Why IE9 Will Not Support Codecs Other Than H.264 436
jlp2097 writes "There is a new article up on Microsoft's IEBlog explaining why IE9 will support only the H.264 codec: 'First and most important, we think it is the best available video codec today for HTML5 for our customers. Relative to alternatives, H.264 maintains strong hardware support in PCs and mobile devices as well as a breadth of implementation in consumer electronics devices around the world, excellent video quality, scale of existing usage, availability of tools and content authoring systems, and overall industry momentum – each an important factor that contributes to our point of view. H.264 also provides the best certainty and clarity with respect to legal rights from the many companies that have patents in this area.'"
Someone explain this to me. (Score:5, Insightful)
::begin displaying ignorance::
What advantage is there to restricting IE9 to only H.264? How can natively supporting more codecs be a bad thing?
Re:The patent lawyers succeeded (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. (Score:0, Insightful)
Get a new job if u dont like it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. (Score:4, Insightful)
But what's stupidest of all, of course, is that there are so many patent-free, open source options available for the vendors to standardize on.
"Hasn't been sued yet" is different from "patent-free".
Incidentally, HTML5 is a lot more than just video. Most of it is a great step forwards for web devs like myself.
Re:Someone explain this to me. (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft doesn't want to touch Theora because they suspect (or know) it's about to be targeted for legal action. Natively supporting a codec that carries negative legal ramifications could come back to bite them in the ass later: no one wants to support another codec out of the goodness of their heart now, and especially one not widely used nor likely to benefit that many customers since nearly everyone else on God's green earth is using H.264, just so that they can get slapped with infringement suits later for including code that violates some arcane MPEG-LA patent. Supporting Theora would be an imprudent decision on Microsoft's part for now. H.264's patent issues are well known and can be bought off easily through licensing, on the other hand, and it's well supported by nearly everyone and immensely popular with consumers; Microsoft can cover itself legally and market its browser to the widest possible audience with H.264, so it's a smart decision on their part.
Ideology matters little in the pragmatics of business, and Microsoft's not going to bend over backwards to clear up the currently clouded patent status of Theora and defend it against what's increasingly looking like inevitable attacks from well-funded groups of patent holders who legitimately or not (does it even matter anymore?) will shove a case through some godforsaken East Texas docket... especially not when there aren't more than a handful of people actively using Theora anyway. Hell, most people probably won't ever even see a Theora video in their whole lives. Why should Microsoft waste its time?
Re:So, its for the DRM then... (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe some of you in the know out there can enlighten the rest of us: What makes a codec more or less conducive to DRM?
I would have thought DRM would be implemented outside the media data itself and the codec would only be come relevant once system has decided to give the user access and decrypted the data. Perhaps in some systems once they've doen the lossy part of the signal processing they do the compression and encryption as a combined operation? Or does the whole thing work an entirely different way?
Re:H.264 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ogg is inferior (Score:3, Insightful)
The obvious reason Microsoft has standardized on h.264 is its support for DRM.
Or perhaps they are unwilling to spend the development assets on adding more than one native codec when functionality can easily be extended for those so inclined with a plug in.
Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not insightful. HTML5 is a multi-vendor standard from the W3. The W3 only publish standards that are free of royalty standards (thanks to a big debate and campaign around the turn of the millenium).
HTML5 video is a major leap forward. Previously video was usually locked away behind proprietary Flash delivery interfaces. Already I am finding I can browse Youtube via my web browser and see videos (before I had to use totem's plugin or youtube-dl) because of HTML5 support. The same applies with other video sites, such as Vimeo and dailymotion that have (beta) HTML5 video players. Further, thanks to HTML5 browser support, extensions now exist which can take embedded flash video players of certain sites and transform them in place into HTML5 video.
HTML5 video is agnostic of codec - it does not specify what format video will be in, nor does it specify what formats browser must support. Just as the old IMG tag doesn't specify GIF, BMP, etc. The supported formats are whatever formats systems and browsers support. It would have been nice if W3 had been able to specify Ogg/Theora as a "must support" common-denominator format, but agreement could not be reached on that. That does NOT take away from the importance of HTML5 video.
I strongly suspect many of the people who argue against HTML5 video are people who are running proprietary video-delivery plugins in their browser.. I would ask such people to step back and reconsider the big picture:
a) Proprietary plugins running in your browser, interpreting proprietary blobs downloaded from websites, to play videos from websites using whatever format (be it patent encumbered or not)
versus
b) Your browser, potentially (likely?) free software, using openly specified standards to interpret video-player controls, to play videos from websites using whatever format (be it patent encumbered or not)
The 2nd option is a major step forward. I despair of anyone who argues that we should stick with option a because of the patent issues with /some/ video formats.
