HTML5 and Web Video: Questions for the Industry from the Community

Article
02/02/2011

A Web without video would be a dull Web and consumers, developers and businesses want video on the Web to just work. As an industry we know this and have, until recently, been on a path to make this a reality with HTML5 by integrating video into Web pages more natively using H.264. There is more detail and discussion below but I want to be unambiguous on some key points:

IE9 will support H.264. Microsoft has released an add-on for Firefox on Windows to support H.264 and today we are releasing a plug-in for Google Chrome on Windows to provide support for H.264.
We will provide support for IE9 users who install third-party WebM video support on Windows and they will be able to play WebM video in IE9.
Many parties have raised legitimate questions about liability, risks, and support for WebM and the proponents of WebM should answer them.

For context, Google recently stated (and then clarified) that their Chrome Web browser would drop support for the H.264 video format in favor of exclusively supporting Google’s new WebM format. There are many thoughtful articles questioning their decision, for example Google's dropping H.264 from Chrome a step backward for openness and The backlash over Google's HTML5 video bet and By dropping H.264, is Google avoiding a trap or walking into one?.

Setting aside the speculation about the reasons and objectives, this announcement has created instability and uncertainty around video on the Web. To get back on track, technical enthusiasts, developers, businesses, and consumers need consistent and sustainable answers to many questions about WebM. These groups also deserve to be part of an open discussion.

Below, we set out the main questions we’ve heard as part of the public conversation with many individuals and groups across the community and industry over the last few weeks and months. Broadly, the questions cover three areas:

Who bears the liability and risk for consumers, businesses, and developers until the legal system resolves the intellectual property issues;
When and how does Google make room for the Open Web Standards community to engage genuinely;
What isthe plan for restoring consistency across devices, Web services, and the PC .

We’ve been clear from the first public demonstration of IE9 that the community deserves a reliable platform for delivering video as part of the modern Web. The goal of this post is to raise the visibility of some of the legitimate questions that the community needs answered from WebM proponents in order for a new technology to become part of the Web standards we all rely on. The climate around intellectual property issues in general and video formats in particular is often highly charged. Anyone suspicious of Microsoft introducing “uncertainty, fear, or doubt” might examine the historical evidence of intellectual property issues around standards and media formats, some of which is covered below. That evidence should leave little doubt that what is needed is a more open dialog about these issues. Our public work on Internet Explorer has made clear our focus on providing the best implementation and validation of established Web standards, helping to move the Web platform forward, and providing the safest and most trustworthy browser for consumers who use Windows.

While this blog is focused on Internet Explorer, we think it is a good forum for a broader conversation about the browsers and technology that the community expects to all work well together. As part of the ongoing transparency in developing IE9, we’re using this forum to put forward questions for the broad community.

Microsoft’s Point of View and Plan for IE9

As context for the questions below, here’s a re-cap of Microsoft’s point of view and plan for IE9.

IE9 will play HTML5 video in the H.264 format. Why H.264? It is a high-quality and widely-used video format that serves the Web very well today. We describe many of those reasons in blog posts here, here, and here.
Any browser running on Windows can play H.264 video via the built-in Windows APIs that support the format. Our point of view here is that Windows customers should be able to play mainstream video on the Web. We’ve provided Windows 7 customers who choose to run Mozilla Firefox an add-on to enable playing H.264 video on Web pages with the HTML5 video tag. Today we’re making available a similar plug-in for Google Chrome.
IE9 users who install third-party WebM video support on Windows will be able to play WebM video in IE. We chose this path (supporting one additional video format that the user has installed on her machine) because we recognize that other video formats exist and we wanted to give customers a convenient way to view video in those other formats without specifying a particular one. With this approach, we provide a more stable platform overall given the many documented risks with arbitrarily downloaded video codecs including their use as vectors for malware and phishing.

Our point of view is totally clear. Our support for H.264 results from our views about a robust Web and video ecosystem that provides a rich level of functionality, is the product of an open standards process like the W3C’s HTML5 specification, and has been free from legal attacks. Microsoft is agnostic and impartial about the actual underlying video format for HTML5 video as long as this freedom continues.

Our commitment to play WebM videos in IE9 for users who have installed WebM demonstrates our approach. We have worked closely with Google to help them deliver a WebM implementation on Windows and Google engineers are on the Microsoft campus this week; we appreciate their positive feedback to date around this work.

Industry Questions

We want to make sure that what becomes a standard can stay a standard and that the standard serves the industry and customers well. An open dialog about the issues that come from new and unproven technology is an important part of how the Web works.

Let’s start with who bears the liability and risk for intellectual property?

Looking at video format support as a vote on who is for or against an open and free Internet is tempting but also naïve. Regardless of the debate on the interplay between patents and video formats for the Web, there is absolute certainty that some parties believe they hold valid and unique inventions (patents) and they will assert those rights if they think they are being infringed. Historically, providing new audio-video-image formats that are entirely free from infringement has been a lengthy and challenging process. Even when we have set out to do this ourselves, we have ultimately ended up being challenged. The targets of lawsuits around the JPEG image format, for example, included a shoe seller, an NFL franchise, and a company best known for its cheese. The real-world risks here apply broadly to many, many companies and agents. Wishing these risks away doesn’t work.

Offers of “free” or “royalty-free” source code and strong assertions that the technology is “not patent encumbered” don’t help when a patent holder files a complaint that your video, your site, or your product infringes on her intellectual property. The only true arbiter of infringement, once it’s asserted, is a court of law. Asserting openness is not a legal defense. Whether one supports open technology or not, there are practical liability issues today that need to be examined. These issues motivate different potential approaches to risk protection. One path is indemnification. For example, will Google indemnify Mozilla, a PC OEM, a school, a Web site, a chip manufacturer, a device company, or an individual for using WebM? Will they indemnify Apple? Microsoft? Will they indemnify any or all of these parties worldwide? If Google were truly confident that the technology does not infringe and is not encumbered by patents whatsoever, wouldn’t this indemnification be easy? It’s one way to move away from conversations about unknown and unbounded risk to a rational conversation about costs and liability. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the notion of software patents, the risk remains and the standard business practice of one party indemnifying another is well-understood. Or, does Google instead plan to protect WebM participants from risk by creating a patent pool containing the third-party intellectual property in WebM and making a license available? That is another way in which risks like this have been addressed in the past. What would the terms of that license be? Or, does Google plan to work with an existing patent pool to help provide Web developers get certainty quickly, as is already the case with H.264? These are difficult questions for sure, but they deserve answers if the Web community is to move from a well-established and successful video format for which the intellectual property landscape is more certain. We think the community is looking for meaningful answers to this risk question.

The risk question is a legitimate business concern. There are hundreds if not thousands of patents worldwide that read on video formats and codec technologies. Our experience with trying to release WMV for free and open use, and the subsequent claims against Microsoft, support this history as do the cases against JPEG, GIF, and other formats. By way of comparison, Microsoft provides and has even expanded the indemnification provided to end-users of Windows. Looking at the notes from a recent “WebM Summit” (here, slide 12), Google says that there are “No known royalty requirements.” That’s quite different from no royalty requirements, and the former might be a more accurate description of the IP situation.

These questions have many potential follow-ups. For example, Google’s blog posts have indicated a strong desire to use open formats for the video tag; will this pattern apply to plugins in general? Will this apply to future HTML5 developments?

