Microsoft Slams Google Over HTML5 Video Decision 453
jbrodkin writes "Microsoft is accusing Google of some heavy-handed tactics in the battle over HTML5 video standards. In an attempt at humor, a clearly peeved Microsoft official wrote 'An Open Letter from the President of the United States of Google,' which likens Google's adoption of WebM instead of H.264 to an attempt to force a new language on the entire world. Internet Explorer 9, of course, supports the H.264 codec, while Google and Mozilla are backing WebM. The hyperlinks in Microsoft's blog post lead readers to data indicating that two-thirds of Web videos are using H.264, with about another 25% using Flash VP6. However, the data, from Encoding.com, was released before the launch of WebM last May. One pundit predicts the battle will lead to yet another 'years-long standards format war.'"
66% + 25% (Score:5, Informative)
The hyperlinks in Microsoft's blog post lead readers to data indicating that two-thirds of Web videos are using H.264, with about another 25% using Flash VP6
yes, but once Google updates Youtube to only use WebM, I guess that'll show 91% of all online video to be in WebM format.
I wonder what Microsoft will say then?
Actually pretty funny (Score:4, Informative)
Sure, I disagree with Microsoft's stance, but I will concede that they made a very humorous point.
Re:Microsoft: A warning from history (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Well of course.. (Score:5, Informative)
Chrome, Firefox, and Safari all reject H264
Chrome and Firefox reject H.264. Safari only supports H.264. IE9 supports whatever you have codecs installed for, which is H.264 by default but can be WebM / Theora / whatever.
Re:competition (Score:5, Informative)
BESIDES the licensing fees will disappear very soon. MPEG1/2/JPEG are already public domain if I recall correctly, and MPEG4/H264 will soon be an open standard too
MPEG1? Check.
MPEG2? *bzzzzzzzzt* 2023.
JPEG? Yep, was never patented to begin with.
H.264 soon? Well, if 2027 is soon.
And you didn't mention MP3, but that is 2012/2017 depending if you think the submarine patents are valid or not.
Re:Kettle, meet pot, pot, meet kettle (Score:4, Informative)
Re:66% + 25% (Score:5, Informative)
You are both wrong. The most resource-intensive parts of a video codecs are handled by DSP's that are very specific to the codecs they support. While some parts of WebM will translate to current hardware just fine, some parts of the standard have been found not to translate to it at all. Just read this to educate yourself on the subject before assuming hardware WebM support will be a matter of a simple firmware update:
http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377 [multimedia.cx]
What format war? End users will happily play all. (Score:4, Informative)
I don't see the "format war" potential here.
Format wars were VHS vs Video2000 vs Betamax. BluRay vs HD-DVD. And the losers were primarily the manufacturers that bet on the wrong tech, and the other manufacturers that could barely sell anything before the format was settled on. After all users had to shell out real money in serious amounts to buy one, and even more if they wanted to be compatible with the others. The space taken by an unsightly pile of equipment notwithstanding.
Now H.264 is effectively free for end users. I know there are license fees and whatnot but no end user has ever seen a bill for an H.264 player as far as I am aware. In other words: if it's not already included in your OS, you will be able to download it somewhere, and such an installation is usually very very easy. And has to be done only once. Problem solved.
WebM same story. But without the license fees.
And before anyone starts to complain about "installing so many plug-ins", I'd say many FF users chooses FF for the many plug-ins available. It's just that they're called "add-ons" in newspeak.
So it may be a format war, but for most of the end users there is no difference. Video on the web will just play. Be it in Flash, H.264, WebM, or whatever comes next.