Greater Interoperability for Windows Customers With HTML5 Video
Google recently announced that its Chrome web browser will stop supporting the H.264 video format. At Microsoft we respect that Windows customers want the best experience of the web including the ability to enjoy the widest range of content available on the Internet in H.264 format.
Today, as part of the interoperability bridges work we do on this team, we are making available the Windows Media Player HTML5 Extension for Chrome, which is an extension for Google Chrome to enable Windows 7 customers who use Chrome to continue to play H.264 video.
We believe that Windows customers should be able to play mainstream HTML5 video and, as we’ve described in previous posts, Internet Explorer 9 will support playback of H.264 video as well as VP8 video when the user has installed a VP8 codec.
We are committed to ensuring that Windows customers have the best Web experience, and we have been offering for several years now the extremely popular Windows Media Player plug-in for Firefox, which is downloaded by millions of people a month who want to watch Windows Media content.
We also recently provided an add-on for Windows 7 customers who choose Firefox to play H.264 video so as to enable interoperability across IE, Firefox and Chrome using HTML5 video on Windows.
For many reasons - which you can read about on other blog posts here and here - H.264 is an excellent and widely-used video format that serves the web very well today. As such, we will continue to ensure that developers and customers continue to have an optimal Web experience.
Claudio Caldato,
Principal Program Manager, Interoperability Strategy Team
Comments
Anonymous
February 01, 2011
Cool!Anonymous
February 01, 2011
H.264 isn't an open standard and isn't supported by Firefox or Opera, so in what way is this in support of interoperability? Commercial interests absolutely, but interoperability certainly not. You should be ashamed of yourselves.Anonymous
February 01, 2011
"In other news, Google creates a plugin for IE9 that adds VP8 support, to improve standards and interoperability for the web" I can see this getting ugly :-)Anonymous
February 01, 2011
Great solution. But why wouldn't Firefox and Chrome do this directly. If I understand correctly the H.264 support is already built in to both Apple and Windows platforms and they can use it without licensing. The only thing they have succeeded in is having all their users run Microsoft code in their browser.Anonymous
February 01, 2011
@Amtiskaw: you do know what interoperability means right? I think it's nice to see that MS is actually trying to keep the nerd-interest-only video war clear of the ordinary user and makes sure that it all "just works". As a webdeveloper i have interest in the discussion about "open" / closed / free (as in pay with your privacy) / licensed etc but as a user i don't give a s**t and i simply want to be able to watch all video's on the web... 90% of the -users- on the web think the same.Anonymous
February 01, 2011
@Anon - Guess you didn't read the post. IE9 will support VP8 if you have the codec installed. @Amtiskaw - H.264 is built into almost every video hardware product made and is widely supported. This is a great announcement because it allows users to still have access to that content without being forced to switch browsers. I guess some people are never happy.Anonymous
February 01, 2011
Kudos for Microsoft. Personally I'm a Firefox user, but I'm also a firm supporter of H.264/X264. I can play this format on my PC, on my phone, on my Blu-Ray player. H.264 works, so let's stick to it instead of starting another format war.Anonymous
February 01, 2011
It's rare these days that I get to say this without sarcasm, but classy move Microsoft! Genuinely! @Amtiskaw: H.264 is an open standard. Open != Free. @Anon: Google have already done this with Chrome Frame.Anonymous
February 01, 2011
What about Windows XP.Anonymous
February 01, 2011
".. Windows users should be able to play mainstream HTML5 video". Sounds like Microsoft is giving the finger to Chrome(frame). Love it!Anonymous
February 01, 2011
Amtiskaw, h.264 is an open standard. Don't confuse free with open. In comparison, WebM is NOT an open standard because development is controlled exclusively by Google. It is royalty-free, however.Anonymous
February 01, 2011
@Amtiskaw H.264 is an open standard; it's just not free.Anonymous
February 01, 2011
"We are committed to ensuring that Windows customers have the best Web experience". You should start by making a good design for this blog.Anonymous
February 02, 2011
So, when can I get that Windows Media Player plugin for Firefox or the H.264 plugin for Chrome? I run Ubuntu, by the way... Oh, what's that? You won't support other operating systems? Then you're not actually trying to improve interoperability, you're trying to make the web incompatible with other operating systems, as you did before with IE-specific rendering and buying off Netflix to use that abomination Silverlight.Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Why not just tweak the next drop of Silverlight to support the HTML5 video tag instead? The H.264 support is already built in, and then I wouldn't have to have two plugins installed that have duplicate functionality. But otherwise... Thank You!Anonymous