Ultimately, Microsoft remains agnostic in terms of HTML5 video as long as there is clarity on the intellectual property issues. To make it clear that we are fully willing to participate in a resolution of these issues, Microsoft is willing to commit that we will never assert any patents on VP8 if Google will make a commitment to indemnify us and all other developers and customers who use VP8 in the future. We would only ask that we be able to use those patent rights if we are sued first by somebody else. If Google would prefer a patent pool approach, then we would also agree to join a patent pool for VP8 on reasonable licensing terms so long as Google joins the pool and is able to include all other major providers of playback software and devices. The entire industry benefits from a significant investment in an ecosystem around a format well insulated from legal issues. As JPEG taught the industry, profitable companies merely wishing IP issues away does not make those issues go away.

Another important question is when and how does Google make room for the Open Web Standards community to engage genuinely?

The WebM specification is not yet an open Web standard by any common definition. Many others (for example, Opera’s blog) have pointed out that this video technology “is not an open standard” but is “actually a good candidate for being turned into a proper open Web standard.”

Google wrote that they “believe the Web will suffer if there isn't a truly open… community developed alternative.” That’s different from their WebM submission to the Internet Engineering Task Force (here), which says the WebM specification is not binding, only Google’s code is: “If there are any conflicts between this document and the reference source code, the reference source code should be considered correct. The bitstream is defined by the reference source code and not this document.” Reverse engineering a standard from sample source code is a poor practice.

The Internet Engineering Task Force’s Web site warns people about referring to submissions like the WebM one as a standard: “some people refer to [these] as ‘standards’ even though the RFCs are not standards, usually to fool the gullible public about something that the person is selling or supporting.”

What are Google’s plans for turning WebM into a genuinely open standard, one that is based on consensus like the rest of W3C’s HTML5 effort? Would Google fully support such an effort? Even the WebM project’s domain is controlled by Google. Google chose to release WebM under the Creative Commons license which would theoretically allow a standards body to use the specification as a basis for a truly open standard. Would Google agree to adopt the specification and changes that would emerge from an open process in a timely and robust manner? What’s the plan and why isn't Google taking the lead?

Until these questions have direct answers, how can the community’s feedback on WebM have an impact? Separating the current implementations from the specification and test suites so that independent implementations are free to emerge from the community and compete and improve is a crucial step that the W3C has taken with HTML5. When will Google enable that to happen for WebM? The community benefits from a robust specification and validation process. The alternative is relying on code re-use and guesses to flesh out an ambiguous and non-binding specification.

In “HTML5, Site-Ready and Experimental,” we described the negative consequences of an unfinished technology (WebSockets) appearing prematurely in a browser. What steps is Google taking to prevent the same failures (e.g., sites that stop working as browsers change, and consumers put at security risk because of premature implementations) from happening here?

Will Google demonstrate their genuine commitment to the open standards process and their openness to community feedback, or will they give some in the community more reason to be cynical?

Lastly, what is the plan for restoring consistency across devices, Web services, and the PC?

Concerns for openness were key reasons given for removing H.264 support from Chrome. Android currently supports H.264 and there are no announced plans to drop it. Will Google drop H.264 support from Android? Is Google committed that YouTube (and other Google video services) will continue to work with devices that lack support for WebM? The lack of consistency across devices, Web services, and the PC is a challenge for the community.

What are the expectations of the hardware community relative to this decision? One of the most recent positive developments around HTML5 has been the ability to take advantage of hardware acceleration, which will not be available in a timely manner if there is a fragmentation in video codec and format support, as hardware development and replacement cycles are significantly longer than software cycles.

Answers Will Help the Community Move Forward

Many people in the community want to hear answers before there’s any more action or commitment. Developers want confidence that what they write will work for consumers. Consumers and businesses want confidence that video on the Web will continue work – and that they will not face legal risk for using it. Google’s decision to drop support for H.264 from its browser seems to undermine these goals.

The questions in this blog post are a start to the conversation we need across the community and industry. It’s a sincere effort to reflect what we’ve heard in many conversations over the past weeks and months about the concerns of developers and businesses. We are sure there are more questions and encourage those commenting on this post to use the forum to air their questions and concerns. If this post has omitted important details or misunderstood the state of efforts of any party, then by all means please correct us. This is a complex topic as evidenced by the broad range of coverage and analysis and so there are many points of view.

Web video is still, in many ways, in its infancy. Working through these questions is part of moving the Web forward. The Web is a product of consensus and open dialog. This post is meant to be part of the dialog.

—Dean Hachamovitch, Corporate Vice President, Internet Explorer

Dean’s comment of 6:33 AM:

"Microsoft pays into MPEG-LA about twice as much as it receives back for rights to H.264." (See Follow Up on HTML5 Video in IE9.)

—Ed.

Comments

Anonymous
February 01, 2011
I want my indemnification!
Anonymous
February 01, 2011
Funny I haven't read the word 'indemnification' anywhere from Google. Any tried to google 'indemnify and webm'?
Anonymous
February 01, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 01, 2011
I think the fact that h.264 is available from Microsoft on Windows 7 only highlights the problem of licensing. The plug-ins are a good offering, but obviously system level codecs are missing from older versions of Windows, where Microsoft presumably would incur more licensing costs if it were to give out a system codec for older xp/vista/etc as a free download. Doesn't that show itself to be the primary problem here? Or perhaps I'm in the wrong, and licensing terms don't apply to decoders. Hard to keep track with what the MPEGLA say.
Anonymous
February 01, 2011
"Microsoft pays into MPEG-LA about twice as much as it receives back for rights to H.264." (blogs.msdn.com/.../follow-up-on-html5-video-in-ie9.aspx)
Anonymous
February 01, 2011
Another problem of WebM from what I am hearing that there isn't hardware rendering support for graphic cards yet since it is a brand new format. Will the plug in for IE9 be able to be hardware accelerated?
Anonymous
February 01, 2011
I hate to repeat this here but once a post on the IE blog is not the latest post it gets ignored. Can someone from Microsoft please make a statement about shutting down the IE6/IE7/IE8/IE9 images at http://www.spoon.net/ ====================================================================================================== This was THE most useful resource for testing multiple versions of IE and the shutdown really ticked developers off! As a long time web developer of Enterprise Web Applications I've tried all the options out there to try and simplify testing IE and the lack of realistic options is a royal PITA. 1.) Multiple IEs - IE8 breaks the functionality of IE6's textboxes - thus its a NO-GO 2.) IETester - works great until you need to test popup interaction and then it fails - thus a NO-GO 3.) Virtual PC with timebombed images of IE6, IE7, IE8 - works ok, but the 12Gigs of HD space needed is frustrating when each full image of Windows dies 4 times a year, running a full Windows image is slow and you have to beg for updates because the releases are not co-ordinated and announced well at all - thus its a NO-GO 4.) IE Super Preview - Last I checked this did not allow full testing of IE user interaction, JavaScript DOM changes, popups etc. - thus its a NO-GO 5.) Multiple PC's to run multiple versions of windows and IE. With all the hardware, software, and physical space needed - its a NO-GO 6.) Spoon.net IEs - They work, they work just like local native apps once running, and there's no hacking of my real local IE install. - the ONLY problem with these IE's is that Microsoft shut them down Please understand that we (developers) just want something that works. Testing in multiple versions of IE is a pain to begin with and with IE9 on the horizon it is only getting worse. I'm not sure where the issue stands with Spoon, but I would really like a solution worked out fast. Steve
Anonymous
February 01, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 01, 2011
Please remove Steve's comments from the blog. He is an annoying troll that destroys every discussion with his noise.
Anonymous
February 01, 2011
This is the best blog post on this issue so far. Cheers for writing it. Saying something is "open" does not make it so. Saying something is "patent free" does not make it so either. If Google is confident that WebM is free of IP restrictions, then they should provide indemnification to everyone using WebM. In the plainest terms possible Google, put your money where your mouth is.
Anonymous
February 01, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 01, 2011

Formats should never be patented.
until 1 is resolved, the EU and the US should nationalized the MPEG-LA so we can all go forward peacefully. DOWN WITH PATENTS LIKE THIS.

