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.'"
Re:competition (Score:5, Interesting)
Good for you! Can you please pay the Licensing fees then for everyone?
I am certian that if you give Google a few Million they will see it your way.
Re:competition (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't get it. Video decoding hardware is very specific in what parts of what codecs it supports, and it can't be upgraded through software. The x264 devs already determined that WebM contains algorithms that don't translate well to efficient hardware, and that it will be a huge resource hog compared to current h264 solutions, until dedicated WebM hardware is released to the market.
As for the whole licensing discussion: I think everyone should pull their head out of their asses and stop spreading the H264 licensing and royalty FUD. The H264 patent pool serves only a single purpose, which is licensing H264 for use in commercial products and services. The terms are very clear, only if you make more than x amount of money (somewhere in the neighbourhood of a few hundred thousand dollars) you have to pay a very reasonable royalty fee as a compensation for using the work done by the MPEG group and ITU. I don't see what's wrong with that.
The only arguments against H264 that people can come up with are irrational, and hypothetical, and none of them make any sense at all. What if MPEG-LA reverses their decision and asks everyone to pay up for watchin youtube? What if MPEG-LA challenges open-source codecs in court to crush them? What if the lock the specifications and extort everyone hosting an H264 to pay up? None of these make sense unless you think MPEG-LA are codec fascists who are only out to screw everyone, instead of just trying to make money off a very advanced piece of technology that is widely regarded as the best you can get for video coding.
Does the fact that x264 negotiated a licensin scheme with MPEG-LA for 100% legal distribution of x264 for commerical purposes make any sens if they want to extort non-profit use? MPEG-LA is effectively taking x264 licensees now, or in other words: they make money off the commercial use of an open-source codec that's freely available for non-profit use.
Re:competition (Score:4, Interesting)
I think this bad analogy pretty clearly illustrates what the unwitting proprietary stooges don't understand. Refusal by software makers to pay licensing fees or agree to other terms in order to get permission to implement something, is equivalent to you saying, "Since people have to pay the $60 fee to do business with a single source, requiring the people to watch SyFy in order to get tax instructions isn't appropriate."
The problem isn't that you're barred from SyFy. The problem is that neutral entities shouldn't be making you do business with SyFy instead of letting you choose who to do business with, from all the choices that arise in a free market. A "standard" with licensing dependencies is like a government endorsing -- no wait, requiring -- a particular company.
You are allowed to implement WebM. You're allowed to implement Theora. You have to get on your knees and beg permission (and pay) to implement H.264. That (not just the money itself) is what makes H.264 inappropriate.
Think about all the non-proprietary stuff that browsers do, and what it would have been like if people hadn't been allowed to do all that stuff back in the 1990s. Now you want this one little part of the browser, to have a stranglehold? What's so special about video that we put up new barriers that we're used to not having, pretty much everywhere else?
Re:Kettle, meet pot, pot, meet kettle (Score:5, Interesting)
No, the insanity here is that Google and Mozilla refuse to use the codecs installed in the operating system that you've already paid royalties for (if they require royalties to be paid) and that automatically take advantage of hardware acceleration and any other features the OS offers for media playback.
What Google (and Mozilla) _should_ do if they want to play nice and not just hurt their competitors is to bundle a DirectShow/Quicktime codec for WebM in their Windows/Mac version of their browser. This would also enable all other applications on the OS to play WebM so it's a win-win.