Microsoft backs H.264.

http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/02/microsoft-h264/

by dansingerman • 15 years ago

61 89 15 years ago

powrtoch• 15 years ago

Here's what I'm not clear on: why did we scrap the whole Ogg Theora thing in favor of WebM at all? Isn't Ogg actually unencumbered by lawsuit-fodder?

JoachimSchipper• 15 years ago

As I understand, Ogg Theora is an odd format (in a way that makes it exceptionally hard to implement in hardware, for instance) that doesn't perform very well.

mcritz• 15 years ago

Ogg (like mp4 or mov) is actually a container format that can have Theora or WebM compressed media inside.

robin_reala2• 15 years ago

WebM is a container format for VP8. Ogg can’t contain WebM but could contain VP8 as well.

mgw• 15 years ago

Theora is derived from VP3 which, as the name suggests, is a predecessor to VP8 which Google recently renamed to WebM. As such, VP3 is inferior to VP8 (WebM) and a huge step backwards from H.264.

One could also say that as long as software patents exist, no codec can ever be unencumbered by lawsuit-fodder.

latch• 15 years ago

And they just released a Chrome plugin (like they recently did for firefox):

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/interoperability/archive/2011/02/01/...

carson• 15 years ago

The link to the actual post referenced in the techcrunch article but not linked to: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/02/02/html5-and-web-...

cgranade2• 15 years ago

I get really tired of people saying that the patents on H.264 are a "red herring." How is open source software like Firefox supposed to use H.264 if they have to pay massive licensing fees? That enforcement thus far has been weak to non-existent doesn't imply that it will continue to be so in the future.

DrJokepu2• 15 years ago

For example, by trying to use the codec that is provided by the underlying operating system. The latest versions of both Windows and OS X ship with a H264 codec.

cgranade2• 15 years ago

And what of Linux, and its variants like Android or MeeGo?

aw3c2• 15 years ago

We had that situation back in the early days of modern mainstream internet. Remember Real Player? WMV embedding? It was not fun.

alanthonyc• 15 years ago

H.264 patents are a red herring because WebM is not known to be patent free either. The assumption is that patent holders are waiting for WebM to gain traction before springing the lawsuits.

The devil you know versus the devil you don't.

theBobMcCormick• 15 years ago

Is there any non trivial piece of software that's known to be patent free? Isn't it probable, even likely, that there are additional patent holders who'll come after H.264 implementations eventually?

haberman7• 15 years ago

> The devil you know versus the devil you don't.

You don't know the H.264 devil any better. It's just as likely that some lone patent wolf will come forward and go after H.264. It's simply FUD to say that WebM is somehow more susceptible. Just because MPEG-LA makes you pay for their set of patents doesn't mean they're protecting you against patents they don't hold.

imajes• 15 years ago

For the record, it appears Mozilla, Inc is very rich and could almost certainly just afford the fees and be done with it. That way they'd close the loop and we'd all adopt h264, pay the money, and be on our way to HTML5 video.

It's clear that the adoption of webm is about control and changing the conversation: Google & Mozilla want to drive the direction and own the space. Let's not forget, mozilla owns the 'open source' identity and needs to keep it going, whilst Google has a significantly vested interest with YouTube.

beej714• 15 years ago

I can't afford to make a popular browser, though. Sure I can fork one in a second, but if people started using it a lot, I'd be screwed.

Only make a popular browser if you're rich enough to support H.264, I think is the lesson.

weavejester• 15 years ago

The problem isn't financial; it's ideological. The GPL says that no additional restrictions must be placed on the end user. The H.264 license says that only personal and non-commercial use is allowed.

I'm not sure whether they legally conflict, but the H.264 license is obviously against the spirit of the GPL.

po3• 15 years ago

Sure but the license itself does imply that. The price licensees pay is pro-rated based on usage but is also capped at 6.5 million until 2015. The license will be renewed every 5 years but will not increase more than 10%:

The first term of the License runs through 2010, but the License will be renewable for successive five-year periods for the life of any Portfolio patent on reasonable terms and conditions which may take into account prevailing market conditions, changes in technological environment and available commercial products at the time, but for the protection of licensees, royalty rates applicable to specific license grants or specific licensed products will not increase by more than ten percent (10%) at each renewal.

(PDF link:) http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/AVC_TermsS...

ZeroGravitas7• 15 years ago

They used to raise the cap by 10% every year, then last year it jumped 30% and got fixed for the next 5 years. I assume that added clarity was a concession to pressure from WebM even though it meant a higher price hike right now. They also specifically added text clarifying that the cap was not limited to a 10% yearly rise so the max amount payable is explicity unknown and unlimited.

pedanticfreak2• 15 years ago

Until the W3C officially adopts a royalty free codec as part of the HTML standard, Google and Mozilla should assume HTML video is dead. They might as well make the <video> tag inoperable by default. Just parse it and ignore it.