Anonymous
February 01, 2011
The post above is impressive. This is Microsoft being who Microsoft should be.
Anonymous
February 01, 2011

There are already patents around graphics and video. They won't just disappear because you want them to. Instead a patent pool is a reasonable solution. Another solution is having a webformat owner (e.g. Google with WebM) indemnify other parties.
Yes, communism is the answer to the problem. Btw, Google was founded on patents. Look up PageRank on Wikipedia. So don't get fooled by the "open" chant.

Anonymous
February 01, 2011
Let me update my post above:

Software should never be patented
Until 0 is resolverd, .....

Anonymous
February 01, 2011
@Nathan - I don't understand your argument? H.264 was looking like the one format until Google decided to only do WebM. this is an improvement for video creators like me on the web. Now I can just stich with H.
Anonymous
February 01, 2011
Once again, MS, you’ve missed the point. Google is removing native support because they feel that, like many above have mentioned, the legal ramifications that come with using the H.264 codec are an unknown. Building a platform on such services will only cause chaos in the future. Whilst I applaud you conviction to assist users in the playback of content using it, to take the stance that what they are doing is negative is simply irresponsible. Go through the documentation, do the research as to why they made this decision and then stew on it. I know when I first heard the news, I was set aback and pondered why, I now understand that if they want to build a browser that is open to users, compliant friendly, and provides ALL their users with the standards and practices upgrades behind the scene then they need to push forward with decisions like this to ensure that development at such an early stage of the HTML5 video tag is guided in a more open manner that will not impede smaller content providers in the future.
Anonymous
February 01, 2011
Convenient that you linked to the articles that cast the move in a purely negative light. You should be required by law to put a disclosure notice on your post: "WARNING: This company is part of the MPEG-LA patent pool and has a vested interest in undermining competitors"
Anonymous
February 01, 2011

Meni, I agree with you, but a solution needs to be based in the real world. If all patent systems reject software patents (which doesn't look like it's happening) then great. Otherwise, we still need a solution for web video.
So, we need something that works in the real world.

