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.'"
Kettle, meet pot, pot, meet kettle (Score:5, Insightful)
Kettle, meet pot, pot, meet kettle - you are both black.
Hey Microsoft (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft,
Nobody but people who spend to much time with the business world or tech world really give a damn if you're in a tiff with google. Just do whats best for the consumer: support both.
Frankly, you're in no position to talk badly about a company forcing new things on the rest of the world.
Re:Hey Microsoft (Score:2, Insightful)
That advice would be better directed at Google, since they are the ones dropping support for H.264.
Re:competition (Score:2, Insightful)
IE isn't pushing any specific format. IE9 will support h.264 out of the box but will also play other formats if codecs are installed. IE9 will support WebM just fine. It's not like a browser has to pick a format and that's it; Chrome can perfectly well include support for WebM out of the box as well as h.264, as is the situation today. Or they could remove built-in h.264 and support installed codecs. The problem is that you have entities that are deciding to snub platform-provided methods for playing media in favor of political posturing in their own attempt to "fix the web". In the end we're going to end up with fragmentation and it is the end user who will lose.
FF/Chrome/Opera vs IE/Safari (Score:4, Insightful)
We have Firefox, Chrome and Opera which decide that it's a good idea to avoid a format which is so patent encumbered that you've to pay licences to program a player, to program an encoder, to stream a video and to create a commercial video using that format (try to guess what it'd be like if authors had to pay Microsoft a licence to use the.doc format when they write their novel).
And on the other side, Apple (Safari) which own part of the licences and Microsoft who decided to pay... But neither are streaming anything (unlike Google via Youtube) and both have plenty of money available.
I don't see the problem with Google removing H.264 support from his browser... It's not like if he was the only one who don't support that format nor like if he had a major market choice...
What could have been wrong would be if Google suddently moved Youtube to WebM-only without Flash or H264 fallback AND was the only one to support that format... But the format is open and free...
Just a bad arguments.... (Score:5, Insightful)
English doesn't have license fees, making it unusable for everybody that doesn't want to pay. If it had, I guess Esperanto or Klingon would suddenly seem like a better choice.
This isn't evil. (Score:4, Insightful)
Google is pushing a free and open standard that they released at an initial loss!? What bastards! We can't let them get away with this travesty and have their name associated with everything good about to come from the internet!
Forcing new languages ? (Score:5, Insightful)
an attempt to force a new language on the entire world.
You mean, like,
Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft: A warning from history (Score:5, Insightful)
H.264 High Profile is undoubtedly more efficient them WebM. WebM quality should have an upper bound of about the same as H.264 Main Profile.
I think in that Mozilla, Google, and Opera are right on this one. This is about openness and innovation. H.264 stifles innovation, while non-patented codecs allow greater innovation.
Today, H.264 seems to make sense, but limits the freedom of people to build software, hardware, and services based around web video.
The lesson of the internet is that libre and gratis standards combined with connectivity help foster growth and innovation like nothing else we've ever created.
I support dropping H.264, at least until all browsers support a freely available codec. Free standards should be mandatory, and costly ones optional.
Unfortunately, the only way to help move some players to free standards is to refuse to support the paid ones.
I'd rather have the option of using both, but value the innovation of having free standards everywhere over that option as a short term tactical move.. That's exactly what Google, Firefox, and Opera are doing.
Re:66% + 25% (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Kettle, meet pot, pot, meet kettle (Score:2, Insightful)
And when its the only video standard used think of all the royalties they'll charge. Its only free for now while there is competition.
Re:Kettle, meet pot, pot, meet kettle (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of big media and a whole bunch of tech companies with ties to big media backs H264, sure. But then they can afford to fork over the license fees involved as they get payed pr "unit" sold, and can recoup it from there.
Google, Mozilla and the rest give their browsers away. This means that any license fees will end up being a running expense. And with the download rates they get on their browsers, that is a whole lot of red ink.
H264 is the last in the line that started with Edison's phonograph, a mental world where there are a few big broadcasters and millions of passive "consumers". Not so with the net, as anyone that can hook a computer to the net is a potential broadcaster! And trying to get a "pr use" license out of those, especially if the pricing is in the "big broadcaster expensive" range, is just not going to happen. Until the MPEG-LA steps up and states that the H264 will be licensed for free (price and use) for as long as the patents apply, this will continue to be a issue.
This is the equivalent of the catholic church having a patent on latin, and attempting to leverage a use fee from anyone writing something in that language.
Re:Microsoft: A warning from history (Score:4, Insightful)
A 400MHz G4... Let's see... That's something like my G4 Cube, which was release in 2000.
Yeah. Apple's restrictions are all that's keeping you from running a modern browser and OS on a ten year old machine. I seriously suggest you try running Chrome 9, Firefox 4 or IE9 under Win7 or Ubuntu 10.04 a P2-400 with 256 to 512MB RAM. While you're at it, try to play back an HTML5 video streamed from the web.. Let us know how it goes.
Apple is just codifying what is, for intents and purposes, a functional limitation. If I were them, I wouldn't waste resources trying to support ten-year old hardware, either. It's nice that, eg, you can run an XFCE-based desktop under Linux on that kind of hardware and perform basic tasks, but you're still up against the "Try and run a modern browser and play back H.264 or WebM video" restriction.
Re:competition (Score:4, Insightful)
So it's not enough for you that one codec is definitely encumbered with patents and that the owner of these patents is highly litigious, while the owner of the other codec has placed all patents they hold relevant to the codec explicitly in the public domain. You demand that the latter group also provide legal protection for you?
Do you get legal protection against patents for all the software you use?
It's incorrect to say that WebM is equally dangerous to use from a patent litigation point of view. Is it 100% risk free? No. But what non-trivial piece of software is, when a static image file format has resulted in royalties being collected under threat of litigation?
a little bit biased? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Kettle, meet pot, pot, meet kettle (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, I don't know about that. I would rather just say Microsoft, "Pot, go f--- yourself."
I keep hearing about how "evil" Google is becoming, but supporting open standards to the detriment of patent-ridden corporate rubbish is not really remotely evil. No sir, "evil" would be buying all their competitors to cement their vendor lock-in, and boosting proprietary technology that furthers only their interests, which are attempts to squeeze as much money out of consumers as possible. Google is furthering its own goals while benefiting consumers at the expense of bloated corporations and patent trolls who were salivating over squeezing more money out of everyone. As far as business models go, Google seems to have more of a symbiotic relationship with consumers, whereas Microsoft is just a crippling parasite.