Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Tips the Scale In Favor of HTML 5

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the no-pan-for-the-flash dept.

Microsoft 325

aabelro writes "Dean Hachamovitch, General Manager for Internet Explorer at Microsoft, has announced that IE9 will use only the H.264 standard to play HTML 5 video. Microsoft seems to have become very committed to HTML 5, while Flash loses even more ground. The announcement came the same day Steve Jobs detailed why Apple does not accept Flash on iPhone and iPad."

cancel ×

325 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

wow (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32043078)

for once microsoft do something that makes sense. Though it would be nice to have support for an open video standard...

Re:wow (5, Insightful)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043178)

for once microsoft do something that makes sense. Though it would be nice to have support for an open video standard...

Or, to look at it another way, Microsoft stay true to form and support proprietary standards which put open source competition at a disadvantage...

Don't worry! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32043248)

They'll half-ass it as they usually do, leaving us with an improperly implemented standard. If they do it just right, it could work in Adobe's favor, as the broken standard implementation will fragment everyone else.

Re:wow (2, Insightful)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043384)

Apple and MS both recall the Adobe font lock in.
They escaped lock in mess that and want out of flash too.
Apple wants free html5 to lock you in at other levels.
MS wants to replace flash developers needs with in expensive back end lock in.
IE is just the media player and html5 the push, if you want to create, MS has a sliding scale of costly closed solutions for you.
Want to sell online, I am sure MS can bait you with quick low cost start up flash like code and then milk you dry.
The web page is the new desktop and with clouds MS hopes gather drops to form a revenue stream.

Re:wow (2, Interesting)

Raffaello (230287) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043394)

Makes sense for their bottom line you mean. Hasn't it occurred to anyone that you now have both dominant OS vendors supporting HTML5? Do they both want their proprietary platforms replaced by HTML5 and the net? Are they really that stupid?

Or maybe, just maybe, they know something that naive Web platform advocates don't:

HTML5 will always lag behind native applications in performance and features, and MS and Apple will be sure this is the case in their implementations, so the web platform will be no real threat to Windows, Mac OS X, iPhone/iPad OS, Windows Mobile, etc.

IOW, both Apple and Microsoft are big supporters of HTML5 over Flash because they know that you'll never get native app performance and features using HTML5, so HTML5 is no threat to their platforms. OTOH, Adobe has no such vested interest in Microsoft's or Apple's OS platforms, so it is distinctly possible that you might end up with native performance and features with Flash.

Just take a look at these tests [youtube.com] comparing HTML5 animation with Flash animation on mobile platforms (Android and iPhone). Flash destroys HTML5 (25 fps v 5-10 fps). Both Apple and Microsoft are afraid of Flash because it represents a much higher performance, more fully featured web platform than HTML5. Like Java before it, Flash is a web platform with enough performance and features that web apps using it threaten traditional OS platforms. This is what Microsoft and Apple are afraid of, and they're certainly not supporting HTML5 because of their philosophical belief in "open standards."

Re:wow (4, Insightful)

cowscows (103644) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043562)

Performance aside, why would anyone want there to be a dominate web platform that's controlled by a single company, unless you happen to work for that single company?

Flash has basically been, for the past 5+ years at least, the Windows of interactive/animated/etc. web content. It's a platform that was in the right place at the right time, and was just barely good enough to become a major standard. All this despite the fact that everyone is constantly complaining about how much it sucks, and nobody likes it. And there's not much anybody can do to truly fix it, except for Adobe, and it's taken them years to get it to work decently on any mobile device.

Seriously, does anybody besides Adobe want Flash to become the dominate platform for anything other than little browser games? Sure, Apple and MS are fighting against it for self-interested reasons, but those reasons seem to align rather nicely with what is good for the internet as a whole, which is to have as much be open standards as is possible.

Re:wow (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043694)

> Performance aside, why would anyone want there to be a dominate web platform that's controlled by a single company, unless you happen to work for that single company?