Anonymous
February 01, 2011
@Billy I don't think that is news for anyone who reads this blog. Everyone knows that Microsoft is part of MPEG-LA. The interesting fact is that they pay twice as much as they get in royalties. That will always be the case because they ship the most operating systems.
Anonymous
February 01, 2011
Could you please correct your post and replace all instances of "Windows" with "Windows 7"? You aren't providing IE9, nor a Firefox plugin nor Chrome plugin for all the millions of users that are using Windows XP, so please, correct all your previous sentences because they aren't true. Those users can install Firefox, Opera and Chrome with WebM support, but they won't get H.264 support from you. Thanks.
Anonymous
February 01, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 01, 2011
@Billy "Also, everybody should keep in mind that Microsoft and Apple interfered with the HTML5 standards process to ensure that we couldn't build in a truly free codec as part of the required spec. " Evidence?
Anonymous
February 01, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 01, 2011
@Anto "Evidence" Google it. Or Bing it if you're an MS diehard ;) Plenty of discussions about it out there. Anyone interested in web development who actually follows the standards process saw these things transpire.
Anonymous
February 01, 2011
^^ ditto
Anonymous
February 01, 2011
@Billy - Nice logic. Microsoft wants video to cost money because 1) they don't mind losing money today until some point in the future and 2) they expect not to play a role in other devices like phones and consumer electronics as those categories grow. Yes, I am sure that is the master plan. Thanks for explaining it. Btw, insulting people usually begins where logic ends.
Anonymous
February 01, 2011
^^ ditto
Anonymous
February 01, 2011
Billy, Nathan, your moms are here to pick you up. Time for your piano recital.
Anonymous
February 01, 2011
Google is magical: lists.whatwg.org/.../020620.html (Or, again, you can search the same thing on Bing, since Bing steals results anyway)
Anonymous
February 01, 2011
‘Chrome Web browser would drop support for the H.264 video format in favor of exclusively supporting Google’s new WebM format’ Incorrect, it supports Ogg Theora and WebM. Furthermore, they have said in the future they could extend it to additional open codecs & containers.
Anonymous
February 01, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
@asfjklwef I think you missed the key point. If Google provides indemnification and protection against lawsuits against WebM, Microsoft and other players will fully get behind it. If Google really believes there are no patent issues with WebM, it shouldn't be an issue :)
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
What, no Firefox/Chrome plugin for Mac users?
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
For Mac users, I think anyone can build the plugin at no cost since it's already included with OSX. No need to wait for Appel
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
@jeffy, Really? And ignore the inferiority of WebM? Where are all the tree huggers? Doesn't anyone care that the decoding WebM content vs comparably encoded h.264 increases your carbon footprint, lowers your device battery life and just generally makes you look less cool?
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
@asfjklwef I read the link but what exactly am I supposed to see in the 20 page email rant. Btw, just so you know it is written by Ian who works for Google which is not disclosed, so it's not like it is from an impartial sourrce. If you have a link to an impartial analyst or observer that would be great. :)
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
@unbelievable Unfortunately, there is not one company that controls the patents. It's 50 different ones. So, as much as I want it to happen, don't expect all 50 to drop their patnet
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Sure seems like there's a reading comprehension problem among many commentors, but of course these folks hate Microsoft and won't be bothered to try and actually read anything that doesn't fit into their world view. If Google takes action, Microsoft will back WebM here. The ball is in Google's court, and any speculation about possible profits Microsoft will make off of H.264 are nothing more than FUD being spread by zealots.
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
In a WebM only world, Microsoft will pay just as much to MPEG-LA as they do now (to enable distribution of h264 in Windows 7) but they'll see reduced money coming back from MPEG-LA, likewise if everyones uses h264, they'll see more money from MPEG-LA offsetting their expenditure. Hence, they have an active interest in seeing WebM fail, and h264 succeed.
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
@Simon You forget that graphics cards have support for hardware acceleration for H.264. The IEteam will support WebM once the problems are address that they brought forth.
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
What is the status of indemnification and protection for h.264 users? As far as I could see, it is the case that even if you pay for a h.264 license they don't promise that you will not violate third party patents and they will not protect you against claims from companies which are not a member of the mpeg license group*. So all they really say is "Hey, we think that this is all the license you need. We looked into it and we don't think we are violating any patens without license, but we can't promise and we will not promise support or help if you if it turns out that h.264 violate third party patents. (Which is exactly the same thing Google say about their standard). Or did i miss a memo where the h.264 license group promise to pay for all needed third party patents if needed?
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Ya'll need to add the Chrome H.264 plugin to the Chrome Extensions Gallery so that Chrome users will be able to find and install. As it is right now, the plugin is buried on some site that until now I hadn't heard of, and I'm guessing the even more average user will not know about either.
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
And what about software, devices and platforms that cannot license H.264, due to being free software, or unable to afford licensing costs? In all the endless verbiage that you, Dean Hachamovitch, have produced about web video, you have not, as far as I am aware, answered this question. So I'll ask you to answer it now. As I understand it, the use of H.264 WILL exclude platforms such as Firefox on Linux. The use of WebM MAY do so, depending on the situation with respect to submarine patents, but H.264 DEFINITELY WILL. Is my understanding mistake?Are you unconcerned by this? Until you address this point, I see no reason to believe anything you say.
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Amtiskaw, you're mom is here to pick you up for tuba lessons.
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
"You support H.264 and did the plugins for both Chrome and Mozilla because you want H.264 to succeed so you can monopolize the web to your own expensive patent encumbered format." You've nailed it perfectly!
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
@Ah, kids part 2 I think you mean 'your', not 'you're'. At least us kids understand basic grammar.
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
@ Amtiskaw -- "we kids"
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Microsoft is talking about openness? OMG, IE9 is not OPEN. This is hypocrisy!!!
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
"H264 playback is free only for non-commercial use (whatever it is) of video that is web-distributed and freely accessible." carlodaffara.conecta.it/on-webm-again-freedom-quality-patents
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Grammar police are always annoying, but this is pretty funny. Can you see the irony in "At least us kids understand basic grammar."?
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
@Grammar.. Hey, I said we understand it, I never said we applied it.
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Amtiskaw, please ignore the troll here. Your post was spot-on.
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
I ask you, MS, the same question you ask of Google: "who bears the liability and risk for intellectual property?" -- on the codec you (MS) support -- H.264. Here's an answer: "if you go looking at the uber-powerful MPEG-LA that gives you a license for the essential H264 patents, you will find the following text: Q: Are all AVC essential patents included? A: No assurance is or can be made that the License includes every essential patent. " You can read the full article at: carlodaffara.conecta.it/on-webm-again-freedom-quality-patents (Same article I quoted before.)
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Way to go Microsoft! WebM is a joke and should never have even been released. H264 is so superior quality wise.
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
H.264 can have exactly the same potential concerns, and no one vouched to indemnify it's users.
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Will you be making an npruntime plugin + Opera extension combo to add support for h.264 to Opera? Or, will you be making something like sourcecode.opera.com/gstreamer that supports h.264 on Win32? Will IE9 be able to play Theora videos too if the codec is installed on the system? Or, will you only allow this to work for VP8?
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
thats weird i thought ms removed that codec from windows 7 during beta?
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Congratulations to the IE Team for such a post. A post that asks legitimate question about WebM without completely opposing it or declaring it inferior. Not only did the post pose those questions, but also gave a reason why they are important. Although I would like to see WebM support in IE, I consider this post completely fair for what a company like Microsoft would like to know before getting completely involved in WebM.
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Google assume they have no patent infringements. Microsoft, by the tone of this article, are assuming that they do. Let's see how these different scenarios play out. Scenario 1. There are patents. If there are patents, then the MPEG-LA are already attempting to assemble a pool. If they're successful, then Google can presumably join that pool, with their patents. Without Google, there is no value in a patent pool, because to decode WebM you would certainly need whatever patents Google have. However, Google have been openly using VP8/WebM videos on Youtube for months now, and have not yet been sued. Since the source code is available, and anyone with an interest can analyse it for infringements, why has no action been taken against them so far? Scenario 2. There are no patents (other than those which Google already own). In this case: The patent pool idea sounds more plausible, but why would Google 'pool' their patents with anyone, when they know of no other patents on their format? What benefit is a pact with Microsoft not to be sued over VP8, when Google don't believe Microsoft have any standing to sue them? What happens if Google does indemnify users of vp8 or webm? We've seen in many cases how drawn out court cases over IP rights, patents and copyrights can completely destroy a company's value. That happens, whether or not the patents are valid, or the copyright claims are founded. Microsoft have had nuisance lawsuits levelled against them in the past, so can understand how that works. By indemnifying users, Google has a much larger, more fragile attack surface, which could be used to drain away their money.
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Wow - a bunch of schoolboys hating Microsoft because that's easier than trying to understand the arguments. Aint't Web 2.0 great?
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
I don't very often agree with Microsoft's perceptions but this blog post has made several good points and the author is to be commended. I think Microsoft is taking the correct approach with IE 9. Apple is sitting on the fence, hopefully they'll take the same tack. I'm of the opinion that Google is playing politics with this webM stuff and it will come back to haunt them if/when MPEG-LA decide to sue over WebM and win.
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
I'll be right up front and admit that I have never been a fan of Microsoft or its products, but with this announcement, you have won me over. Google has been quietly resorting to bully tactics in the last few years while maintaining a laughable facade of innocence and altruism. With their recent announcement of dropping H.264 in favor of WebM, the facade has been ripped away, and I appreciate that you have taken a massive step in countering them. I hope you realize how many of us appreciate that.
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
I like your new agenda Microsoft, thanks for not being evil.
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
I am not a fan of Microsoft -- but this post is spot-on, well articulated, and unusually clear and honest. The points raised a valid. Not one of the comments here attacking the post have addressed the questions raised; instead, the posters have resorted to ad-hominem attacks and unsubstantiated claims. This post actually gave me hope that Microsoft can still do something right, and might return to relevance in a positive, important way for the industry and community. Thank you.
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
I'm curious how google moving away from a proprietary video codec (regardless of the fact that it's currently given away for free) is bad for the open web.
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
@mors Quote: "H.264 is patent encumbered and using that format requires paying the MPEG-LA, being Apple and Microsoft two of the top licensors [sic]..." Um, this is completely wrong. Apple has only one patent in the H.264 AVC pool and Microsoft have already said that they pay more out in royalties than they earn from royalites. Check your facts next time.
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
@Luis, @Martin, @ Shmerl You questioned indeminfication as above: Now, I am assuming you can read, but I will point you to the fact that Microsoft has indeminified all Windows users of the codec. Please see the fourth paragraph above under the section, Industry Questions (also see the link provided. There are several official MS documents where this has also been stated). Microsoft is just asking Google to do the same for the codec they support
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
dmsuperman - The issue is, as this article and others have painfully pointed out, that Google has not asserted, guaranteed or taken any steps to state that VP8/WebM is a free codec as they will not indemnify, as the author points out, users of the codec against suit. Basically, Google expects chip manufacturers, mainly ATI/AMD and nVidia, to just put hardware acceleration in now and hope they don't get sued with no assurance or help from Google for their soruce code format, vs. implement H.264 that is very clear in statements of fee and patent encumberance and has a known cost, risk and a very clear specification (complex and deep as heck, but it's a spec, not a source code instance). It would be great to have an open format that isn't patent-encumbered. I just really don't think WebM/VP8 is it, and Google isn't taking any solid action to make it seem otherwise. H.264 state (wikipedia citation): On August 26, 2010 MPEG LA announced that H.264 encoded internet video that is free to end users will never be charged for royalties.[11] All other royalties will remain in place such as the royalties for products that decode and encode H.264 video.[12] The license terms are updated in 5-year blocks.[13] So basically, the browser isn't at risk. The creation software is. This is very similar to what happened with mpeg-3 audio. The players became ubiquitous, and the compressors got the bulk of the license revenue. While free and unencumbered are nice, hardware manufacturers and device manufacturers and distributors are putting real money on the table for all those hardware builds. What's right or desirable also needs to address what is economically sensible, including the risk. I wonder if Google can take the VP8 codec to court to assert before a patent hearing that it does or does not infringe on the grounds that the holders of any patent (let's say MPEG-LA) have not asserted an infringement, but their inacation is causing harm? Also, is there a time limit by which a patent holder needs to bring action when there exists generally "well known" implementation that might reasonably be expected of infringement? Can MPEG-LA wait indefinitely to bring action (or at least until 2028 when the patents are believe to expire according to Wikipedia)?
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Great post. Too bad there are so many trolls.
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Hi, I have a Windows XP machine, which I purchased brand new about 2 months ago. Will IE9 play back h264 on my machine too ? (or Windows means Windows 7 in the article) Cheers
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
How does the IE team have time to make H264 plugins for other browsers, but can't make an official WebM/Theora plugin for IE9. Microsoft is supposed to improve their own browser before improving others'. MathML might also be nice.
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
@AMWJ They aren't making a WebM plugin for IE9 for exactly the same reasons as they aren't supporting it natively in IE9. Why do you think that there would be any difference?
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
"Reverse engineering a standard from sample source code is a poor practice." This is very funny from a Microsoft employee :). (most of the article is just blabla around announcing to catch up with other browsers, and marketing for MPEGLA)
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Eugh, you absolute cretins!
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Dean, I want my indemnification for h.264. Can you point me to that indemnification in the MPEG-LA licensing documentation please? Thanks. (for those of you not following along closely, the reply will be "I cannot because MPEG-LA doesn't indemnify anyone for anything)
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
@wekempf Yes, unfortunately with this "hate MS" attitude, nobody will read the post, and just use this opportunity to accuse MS. There ARE patents in the world. Remember what happened with GIF? I'm sure companies are waiting to get webm as the standard, then they'll assert licensing fees on everybody, and unlike h264 there will not be a single place to pay. More cases: MP3 - all of a sudden Alcatel asserted patents, and asked for license fees Android - Everybody is asking HTC, Motorola, etc pay for patent fees, since Google does not support the platform legally JPEG - Was open and free (I believe still is), but did not stop people from suing WMV - Was supposed to be free (this is also in the post), but due to patent conflict, MS had to make it proprietary ... and so on.
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
i really don’t understand why people creeping about everything what MS does. you are the same guys who were complaining about MS no supporting H.264. And now you guys are complaining about why MS support H.264 just because now Google does not support it. Till few days ago Google was supporting it why you guys didn’t complain about it. Whatever Google does that does not mean its standard. Just appreciate the fact that MS is now standardizing the platform. i am IE9 user and its awesome. Keep it up IE Team
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
@DT: I thought that the reason they did not support WebM/Theora is because there are questions as to how open they are, as this article explained. Microsoft could still create a plugin in HTML5Labs, like they did with WebSockets and IndexedDB, that could be taken down if they are judged as illegal. It would have the same status as any other third party plugin. Still, there are other features, like MathML, that the team could be supporting in their own browser, instead of adding things to others'
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
What scares me is that YOU the END USERS are for WebM. You are not going to hear about any fees you have to pay to use h264 and you are not going to hear about any issues with h264. For you h264 is THE de-facto winner in quality, performance, support, and compression. You are also going to be the ones to suffer if the plague that WebM is will take over. You will have to upgrade your hardware (which played h264 just fine) to achieve support with VP8. I ask you, are you INSANE? Microsoft and Apple will give you h264 with your PC/Smart Phone/Pad You are just all victims of VP8 Cult of Personality. :(
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
@Matthew Potter At first glance, Google's push of WebM seams completely Altruistic, however there are a few issues as discussed in this article. In summary:

WebM was developed in a closed environment by a commercial interest (On2), unlike H.264 which was developed in an open forum by experts.
WebM is controlled by Google, H.264 is a ISO standard, like the kilogram.
WebM source is under a BSD licence,which could be revoked by Google. x264 (the best performing implementation of h.264) is GPL, a licence which can only be revoked if all the authors agree to it. Anyone can write their own h.264 codec.
WebM was only recently made open, Patent Trolls haven't made claims on it's pedigree yet. H.264 has already defended itself from the worse Patent Trolls and the MPEG-LA has defended it successfully.

Anonymous
February 02, 2011
@Dallas "On August 26, 2010 MPEG LA announced that H.264 encoded internet video that is free to end users will never be charged for royalties.[11] All other royalties will remain in place such as the royalties for products that decode and encode H.264 video.[12] [...] So basically, the browser isn't at risk." aeh...the browser is a decoder, and you just wrote yourself that royalties will remain in place for products that decode...
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
> 1) patents ... won't just disappear because you want them to. Actually, if Microsoft and the other software industry players all joined together and told the US congressmen that they don't want software patents anymore, there'd be a good chance they'd die a fast death. Fact is that Microsoft wants software patents, to some degree. And now cries its eyes out here that it can't implement WebM because of patents. @ Microsoft Nice title: "Questions for the Industry from the Community". So, Microsoft is now the "Community" and Google "the industry"? (Or did you mean the VP8 open-source project with "the industry"?) @Dan Woods False claims.

"standards" are not standards, if they are encumbered and can't be used freely.
GPL is not revokable. In fact, to my knowledge, none of the open-source licences are revokable, including BSD.

