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 Makes Chrome Play H.264 Video

CmdrTaco posted more than 2 years ago | from the patches-are-welcome dept.

Chrome 535

nk497 writes "Chrome users will be able to play H.264 video — thanks to Microsoft. The software giant today unveiled the Windows Media Player HTML5 Extension for Chrome, which will let users of the Google browser play H.264 video after it was dropped from Chrome over licensing issues. 'At Microsoft we respect that Windows customers want the best experience of the web including the ability to enjoy the widest range of content available on the internet in H.264 format,' said Claudio Caldato, Microsoft interoperability program manager."

cancel ×

535 comments

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

And Yet, No Ogg Theora in IE (2, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080708)

"At Microsoft we respect that Windows customers want the best experience of the web"

Ohhh, right, that's why Ogg Theora isn't natively supported in Internet Explorer [wikipedia.org] . Maybe you could concentrate on improving the support, capabilities and experience in your own browser before bothering to extend other browsers?

Re:And Yet, No Ogg Theora in IE (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35080740)

"At Microsoft we respect that Windows customers want the best experience of the web"

Ohhh, right, that's why Ogg Theora isn't natively supported in Internet Explorer [wikipedia.org] . Maybe you could concentrate on improving the support, capabilities and experience in your own browser before bothering to extend other browsers?

Google had the chance to back theora a long time ago. at one point safari was the only browser bothering with h.264

I would wager IE would still be on the fence if google didn't bring in 264 support when it did. The fact that they are now flip flopping on their position now that 264 is prevailing as the common standard to me seems really two faced. If they really cared about using an open codec they should have made as big a deal about it a year ago, not now.

Re:And Yet, No Ogg Theora in IE (3, Funny)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080900)

If they made a stink about it back then they might not have gotten any traction. You don't throw stones when you're in glass houses unless you want to have a rain of glass shards cutting you to smithereens before you have a chance to lay a decent stack of bricks.

Something about not cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Re:And Yet, No Ogg Theora in IE (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35080744)

Oh no, they don't support a format no one gives a shit about.

Re:And Yet, No Ogg Theora in IE (3, Insightful)

node 3 (115640) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080750)

Adding support for H.264 is actually useful, unlike Theora support. Also, it's largely a game of upsmanship, basically saying, "here Google, we fixed your browser for you".

Re:And Yet, No Ogg Theora in IE (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35080868)

Theora is also quite useful, given that the Wikimedia projects only accept free formats. You're not going to be able to upload your video in H.264 there, and they're a big enough player for this to actually matter.

Re:And Yet, No Ogg Theora in IE (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35080966)

Theora is also quite useful

Oh, that is rich.

Re:And Yet, No Ogg Theora in IE (1, Interesting)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 2 years ago | (#35081186)

>>>Theora is also quite useful

Yes it is, but I think HE-AAC (plus SBR) is more useful. It can provide CD quality as low as 48k and AM quality as low as 12k. Give it a try: http://www.radiojackie.com/listennowpage.asp [radiojackie.com]

Neither MP3 or Theora can touch it. And yes I have to pay an extra penny or whatever for my AACplus player, but the better sound quality for small files is worth it. (Same reasoning goes for why I prefer MPEG4 video over VP8 or MPEG2.)

Re:And Yet, No Ogg Theora in IE (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080890)

Well that and google made the chrome frame for IE. updateing IEE's poor javascript engine with something a bit more modern.

Re:And Yet, No Ogg Theora in IE (0)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 2 years ago | (#35081072)

>>>"here Google, we fixed your browser for you".

This seems awfully familiar. I think I recall reading something similar on wikipedia:

""Embrace" AOL's IM protocol [or Google browser]. "Extend" the standard with proprietary Microsoft addons which added new features but broke compatibility with AOL's [ror Google's] software. Gain dominance since Microsoft had 95% OS share and their MS Messenger was provided for free. And finally, "extinguish" and lockout AOL's IM [or Google's VP8] software, since AOL was unable to use the modified MS-patented protocol."

BTW I wrote this paragraph two years ago. Thank you. :-)

Re:And Yet, No Ogg Theora in IE (4, Insightful)

zn0k (1082797) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080758)

Anything that increases choice is a good thing.