Next step: If you're in the UK, we need to lobby the BBC Trust and OfCom to get them to require the BBC to deliver its internet TV services in an open format - rather than via Adobe Flash.
Re:In other words.... (Score:4, Insightful)
More likely, anyone with any possible patents against Theora is waiting for someone with money to implement it. RIght now, there's hardly any money in any of the companies doing Theora, and suing just gets you no money at all. Mozilla? Xiph? Relatively poor, and probably good lawyers to get patents overturned. Not a good result.
But get a Google, Microsoft or Apple supporting Theora, and these guys have cash. Patent infringement? Cha-ching. Either licensing or back profits. Everyone and their dog with patents will be trying to figure out how they can cash in. Or any of the big hardware guys - Intel, ATI, nVIdia, plus all the others - Broadcom, etc.
Not to say H.264 is any better, but there are patent pools and the like, and probably some form of protection against patent infringement.
Maybe that's all that's needed - patent liability coverage - implement Theora and be covered against any potential patent lawsuits. It's one thing to say that no patents were infrtinged, but another to back it up. Hell, it can be funded by a smally royalty (they already pay for h.264).
Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. (Score:3, Insightful)
Alright, answer me two questions : HTML5 is really the flash killer, yes?
Definitely not. But we'd all be happy if it was the flashbasedvideoplayer killer.
Trojan codecs (Score:3, Insightful)
hey could quite easily make it a plugin system where it would ship with one or two codecs, and users could "install" others if they choose
Malware posing as codecs is how you get shit like Antivirus XP [wikipedia.org] on PCs.
Re:In other words.... (Score:1, Insightful)
I seriously doubt Microsoft will actually assert charges of patent infringement against anyone... ever.
They dont usually have to. Charges cost money. FUD costs nothing.
Didn't they recently have a case in Germany about their FAT patent.
In my mind, in fact, I see Microsoft joining in the fight against software patents.
It is as big a pain in their ass as it is for many others... probably bigger because they have a rather big ass.
Its only a big pain in the ass if someone else has more patents than you.
Software patents are like M.A.D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction [wikipedia.org]
You either make sure you have the biggest stick or that you have enough patents to force a stalemate.
Re:In other words.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I seriously doubt Microsoft will actually assert charges of patent infringement against anyone... ever.
Specific charges, with patent numbers specified, we might perhaps not see. Vague charges without specifics has already been seen multiple times, e.g. when they claimed that OSS infringed on hundreds of Microsoft patents, and that OSS will be made to pay in due time.
Microsoft's involvement in the software patent arms race was quite reluctant and I suspect that is still the case.
It may have been reluctant at first, but soon they realized the FUD value in patents. Using your patents to offensively intimidate others (i.e. not defensively in response to a patent infringement lawsuit) clearly shows that whatever reluctance they may have had in the past is now completely gone.
Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. (Score:3, Insightful)
What will really happen is that *everybody* will use H.264, but they'll either use the native HTML5 component or the Flash player for Firefox and Opera, if they don't implement it too.
Re:MPEG-LA is doing a happy dance (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks for making this point.
I certainly support creators' rights to earnings off of invention and have problems with many software patents I see from all my favorite vendors. But apart from normal hand wringing over patents this really takes the cake.
Think if Microsoft or Apple charged you a license for everything you created using your computer! What if the printer manufacturer did the same? Why didn't film companies charge me for every photo I ever published when I used to use film?
Insanity! Write your legislators, write companies, write, complain....
Same applies to H.264 (Score:4, Insightful)
If Microsoft could be sued for including a format then that is a good reason not too. The implication has been that Theora might infringe on some patents. It may, it may not. I don't know and likely nobody here does either.
The same thing applies to h.264 or any other codec, for that matter. The only thing the MPEG license buys you is indemnification from the patents that the consortium knows about, and they explicitly make no guarantee that other unlicensed patents weren't infringed along the way. You're on your own for that.
Re:In other words.... (Score:1, Insightful)
>We may find many reasons to "hate microsoft" but I seriously doubt Microsoft will actually assert charges of patent infringement against anyone... ever.
You must have missed every time they did in relation with FAT patents like the TOMTOM case.