Anonymous
February 02, 2011
@BenB "Fact is that Microsoft wants software patents, to some degree". Any statement that starts with "fact is" or "honestly" is usually followed by a falsehood. So, what exactly is the evidence that Microsoft wants patents more than Google, Apple, IBM, JNJ or any other major US company? Also, I think you confuse standard vs. propriety, free vs. licensed and open source vs. closed source. These are 3 different & independent dimensions.
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
I'll be the first to admit a long-developed, long-held bias against Microsoft's position on technologies. (still bruised from the "embrace and extend to proprietary" and "standards ignorant, WE define standards" days...) However I've got to say this one is great, very astute and strongly argued, and something that makes a TON of sense, and that I can get behind. It seems nowadays the tech giant with the "agenda", that's based upon biased logic, is Google. Nice job! Here's a question for you, and MPEG-LA though. Couldn't this all be rendered moot if MPEG-LA would just eliminate the licensing requirement (costs), retain patent rights, and provide the indemnification? Then H.264, the better and more widely adopted/integrated technology would instantly "win". I have a hard time believing the MPEG-LA patent pool holders are making much income/profit/benefit from the licensing fees - yet they are risking their standard to be replaced by other tech solutions in the process by holding to the costs for licensing it. Contribute H.264 to the world as a free technology - why can't that be the BEST solution?
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
"What is the plan for restoring consistency across devices, Web services, and the PC." I run Windows XP. What is the plan for bringing IE9 to XP? That would bring consistency across Windows, would it not? It seems like the best way forward for me is to use Firefox 4 on Windows XP. I don't get it, Dean. Why does Mozilla have better support for Windows than Microsoft does?
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
@BenB Standards are standards. They allow interoperability between different implementations. The reason I can safely by 1kg of sugar and know I'm getting 1kg of sugar is because a body of physicists expert in measuring mass got together and standardized units of measurements. The reason I know a webpage viewed in IE will express the same content when viewed in Lynx or Konqueror is because they follow the standard of HTML. Legacy MS Word documents are a closed standard since only MS's implementation is acceptable. XML-based Word Documents are an open standard because anyone can read the spec, and write their own implementation. WebM may have a documented specification, but if Google treat their implementation as the Canonical Version, a third party implementation could never be implemented. GPL can be revoked if all the contributors claiming copyright on code agree to a different licence. It is difficult, but not impossible. BSD-style licenced software can be co-opted and made closed-source, as long as the original material is kept 'free'. This is the reason why so many Companies use BSD licensing rather than GPL. They open the source, but if they excise code from third parties, (and add token code), they can relicence it with a more restrictive licence. While the licence isn't technically revoked, it is practically revoked, especially if new features are added. WebM has lots of room for improvement and with any of these patches to the implementation, Google could close the source back up. Old versions would still be open source, but the new usable versions with the new features would be closed.
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
H.264 has patients that are owned in part by Microsoft, Apple and MPEG LA en.wikipedia.org/.../MPEG-4_AVC In 5 years this may and in my opinion will change to charge a fee, for the codec. This is the most likely reason these 3 orgs are supporting it. Ogg is now considered not of suitable quality and not up to the same standard as H.264 WebM is a new open standard which is comparable in quality, is hardware accelerated (or will be on all platforms), will always be free and work the way the Net was supposed to be. In Tim Berners-Lee words "Freedom of connection with any application to any party is the fundamental social basis of the internet. And now, is the basis of the society built on the internet." on Net neutrality
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Dean Woods: "2) WebM is controlled by Google, H.264 is a ISO standard, like the kilogram." I have not heard that to make scales you need to take care of legal business.
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
I have a hunch that some proponents of H.264 here, would rather use XAML instead of HTML as the web's language. After all it's a standard, and better then HTML, right? Why not CS/MIL instead of JavaScript? Heck why not push GIF? (yes, I know the patents expired, it was just an example) MS and APPLE, if you want really to promote video on the net, which i think you do, put your money on the table, as Google did, and pay whatever it takes to free those STUPID (no offense to all those German engineers) patents.
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
WebM will cost us consumers a whole lot of money.
It is a much less efficient spec. That means it will increace traffic cost for video. Video is more that 80% of all internet traffic. Even a 10% less efficient codec will up the total cost of internettraffic in total by 8% which is likely to cost billions which eventually the consumer will have to pay. Especially the mobile user that has often traffic limits will fund the bill..
It has no hardware accelleration support. My PC is 40%-60% CPU when decoding a HD WebM video compared to less than 10% for a similar sized HD h.264 video which is decoded by a very low end gfx solution and the resulting total power usages of the PC is average about 5W more. Only Youtube serves about 2 billion video's a day and about 700 billion a year. At about 3 minutes average for a video this would contitute about 35 billion hours of video being played and at 5W a total of 175 billion Wh of yearly extra power being consumed by the usage of WebM. That is a massive cost of energy waste by using WebM just for Youtube alone. All payed for by consumers.
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Please do not spread lies. H.264 is not "free from legal attacks". Those who use it have to fear lawsuits if they do not (directly or indirectly) pay money to MPEG LA.
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
"MS and APPLE, if you want really to promote video on the net, which i think you do, put your money on the table, as Google did, and pay whatever it takes to free those STUPID (no offense to all those German engineers) patents." Just wanted to my post: Until MSFT and Apple do that, I have the right to claim, even if not true, that they have an interest to keep the miserable status-quo we're in. It gives them an edge over other open/free OSs and browsers. (Linux, BSD, Firefox, Opera)
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
We have seen in the last few years that patent claims on average take about 2 to 3 years to get filed after some new technolgiy is introduced. This happend with the iPhone and is curenyl happening with Android (and its Dalvik java VM). So WebM patent claims by patentholders on video compression technology are not to be expected before 2012 and likely even the second half of 2012. 2 years is long but it it takes a lot of time to firstly determine infringment (probably you need to hire an independant technology specialist researcher to investigate) then try to negociate with the infringing party (which can take a long time) and if that failes hire a legal team and prepare a trail on the patentinfringment (a sloid preparation if you want to take on a party like google).
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
H264 might be violating patents not covered by the MPEG LA patent pool, because nobody knows of those up to now. You say H264 violates no patents, all patents it uses are part of the MPEG LA patent pool... yeah, that is exactly the same Google says about VP8, it violates no patent. Now you ask Google, can they guarantee that it violates no patents and who is liable if it ever does? Okay, same question to you: Can you guarantee that H264 violates no existing patent in the world and who is liable if it ever does? By this bull.... argumentation, we must drop all video standards and go back to animated GIFs, since you cannot even guarantee that VC-1 (WMV) does not violate any "subway patents" that still haven't been found as of today.
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
@meni Have you ever heard of certified scales? A standards body has to guarantee that the set of scales you manufacture are correctly calibrated. You would have to pay a fee for their calibration service and your users would have to get the scales calibrated regularly if they want to be used for commercial purposes. Unix-like systems need to be Posix compliant. Commercial Linux distributions pay to be certified. In the physical world, manufacturers pay millions of dollars in patent fees to create tangible products. In the artistic world, licensing fee are paid for music samples that are still in copyright. Why can software developers be renumerated for their copyrighted algorithms?
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
In the past months, the blog was always about supporting the same code for all browsers and platform. How about supporting the same codec? How about using the one that doesn't cost a thing and is open sourced? Oh, sorry, I forgot, this is Microsoft.
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
@Mecki The sheer volume of the MPEG-LA patent pool, and the legal fees paid by licence fees guarantees that anyone who tries to take on H.264 for patent violation will be countersued into bankruptcy. Even if an Evil Patent Troll sues some one posting family videos in H.264 (who has a valid licence from MPEG-LA), MPEG-LA will defend the licence-holder with their full legal might. Google have not stated that they will protect someone posting family videos in WebM. The FSF doesn't have the funds to protect someone posting video in Theora. Until Software Patents are dead, H.264 is the only safe choice. After software patents are killed (killing software royalties in the process and rendering the MPEG-LA obsolete), H.264 is the only sane choice.
