in to say I couldn't be happier - congratulations for doing the right thing! Don Montalvo, TX
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
All those people thinking Theora is the most wonderful thing in the world and h264 the worst are so funny...
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
Why IE9 don't you use the codecs that installed on the system? It has more sense.
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
Hey Dean: Bad boy, bad boy whatcha' gonna do-- Whatcha' gonna do Google sends some On2 at you? (My apologies to a certain TV show and its writers.)
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
why don't you stop making IE9? developers hate IE anyway.
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
Personally I think its a great step for MS to move to industry standards rather than just supporting their own standards/formats. Will make things easier for the corporate support guys. We won't see widespread theora support soon(if ever) because it doesn't have hardware acceleration especially on mobile devices and because it requires more cpu power for decoding and more network bandwidth to stream. Adobe won't open source they don't need to. Interesting to see them using llvm/clang to support multiple platforms. A great idea. You can fault MS for quite a few things but supporting industry standards isn't one of them.
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
Why don't you support it AS WELL AS THAT IN SILVERLIGHT?
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
Very good work and a lovely choice on H264. Thank you very much
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
Hmm, rest in peace IE. You were awful browser anyway.
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
can you guys also work on killing IE6 & IE7 completely?
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
H.264 is a proprietary format which is licenced by apple and microsoft, but not the web gigant google. This won't work especially if you keep in mind that google has purchased their own codec.
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
OG Theora is just a terrible codec that should be banned from the web for overexcessive use of bandwidth. To get the same quality video you often need 20% to 50% more data using Theora than with h.264. http://keyj.s2000.ws/?p=356 http://etill.net/projects/dirac_theora_evaluation/ http://codecism.blogspot.com/2010/01/theora-vs-x264-vs-schroedinger.html http://www.osnews.com/story/19019/Theora-vs.-h.264 http://www.streaminglearningcenter.com/articles/ogg-vs-h264---round-one.html http://saintdevelopment.com/media/
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
I wish MS stop making a web browser. And I am sure that many people will agree with me. Please terminate IE. This will create a brighter future for web developers. Look these stats, http://www.findmebyip.com/litmus/#target-selector , http://caniuse.com/, http://html5test.com/. IE9 which is to come is trying to add standards all other browsers already have.
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
Not supporting MPEG-4, Theora, Vorbis, is just shy of being intentionally monopolistic! If my PC supports the codecs, why can't I view these video files directly? Which part of the "open web" contains the phrase "use only this video codec"???? I can't speak for all formats of audio/video but I can tell you as a developer and a consumer that I want no part of any audio/video format that can or does contain DRM mechanisms. Ogg and Theora have worked perfectly fine for all my audio/video needs on PC, Mac, and Linux. Hmmm - just when we thought IE9 was going to be an awesome browser - you go and post that you are crippling it before it even gets out the gate. - Epic Fail.
Anonymous
April 30, 2010
@ Alex D, good comment. @ All, Think about hardware decoding on low power mobile devices. On a desktop, we dont really care how efficient the decoding gets done. On a mobile device, we certainly do. Codecs thru plugins - on a desktop - no problem. Not so on mobile devices. (Nor is hardware decoding of several formats on the same chip considered as a smart option.) For a better experience of tomorrows web, we have to make decissions now.
Anonymous
May 01, 2010
Next week should see the release of the new preview version of IE9. We should see IE9's implementation of that video tag then.
Anonymous
May 01, 2010
greg said <<<If my PC supports the codecs, why can't I view these video files directly?>>> Maybe you should the Mozilla team, who rejected the patch submitted to them that provided access to all of the codecs available on the machine. Mozilla abusing its monopoly again? Oh, wait, no, that's not it at all. I don't think you understand what the "open web" is really about. The most likely outcome of IE supporting all installed codecs is a huge % of web video moving to the WMV format, which would be bad for openness. hAl, it would be a mistake to assume that the next preview has video -- if it did, dean prolly would have mentioned that. wob: Yes, poor Microsoft is nearly dead, having recently released the fastest-selling OS in history (win7), having nearly 2/3 of worldwide marketshare for browsers, north of 90% of the market for productivity software, and a substantial gaming business. Yeah, they're toast.