The potential for Apple or Microsoft to abuse the market becomes greatly diminished.

This is why Apple is trying to hide from Flash. Microsoft simply would like to do the same.

An open hardware-neutral standard would be preferable for sure. However, this is not one of the immediately available options.

Of course Microsoft wants to go back to the time when the equivalent of Google Maps was Windows only.

Apple thinks they are in the same position as Microsoft now.

Frosty Piss (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32043084)

Frosty Piss

Goodbye Flash (1)

el_jake (22335) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043086)

Now there is no way Flash will survive. Good. Damn good.

Re:Goodbye Flash (4, Insightful)

arogier (1250960) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043118)

This says nothing about abandoning flash, just only allowing H.264 video with a video tag.

Re:Goodbye Flash (-1, Troll)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043244)

This seems dumb. Why shouldn't I be able to include startrek.flv in my HTML and IE9 play it? This smells like Windows 3 where MS locked-out alternative DOSes like DR-DOS from working. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code [wikipedia.org]

Re:Goodbye Flash (0)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043282)

[correction]

Why shouldn't I be able to include [video] startrek.flv [/video] in my HTML and IE9 play it? It sounds like MS is trying to kill Adobe the same way they killed DR-DOS. ("Microsoft Co-President Jim Allchin stated in a memo, 'If you're going to kill someone there isn't much reason to get all worked up about it and angry. Any discussions beforehand are a waste of time. We need to smile at Novell while we pull the trigger.'")

Re:Goodbye Flash (5, Informative)

Animaether (411575) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043294)

Did you just not read the post you replied to, or what?

This says nothing about abandoning flash, just only allowing H.264 video with a video tag.

You can still use Flash as long as there will be a Flash plugin for IE9. There's no reason to think there won't be - so go ahead, just use the object tag as you have been.

The only scale this might tip is the Theora vs h.264 thing as MS announced that as far as the video tag goes, they will only accept h.264 datastreams . Unless this in itself can be extended using plugins, this means a great majority of people who browse the web will be limited to viewing those h.264 datastreams. The significance (closes vs open, etc.) is probably lost on those people, though... so why would Microsoft care to support a second non-industry-backed datastream if there's no push for them to do so.

Re:Goodbye Flash (1)

arogier (1250960) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043396)

Alright, there was some degree of amphiboly in my wording. The meaning intended was that Microsoft is not abandoning flash, but with the HTML 5 video tag it is only allowing the H.264 codec to play.

Re:Goodbye Flash (2, Interesting)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043484)

Unless this in itself can be extended using plugins, this means a great majority of people who browse the web will be limited to viewing those h.264 datastreams.

I wonder how many of those viewers and publishers will be correctly licensed? There have been blog posts from mainstream sites pointing out that some licenses (even for very expensive video editing software) don't actually cover people for everything they think it covers them for in h.264 production and distribution.

IIRC there was even some real stupidity where one end violated their license if the other end had been done without an official license (license violations when viewing with a licensed viewer videos that were made without a license?)

Re:Goodbye Flash (1)

Motard (1553251) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043542)

Flash use will diminish if it's not needed for video. Silverlight won't be harmed by using video standards, but video was never what Silverlight was about.

Now that Jobs has staked out the native apps + HTML 5 position. Microsoft will take this shot at Adobe while staking out the cross-platform position. Silverlight will compete with HTML 5 while coexisting with it, much as Flash has done.

Re:Goodbye Flash (4, Interesting)

javilon (99157) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043612)

It is clear that the move is not against Flash, the Flash plugin will always be there.

It is a preemptive move against Google's VP8 in particular and open source in general. Basically they are creating a problem for Firefox (which has stated that they won't support H.264) and trying to stop Google's VP8 before it can be successful.

Re:Goodbye Flash (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043320)

That was only in the Windows 3.1 beta, and was removed from the final code.

