Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Microsoft Looks to a Future of H.264-Based HTML5 for Web Video Content

It's a Trap

A different motivation: Silverlight.

Using Flash as a video player is, by a fair margin, the most trivially replaced function that isn't addressed by pre-HTML5 web standards(stupid **** like Flash based menus and random site chrome is, of course, even easier to replace; because it could have been done in standard HTML+javascript ages ago; but that is largely a lost cause). However, that (quite simple) function is also a huge driver of Flash installation. Basically, if you want to watch video on the web, you need to install Flash. Once you have flash, you bolster Adobe's install base stats, serve as a target for much more sophisticated Flash-based applications, and bolster Adobe's efforts(through AIR) and similar to have a quasi-unified webapp/desktop-app runtime based on Flash and their various content creation tools.

Microsoft has its own, competing quasi-unifed webapp/desktop-app runtime, based on .net, winforms, and the like. Unlike AIR, it much more closely ties the user to Microsoft, and Microsoft platforms and technologies. Therefore, they want to destroy AIR and Flash.

By indicating support for HTML5, which will support the relatively trivial video use cases(youtube style stuff, without Serious DRM mandated by paranoid content providers), they substantially reduce the motivation of users to download Flash and corporate IT departments to install and support it. Since Silverlight comes by default in newer MS OSes, they get increased marketshare vs. Flash/AIR.

Since HTML5 makes possible advanced web applications, but still lags in easy tools vs. Flash or Silverlight(which won't stop Google and their ilk; but will stop Joe Flash Monkey, or Bob corporate intranet developer), HTML5 can be safely supported without destroying Silverlight.

h.246 as the html5 video codec of choice puts mozilla in a tough spot; but it isn't as though there won't be some workaround(patent violating 3rd party builds, plugin that exposes system codecs, whatever.) in short order. It isn't good; but it isn't a huge threat. This is about kicking Adobe while Apple is already holding them down...

So this is a trap.

It's step one in Microsoft's basic business plan:

1. Embrace
2. Extend
3. Extinguish
4. Profit!

So, the key is to anticipate how Microsoft might extend the protocol, and then "head them off at the pass".
 
icecone said:
But there's one thing you don't know
Microsoft and Apple only supports H.264 among all video codecs, which is proprietary that neither Ubuntu or Firefox supports
Click to expand...

I am actually happy that this move will all but force the *nix people and Mozilla to adopt h.264.

Ogg is too much of a potential patent minefield for any of the big players to get behind, whereas h.264, while not "free" is relatively straight forward and already widely supported.

I get tired of people constantly trumpeting that h.264 isn't "open" while at the same time having huge amounts of mp3 files.

MP3 files are in the same boat as h.264.

The reality is for private view-only use, h.264 will remain fee-free. Its only for professional applications and/or content creation where there will be fees involved. Just like (there is supposed to be with....) mp3's

I understand Mozilla's position, but they are going to need to either adopt h.264 or face a potentially quick drain of users to chrome/ie/safari.

Karl P
 
ipponrg said:
Isn't Ubuntu's default browser Konqueror?

Anyhow, I hate flash ads too. I dont even like Ubuntu (i only use it for work). Although I wouid like to see compatibility with Linux variants be almost as good as Mac/Windows, it's never going to get there. Can they use x.264 to read instead of h.264?

I just recently got my first mac (15" MBP) last month, and the mac crowd based on forums are totally different compared to the PC crowd.
Click to expand...
No, Kubuntu's default browser is Konqueror
I'm not an expert in the area, it's possible to use x264 decode the video, but even whoever is supplying the decoder have to pay the the licensing royalties(which is free until at least 2015) to Apple and Microsoft and a lot others
 
iamkarlp said:
I am actually happy that this move will all but force the *nix people and Mozilla to adopt h.264.

Ogg is too much of a potential patent minefield for any of the big players to get behind, whereas h.264, while not "free" is relatively straight forward and already widely supported.

I get tired of people constantly trumpeting that h.264 isn't "open" while at the same time having huge amounts of mp3 files.

MP3 files are in the same boat as h.264.

The reality is for private view-only use, h.264 will remain fee-free. Its only for professional applications and/or content creation where there will be fees involved. Just like (there is supposed to be with....) mp3's

I understand Mozilla's position, but they are going to need to either adopt h.264 or face a potentially quick drain of users to chrome/ie/safari.

Karl P
Click to expand...
But as of now no one have promised H264 to remain fee-free.
I'm totally fine to see websites like Youtube to choose one as their favourite codec, but sick of web browsers who chose not to support open codecs purely for their own good.
 