Re:Someone explain this to me. (Score:1, Insightful)
DRM! MPEG-LA has a patent pool, and is willing to use it. So far they are not charging *everyone* to use their patented technology, but looking at their licensing practices, it appears that they are getting set up to
become the sole source monopoly for digital video.
Look at the terms-of use license for any video camera that includes h.264 encoding. ONLY NON-COMMERCIAL USE! You cannot distribute video *legally* on any site that displays an ad, if it was shot with such a camera.
Look at the licensing for software that has a h.264 codec. You have to get an individual license from MPEG-LA to *legally* distribute video on commercial site (again, just one ad will do it!) This provision shows up
even if your video does not use the codec! The software was tainted, and poisoned your potential use of your own video.
Now, the capture, processing, and display channel for video has a big baited trap set in it. Can you afford the lawyers to prove in court that you never touched anything that has the h.264 taint? Just easier to pay the troll
under the bridge (Microsoft, Apple, the big media conglomerates) to leave you alone.
TA-DA! Success in converting the video channel into a READ-ONLY media distribution system. No independent video producers need apply, since volume discounts only kick in once you meet the minimum payment level
(you do have a spare 10 million dollars for our hobby don't you?)
Somehow, I see the supporters of DRM, with the deep pockets to pay the entry fees benefiting from this.
Getting backed into the corner where every step in the chain of producing, editing, and distributing must pay fees to MPEG-LA seems to be quietly getting maneuvered into place.
Anyone that has patents in the pool will probably get preferential treatment.
Independent video artists should think about who their new overlords will be. Do you think you can be well compensated when others control ALL of your distribution channels, or can reasonably begin litigation on suspicion that you (unwittingly) tainted your own video.
Re:Is there a better, open, alternative? (Score:4, Insightful)
From what I've seen of Theora, it's the performance limit, not the open source nature of it, which makes it a non-starter for many platforms.
And what, pray tell, have you seen of Theora? Are you talking about the whiney, highly inaccurate piece [slashdot.org] here a few weeks ago that threw out just enough jargon to sound relevant, but managed to compare apples to bicycles in the process? Perhaps you should see the rebuttal [slashdot.org]?
TL;DR: Many of the "points" raised were barely coherent, let alone verifiably accurate.
Ogg is an efficient, open-sourced, non-patent-encumbered container format. Theora is an efficient CODEC for video. The way patents are worded, it's tough to prove the non-patent-encumbered nature of just about anything, but that's what it was designed to be, and there are certainly no particular technical issues with its adoption except perhaps that hardware implementations are still not commonplace, even if they are available.
If the industry adopts H.264 widely, we'll all regret it in a few years.
Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Hasn't been sued yet" is different from "patent-free".
Sure, because those are totally orthogonal dimensions. You can get sued for using any codec (and you might even be a juicier target with something like h.264). When you buy an h.264 license, you're only indemnified against the patents the consortium holds, and you're explicitly not covered against anything else that was infringed along the way.
Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. (Score:3, Insightful)
Wouldn't it be more like they were a workaround to the W3C's thing with spending years focusing on standards that nobody intends to implement or use?
Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not myopic. The web video problem has 2 dimensions:
1. The embedding/delivery dimension
2. The codec patent encumbrance problem
HTML5 video fixes the first and gives us a chance to wean the web off its addiction to a certain closed, proprietary plugin. With HTML5 the web can at least be accessible to free software (there are free implementations of H.264, even if there are patent issues).
It doesn't fix the 2nd problem. However it doesn't make it worse, indeed it probably it makes it /easier/ to start tackling this issue. The major HTML5 video browsers *already* support Ogg/Theora - unlike Flash!
I agree software patent issues are indeed a huge problem, but you can't always fix all problems in one go.
Re:H.264 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who cares? Theora isn't competitive. (Score:3, Insightful)
So when the choice is between freedom and a slightly better performing video format, we choose the slightly better performing video format? God forbid that we have to actually make a minor sacrifice for freedom.
Re:Someone explain this to me. (Score:1, Insightful)
1.) People implement theora and other alternatives to H.264.
2.) Before there's too much support, they file a lawsuit against theora (and others) for infringing on the H.264 patents.
3.) They win the lawsuit, collect the money, and everyone gives up and implements H.264.
4.) The "grace" period on H.264 expires and is not renewed - they can now charge whatever they like for using it.
5.) By now, everyone has H.264 support, nobody supports any alternatives, and the cost they choose to charge for H.264 is slightly less then designing and implementing an alternative.