Uhm, no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32043422)

Can't you see we're enjoying a nice M$ bashing? Tch... facts! You must be new here.

Re:Goodbye Flash (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32043300)

Video mediated via Flash is Flash's number one use case. The only reason most people install Flash is to watch video in their browser. With the need for Flash for this use case being consistently eroded, the only reasonable conclusion is that Flash is at the beginning of its decline. It'll still be around for the next five years, but it will quite quickly become a niche approach to video on the web.

Re:Goodbye Flash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32043630)

In other words:
Flash, 2010 == Real, 2000

Re:Goodbye Flash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32043352)

No, but it's still a good indicator, I'ts byebye for flash. iPad/iPhone does not support Flash (that's a large percentage of the "smart"-phone market). IE, Opera and Safari support H264 and . So, you "only" aleniate the Firefox users and get all the iPhone users by using HTML5 instead of flash. Which one would you choose?

Re:Goodbye Flash (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043680)

Lots of Flash proponents claim that Flash needs to continue to be used for video on the web because otherwise the system will be fragmented between different different video codecs. If everyone is standardized behind one codec, it takes care of one of the big supposed objections to moving from Flash to HTML5.

Re:Goodbye Flash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32043124)

Honestly, I do not understand this whole thing. What makes flash so attractive is the environment it uses to create animations. What happens behind the scenes only matters to nerds (and Steve Jobs apparantly). If the folks at Adobe made the switch to produce html5 compliant javascript then this whole circus would be over, and folks would just get back to work making the same crap as always. I know this is begging the question, but how difficult can it be to convert the animation made in flash to html5 complient code? (It is the IDE stupid.)

Re:Goodbye Flash (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043170)

What makes flash so attractive is the environment it uses to create animations.

Then perhaps Adobe should write a vector animation player in JavaScript that targets SVG or Canvas and then instead of exporting your .fla to .swf, export it to a .json file that the JavaScript vector animation player loads.

Re:Goodbye Flash (2, Insightful)

TerranFury (726743) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043226)

For this purpose -- vector animation -- Flash honestly is the best thing out there and I'm not sure I want to see it go (though open standard are always good). I think people are more up in arms about Flash video in particular, which is too widespread given that it's both proprietary and a resource hog.

You definitely raise an interesting point though, and I wonder if an OSS project to do what you describe exists. Googling turns up this [inkscape.org] note on the inkscape roadmap which indicates that this is in their long term plans. Apparently another project, MadSwatter [assembla.com] also exists, but I know nothing about it.

Given the amount of time it has taken for the Gimp to become a strong competitor to Photoshop, I do however suspect that Flash's reign in the vector-animation arena is hardly over.

Huh? (4, Insightful)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043454)

Given the amount of time it has taken for the Gimp to become a strong competitor to Photoshop...

Are you from the future? I'm a GIMP myself, but come on...

Re:Huh? (5, Funny)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043474)

I'm a GIMP user myself

Damnit... :P

Re:Goodbye Flash (2, Interesting)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043570)

What makes flash so attractive is the environment it uses to create animations.

What makes Flash attractive to webmasters is that it's ubiquitous, and that it implements DRM. While HTML5 may supplant one of these (ie all web browsers will become able to render regular embedded video), the DRM angle will remain an issue for the time being, and despite the bravado of those refusing to support it, it seems improbable that all major sites (especially in cases like Hulu.com and Amazon.com) will allow non-Flash video for the foreseeable future, except in extremely limited cases where the destination platform is so locked down (ie iPad) that the ability of a user to save the streamed video is almost impossible.

Re:Goodbye Flash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32043172)

Amen to that... As much as the boundaries and limits that Apple puts onto deveopers are sometimes fascist and arbitrary, I think Jobs has the correct view as to Flash on the iPhone and iPad.

Flash filled in for functionality that was not otherwise available; now let's get rid of the damn thing.