Sorry Adobe. If the big names aren't going to support Flash, then you are going to be dead in he water with it very soon.
 
I honestly don't understand most of the comments here and the whole attitude and all.

That article is about video content and HTML5 and not about Flash disappearing.
Flash is not only used for video content, it might be its major use right now, but that is not was Flash is really about.

It was always clear the HTML5 will come and with that the video capabilities - same for CSS3 with its new stuff. That still will not make Flash obsolete.
Flash will still be used for heavy interactive website (e.g. Hollywood-Movie sites or VideoGame sits) and it will also be used for online games - just look at all those Facebook games.

Maybe in a couple of years, when there will be some other technology that can do all that mentioned above, Flash will go under - but that will take some time.

p.s. Yes, I do like Flash and use it for some of my web stuff.
But especially recently, with all the Anti-Flash attitude from Apple and its fanboys, I like it even more. I just can't stand companies that try to use their power and try to force the consumer into thinking their way.

p.p.s. I am still using Apple products and enjoy doing so, just to clear that up! :)
 
E.Lizardo said:
If you can't do it without flash I don't need to see your stupid page.
Click to expand...

Most large companies have decided that people who like you are generally losers with little disposable income, who simply do not matter.

So, they ignore you. As do I.
 
Winni said:
Of course the two evil empires are in agreement here: Flash is a multi-platform technology, and it actually is one of the very few multi-platform solutions that actually work: The content looks and behave identical on - all - supported platforms.

That is something that neither Silverlight nor HTML nor Java nor anything else EVER achieved. And the worse thing is that Flash even has a small foot print.
Click to expand...

Wait- how has HTML not achieved it?

Same browser on two different platforms will result in identical content.
 
Kudos to Microsoft for making at least one less bone-headed decision this year. Looks like they're waking up to the reality where Apple is in an increasingly important and central role in "computing."

Adobe's fighting a losing battle. That's a cool new healing brush in Adobe Bloatshop, no doubt, but it's not enough to cut it when it comes to shaping new standards for the web.
 
GFLPraxis said:
Wait- how has HTML not achieved it?

Same browser on two different platforms will result in identical content.
Click to expand...

If you had done any serious web-development you would know that is absolutely not true. I have written websites that are 100% XHTML standard compliant, look exactly as I intended in Firefox, but the columns sizes on some versions of IE look messed up, on the same machine!

EDIT: And then I read your comment :) I see you mention using the same browser, but still I would expect correct XHTML to show up correctly on any browser on any platform, is that too much to ask?
 
*LTD* said:
Kudos to Microsoft for making at least one less bone-headed decision this year. Looks like they're waking up to the reality where Apple is in an increasingly important and central role in "computing."

Adobe's fighting a losing battle. That's a cool new healing brush in Adobe Bloatshop, no doubt, but it's not enough to cut it when it comes to shaping new standards for the web.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the difference between Flash and Flash Video?

Everyone knew that IE9 will support H.264 for months now. But how does this mean that Adobe is fighting a losing battle? Adobe implemented support for H.264 in Flash way before Microsoft.

Oh, wait, I just remembered that some here believe Steve walks on water, and all other religions must be obliterated...
 
moynihan123 said:
Wrong. Take off your fanboy blinders.

Killing flash gives Silverlight a big step up.


Excellent point. I don't think people around here realize that.
Click to expand...

I don't care for the slowness of Flash, which is why I didn't use it on a recently launched website, and used AJAX instead. But everyone here is drinking the kool-aid (no surprise). MS and APL aren't doing this for users, they're doing this for themselves.

The H.264 fees will be issues for free software like Firefox, which means that you may only be able to get videos on commercial browsers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC

In addition, I agree that hurting Flash helps Silverlight and is a big reason for the MS decision.
 
addtoqueue said:
A different motivation: Silverlight.

So this is a trap.

It's step one in Microsoft's basic business plan:

1. Embrace
2. Extend
3. Extinguish
4. Profit!

So, the key is to anticipate how Microsoft might extend the protocol, and then "head them off at the pass".
Click to expand...
This is a very insightful post! Macheads are ready to jump into bed with Microsoft, but tomorrow they will wake up with a burning sensation!
 
Mattie Num Nums said:
I HATE IE6!!!

IE8 isn't much better though :\

Very tough situation to be in especially in a corp. world.
Click to expand...

i love it when people sympathize with corporate america.
if corporate america had ANY sense they would just get rid of
M$ completely. Oh but wait then why would they need to spend
millions of technical support, oh yeah that's right because it's M$.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back