6.) Even if someone did design and implement an alternative, and it managed to survive the patent lawsuits that were drawn out over a decade (see SCO), H.264 is supported in hardware and so will be faster. And since most video on the web is H.264, anyone implementing an alternative will have to implement H.264 as well, and pay full price.
The whole thing falls apart if IE implements Theora or any other free codex, because they'll have a hard time suing everyone who implemented it if that includes themselves. If the lawsuit fails quickly and people implement free alternatives to H.264 just as much as they do H.264, then when the patent bomb goes off everyone will just drop H.264 for the alternatives even if they're slightly inferior.
Re:So, its for the DRM then... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. (Score:5, Insightful)
HTML5 video is a major leap forward.
It's not really. What's the difference between an HTML5 video tag and a simple hyperlink to a video file, which has worked for as long as video files have been around?
The HTML5 video tag requires your browser to be a video player too, instead of just handing off the video to your systems video player. This increases bloat. What do we get in return? We get videos embedded in a web page, instead of in their own window. Why exactly do I want that? If I'm watching the video, I only want to see the video. If for some reason I want to watch a video and browse the web at the same time, I have to create a new browser window anyway. I am having trouble coming up with any use case where embedded browser video would be preferable to an external video player.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. (Score:3, Insightful)
So because Apple and Microsoft refuse to support Ogg/Theora we should refuse to have /any/ video standard, and so ensure web video remains in the hands of proprietary blobs that can only usefully play patent encumbered video, thus ensuring Ogg/Theora can never see any significant use for web video?
That's snatching defeat from the jaws of partial victory, I have to say.
Further, the way I read the blog article, Microsoft most definitely do NOT rule out other codec support. Indeed, there's a suggestion that perhaps additional IE9 HTML5 video codec support is just a matter of installing WMP codecs...
Re:H.264 (Score:5, Insightful)
By the way, I was born in a commie block country where we only had one government provided car model, stuck in the 50's design, the only difference being the color, if you were looking for variety. With a 7 year waiting list. The statistical planning committee of the 5 year communist economic congress has come to the conclusion that only manufacturing "the best", "the most efficient", and "most economical" car model cuts down on economic waste. All they had to do was weigh the pros and cons and vote on what this best thing for everyone is, and then there is no reason to make anything else that's "suboptimal." All knowing, all wise, omnipotent infinite wisdom. With pHd's in Economics from the top universities of Moscow, decorated with 50 golden stars, party achievement awards. Making everybody drive a shitty car stuck in the 1950's. Then the Berlin wall came down, and the Glasnosty and Perestroika were done with. Call it whatever you want, the car sux a fat one. I don't care about your ideology, if the stuff I'm sitting in sux, and don't tell me there isn't anything better, because I see you, Mr. Party official, ride around in a black Mercedes Benz. You don't even believe your own preaching, but you're telling me the car I'm sitting in is what the pHd economic summit committee declared as optimal. You know what, let's change, you ride around in this car, and let me ride around in that non-committee non-mandatory, customer-focus-driven, customer-picked free market produced, through all that "waste" of "unsuccessfull" models that were comparatively suboptimal.
Come to the USA, there are many cars. No waiting lists. Arguably some cars are "better" than others, just like some video codecs are better than others, but there is a "price" you pay for "better" such as losing some freedoms that things like a Theora codec would provide. I abhor any kind of totalitarian centralized control. I love the jungle, the variety.
Vorbis failed, and so will Theora (Score:1, Insightful)
Don't bother mentioning a few games which use Vorbis, I'm talking general public here. People used MP3 ten years ago and now they're using AAC.
People already have H.264 tools and hardware in their hands, TODAY. Pushing for Theora is pointless.
MPEG-LA will ask for fees from everybody around the planet? For what? Microsoft and Apple both pay the license fees, it's included in the OS price.
Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. (Score:1, Insightful)
What's the difference between an HTML image tag and a simple hyperlink to an image file, which has worked for as long as image files have been around?
The HTML image tag requires your browser to be an image viewer too, instead of just handing off the image to your systems image viewer. This increases bloat. What do we get in return? We get images embedded in a web page, instead of in their own window. Why exactly do I want that? If I'm watching the image, I only want to see the image. If for some reason I want to watch an image and browse the web at the same time, I have to create a new browser window anyway. I am having trouble coming up with any use case where embedded browser image would be preferable to an external image viewer.
Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. (Score:3, Insightful)
HTML5 and WHATWG were a workaround to the W3C standards process because certain powerful interests didn't want to support the strictness of XHTML2.