Re:Goodbye Flash (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32043292)

Amen to that... As much as the boundaries and limits that Apple puts onto deveopers are sometimes fascist and arbitrary, I think Jobs has the correct view as to Flash on the iPhone and iPad.

Dude, you forgot to wipe Steve Job's cum off your mouth.

Re:Goodbye Flash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32043196)

Now there is no way Flash will survive. Good. Damn good.

And take Silverlight with you (Flash)...

Re:Goodbye Flash (4, Interesting)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043480)

Increasing Silverlight's market share is what this is about.

Basically, Microsoft is going to embrace HTML5 and use it to hurt Flash, it'll then start to phase HTML5 support out once Flash's market share starts to take a large enough hit and talk about how HTML5 doesn't have enough support or doesn't "have all the features our users demand," then it will start to pimp Silverlight, integrated it with the next Xbox and so forth and remove "upgrade" all the devs to their Expression platform for developing Silverlight apps.

Re:Goodbye Flash (1)

Motard (1553251) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043652)

Exactly. Although I don't think they'll phase out HTML 5, they'll just make it obsolete by competing with the committee controlled standard with a more agile proprietary one. All while coexisting with HTML 5.

Then, they'll just be a few killer Silverlight apps away from having Apple's customers clamoring for Silverlight support.

Re:Goodbye Flash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32043306)

Flash is a platform that allowed many to develop quick applications and fitted the needs of some designers. It came at a price of course (I think it's somewhat annoying), but I don't think this prevents Adobe to come up with a clever mixed idea for developing websites using HTML5 and "backward compatible mode" using Flash.
And once they have people hooked to a web development tool, people will keep working if it's easy and fit their needs. Although it may hurt the usage of "swf" files (and people need to move on with technology), I don't think it necessarily hurts Adobe.

Youtube (1)

fredan (54788) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043092)

How is IE users gonna watch youtube, in VP8 format, microsoft?

Re:Youtube (5, Informative)

self assembled struc (62483) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043154)

using the youtube flash player?

html5 != no flash

html5 is just a version of html which supports a video tag just like an image tag. it also supports the object tag. which means flash works in html5.

the only case where flash isn't going to work is where the operating system or browser does not have a flash plug in.

safari only supports h.264 in the html5 video tag as well. yet, youtube works just fine in it.

mozilla only supports ogg in the html5 video tag. yet, youtube works just fine in it.

Re:Youtube (3, Informative)

YA_Python_dev (885173) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043308)

You're almost completely correct, but:

safari only supports h.264 in the html5 video tag

Safari supports whatever codec happens to be installed. By default Apple installs H.264 and not Theora (which is still available separately [xiph.org] ).

And, yes, I know defaults are powerful things.

Re:Youtube (1)

ByteSlicer (735276) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043664)

html5 is just a version of html which supports a video tag just like an image tag

Among many, many other things...

Re:Youtube (1)

th3james (1596543) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043162)

Youtube is h.264. It even says they played back youtube video in TFA

Re:Youtube (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32043164)

I was going to ask that very same question. Google needs to clarify VP8 situation quickly, and get Opera, Firefox, Chrome and YouTube behind it...

I am assuming Microsoft's backing of H.264 is the evil empires backdoor route of killing Firefox.

Re:Youtube (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32043596)

How is IE users gonna watch youtube, in VP8 format, microsoft?

I'm sure that will be a problem if and when YouTube starts offering videos to VP8.

At present, YouTube currently has all of its videos in h.264

http://www.youtube.com/html5 [youtube.com]

Only H.264? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32043094)

Microsoft won't allow third-party codecs and/or plugins to do the job for them?

Re:Only H.264? (1, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043120)

of course not - h.264 is a good way to strike back at open source. After all, it's got oodles of patents.

Figure it out:

  1. Microsoft likes closed standards
  2. Apple likes closed standards
  3. Both only want to support h.264

html will become the new proprietary web. No thanks.