Of course, Google owns VP8. So they are pushing it so it might become a defacto standard that later gets officially adopted. Despite meeting the requirements to be part of the HTML spec, without the official backing of the W3C it is no different than any other out of spec extension to HTML.

eli2• 15 years ago

Maybe this is a dumb question, but what difference does it make what's in the spec? People will pick the browser that plays the videos they want to see over the one that follows the spec every time.

pedanticfreak2• 15 years ago

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2009/09/123_52401.h...

South Korea built vast infrastructure around IE6 and ActiveX. Just a year ago a full 60% of Korean traffic still came from IE6. Why? Because they relied heavily on features that were not in the spec that Microsoft deprecated and nobody else can or will implement.

An extreme example. But it highlights the importance of sticking to specs that can be freely implemented by anyone. Five years from now when MPEGLA decides to throw down the crap hammer do you want to have to keep around old Safari binaries just for sites that migrated to h264 while the rest of the web moved on?

robin_reala2• 15 years ago

The W3C (via the WHAT WG) did have a royalty free codec as part of the spec in Ogg Theora. It was removed because it became clear that key players (specifically Nokia and Apple) were refusing to implement it, spec or no. A spec that doesn’t match what people are willing to implement isn’t a very good spec.

akmiller2• 15 years ago

Of course Microsoft and Apple support H.264. They both stand to benefit:

http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensors.aspx

griftah4• 15 years ago

Of course Firefox and Opera support WebM. Revenues of Mozilla Foundation and Opera Software depend on Google.

nlogn• 15 years ago

Firefox and Opera had chosen VP8 in favor of H.264 before Chrome did.

akmiller2• 15 years ago

I agree with you as well, but I don't see why my point doesn't stand. I'm not saying I agree with one side or the other just that everyone has a stake in this game.

msbarnett• 15 years ago

Microsoft has stated in the past that they pay more into the Pool each year than they get out in payments for the patents they have in the Pool. I forget how many patents Microsoft has in the pool, but it's more than Apple, who only has one patent in there, which implies that Apple is getting even less money out than Microsoft.

In other words, I doubt either company is directly making a profit on h.264 licensing payments.

vampirical• 15 years ago

Let me consult my list of companies which make money from being MPEG LA licensors: Apple Cisco Daewoo Dolby Fuijitsu HP Hitachi Philips LG Microsoft Mitsubishi NTT Panasonic Samsung Sharp Siemens Sony Ericsson Toshiba Reference: http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensors.aspx

I am SHOCKED to hear that Microsoft would like to continue receiving royalties from all those H.264 license fees and doesn't give a toss about open standards.

pacifika• 15 years ago

"Microsoft pays into MPEG-LA about twice as much as it receives back for rights to H.264." http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/05/03/follow-up-on-h...

ZeroGravitas7• 15 years ago

So Microsoft gets a 50% discount on a tax that already benefits larger, incumbent companies by protecting them from up and coming competitors and it's incompatible with many open source and freeware business models used by competitors. And this is presented as if they're some kind of selfless saint for paying into this racket?

itg• 15 years ago

Let me consult my list of companies which would benefit from WebM: Google

Don't pretend for one second this is actually about "open standards".

jokermatt999• 15 years ago

Actually, Mozilla and Opera would also benefit from not having to license H264. Other than the lack of license fees, how would Google benefit?

nitrogen3• 15 years ago

Your list of companies is rather incomplete, and should include every non-H264-licensing company on the planet that ever created a training or marketing video.

tomlin2• 15 years ago

> At first, they touted the maneuver as being all about supporting “open” formats. But if that’s the case, why not pull support for the Flash plug-in baked into every version of Chrome currently?

This is the single shittiest argument I've ever heard, and continue to hear.

1) Adobe isn't charging browser makers royalty or licensing fees to use Flash.

2) Are we really going to pull the "all or nothing" argument with a bunch of programmers and developers who, maybe more than anyone, are constantly driven by the force known as evolution? Just because they haven't removed Flash today doesn't mean they won't in the future. The probability of Google dumping Flash in the next 5 years is likely, perhaps not high. Furthermore, YouTube's HTML5 implementation doesn't exactly come across as fear for HTML5 video.

WebM needed to be here 5 years ago. H.264 should have been dumped before it got traction. Better late than never, no? Or in this case, off course - but constantly correcting.

knowtheory2• 15 years ago

It is very frustrating to hear this constantly touted as hypocrisy.

It is not.

Users and developers are free to use any and all Flash components. Flash itself is a published standard (although proprietary). You can create alternative VMs largely w/o caveat (the only one i've heard raised was some DRM junk having to do with Flash Media Server, which no one should use anyway).

There is no threat of patent licensing hovering over people who use Flash. That is not the case with H.264 encoding.

Furthermore, it is obnoxious that Flash is always uncritically trotted out as the only example of proprietary components in Chrome. What about Java plugins? Anything you want to say about Flash you can say about Java applets.

Please stop spreading FUD.

Also, Google didn't own WebM 5 years ago. It's hardly sensible for criticizing them for not moving more quickly on the issue.

tomlin2• 15 years ago

> It's hardly sensible for criticizing them for not moving more quickly on the issue.

I'm not criticizing Google. I realize there was a time where WebM was VP8.