Anonymous
May 01, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
May 01, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
May 01, 2010
Furthermore, what's this new obsession with VP8 as if it's the next Messiah? Nobody outside of On2 and Google has actually tested this codec, but all the sudden everyone thinks it's going to be better than H.264?!? Where's the proof? Where's an independent comparison such as the Doom9 codec shooutout that shows VP8 results?
Anonymous
May 01, 2010
OGG is not going to disappear, even the Government will have to use it to reach open-source users Worldwide. http://oggtv.com/Obama_using_OGG_video.html Since it is "Baked-in" to most web browsers, the Government's message will have a greater reach across more platforms and devices, like the number of Linux Tablets later this year. So H.264 is for the iPad, while OGG will work on several Linux Tablets Coming.
Anonymous
May 01, 2010
On the issue of hardware acceleration I read from Theora supporters that it isn't that much of an issue because Theora is less CPU intensive. Also, that H.264 hardware acceleration isn't as good as maybe propagated because either the decoder isn't very specialialzed and therefore not very effective or it is but it works only for certain profiles, Google had to re-encode some of its H.264 videos so it would play on the iPad. I will see if I can rediscover my sources.
Anonymous
May 01, 2010
@OGGTV.com: IMHO, this site is horrible and I doubt anybody would take it seriously.
Anonymous
May 01, 2010
Hrmpf, can't find my sources, but I found this: http://blog.mjg.im/2010/04/16/theora-on-n900.html
Anonymous
May 01, 2010
Microsoft, please listen to your end-user customers and stop listening to the corporate customers. IF WE WANT VP8, VORBIS, THEORA, ETC, MAKE IT WORK! ARE YOU SERIOUSLY GOING TO PENALIZE WIKIPEDIA FOR USING THESE CODECS THROUGHOUT THEIR SITE?!?!
Anonymous
May 01, 2010
Definitely reminds me of IE6... Please support other codecs Microsoft!
Anonymous
May 01, 2010
> IF WE WANT VP8, VORBIS, THEORA, ETC, MAKE IT WORK Who are "we"? I don't want VP8, VORBIS, THEORA etc. I want just one cool codec. Only one! H.264 - not bad.
Anonymous
May 01, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
May 01, 2010
Maybe H.264 will just end up like GIF images? Go research. Nuff said.
Anonymous
May 01, 2010
The thing is though as it has been pointed out, The industry has accepted H.264, please list to me a list of Blu Ray Movie that were encoded in Ogg/Theora. Now what would be a great model for IE9 would be for IE9 to use the computer's codecs and decode the videos through the browser. I'm still waiting for creation of HTML tags through CSS.
Anonymous
May 01, 2010
It's simple really. The browser companies (mainly IE) are always trying to dictate to web developers what they should be doing (or are allowed to do). If they go too far, we can simply stop making sites that work for them, or, take a more direct approach, and just redirect a user to download a different browser. I would prefer a free and open web, but at some point we as the masses will have to take a stand.
Anonymous
May 01, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
May 02, 2010
@malymato: Yes... Mozilla and Opera needs to do the same then reg. H264
Anonymous
May 02, 2010
The reasons you picked to focus on H.264 are somewhat valid, but anyways, I still see with better eyes the freedom to chose other codecs/containers - like the support Google Chrome implemented. Consider the importance of freedom.
Anonymous
May 02, 2010
Also, consider that the development of all important codecs/conatainers will gain a significant boost if support to them gets implemented by IE9. Concurrence is nice.
Anonymous
May 02, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
May 02, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
May 02, 2010
I don't mind h.264 support. More power to those browsers that do. It is however revolting to hear that only h.264 will be supported because other codecs have supposedly nebulous legal implications - while it's just not true. So this is spreading FUD, plain and simple. As for quality, current YouTube's h.264 encoder seems no more no less efficient than Theora 1.1.