Re:Only H.264? (3, Insightful)

dzfoo (772245) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043378)

Dude, you do know that JPEG, GIF, and MP3 are all patent-owned standards too, right? Funny that they are all supported by browsers and are rather de facto standards in the "proprietary web".

      -dZ.

Re:Only H.264? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32043458)

Dude, you do know that JPEG, GIF, and MP3 are all patent-owned standards too, right?

The patents on GIF have expired. Baseline JPEG (which is what browsers support) is royalty-free. Closed formats are the exception on the web, not the rule.

Re:Only H.264? (1, Redundant)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043506)

Can someone give this guy over 9000 insightful and informative points?

Re:Only H.264? (3, Informative)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043696)

you do know that JPEG, GIF, and MP3 are all patent-owned standards too, right? Funny that they are all supported by browsers and are rather de facto standards in the "proprietary web".

You really need to do your research.

The GIF patent is long expired. Turn in your geek card - everyone who knows pretty much anything about the patent wars knows that. That alone shows you're talking trash.

Or you could try again. For example, show where the licensing authority says it's okay to make an open-source free version. Oh, you can't - because they refused!

Re:Only H.264? (2, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043456)

Microsoft won't allow third-party codecs and/or plugins to do the job for them?

There are 811 licensees of AVC/H.264 video. [mpegla.com]

The global giants in brand-name consumer hardware production and distribution are all there.

Canonical is there.

If Shuttleworth decides Ubuntu needs H.264 to remain competitive on the desktop, the barrier to installing the codec by default is purely ideological.

It's a Trap! (5, Insightful)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043104)

I can't help myself. I had to do it.

Re:It's a Trap! (2, Insightful)

6031769 (829845) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043136)

Past performance would suggest so. However, it's enlightening to note that yet again Microsoft (and Apple for that matter) really hate other people's proprietary monopolies. I'm only really worried about how they're going to ruin HTML5 as a result of this (whether deliberately or accidentally).

Re:It's a Trap! (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043526)

re:I'm only really worried about how they're going to ruin HTML5 as a result of this (whether deliberately or accidentally).

Just like MS and Netscape did with HTML-extension in the old days. It's the EEE method.

Re:It's a Trap! (5, Insightful)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043194)

It's a Trap!

Yes! 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 "head them off at the pass" by releasing Open Source variations as soon as possible.

Although, I suppose it's possible that Microsoft has learned the danger of becoming the defacto standard with shoddy products through its attempts to kill off XP and IE6... but I doubt it.

Re:It's a Trap! (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043250)

That was Silverlight.

*grumbling*I spent all that time learning it */grumbling*

Par for the course with "new" technology. I guess it's usually safe to stick to open platforms.

Remember (1, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043130)

Step 1 is embrace. Look for extend real soon.

Re:Remember (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32043158)

Embrace, Extend, Enhance

Re:Remember (1)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043258)

I don't think that strategy will work real well these days - it depends on people being willing to adopt your proprietary extensions, and with all the focus on standards compliance in today's world, there will be few who do.

Re:Remember (1)

jlebrech (810586) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043370)

Step 2 is to compile into some HTML5 and javascript from Visual Studio, maybe with a Flash studio-esque timeline and animations.

Expression Blend, HTML5 export comes to mind.

This has little to nothing to do with Flash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32043142)

Again, H.264 and Flash are overlapping technologies. Most Flash video served on the web is in H.264 format. So far the wording of this post and all its replies is completely moronic.

Study up, buttercup.

Unsurprising (5, Interesting)

whisking (1181729) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043146)

It is quite unsurprising they will support only h.264. They are a licensor in the h.264 patent pool (just like Apple) so it does not cost them anything and they actually get money when somebody licenses it, so it makes sense to endorse its use. If something else (theora, vp8,...) will actually win the html5 video format war, they can always add the support later. Obviously I am joking about this part :)

What does this have to do with Flash? (2, Interesting)

bbqsrc (1441981) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043166)

Google only allows H.264 video to be played in its browser. It also supports Flash. I understand that supporting <video> is killing Flash, but seriously, they're not mandating the use of HTML5 only like Apple. "Comparing apples and oranges" as they say.