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
@mecki Actually Microsoft is already guaranteeing you that by suppling the h.264 code to everyone. That makes them liable to any patentclaims of patents outside the mpeg-la patent pool. Also relvant is that most parties important to video compression contributed to the ISO//IEC MPEG4 standard and if any of those partiescome up with a patent now they cannot enforce it on h.264. Qualcomm who tried to sue on h.264 with a patent was rejected in court for no having made their patent known during the h.264 standardization proces. As VP8 was not created trough a combined formal standardization proces this does not apply to VP8, the video codec in WebM, so anybody can freely use their patent against VP8.
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
There is one aspect of WebM I expect a major user backlash on (and that Microsoft perhaps should have let Google walk into): WebM is much less efficient and much less supported in current hardware than H264 (this is something everybody can verify for themselves). This will mean that a lot of systems out there (Laptops, Pads, Phones, Media Players) will start to struggle with playing video that was playing well before. And/or use more battery while at it. Also eating up more bandwith, especially critical for mobile. That will get popular fast.
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
Wait, let me get this straight. The royalty fees for supporting H.264 are in the millions, and Microsoft is more than willing to pay that fee for the Firefox and Chrome browsers? Wow. That's pretty generous! Of course, not all is sugar and spice though, is it? In your mind's eye, as soon as H.264 becomes the overwhelming standard on the web, then you'll drop support for the plugins, and Mozilla and Google will be left to fend for themselves to pay the fees, won't they? Sneaky. Thankfully, the open web has too much motivation to let that happen. But, I guess if you have money to burn, why not? Good luck. You'll need it.
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 02, 2011
@gordon Actually the VP8 codec used in WebM is not an open standard at all VP is actually a proprietary format that is fully controlled and owned by Google who have released a technology patent promise on the format so that other can implement it without Google sueing them for infringement. It also provided a free specification of the (bitstream) format. That is exactly what Microsoft has done for the binary office formats like .doc and .xls So the VP8 codec in WebM is exactly as close to an open standard as the binary office formats. Google has not submitted the VP8 codec or bitstream format to a standard organization Google has not donated the VP8 codec or bitstream format to the public domain. The WebM Project is not an independant foundation but is fully owned an controlled by Google.
Anonymous
February 03, 2011
Agree completely with hAI. Google is maintaining complete control. They can hardly use the word "open".
Anonymous
February 03, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 03, 2011
Gordon, your mom's here to take you to the debate club sectionals. You don't want to be late!
Anonymous
February 03, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 03, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 03, 2011
"Microsoft pays into MPEG-LA about twice as much as it receives back for rights to H.264." So you're saying that Microsoft is only paying half of whatever low rate it got for the H.264 licence?
Anonymous
February 03, 2011
You've said that additional codec, so where is it? I just care videos.
Anonymous
February 03, 2011
Do IE9 <video> element uses DirectShow filters? That's why WMP can support so many video formats. Why don't IE9 use this? It's also drived by DirectX, and it should work in D2D textures. social.msdn.microsoft.com/.../fca0821f-8b5c-4722-bb59-844aef98f887 // interop between DShow and D3D11 social.msdn.microsoft.com/.../0359423b-5609-463c-a1fd-c365dc537ad9 // the issue itself
Anonymous
February 03, 2011
Ie 9 has not made the plugin Quicktime working. When quicktime plugin is install apple.com is so slow it become useless. discussions.info.apple.com/thread.jspa Please Microsoft ie9 team, the Quicktime plugin is working perfect on all other browsers (Firefox, Opera, Safari, Chrome) There is no excuse for microsoft to blame Apple. Microsoft needs to make this highly wide spread Quicktime plugin working in Ie9 Many people rely on itunes, iphone from apple, so if Microsoft dont do something to solve the problem, people inkluding me will desplace ie9 and use Firefox instead Many thanks
Anonymous
February 03, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 03, 2011
Microsoft should support WebM and implement it direct in IE9 i think, because it is completly open and therefore the format both Microsoft and other in the long run will have smallest problems with. All will in the long run support up on it both the small company who does not has so much money as well as the big companies. There will also in the long run be several which will come with contribution to the development because the motivation is greater when it is completly open whithout any limets.
Anonymous
February 03, 2011
One of the most well written articles on this topic and Microsoft has conveyed its stand most properly. Google now needs to prove with its actions and practice what it preaches. Google has been playing favorite on everything for a quite while now and needs to realize that its monopoly doesnt mean that the masses can be fed on a bunch of lies. Microsoft on its part has got it all right for a change. And unlike Google who just tries to steamroll its competitors, Microsoft have made a commitment for the good.
Anonymous
February 03, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 03, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 03, 2011
Funny but my very first blog post about VP8 when Google bought it was stating a lot of the points above. blog.gingertech.net/.../googles-challenges-of-freeing-vp8 It sure takes time to make a codec open.
Anonymous
February 03, 2011
> Bob: I will point you to the fact that Microsoft has indeminified all Windows users of the codec @Bob, this means nothing, because users of the codec aren't limited to Windows users by all means. Codec is used in hardware (cameras, players, etc.), software and etc. across multiple architectures and operating systems. Is Microsoft being part of MPEG-LA going to indemnify all those users in case some patent troubles arise? So all in all H.264 is in no better position than WebM in this regard.
Anonymous
February 03, 2011
@Asa: exactly the point. MPEG-LA doesn't indemnify for unknown patents related to H.264. So to claim that for WebM pretending that H.264 is superior in this regard is hypocritical. See www.mpegla.com/.../FAQ.aspx Q: Are all AVC essential patents included? A: No assurance is or can be made that the License includes every essential patent. The purpose of the License is to offer a convenient licensing alternative to everyone on the same terms and to include as much essential intellectual property as possible for their convenience. Participation in the License is voluntary on the part of essential patent holders, however.
Anonymous
February 03, 2011
"Whenever you support their position just... Remember BeOS... Remember IE6... Remember the Linux FUD campaign... Remember ODF..." And MS Java.
Anonymous
February 03, 2011
@Shmerl: Microsoft indemnify all Windows users for H.264 and there are a lot of Windows users, so it is a sign of significant confidence from them that any such claim will be overruled. Google won't even indemnify Android or Chrome users. If they're so convinced about the legal situation, why not? The inability to show any real faith in that claim speaks volumes.
Anonymous
February 03, 2011
"We chose this path (supporting one additional video format that the user has installed on her machine" So Microsoft admits that only women use IE, then? Or do they just not know how to spell "their"?
Anonymous
February 03, 2011
@AndyC: There are not less, if not more hardware users (like users of video and photo cameras) who are in the same potential danger from "unknown patents". Being convinced, or not being convinced about these patents means nothing from legal perspective, and doesn't change the actual risk level. The talk above was not about convictions. There were claims for indemnification, which supposedly should help using the codec without any risk for the user. But there is no such thing for the user of H.264 whatever Microsoft feels or fears. There is no guaranteed indemnification, period. So Google doesn't fear by actually using the WebM codec as well as Microsoft doesn't fear using H.264. Indemnification is non existent globally for both. Let it settle into everyone's mind.
Anonymous
February 03, 2011
@Pies1: So you're saying that Microsoft is only paying half of whatever low rate it got for the H.264 licence? No. Apparently many people don't understand how MPEG-LA works. Microsoft is one of the patent holders in the H.264 patent pool. This means that for every dollar MPEG-LA gets from H.264 licensing royalties, Microsoft only gets, for example, 8 cents. Note that there are many patents in H.264 and many patent holders, so Microsoft is definitely not getting the biggest piece of the pie: www.mpegla.com/.../PatentList.aspx In order to include a H.264 decoder in Windows, Microsoft must pay licensing fees to MPEG-LA just like everyone else. They don't get a discount. The amount they pay is determined by the estimated number of copies (decoder units) of Windows 7 sold, though there a cap does exist on how much one can pay MPEG-LA. So, to summarize... Microsoft pays MPEG-LA for the right to include H.264 in Windows, but also gets a check back from MPEG-LA for their share of the patent royalties income. Since Microsoft sells A LOT of Windows copies, but only owns a minority of patents in the patent pool, Microsoft ends up paying more to license H.264 in Windows than it gets back from MPEG-LA for all H.264 decoders licensed globally! We're talking BluRay players, PSPs, iPods, Androids, etc. The check that Microsoft receives from MPEG-LA for all those devices is still less than what Microsoft pays to license H.264 in Windows! Anybody who thinks that Microsoft is supporting H.264 over WebM because it stands to make money from H.264 obviously does not understand the scale of the codec licensing business. At the very best Microsoft cannot hope to make more than 3-4 million dollars from H.264. On the other hand, Microsoft makes over $60 BILLION in revenue anually. Jeopardizing the future of IE and Windows just to earn a few bucks from H.264 would be the dumbest business move in the history of dumb business moves. Their IE strategy has nothing to do with H.264 income.