Anonymous
May 02, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
May 02, 2010
Yes, there's absolutely FUD here. Microsoft FEARS that there will be long, expensive legal battles because the intellectual property ownership of the "open" formats is UNCERTAIN, and they DOUBT it's a good idea to put their public stockholders at billions of dollars of risk in order to support a format which is technically inferior and results in increased power and bandwidth usage. As for VP8-- any announcement from Google that they're making VP8 "open" is worthless unless they provide developers who implement it a warranty of indemnification (as Microsoft does for their major products) saying that Google's legal team will defend implementors from lawsuits, and Google's assets will be at risk, not the implementors. It would be a huge win for the internet, but I'm not holding my breath. Instead, expect to see Google make a meaningless announcement that gets lots of press but ultimately means little.
Anonymous
May 02, 2010
I will speak for the age of this website: OGGTV is over two years old, -and they have not come knocking yet. IE9, is very late to the game. The vast majority of HTML5-TV web browsers already have OGG "Baked-in". http://www.oggtv.com/communicate.html This has been a fact for some time. This is a web industry fact, proven by the list. OGG has a "Slam-Dunk" of industry support from several parties. As a website owner, I see the facts in front of me. -and the President can also see the vast Industry support. http://oggtv.com/Obama_using_OGG_video.html So the FACT is, OGG-video is here to stay.
Anonymous
May 02, 2010
@Matt: « Microsoft FEARS that there will be long, expensive legal battles because the intellectual property ownership of the "open" formats is UNCERTAIN » VP3 which Theora is based on 10 years old, On2 made an irrevocable, royalty-free license grant for any patent claims it might have over the software and any derivatives. If other patent owners have been sleeping for 10 years can result in their rights being lost (laches doctrine). Also, the libtheora decoder might be also protected by customary law, since for such a long time nobody has proven that it uses any patented technology other than the one from On2. A decoder based on the alpha 3 version of the Theora library released in June 2004 can decode any Theora streams encoded with this or any later version of the library. Summary: Such fears are irrational, especially if you keep in mind that they would just implement a decoder.
Anonymous
May 02, 2010
Wurst, you're obviously not a lawyer. Go Google for "Eolas" and learn how suing Microsoft works.
Anonymous
May 02, 2010
@Matt: The Eolas patent was based on a proof-of-concept and they offered the technology to Microsoft before Microsoft has a browser with plugin support. Therefore, it was concluded that MS was well aware of this technology the laches doctrine wouldn't apply.
Anonymous
May 02, 2010
BTW, how about implementing at least H.261 and motion JPEG, so there is any alternative to H.264? Also, what about audio codecs? PCM, ADPCM, GSM, CELP, SBC, MP2, MP3, Speex, CELT, …?
Anonymous
May 02, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
May 02, 2010
@Matt: How about you come with some arguments instead of aspersion? Do you think Google didn't consult their lawyers when they gave Chrome Theora support?
Anonymous
May 02, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
May 02, 2010
Seems much more relevant, and even researched, than these comments: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=2086
Anonymous
May 02, 2010
@ystander: The article says nothing on about whether it would be safe or not to have native Theora support, it just mentions the famous, vague quote from the MPEG LA CEO.
Anonymous
May 02, 2010
@bystander: Additionally, MS doesn't need to care whether Theora infringes the patents in the MPEG-LA pool, since they have it licences.
Anonymous
May 02, 2010
Wurst, do you know where babies come from?
Anonymous
May 02, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
May 02, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
May 02, 2010
"The future of the web is HTML5. ... HTML5 will be very important in advancing rich, interactive web applications" Ever heard of Silverlight?
Anonymous
May 03, 2010
William Lacy, please stop spamming the comment section by repeatedly advertising your website. We got it. You represent OGGTV.COM. Will you please stop telling us about it now?
Anonymous
May 03, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
May 03, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
May 03, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
May 03, 2010
As a newcomer in the world of webdesign, all I wanna say is that u guys at Microsoft should focus more on doing this like the other, like CSS3 for example, and enable people like building effortless crossbrowser website and avoid doing some specific styling for IE7 & IE8...
Anonymous
May 03, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
May 03, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
May 03, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
May 03, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
May 03, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
May 03, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
May 04, 2010
@ Captian Obcious Actually, there are options to encode videos, such as VP8, and even ON2. But it's not an issue of which codec you've encoded your content, but more an issue of content ownership per click view, so not so bogus.