Re:What does this have to do with Flash? (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043234)

Google only allows it in its own browser because it's the only one that supports it so far. When others support it, they'll open it up for them, too.

Re:What does this have to do with Flash? (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043278)

Neither is Apple, on the Mac. I'd be curious to see what position Microsoft will take for IE on the latest version of WinMo. Jobs made some valid points. It's still arguable that he and Apple should step back and let people hang themselves with mobile Flash if they want to, but he made good points.

Wait, also (5, Insightful)

bbqsrc (1441981) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043208)

Why the fuck is this categorised as Apple? It can't have less to do with Apple. Seriously.

Re:Wait, also (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043240)

Check the author.

Re:Wait, also (2)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043530)

I think it's kdawson's subtle dig at all those people who bitched and moaned about how hypocritical Apple is for embracing an open standard (HTML5) over a closed one (flash) when their platforms are sometimes closed as well as the software they themselves produce. Somehow I guess we won't see much outrage about MS endorsing html5. They were a little more tactful than Apple was though: they hedged their bets by saying that flash is still useful. But then again, MS actually has a good working relationship with Adobe, that's a big contrast to Apple whose relationship has been strained (from a user's perspective) since Photoshop never got ported to cocoa for OS X.

As an interesting aside, this is coming fresh on the heels MS canceling its tablet, following great sales of Apple's tablet. I can see that this [arstechnica.com] sign from a few years ago is still relevant today. Shit, the last time I was actually impressed by the innovation in an MS product, it was Windows 2000.

P.S. The irony is that Safari itself has multiple components that are actually open source, i.e. the html renderer is webkit and gui is editable using xcode, which is a lot more open than IE. I myself removed the brushed metal texture from Safari a few years ago back before ditched that look completely anyway. But a lot of /. users have decided that Apple is completely and irrevocably evil and thus can't possibly do any good features. I'm guessing there will be a lack of vitriol here though, despite the fact that IE is more closed than Safari, and historically has resulted in weak compliance for standards on the web, in fact, IE6 enforced a lot of non-compliance due to the OS monopoly and IE6's poor implementation.

Re:Wait, also (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32043578)

Shit, the last time I was actually impressed by the innovation in an MS product, it was Windows 2000.

Ah, right. Now I know you're one of those idiots...

Flash != Video (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32043218)

Flash can do a lot more than play videos.

Also, when people start doing the same stupid shit with HTML5/Javascript (obnoxious banner ads, etc) that they currently do with Flash, will it still be OK in your book?

Re:Flash != Video (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32043334)

Yes. I won't have a buggy, proprietary plugin crashing or adding additional security holes to my system.

Re:Flash != Video (1)

Stooshie (993666) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043450)

Flash hasn't been like that for years. You think every browser is going to implement HTML5/JS in the same way? Are you going to have to write different code for each browser. Flash/Flex allows you to do that and create a desktop app with the same functionality for very little extra work.

so happy (1, Troll)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043242)

I just had a tear I think, well somewhere on the inside of my mind... :)

finally, finally, man I hate Flash, I want everyone who used flash on their sites to suffer from this decision :) Sorry, just can't control my feelings of happiness right now :)

HTML5, here we go.

Re:so happy (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043418)

I might share your enthusiasm about the iminent explosion of HTML5 development if I wasn't still supporting MS' decade old IE6. Flash isn't going anywhere until the vast, vast majority of users are using HTML5 capable browsers (and even then it'll still have a place for other uses - a lot of which could be done via HTML5, but when a company already has a bunch of Flash developers and HTML5 still supports the object element, why would they switch at great expense).

Re:so happy (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043642)

Why do you need flash developers to stream bog standard video? It really isn't like you need to rewrite the player for every new stream.

