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

[Darkroom]

Where does it say that IE9 doesn't support Flash???

in Steve Jobs' world, and subsequently the world of apple fundies, everything is black and white, one technology replaces another technology, java development doesn't exist anymore, SD card readers are a necessary evil, HDMI is not as cool as Display Port, and now HTML5 has dramatically slit the throat of Flash, leaving it dead in a ditch as a warning to all the world.

 

[icecone]

You seriously think Apple will not support VP8 if they open source it? I mean seriously .. you believe that?

with the pressure from Google, maybe they eventually will
but according to the past, Theora, OpenDocumentFormat, FLAC, matroska...etc, none supported by

 

[Matek]

The sad part is, H.264 is also proprietary, and they WILL start charging for it in a few years, once they've sold it well to the mass of idiots.

THIS!

It's sad to see so many people rejoice and celebrate the fact Flash is starting to lose the battle to open standards when we're in fact just switching from Adobe to a different master.

When HTML5 video support was drafted, Apple and Microsoft were against a truly open codec and cheered for H.264.

Don't buy the "we want the web to be completely open" crap, both companies are just two of many licensors of patents managed by MPEG LA and as such share in the licensing royalties collected from H.264 video licensees.

 

[awmazz]

Don't buy the "we want the web to be completely open" crap, both companies are just two of many licensors of patents managed by MPEG LA and as such share in the licensing royalties collected from H.264 video licensees.

Can you provide proof of this? If true, it changes the whole argument.

 

[icecone]

Can you provide proof of this? If true, it changes the whole argument.

What proof do you want?
They're all in the article. Do you want the list of companies in MPEGLA?

 

[Otaviano]

with the pressure from Google, maybe they eventually will
but according to the past, Theora, OpenDocumentFormat, FLAC, matroska...etc, none supported by

None of those have any significance. Who uses FLAC except audio geeks? If FLAC had been the dominating format like MP3 then you can bet your butt iTunes would have been forced to support it.

The idea that Apple would shun VP8 if Google open sourced it and started using it for a service as common and popular as YouTube is just ridiculous. If Google open sources VP8 it only helps Apple in their fight against Flash, and in my opinion they wouldn't hesitate to incorporate it.

 

[awmazz]

No, just the specific claim they both derive royalties from H.264.

"just two of many licensors of patents managed by MPEG LA" is too vague in relation to H.264 specifically.

 

[Otaviano]

THIS!

It's sad to see so many people rejoice and celebrate the fact Flash is starting to lose the battle to open standards when we're in fact just switching from Adobe to a different master.

When HTML5 video support was drafted, Apple and Microsoft were against a truly open codec and cheered for H.264.

Don't buy the "we want the web to be completely open" crap, both companies are just two of many licensors of patents managed by MPEG LA and as such share in the licensing royalties collected from H.264 video licensees.

The majority of Flash video is already H.264 underneath, so what difference does it make if it's handled in HTML5 or in Flash? I just don't get all this stuff about the licensing, the end user isn't going to pay it. You really bothered that Mozilla will have to pay up and license H.264?

 

[icecone]

None of those have any significance. Who uses FLAC except audio geeks? If FLAC had been the dominating format like MP3 then you can bet your butt iTunes would have been forced to support it.

The idea that Apple would shun VP8 if Google open sourced it and started using it for a service as common and popular as YouTube is just ridiculous. If Google open sources VP8 it only helps Apple in their fight against Flash, and in my opinion they wouldn't hesitate to incorporate it.

Theora could help Apple fight against flash, FLAC wasn't popular because no big firm stand behind it, FLAC is an alternative to AppleLossless but not MP3, and it would be really simple for Apple to add support for FLAC in iTunes (they even add the ability to import WMA Lossless which is closed and even less popular)
ODF was the only ISO-standard for office files before the release of OOXML(docx, xlsx)
It's really crystal clear how apple is against of open source and open formats.

 

[ct2k7]

Maybe some people are being naive or closed, but Flash isn't only used in videos. HTML5 is horrible on my PC and laptop, it sends the fans going really loud.

 

[Bytor65]

It's sad to see so many people rejoice and celebrate the fact Flash is starting to lose the battle to open standards when we're in fact just switching from Adobe to a different master.

When HTML5 video support was drafted, Apple and Microsoft were against a truly open codec and cheered for H.264.

Don't buy the "we want the web to be completely open" crap, both companies are just two of many licensors of patents managed by MPEG LA and as such share in the licensing royalties collected from H.264 video licensees.