Now that WHATWG's efforts have been accepted by W3C and the superior standard of XHTML2 has been shelved, what can we do to try and make the web work properly?
Sorry, but having floundered through a DECADE of XML and it's Bazillion offspring HTML5 was crying to be made.
Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. (Score:5, Insightful)
If it were true that only the manufacturer had a license, you wouldn't have the right to create an H264 video at all. In theory every use of the patent; both manufacturing and actual video creation; requires an explicit license from the patent owner. In practice, normally, the manufacturer gets a license which covers all possible use of the equipment and covers you too.
However; at the present moment the MPEG-LA isn't really making much money out of H264. They are just growing the market. So they are giving out very cheap and very limited licenses for now and planning for worse later [streamingl...center.com].
Think of this as being like GIF, where Unysis let the format become popular and then later started charging royalties. Except this time around, you don't get the chance to claim you didn't know about the patents because you've already accepted their free time limited license offer.
Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but, lets face it - Apple and Microsoft have a shared vested interest in promoting H.264 and detracting Ogg/Theora - Apple has a patent in the H.264 pool (and a pretty major one), and Microsoft has 30 US patents alone in that pool (and many non-US patents, as well - reference [mpegla.com]). Steve Jobs has even stated that he intends to create a group to go after Ogg/Theora for patent violations, saying anything to do with video is patented, and has been one of the biggest Ogg/Theora opponents from the beginning.
Apple and Microsoft don't care about free and open standards in web browsers because it doesn't profit them - in fact, I imagine they'd like to cram as many proprietary patents in as possible so they can charge for tools to create them. With H.264 patented for at least the next 20 years, there is a lot of money to be had.
Re:H.264 (Score:1, Insightful)
Easy. With the way patents work, each additional codec adds risk of patent infringement. Even if you think the risk is low, it's not zero, and given a sufficient downside (e.g. a court injuction to stop selling IE is a realistic possible result of a patent problem, which would lead to product recalls and replacement that have a significant non-zero cost), it's worth considering.
If you need a codec, it's clearly safer to pick only one.
Yes, software patents suck hugely.
Anon because I program for clients, most of whom love patents.
Re:Define "better". (Score:2, Insightful)
Stop spreading FUD, you have no clue what you're talking about as the h264 license doesn't do anything like what you describe.
Theora is arguable better/worse, and its an argument that is clearly not clear. There are no known patents and they've went out of their way to try and not be subject to any, thats good, but it doesn't change the fact that their still may be patents that effect it.
You have no proof of either one of your claims. The first (performance) is a highly contested debug and the second is for all practical purposes impossible to prove.
There is a lot of uncertainty and doubt involved ... unfortunately you're too blind to see where its at.
Re:Is there a better, open, alternative? (Score:3, Insightful)
And what, pray tell, have you seen of Theora?
Huh? That isn't even about Theora. You said it yourself, it's about Ogg, the container, and why it may or may not suck.
Theora is a video codec, and is best compared to MPEG-2 in terms of performance. Compared to H.264, it's obsolete, and that would be the performance limit the OP was referring to. The simple fact is, Theora can't approach H.264 in terms of quality for low-bitrate applications, and guess what? Low-bitrate is the name of the game when it comes to internet video streaming.
Re:HTML5 will be a screw job. (Score:3, Insightful)
I am baffled at how anyone can think that finally having an open delivery system, that can work with a range of formats, is *worse* than a proprietary system that only supports encumbered codecs (H.263+/VP3, VP6, H.264, MPEG-4p2), at least OOB and accelerated.
Because as it stands today if a user/company wants to use a browser under, say, Linux, today, they won't get sued. They can install the shitty Flash plugin which the majority of web video today uses and they'll be safe. No one will bother them for that. Yes, it's proprietary, but there are few royalties involved.
Under the new proposal, if the majority of web content moves to H.264, where does that leave the web content makers and the software writers? Steve Jobs has already hinted of potential impending lawsuits in this direction. If H.264 is patent-encumbered and lawsuits break out, it will have a far more negative effect than the current status quo does. Plus, a patent-encumbered codec cannot be Free Software, so I don't really see it as being a great leap forward.
Yes, you're right, point number 1 (in your earlier post) is definitely a step forward. However, if it's paired with codec that is two steps back, I have a hard time getting excited. And until very recently I was -very- excited about the possibility of HTML5 killing video-over-flash, something I've desired for a long time.
Re:H.264 (Score:1, Insightful)
It comes down to inconsistency of support and performance across devices and platforms. I think the war is against the little broken puzzle piece icon.