Anonymous
February 03, 2011
@VirtualBlackFox Well said! Just because the US Patent system is a bloated behemoth, the world has to suffer through WebM and Google's little power play. @kejserdrend1 That's what IE and Safari are doing (MS slightly better than Apple currently) By using OS native infrastructure to support the video tag (QuickTime for Safari, WMP for IE9), Only one set of royalties need to be paid. The most efficient decoder is used for the system. By Chrome, Firefox and Opera bundling decoders with their browser, they not only restrict what media formats they can support, they also make their browsers more monolithic (and some could argue, bloated). If they used native Frameworks like QuickTime, Windows Media Player, stagefright and VLC/MPlayer, they wouldn't have to worry about codec licensing.
Anonymous
February 03, 2011
The reality of Google's position is that Google does NOT want to pay anything to MPEG-LA - that is why they want to go exclusively with Ogg Theora (with lousy quality) or WebM (which, not so incidentally, they own outright). Further, they are competitors with Microsoft (and, incidentally with the Mozilla Foundation and Opera Software BV) - all of whom are stakeholders in MPEG-LA (in addition to Apple, Adobe, and most of the consumer electronics, photography, and motion-picture-technology industries). MPEG-LA's stated public position is that they will not, ever, charge users for H.264. Not on Windows, Linux, or anything else. Microsoft pays to MPEG-LA because they use the codec for content-creation and outside the browser (Adobe, also an MPEG-LA stakeholder, as is Apple, pays royalties to MPEG-LA for the same reason) - among the applications that use the codec (and are not IE) are Windows Movie Maker (included with Windows Live Essentials, and a free add-on for Vista and later). Content-creation software that uses H.264 is charged royalty fees by MPEG-LA (as is DVD creation software that creates movie DVDs, such as Nero and Roxio Creator) - which, as long as a patent/royalty system exists, is perfectly legal. (Remember, I referred to Windows Movie Maker, which uses H.264, and Microsoft makes available free - however, MPEG-LA still gets paid. AMD has the Catalyst File Conversion Utility (now part of Catalyst Center 2) and used to convert video file formats - among the target formats are several based on H.264. This is also available free - and again, MPEG-LA gets a check (from AMD in this case). Are there folks that have both software packages? Of course - I happen to be one of them. However, because the patent fees have already been paid (by Microsoft and AMD), I am free from litigation as long as I use the software within the letter of my rights. Does Google itself sell or distribute content-creation software? If the answer is no, then the entire issue of patents and H.264 is a red herring over the real issue - Google wants no part of software it does not control. (Sounds like something it has accused Apple and Microsoft of; I wonder why.)
Anonymous
February 03, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 03, 2011
@Christopher Estep: Does Google itself sell or distribute content-creation software? In effect, yes. They presumably are paying the MPEG-LA for every Youtube node that produces H.264 content from uploaded formats. So they've a lot to gain financially from moving the web to a format they control instead.
Anonymous
February 03, 2011
Won't somebody think of the users? (none of whom care a jot about WebM, they just want their videos to play)
Anonymous
February 03, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 03, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 03, 2011
What about supporting both formats natively? Google will be forced to introduce h.264 again, all competitors can't for people to pay because they have to option to switch to WebM. I dont care what apple/safari does, and i don't care what opera does. Bring us both formats!
Anonymous
February 04, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 04, 2011
One format to rule them all - unfortunately it can't be H.264 and it looks like WebM won't work unless there is a major change in the license/legal front. Please get together and solve this quickly! IE9 is shipping April 12th - and we sure as H, E, double hockey sticks don't want to see IE9's default video format as H.264 - the closed internet we had during the IE/Netscape wars has to end. If it isn't an open format, is isn't a Web format.
Anonymous
February 04, 2011
Why does anyone care about WebM? There is no hardware support. Good luck streaming a 1080p video smoothly. At the end of the day we want a quality product.
Anonymous
February 04, 2011
> WebM absolutely won't work due to unkown patents Then /dev/null it is. H.264 won't work for the same reason. > At the moment, Google/CHROME is the biggest part of the HTML5 video problem. Nonsense. The biggest problem is mobile Safari.
Anonymous
February 04, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 04, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 04, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 04, 2011
@David S: "Why does anyone care about WebM? There is no hardware support. Good luck streaming a 1080p video smoothly." Isn't there? That's odd. Then why does Texas Instruments want to sell you hardware that supports 1080p WebM video: www.youtube.com/watch
Anonymous
February 04, 2011
@Dan Woods: "Android devices won't support WebM until Gingerbread. Gingerbread will only be available on tablets, not phones." I think you're confusing Honeycomb with Gingerbread. Gingerbread has been available on phones for a while now. Google's Nexus S phone runs Gingerbread, as you'd expect.
Anonymous
February 04, 2011
tout à fait cela tout est exact! http://www.muondo.org
Anonymous
February 05, 2011
If Microsoft wants to build bridges with the developer community, the way to do so would be to use your significant influence on US policy to end software patents. Entirely. Rather than continue talking about how it's just the way things are and we have to make the best of it, you (Microsoft) would take a leadership role in making the software world a better place for all of us, Microsoft included. If Microsoft just perpetuates the software patent status quo, you come across as continuing to be self-serving monopoly re-enforcers working to keep the playing field dramatically slanted in your favour. Here's a tip: you can start by reversing your pro-patent position in New Zealand, where we (the indigenous software industry) managed to get the government to exclude software from patentability.... despite Microsoft working hard (but, luckily, in vain) to derail the legislation through back-room anti-democratic dealings. That did nothing to help your very unfortunate image, Microsoft.
Anonymous
February 06, 2011
Just as predicted… blog.gingertech.net/.../googles-challenges-of-freeing-vp8 BTW, H.264 too started with an implementation and not a complete specification.
Anonymous
February 06, 2011
of course sure! iixodatamining.blogspot.com
Anonymous
February 06, 2011
i agree with you http://bymuondo.blogspot.com
Anonymous
February 06, 2011
Well done MS! Finally somebody is trying to explain the situation corretcly to those who are blinded by Google's talk about "open standards". Some people are simply so ignorant, that they refuse to accept the facts that H.264 is THE codec used everywhere in the industry, both in software, hardware and broadcasting. As a content provider, I can only applaud MS's commitment to H.264 after the fully idiotic move by Google to remove native H.264 support from their browser. Adding support for open formats: YES, removing support for the most established format:NO! It is as simple as this! ..... Thank you Microsoft!
Anonymous
February 07, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 07, 2011
Google on its WebM specification: “If there are any conflicts between this document and the reference source code, the reference source code should be considered correct. The bitstream is defined by the reference source code and not this document.” Source Code = Documentation. As a hacker manifesto, can it get any more succinct than that?
Anonymous
February 07, 2011
We do not want H.264 for HTML5 Video. Please do not try and force it on the rest of us. Browser vendors please unite and choose 1 common format for video that is free from monopolistic and draconian licensing.
Anonymous
February 07, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 08, 2011
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
February 15, 2011
Does anyone know which audio formats ie9 will support? I was recently programming a game in HTML5, and when testing it in ie9 platform preview 8, I discovered that ie9 doesn't support .WAV files. This is problematic because as far as I can tell, it costs $2500 in royalties to include MP3 music per HTML game. This is too much for a little html5 game. Does ie9 support some sort of proprietary Microsoft audio format that I can use instead? Maybe some WMV/ASF thing? With Safari, I can fall back to 8-bit 8khz .WAV files, but without some alternative to MP3, it will be too expensive to support audio in ie9 for HTML5 games.

Share via

HTML5 and Web Video: Questions for the Industry from the Community

Microsoft’s Point of View and Plan for IE9

Industry Questions

Answers Will Help the Community Move Forward

Comments

Additional resources