No it is switching from two masters (Flash/H.264) to one (H.264). Most flash video these days is H.264 video.

So switching to HTML5-H.264 will be fairly simple, and will not make the licensing situation any worse.

If VP8 gets opened by Google it could start as a base fallback for everyone and keep the H.264 fees at bay.

 

[matticus008]

H264 isn't open. Good luck trying to avoid huge licensing fees if you try to run a website where you pay to view H264 content.

Open doesn't mean zero cost any more than open source means zero cost.

H.264 is a fully open standard. It is not a free or patent-free standard. Most aren't.

It's sad to see so many people rejoice and celebrate the fact Flash is starting to lose the battle to open standards when we're in fact just switching from Adobe to a different master.

The different master being an industry trade group that governs uniformity. HTML4 (what you're using now) has a "master". Theora and Vorbis have a "master", too. The difference between a proprietary format and a standard format is that a proprietary one is owned and controlled by a company and not by a group of companies, organizations, and contributors.

Don't buy the "we want the web to be completely open" crap, both companies are just two of many licensors of patents managed by MPEG LA and as such share in the licensing royalties collected from H.264 video licensees.

The same is true of all standards groups. It costs a lot of money to maintain a standard. People supporting free standards do so for political purposes, and consumers are still subject to the whims of the developers, regardless of the model: when people lose interest or the money runs out, it collapses. Sure, you've got the added benefit that someone can become interested again and pick it up without having to purchase the rights, which is a lower barrier than buying IP or waiting for patents to expire, but the height of the barrier doesn't matter if no one is even trying to cross it.

 

[Bytor65]

Open doesn't mean zero cost any more than open source means zero cost.

H.264 is a fully open standard. It is not a free or patent-free standard. Most aren't.

Nonsense it is a standard, but H.264 is a closed, licensed, and proprietary standard. Only in Bizzaro land could it be considered fully open.

Open standards are things like HTML, TCP, IP, PNG

Page 9 of EU Interoperability Framework:
http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/3761

The following are the minimal characteristics
that a specification and its attendant documents
must have in order to be considered an open
standard:

- The standard is adopted and will be
maintained by a not-for-profit organisation,
and its ongoing development occurs on the
basis of an open decision-making procedure
available to all interested parties (consensus
or majority decision etc.).

- The standard has been published and the
standard specification document is available
either freely or at a nominal charge. It must
be permissible to all to copy, distribute and
use it for no fee or at a nominal fee.

- The intellectual property - i.e. patents
possibly present - of (parts of) the standard
is made irrevocably available on a royalty-
free basis.

- There are no constraints on the re-use of
the standard.

 

[Max(IT)]

 

[Otaviano]

Nice!

 

[Max(IT)]

THIS!

It's sad to see so many people rejoice and celebrate the fact Flash is starting to lose the battle to open standards when we're in fact just switching from Adobe to a different master.

who cares about who is the "master" ?
The only thing I care, as a final user (formerly a developer) is to get rid of Flash because is poorly written.
Nothing more and nothing less.
I am not an Adobe shareholder.

 

[ct2k7]

who cares about who is the "master" ?
The only thing I care, as a final user (formerly a developer) is to get rid of Flash because is poorly written.
Nothing more and nothing less.
I am not an Adobe shareholder.

So, you might want it gone, there are others, far more in numbers that you and those alike, who want it to stay.

 

[matticus008]

Nonsense it is a standard, but H.264 is a closed, licensed, and proprietary standard.

1. A closed standard is one in which access is not available for license to the general public. H.264 is available to anyone. It therefore cannot be closed.

2. All standards are licensed. They may be freely licensed, but a standard necessarily requires that there be a means of identifying those not participating.

3. A proprietary standard is one that is wholly owned and controlled by a single entity. H.264 is controlled by a consortium. It therefore cannot be proprietary.

I'll repeat myself:

An open standard, as defined by ISO, is one administered by a consortium or alliance and available to the public and any interest adopter under RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms. Many open standards are patented, and many charge licensing fees. For example, USB and HDMI are both open standards that are not royalty-free. So is H.264.

The Open Source Initiative doesn't consider any patent royalty scheme acceptable for its definition, but their view is not by any means unbiased or universally held.

Anyone who says H.264 is definitively not an open standard doesn't know what they're talking about. It is if you follow the ITU/ISO definition; it isn't if you are an open source advocate. It would only be inappropriate to call it an open standard if no common definition applied; since (more than) one does, it's an accurate statement to make.