When I say WebM needed to be here 5 years ago, that's all I'm saying. No one company, standards body, org. is to blame.

> There is no threat of patent licensing hovering over people who use Flash. That is not the case with H.264 encoding.

Agreed. The individual user is not effected. The browser, and those who encode en masse for profit are exposed to potential pitfalls of the licensing. I'm not saying these royalties are debilitating or that the web will cripple into a video-less nothingness.

What I am saying is: If we can replace something proprietary with something more open, that is a good thing.

> Please stop spreading FUD.

It really seems as though you're spreading FUD by ascertaining my opinions as allegiance to one camp or another.

I'll admit I have a slight distaste for those who insist that H.264's penetration is reason alone to continue using it. Especially when I, up until a few years ago, was a lead Flash developer. Mainly due to Apple's insistence that Flash was the devil. I want you to see the ignorant, double-standard here. Flash and H.264 both have high penetration rates. Both are used extensively on the web and beyond. Yet only Flash must die? See how this is completely asinine?

Instead of pointing a finger at Apple and declare them the enemy of my camp, I examined the situation for benefits instead of fear.

Many thousand Flash developers will eventually hang up their tried-and-true tools in search for a better way. A more open, standards-abiding, creative community.

If we (Flash developers) can do it, I'm sure H,264 blowhards can do the same.

drdaeman• 15 years ago

The reduction ad Hitle^W Flash argument is totally flawed, yet it keeps repeating in every single article on "Google-and-WebM-vs-H.264" article.

I think there's a simple quality measurement of an article in this case. If article presents both pros and cons of Google's (Apple's, Microsoft's) decision - it's more likely the article's good. Otherwise it's probably one-sided.

contextfree• 15 years ago

The IE blog post in question (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/02/02/html5-and-web-...) seems more interesting than the media stories suggest - here's what appears to be the most substantive paragraph:

"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 question of indemnification seems pertinent to me, but I've only been superficially following this issue - maybe it's a red herring and Google has good reason not to offer indemnification etc. I'm curious to see the case for that.

kenjackson10• 15 years ago

Indemnification is not likely, but MS asks for good reason. They probably suspect (or maybe knows) that WebM infringes on some patents.

The patent pool, just as it does with H264, gets every player in the game to effectively commit to not assert patents.

Good move by MS. And certainly shows that they're more willing to play than anyone else has demonstrated so far.

megaman821• 15 years ago

Microsoft has a really good point here. Google might be fine with phone manufactures getting sued over patent violations in Android, but that is not how Microsoft conducts business. If they included VP8 support in IE9, them and their partners can be sued for patent infringement, so the best they can due is work with Google to make a plugin. If Google offers indemnify over VP8, Microsoft can pass it along.

nitrogen3• 15 years ago

Indemnification is unheard of in codecs. Microsoft and SMPTE don't indemnify users of VC-1. MPEG-LA doesn't indemnify users of H.264. Google offering indemnification for WebM would effectively be suicide. They'd be painting themselves with a giant target and taunting every money-grubbing patent troll in existence.

tuxychandru• 15 years ago

When MPEG LA which holds several codec related patents in its pool cannot indemnify its H.264 licensees, Google indemnifying WebM sounds far fetched.

noibl• 15 years ago

This is the classic case of saying 'I'm all for it as long as you can get everyone else onboard' when you believe that their chances of doing so are nil. If they managed to do it, your position would then be dictated by events anyway. Asking for 'indemnification' as an alternative demand shows just how high the bar is being set.

When you strip away fantasies like 'indemnify' and 'group-hug patent pool', the only significant line left is 'we are not willing to commit that we will never assert any patent rights on VP8', or "we just might sue".

kenjackson10• 15 years ago

The IE blog post, http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/02/02/html5-and-web-..., also mentioned something I'd never seen before. MS indemnifies Windows users for included software, which would include H264. And is probably an obvious reason why WebM isn't shipped as part of Windows (client and server).

That'a s pretty big frickin deal. I thought indemnification was off the table, but reading this Google has at least got to say that end users of WebM are indemnified. I honestly don't think they are willing to take that risk given the patent state of WebM.

http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/D/0/9D0A6265-A509-4...

beej714• 15 years ago

> by turning their back on H.264, Google is ensuring that Flash will continue to remain the dominant force in web video for years to come

Even if Google didn't support the video tag at all, people can still use IE and Safari, right? Its looking like H.264 is going to be the dominant codec, after all, so IE and Safari will support it. If you want it on another browser, you'll need a plugin, sorry. That could be Flash, or it could be something else.

> but the issue here is that we need the HTML5 standard to fully support H.264, and that’s simply not going to happen without Google on board.

No. The answer is no, with or without Google. It's a bad idea to have a per-unit fee for distributing a standards-compliant browser. Go ahead and buy it for the browser you're building--I'm fine with that--but don't make it a requirement.

And to anyone who says, "$0.20 isn't that much", you must agree to back it in cash. If you say you'll personally cover the licensing fees for anyone who asks, well, then I'll reconsider.

Microsoft backs H.264.

Related Stories