February 02, 2011
I hope that this is available for OS X as well, because I use RockMelt, which is based off of Chromium, as my secondary browser (Safari is, in my mind, better than Chrome/Chromium).Anonymous
February 02, 2011
@Amtiskaw Actually, H.264 is an open standard. Do your homework before you go spouting off about things you don't know. You're the one who should be "ashamed".Anonymous
February 02, 2011
@Amtiskaw, in what way is VP8 an open standard? It's not even a standard; its format is proprietary. H.264 is actually a standard. Now, VP8 has an open license and h.264 does not. Might be a good time to learn the difference between telling someone they should be ashamed of themselves.Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Get a Mac.Anonymous
February 02, 2011
The comment has been removedAnonymous
February 02, 2011
Is there a way you could make this work on platforms besides Windows 7?Anonymous
February 02, 2011
How did you work around the licensing issues?Anonymous
February 02, 2011
@amtiskaw actually this is the exact definition of enabling interoperability, i.e. referring to the ability of diverse systems and organizations to work together. you deserve 3 facepalms.Anonymous
February 02, 2011
@Anon RTFA "as we’ve described in previous posts, Internet Explorer 9 will support playback of H.264 video as well as VP8 video when the user has installed a VP8 codec"Anonymous
February 02, 2011
"We believe that Windows customers should be able to play mainstream HTML5 video..." Is that ALL or SOME of Windows customers? I understand not supporting XP, but what about Vista? Is this Windows 7 only?Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Shouldn't everyone at the 'Interoperability Strategy Team' be concerned with fixing memory leaks in the Firefox plugin released earlier, instead of just releasing them for other browsers too?Anonymous
February 02, 2011
@Amitiskaw H.264 IS an open standard. There are companies that sit down and work on improving the code and standard and anyone can join the team. WebM ISN'T an open standard cause only Google gets to decide how the codec is improved. You seem to be confusing open standard with open source. please educate yourself You also don't seem to understand what interoperability means.Anonymous
February 02, 2011
What I'd like to know is when you plan on fixing the Firefox H.264 plugin - I'm running Windows 7, 64 bit, and am experiencing a HUGE memory leak with your plugin. With it disabled, memory usage is around 250mb; once I enable it, memory usage skyrockets during an average browsing session to over a gigabyte, and the browser becomes unresponsive and requires a restart. I've googled around, and noticed that I'm not the only one experiencing this issue. Any plans for an update? Until there is one, I won't be utilizing your plugin.Anonymous
February 02, 2011
The comment has been removedAnonymous
February 02, 2011
Any plans on fixing the Firefox plugin? I'm using Windows 7, 64 bit, and without your plugin, my firefox memory useage is around 250mb. Once I've installed it, it starts off at 250mb, but grows out of control very quickly to over 1gb of memory usage, and the browser becomes unusable and must be restarted. (I have 4gb of RAM, so it's not a matter of running out of physical memory)Anonymous
February 02, 2011
The comment has been removedAnonymous
February 02, 2011
This isn't supporting interoperability, it's supporting proprietary formats that make the web less accessible and open for all. You guys are doing it for corporate greed, and sure it is logical for Microsoft to do it, but you don't have to lie in your press releases. This is a step backward for the internet, while Chrome and Firefox are taking a step forward.Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Well played Microsoft. @Amtiskaw, the joke is on you, as H.264 actually is an open standard (ISO/IEC 14496-10), unlike WebM (yet). It's also about the only modern codec which has industry support in terms of hardware acceleration (keyword: interoperability). It's just not royalty-free for content distributors. Now, I wonder who might that be...Anonymous
February 02, 2011
This isn't supporting interoperability, it's supporting proprietary formats that make the web less accessible and open for all. You guys are doing it for corporate greed, and sure it is logical for Microsoft to do it, but you don't have to lie in your press releases. This is a step backward for the internet, while Chrome and Firefox are taking a step forward.Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Great! But is this free to use? Or does it require a windows license? Oh, and will this also work with Firefox on W2K?Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Well played Microsoft. @Amtiskaw, the joke is on you as H.264 actually is an open standard (ISO/IEC 14496-10) unlike WebM. It's also about the only modern codec which has industry support in terms of hardware acceleration (there goes interoperability). It's just not royalty-free for content distributors. Now, I wonder who might that be...Anonymous