Open standards are things like HTML, TCP, IP, PNG

HTML is controlled by consortium. TCP and IP are managed by the IETF (see below), also a consortium. PNG is defined as a standard by ISO (see below). All of these standards bodies define an open standard as one that permits the charging of royalties (see above).

Page 9 of EU Interoperability Framework:
http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/3761

Those are the EU government expectations for "the context of pan-European eGovernment services" just as that page states, not a definition for global use. The 2004 outline did not create the term, which is an industry term of art that has been in use for at least the past 40 years.

I'll repeat again that standards bodies, including ISO, ITU, and IETF (which is, it should be noted, one of the major players for Internet standards) have used a definition for decades for 'open standard' that requires RAND licensing of patents. Royalty-free is one means of doing so (and the one the EU has chosen for government services), but not the only means.

 

[Bytor65]

1. A closed standard is one in which access is not available for license to the general public. H.264 is available to anyone. It therefore cannot be closed.

Quoting yourself isn't a source. There are multiple definitions of open standard:
http://www.csrstds.com/openstds.html

But if you further qualify something as Fully open as you did, that would be closer to the definitions that include free use. Fully Open means I can do anything with it.

The H.264 is heavily patent encumbered, so calling it fully open is farcical.

Fully Open != Patent Encumbered.

If you insist on being pedantic, we shall have to say.

Patent Free Open (PFO) standards are the solution we are looking for. PFO Standards are what we need for support by open browsers like Firefox.

So for the Pedantic, PFO.

 

[Matek]

The majority of Flash video is already H.264 underneath, so what difference does it make if it's handled in HTML5 or in Flash? I just don't get all this stuff about the licensing, the end user isn't going to pay it. You really bothered that Mozilla will have to pay up and license H.264?

The main issue is the hypocrisy - Apple criticizing Flash with the argument that the web should be open and free while they do the exact same dirty thing with H.264. Besides, I'm bothered that Mozilla will have to pay up, definitely. Especially since the owners determine the prices and can use this in their advantage.

Microsoft and Apple both have their own browsers that compete with Firefox, they can fight dirty by charging Mozilla big bucks for H.264.

who cares about who is the "master" ?
The only thing I care, as a final user (formerly a developer) is to get rid of Flash because is poorly written.
Nothing more and nothing less.
I am not an Adobe shareholder.

The name of the master isn't the problem, his existence and the existence of the disproportional relationship is. Although the end-user doesn't have to pay standard royalties, they affect him indirectly (smaller companies might not be able to afford to develop products at all, slightly bigger companies could have less money to develop with)

The same is true of all standards groups. It costs a lot of money to maintain a standard. People supporting free standards do so for political purposes, and consumers are still subject to the whims of the developers, regardless of the model: when people lose interest or the money runs out, it collapses. Sure, you've got the added benefit that someone can become interested again and pick it up without having to purchase the rights, which is a lower barrier than buying IP or waiting for patents to expire, but the height of the barrier doesn't matter if no one is even trying to cross it.

I'm not saying people who develop standards shouldn't profit. Sure, people maintaining free open standards profit in different ways, but their profit is relatively fair and proportional with the amount of work they do. If this wasn't the case, someone else would see his opportunity and do the same thing for less profit (monetary or other), simply because the standard is easily accessible to everyone.

What bothers me in the case of licensed standards is the fact they hold you hostage. Their owners can simply raise their prices and nobody can do anything about it.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

Man, check the facts!

Sorry, but you are totally and utterly wrong. Read the licensing terms. If your website requires people to pay to enter the section that contains the H264 encoded video then *you* have to pay for licensing. You also have to pay licensing if your audience numbers go above a set threshold.

Why do you think Mozilla went with the OGG format?

Damn, damn, damn!

If Mozilla or other developers use OS-frameworks to decode the H.264 video (embedded with HTML5) on NVIDIA or AMD/ATI hardware, who pays then exactly the licensing fees? Btw, Apple does it already in Safari.

Man, you should check the facts, before you make such statements!

 

[Darkroom]

now make it do a complex animation sequence with HTML5

 

[MorphingDragon]

now make it do a complex animation sequence with HTML5

Use flash professional and export it as a movie.

 

[RawBert]

Wow! Flash is terminally ill. MS is doing the right thing. HTML5 is the way to go.

 

[ct2k7]

Wow! Flash is terminally ill. MS is doing the right thing. HTML5 is the way to go.

There are other uses of flash....