So does that mean... (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043260)

... Microsoft are ditching Silverlight?

Of course not. I expect it suits them to promote HTML 5 with one hand while still trying to snare people with Silverlight on the other.

I just hope that when they talk HTML5 they actually mean it this time rather than supplying some half arsed implementation which deviates from the spec in significant ways.

Re:So does that mean... (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043336)

I don't get what they want to achieve with Silverlight. If they truly make IE9 compatible with HTML5 and offer a decent Javascript engine, what will the benefits of Silverlight be? Isn't Microsoft shooting itself in the foot with this?

Re:So does that mean... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32043650)

Silverlight allows Netflix to stream video in a hard to rip format. (yeah, I know that there is at least 1 hack out there, but it is more bother than it is worth)

Can you turn it off? (4, Insightful)

lfp98 (740073) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043276)

The major advantage of Flash is that you can choose NOT to install it. With HTML5 decoding built into the browsers, are we all doomed to watch whirlygigs everywhere, all day long?

Re:Can you turn it off? (1)

mr_lizard13 (882373) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043314)

Just don't press play.

Re:Can you turn it off? (2, Insightful)

Stooshie (993666) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043460)

what about autoplay="true". try overriding that in HTML5

Re:Can you turn it off? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32043606)

var arVideos = document.getElementsByTagName('video');
for (var i = arVideos.length - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
        var elmVideo = arVideos[i];
        elmVideo.autoplay = false;
}

Re:Can you turn it off? (3, Insightful)

ukyoCE (106879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043624)

about:config ...we can only hope.

Re:Can you turn it off? (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043654)

again, browser options should be able to control that behavior.

Re:Can you turn it off? (1)

nick357 (108909) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043558)

Thats crazy talk!

Re:Can you turn it off? (3, Insightful)

bemymonkey (1244086) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043362)

Javascript is built into the browser, yet we have no problems turning that off, do we? :)

Re:Can you turn it off? (1, Informative)

Bragador (1036480) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043386)

If you have adblock plus, all you'll have to do is "ban" that video and voila!

Re:Can you turn it off? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32043618)

EMBEDDED HTML

Re:Can you turn it off? (2, Informative)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043446)

There are plenty of plugins/addons for browsers that do dynamic DOM manipulation - I can't imagine it would be difficult to write a plugin that disabled the video element until/unless required.

Re:Can you turn it off? (2, Insightful)

EzInKy (115248) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043492)

In Firefox preferences you can disable loading images, why wouldn't there be an option to do the same with video?

Re:Can you turn it off? (1)

Explodicle (818405) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043690)

Greasemonkey.

The bright side (3, Funny)

bcmm (768152) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043280)

The bright side is that this codec idiocy might actually get people interested in fixing software patents.

What about AVI/DIVX/XVID playback? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32043290)

I was all set ready to buy an ipad. Then I started wondering, what else won't Mr. Jobs permit on my computer. Then it occurred to me: AVI/DIVX/XVID. The ipad would be perfect to curl up in bed with a video. If I didn't have to transcode every hour of video with something like handbrake (www.handbrake.fr)

So what if software decoding runs down the battery for AVI files? Isn't that my choice?

So the problem is, we are allowing good technology to seduce us into accepting bad software ideology. And surrendering to a nanny state with royal edicts.

Nuh-uh. I like my ipod touch, and use it for podcasts and mp3 files. However the last time I took a train trip I brought my netbook for movies -- I didn't want to have to transcode things.

Webcam support? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043298)

With all this html5 love, where is the webcam broadcasting support?
What will all the live streaming sites do allow you to send your HD or almost HD UVC webcam out to the world?
http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-device/ [w3.org]

Apple? (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043416)

I understand the submitter added a tidbit about Apple to increase the likelihood of the story making it to the front page but why does a story about Microsoft have an "Apple:" tag? This is a story about Microsoft and HTML5 - take your pick but neither of those is Apple.