February 02, 2011
I think it's great that Microsoft is interested in increasing interoperability. I expect to see WebM codecs included in Windows by default (perhaps included in the IE9 installer?). After all, your goal is to increase interoperability. Also, I'm looking forward to WebGL in IE9 as well. Again, in the name of interoperability. Thanks Microsoft!Anonymous
February 02, 2011
nice!Anonymous
February 02, 2011
@Amtiskaw - H.264 is an open standard, with a published spec and multiple, interoperable, implementationsAnonymous
February 02, 2011
How about working on an SVG plugin for IE?Anonymous
February 02, 2011
I really don't see what the big deal is. Oh no, a plugin! It's only useful if people download it anyways. The best browser would support all of the major formats for legacy and compatibility reasons.Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Both mentioned plug-ins don't work in Ubuntu 10.04 lucid. Where can I report this bug?Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Why would anyone truly want an extortion encumbered media format, and how can an extension to an existing product be trusted if the source is not available, especially when one considers it is from a company with a long and very well demonstrated history of deliberately sabotaging competitors products? True interoperability and honest intention would be demonstrated by being able to directly play existing non-encumbered media formats, like .ogv, on Microsoft Windows, as well as offering extension to other people's products in a like manner that they are provided, rather than a source secret binary plugins with a eula. This same issue goes for a certain firefox extension that was installed in a truly malware fashion for .net support. These statements and actions only further demonstrates intent to promote deliberate disinformation while further harming and defrauding users in the process.Anonymous
February 02, 2011
The comment has been removedAnonymous
February 02, 2011
Good Job. definitely a win for open standard.Anonymous
February 02, 2011
The comment has been removedAnonymous
February 02, 2011
This is fantastic. Excellent support of a standards-approved open specification format already in widespread use.Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Stupid move². Any H.264 that will play on Safari will have to be base profile and that will not look better than WebM. In addition to that this will only serve as an excuse for websites not to move to WebM right away.Anonymous
February 02, 2011
@Warpkat restricting formats would be quite antithetical to the principles behind the w3c. The <video> tag is expected to play a role similar to the <img> tag in which every browser supports a wide variety of formats, including bmp, ico, png, jpg, gif, and other formats. Limiting video encoding would be as ridiculous as someone declaring .tiff the official image format.Anonymous
February 02, 2011
The comment has been removedAnonymous
February 02, 2011
The comment has been removedAnonymous
February 02, 2011
H.264 is a closed source format. By you guys creating a plugin that encourages use of closed source formats, you are causing a step backwards is the development of the internet.Anonymous
February 02, 2011
@Ben: The argument isn't "standard" - it's about the patent minefield involved to implement the technology. h.264 has a fairly restrictive license despite the pinata candy being thrown around: The MPEG-LA has pretty much said end users may use it as they see fit without payment, but their license stances change every 5 years. They could very well reverse that stance a few years from now. That is probably the most unsettling part of it, at least to me, where I will be using video within my corporation. So if Google releases their WebM without the risk of suing the user or asking for payments, while the MPEG-LA does a limited version of that, as a consumer, I don't want that to change and I don't want the risk of getting sued by one company, let alone the conglomerate that makes up MPEG-LA. Thanks to Google for irrevocably releasing WebM into the public as it stands. Even Microsoft has to admit that this would be good for business. I think the posturing needs to stop by Microsoft.Anonymous
February 02, 2011
I, for many reasons, do not use any Microsoft products in my home. However, my antipathy for Microsoft does not prevent me from giving credit where credit is due. This is a bold and smart move that's actually GOOD for consumers. /hats-offAnonymous
February 02, 2011
You know, Microsoft, if you hadn't insisted on making IE the ubersuck browser that it was for so long, then people using Microsoft Windows would be able to watch the video formats that Microsoft appreciates. By the way, what does it say about your system design that the majority of Windows users can't watch video in a format that you officially endorse, because their browsers don't support it?Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Nice, now fix you browser so that it passes Acid3.Anonymous
February 02, 2011
The comment has been removedAnonymous
February 02, 2011