Anonymous
May 04, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
May 04, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
May 04, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
May 04, 2010
Not according to Adobe, they don't: http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/402/kb402866.html
Anonymous
May 04, 2010
@ FactChecker How do you read that? It clearly states support for H.264 and On2(VP6)...read the list.
Anonymous
May 04, 2010
@ FactChecker Btw, you should read this. http://support.on2.com/h264_faq.php
Anonymous
May 04, 2010
VP6 != VP8, and I'd take on2's statements about their own codecs vs. competition with a grain of salt.
Anonymous
May 04, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
May 04, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
May 04, 2010
@Charlie That's the point -- they can. Read page 3 of the MPEG-LA license agreement by MPEG-LA. http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf
Anonymous
May 04, 2010
@Peter: There's nothing in page 3 of the licensing terms that suggests MPEG-LA would ever own your content. They're stating that if you're a broadcaster/content provider who's charging your users for access to H.264-encoded content that you must pay fees per title, or if you're a broadcaster airing content for free that you must pay per encoder. These types of fees are common in the video and broadcast industry - you don't see BBC complaining about it and worrying "Oh no! MPEG-LA owns Top Gear now!". :)
Anonymous
May 04, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
May 04, 2010
The average person who broadcasts on YouTube doesn't charge for videos, so they wouldn't be subject to MPEG-LA fees. In the case of YouTube's rental program, my guess is that Google will cover those MPEG-LA fees on behalf of their users and present them to the users as some sort of "service fee". If you're making money from YouTube, you can't really complain about paying a fee for the service that allows you to make money. Overall, let's be realistic for a moment: litigation is not cheap. MPEG-LA doesn't have the money or the lawyers to sue every Joe Sixpack for every H.264 video he charged viewers for but forgot to pay his MPEG-LA fees. MPEG-LA will never waste time with you or me. But if you're the BBC or News Corp and you "forgot" to pay your H.264 fees, I think you may hear from MPEG-LA lawyers very quickly. Are you a large broadcaster, studio or content provider with millions of users and billions of dollars in the bank? If you're not, I think you're safe from MPEG-LA. :)
Anonymous
May 04, 2010
@Charlie Great Joesixpack reference! lol =) You're right--Google's still ironing that out. I guess my biggest fear is the very principle behind it. I buy professional media software or equipment – with the intention of generating revenue for my enterprise–then we must pay additional fees to distribute this content over the internet – on top of the already large CDN costs. It just makes more sense to put this cost onto the distributors and manufactures, and not BBC or any large media producer.
Anonymous
May 04, 2010
@Charlie: Yes, thank you for that - that's how/what my comprehension was of this post. Its just that I got to this post from a trade rag (in the link) with the attention grabbing headline that somehow links all this to the recent Adobe/Apple flap. I honestly don't even know how the writer came to conclusions/suggestions in the article after reading this post...sigh.
Anonymous
May 05, 2010
Ok, so regardless of Codec, does "The HTML5 specification describes video support without specifying a particular video format. We think H.264 is an excellent format. In its HTML5 support, IE9 will support playback of H.264 video only" mean that IE9 will recognize the HTML5 video tag?
Anonymous
May 05, 2010
@Armando: Yes, that was announced back in March. It's not yet in the latest Preview Build, however.
Anonymous
May 05, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
May 06, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
May 06, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
May 07, 2010
Mr. Hachamovitch, A question about video (second H264 video after scrolled - video time mark 27:54): http://live.visitmix.com/MIX10/Sessions/KEY02 Where can I download this video of the birds? Very sweet. Or... What is the name of this documantery? I would be grateful if you give information.
Anonymous
May 09, 2010
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
May 09, 2010
As you've provided no details at all about the problem you had, I think a logical conclusion is: "Robert's arrogance in assuming that our time is well-spent reading his silly little rant approximately equals his ignorance of proper web development practices."
Anonymous
May 09, 2010
This shows IE9 already playing OGG-video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZOaB_Cg4DU The second Platform Preview is required.

Share via

HTML5 Video

Comments

Additional resources