And here I thought I was an Apple fanboi...

Follow the money before you rejoice (4, Insightful)

c0d3g33k (102699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043434)

This move is as self-serving as ever, so be careful what you wish for as the Flash hate clouds your mind.

1. Microsoft doesn't control Adobe and I'm sure that bothers them. It sure as hell bothers Steve Jobs. So why not take them out while they are vulnerable?
2. Microsoft is part of the H.264 patent pool, so they will make money when the licensing bombs go off. Killing off a competitor (flash) so users and content providers have few alternatives and must pay up puts them right where Microsoft wants them.
3. Once flash is gone (or has greatly diminished influence/relevance), Microsoft is free to tweak things in a way that suits them better. Embrace, extend, extinguish.
4. HTML5 video has no established standard DRM solution which content owners crave. Flash does, so it's hard to get content owners on board with Microsoft's agenda at present. I suspect that Microsoft has something in the works to offer them, which will conveniently be exclusive to Microsoft controlled platforms, or licensable to those who play nice (Apple). Sorry Android (and Linux).

This makes me very nervous.

#include standard /. HTML5 video corrections (4, Informative)

Paul Jakma (2677) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043500)

  • HTML5 != video codec

    That is to say, HTML5 is a way to embed video into web pages, along with controls. HTML5 doesn't say anything about the video codec that should be used, similar to how the IMG tag doesn't say what kinds of image formats are supported. Further, the videos that are loaded will almost certainly be in some container format, like Ogg, MP4, AVI, etc.. - not in raw codec data form.

    If the underlying system has a general media decoding system, and if the browser uses that, then the browser will support any kind of media supported by that underlying system.

  • HTML5 is open

    It's an openly specified W3 standard. As a means to embed video into webpages, HTML5 video is much better than using the object tag to suck in a proprietary blob to then suck in the video.

  • The H.264 codec is openly specified.

    H.264 is openly specified in standards drawn up by the MPEG and published by ISO. There are free software implementations of H.264. H.264 rather is encumbered by patents, the licensing for many of which is administered by the MPEG-LA. The patent situation is what things difficult for distributors/users, there is no lack of standards.

    Note that flash players often use H.263 and H.264 codec videos, and so have all the same patent issues for free software implementations (in addition to the problem of Flash not being fully documented, and not having any complete free implementations).

We have nothing to gain (1)

jeanph01 (700760) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043564)

It's just Microsoft that want to control the web in place of Adobe. Nothing will be gained for the user with this. That codec is managed by a patent pool.

I need some clarifications about HTML5 (1)

zebslash (1107957) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043616)

Something I do not understand with HTML 5:

1) Why is the video codec type hardcoded in HTML5? Tight coupling has been known to be bad practice in many engineering problems, especially in programming. Avoiding such pitfalls is the base of object oriented programming, isn't it ? Wouldn't it be more logical to let HTML5 use media codecs availabl from the underlying OS?

2) Even if HTML5 has to define a video codec in their specifications, why Firefox cannot instead create a plugin that would take advantage of codecs installed on the system? They would avoid distributing a H264 decoder, but at the same time would be able to use the one the user would install separately (of course with disclaimers such as do it at your own risk, etc).

Can anyone enlighten me about this, or give me links?

dreamweaver (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32043656)

its great to see that little communities like this one has woken up to the fact that flash is going from strength to strength. it must be a shame that they can't do much about it except moan from the sidelines. with the open screen project and hardware acceleration for flash video you dreamers are in for a world of pain! who gives a crap about the iphone anyhow, apart from the cupertino deepthroaters you seem to find around here =)

svg wundershow and all the various forms of html are a complete joke in comparison to flash. get a clue! maybe in 2022 apples' canvas crap will get its stuff together, but the notion that flash won't advance in this time is wishful to say the least.

dream on dreamers! theres more chance of linux getting anywhere in the desktop market than flash to be replaced!

 

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?