bla bla bla... installed. Moving on with life now.Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Some People need to get their facts straight. H264 is neither open, nor free. It does not (yet) cost the user anything to use it. But implementing it WILL most definitely cost money some time, when it has become the de facto standard. Currently all security we have considering h264 is that the rights holders pledge not to enforce their licensing scheme. WebM on the other hand will always be free. The only argument against webm would be the fact that h264 already is on so many devices. However, that wasn't the case 2yrs ago. Those things can change fast, especially when google backs it.Anonymous
February 02, 2011
BravoAnonymous
February 02, 2011
The comment has been removedAnonymous
February 02, 2011
The comment has been removedAnonymous
February 02, 2011
It is rare for me to praise Microsoft - but this is a genuinely Good Move. You have made some very good points here - especially n highlighting how VP8 is not really open if it is infringing H.264 patents. Now how do I find find an OS X version of the H.264 extension for Chrome..... Apple??? (I don't think so!!)Anonymous
February 02, 2011
facepalm they mean something by removing it. why won’t you let people use internet explorer if they like patent-ridden commercial software?Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Amtiskaw: of course is h.264 an open standard. it may not be free, but it's open. also for private uses you can use h264 free, so stop whining.Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Your plugin replaces the <video> element with an <object> element, effectively killing the video API. #failAnonymous
February 02, 2011
I'm already using Ubuntu.Anonymous
February 02, 2011
People let's try to keep this as a professional tech discussion rather than an emotional/opinions debate, as there are plenty of other places to voice one's feelings. That being said, I don't use Chrome (but some of my clients do) and so my question is the same as others: What about support for:
- Vista
- XP
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Well, BEFORE posting your "Yupiiiiie" about that plugin, you should consider that the H.264 video standard is patented. And the patent holder changes the licence more often than his underwear. Do you know why youtube videos are only 10 minutes long? Well YES because of THAT PATENT. It says that all usage is FREE for videos smaller or equal than 10 Minutes. If H.264 wasn't a standard ... your youtube video could also be LONGER than 10 tiny minutes. Thats why Google is the good one in here, trying to establish another FREE video codec. Just think about you want to use the video tag on YOUR WEBSITE and POST A VIDEO LONGER 10 MINUTES ... then YOU are the CONTENT PROVIDER who has TO PAY. So think before you decide whats good and what not.Anonymous
February 02, 2011
@Person You don't know what you are talking about. x264 is an open-sourced implementation of an open standard (H264). It can be used with any open source project. You are free to contribute code to x264 anytime you like.Anonymous
February 02, 2011
@Colum there is no such thing as source code in H264. H264 is a spec.Anonymous
February 02, 2011
@Sean - My understanding is that one of the concerns to implementing the VP8 codec into IE9 (or elsewhere), is that if in the future VP8 is found to violate some patent (such as one of those from h.264 or elsewhere perhaps), then those implementing the codec might be liable - remember that Microsoft is just one of the patent holders of h.264 (you can see others at www.mpegla.com/.../Licensors.aspx). From my perspective if my company produced a browser (or implemented any sw with a codec), I would also be extremely cautious/hesitant about implementing the VP8 codec (or any relatively new codec) at this time - perhaps later though. At least with h.264 and MPEG-LA a company has a somewhat more reasonable confidence that patents are not being violated and that resulting lawsuits will likely not ensue. This is not a 100% certainty, but then again nothing usually is.Anonymous
February 02, 2011
@Thane I need more details to repro the problem, is the working set growing while watching a video? can you please contact me directly (claudioc A T microsoft.com)Anonymous
February 02, 2011
"At Microsoft we respect that Windows customers want the best experience of the web including the ability to enjoy the widest range of content available on the Internet in H.264 format. " Support WebM and Vorbis. That will give me the best experience of the web.Anonymous
February 02, 2011
@PeopleStartThinkingPLEASE "Do you know why youtube videos are only 10 minutes long? Well YES because of THAT PATENT. " Pretty sure that's not the reason. H264 is free for non-commercial videos. It only cost money if you are making money from the video. Kinda like how youtube is making money with users content. so yeah it will cost Youtube money one way or the other if they keep using H264. And I have no problem with that, because they are after all not a charity.Anonymous
February 02, 2011
