> 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?<p>This is the single shittiest argument I've ever heard, and continue to hear.<p>1) Adobe isn't charging browser makers royalty or licensing fees to use Flash.<p>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 <i>evolution</i>? 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 <i>fear</i> for HTML5 video.<p>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.
The IE blog post in question (<a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/02/02/html5-and-web-video-questions-for-the-industry-from-the-community.aspx#comments" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/02/02/html5-and-web-...</a>) seems more interesting than the media stories suggest - here's what appears to be the most substantive paragraph:<p>"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."<p>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.
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.
The IE blog post, <a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/02/02/html5-and-web-video-questions-for-the-industry-from-the-community.aspx#comments" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/02/02/html5-and-web-...</a>, 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).<p>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.<p><a href="http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/D/0/9D0A6265-A509-416C-80AE-BB6C0A9D1B99/IP%20Indemnification%20Policy.docx" rel="nofollow">http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/D/0/9D0A6265-A509-4...</a>
And they just released a Chrome plugin (like they recently did for firefox):<p><a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/interoperability/archive/2011/02/01/greater-interoperability-for-windows-customers-with-html5-video.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.msdn.com/b/interoperability/archive/2011/02/01/...</a>
The link to the actual post referenced in the techcrunch article but not linked to: <a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/02/02/html5-and-web-video-questions-for-the-industry-from-the-community.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/02/02/html5-and-web-...</a>
> 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<p>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.<p>> 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.<p>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.<p>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.
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 <i>actually</i> unencumbered by lawsuit-fodder?
Of course Microsoft and Apple support H.264. They both stand to benefit:<p><a href="http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensors.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensors.aspx</a>
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.<p>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.
Let me consult my list of companies which make money from being MPEG LA licensors:
Apple
Cisco
Daewoo
Dolby
Fuijitsu
HP
Hitachi
Philips
LG
<i>Microsoft</i>
Mitsubishi
NTT
Panasonic
Samsung
Sharp
Siemens
Sony
Ericsson
Toshiba
Reference: <a href="http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensors.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensors.aspx</a><p>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.