> Do you know why youtube videos are only 10 minutes long? Well YES because of THAT PATENT @PeopleStartThinkingPlease - That's interesting and is not my understanding but perhaps I'm mistaken. I found this which seems to explain the reason for the 10 min limitation and it seems to be due to the fact that they often found content exceeding 10mins was copyrighted material (like movies and such) and so enacted the limitation to try to reduce that issue. Here's my source: youtube-global.blogspot.com/.../your-15-minutes-of-fameummmmake-that-10.html Also from what I found Google is also an h.264 licensee and so should be covered for the use of the h.264 codec anyway: www.mpegla.com/.../Licensees.aspx If you happen to have encountered something different let me know.Anonymous
February 02, 2011
This is absolutely fantastic! Thank you Microsoft :) I love Chrome and was very disappointed when Google decided to drop the technically superior H.264. I'm really glad to see these extensions and plug ins becoming available. Thank you! I will of course be seriously looking at IE9 when it arrives, the hardware acceleration looks fantastic. I'm crossing my fingers that CSS transitions and the history API make it through! Thanks again! P.S. Amtiskaw, look up what interoperability actually means.Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Hmm...HTML is open source but why would I want to use a non-open source codec when I can use a codec supported by the 2 best browsers chrome and Firefox...dunno I guess I rather pay royalties...Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Any chances of bring this extension to Chrome Mac?Anonymous
February 02, 2011
The comment has been removedAnonymous
February 02, 2011
Interoperability - Interoperability is a property referring to the ability of diverse systems and organizations to work together (inter-operate). (Wikipedia) How is only enabling ONLY windows users to view some content interoperability is beyond me. Never forget IE6 and what it has done to the web. Don't support M$ lockdown of the internet!Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Best announcement from Microsoft in some times in terms of attitude. Round of applause here from a big Mac user. People's confusion between free and open is bad but understandable. Google spend their time trying to mix the 2 up in people's minds.Anonymous
February 02, 2011
"...we respect that Windows customers want the best experience of the web including the ability to enjoy..." Haha thats why IE had and still has the worsest HTML support, do not support any open standard including OGG etc. Sure, they're doing that for the customers welfare...Anonymous
February 02, 2011
"...we respect that Windows customers want the best experience of the web including the ability to enjoy..." Haha thats why IE had and still has the worsest HTML support, do not support any open standard including OGG etc. Sure, they're doing that for the customers welfare...Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Great! But does this also mean your codex wil also be available for Windows XP users like me? Or I'm I being forced to buy a new Operating System first before I can enjoy video's in H.264 format. (and a new computer, a new monitor and a new printer.)Anonymous
February 02, 2011
thanks Microsoft for making me laugh this morning with such as ridiculous plugin ! MOving all the goodness of HTML5 to an <object> Windowsmediaplayer ! What a great step backward !Anonymous
February 03, 2011
The comment has been removedAnonymous
February 03, 2011
VP8 has won, sorry M$ you have lost this one. I have personally removed H264 form our organization in favour of VP8.Anonymous
February 03, 2011
@freechelmi unfortunately there are no other ways to extend the video support in the browser. We know our approach has some limitations but it is an acceptable solution for now. And most users won't see this as a step backward if they can now watch MP4 videos in their browser.Anonymous
February 06, 2011
The comment has been removedAnonymous
February 15, 2011
I prefer the Opposite : install chrome Frame on Win and Xiph plugin on mac , so everybody on Pcs could play Webm, and it's the only format. Devices such as tablets and phone will have specific formats such as H264Anonymous
April 20, 2011
Windows media player plugin for firefox, written by port25 never even worked, it has fail rate over 50%. Has constant problems with x64 bit systems.. Port25 not even responds on comments on their own website. Hopefully this extension would be betterAnonymous
November 14, 2012
Well, while I do appreciate this Chrome extension, I believe you should provide some explanation as to why this extension requires such an extensive permission set to the system. Trying to install this extension, Chrome tells me that this extension would be permitted to do pretty much everything on my computer, which is... how to say... a little over the top.Anonymous
November 14, 2012
@Isaac_s The plug-in uses a DLL in order to be able to use Media Player installed on the machine to playback videos. Because of that Chrome assumes the plug-in requires access to the whole machine, in reality the only thing the plug-in uses is Media Player. we will submit the plug-in to the Chrome AppStore so the overall install experience will be better and users can know upfront about the type of permissions required by the Plugin.