It's not like there isn't a very well documented interface to IE. Why don't you write an Ogg Theroa plugin for IE, rather than complain that Microsoft wrote something that is both in their interest and useful for users that do want to use h.264 as well as use Chrome?
Or use the VLC media player plugin, which - at least according to the Wikipedia page on Theroa - lets you view that format in IE and Firefox.

Re:And Yet, No Ogg Theora in IE (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35080840)

Anything that increases choice is a good thing.

Except that in this case it decreases the users choice by strengthening an already popular format.

Re:And Yet, No Ogg Theora in IE (2)

zn0k (1082797) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080962)

Or it increases user's choice in regard to browsers as users who don't care about the patent background of video formats can now choose to use Chrome without losing the ability to watch h.264 videos.

Re:And Yet, No Ogg Theora in IE (2)

nschubach (922175) | more than 2 years ago | (#35081178)

...on Windows machines.

That's really what's it's about (IMHO) Microsoft would rather keep you using pay/patent protected codecs because they can slip them in on a bulk license while keeping other alternative OSes (mainly Linux) from having that support (for legality/monetary reasons.)

If an open codec were popular, anyone could use it and people may not miss Windows support for 'X' codec that isn't available elsewhere.

Re:And Yet, No Ogg Theora in IE (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#35081028)

Depends on your definition of "choice" Does the average user care about the choice "to use free software that doesn't have patents", or about the choice to "watch this video I wanted to see"?

Re:And Yet, No Ogg Theora in IE (-1, Flamebait)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080796)

"best experience" and "ogg theora" are mutually exclusive.

Re:And Yet, No Ogg Theora in IE (1)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080806)

I guess Microsoft employs obstetricians as their strategists. "Push! Push! Push!"

Re:And Yet, No Ogg Theora in IE (2, Insightful)

grimsnaggle (1320777) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080874)

But nobody uses Ogg Theora.

Re:And Yet, No Ogg Theora in IE (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35080886)

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

THEORA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAH

You're an idiot.

Re:And Yet, No Ogg Theora in IE (1)

Dest (207166) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080892)

This is ridiculous. Nobody uses or cares about Theora.

Re:And Yet, No Ogg Theora in IE (2)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080898)

code an activeX plugin and you should be OK

Incomplete quote (1)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 2 years ago | (#35081018)

The full quote is:

"At Microsoft we respect that Windows customers want the best experience of the web including the ability to enjoy the widest range of content available on the internet in H.264 format"

They don't want Windows customers to have the best experience of the web, they want users to have the best experience of H.264 format content available on the web, a much narrower goal with less actual benefit to any user, not even just Windows customers.

It's important to have all the information and not just pull something out of context, because you will get the wrong idea. MS concentrates just as much on the way they express themselves as they do on the development of their own software.

Ogg Theora has no technical merit over H.264 (3, Interesting)

Kohath (38547) | more than 2 years ago | (#35081032)

Ogg Theora is technically highly inferior to H.264. All it has going for it is religion and ideology.

Why should Microsoft support your particular belief system over the beliefs of anyone else? Why, especially, should they want their users to have a much worse experience watching internet video?

How about adopting (or adapting) a belief system that leads to better products instead of worse ones?

Re:And Yet, No Ogg Theora in IE (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35081082)

If you have an interest in Ogg Theora, then please, provide a plugin for IE that enables it to play that format. This is what Microsoft has done in Chrome. And they've done it just to spite Google!!

Re:And Yet, No Ogg Theora in IE (1)

Quarters (18322) | more than 2 years ago | (#35081142)

If and when "the best experience of the web" includes needing support for a little known and poorly named video codec than maybe the parent comment would be reasonable. With the small percentage of wanted content on the Web that is encoded with Ogg the post comes off as both trollish and ignorant. Ignorant of the minuscule demand for Ogg Theora and ignorant of the fact that a PR quote can't reasonably be held as factual relative to the opinions of everyone.

Priorities (4, Insightful)

ironicsky (569792) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080716)

Microsoft has interesting priorities... "Lets release a plug-in for a third party browser to fix a perceived short coming..." as opposed to "Lets fix the problems and short comings in our products". Slow clap for Microsoft.

Re:Priorities (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080782)

Slow clap for Microsoft.

With one hand

Re:Priorities (5, Funny)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 2 years ago | (#35081104)

With one hand

Well I know what you're watching with your new plug-in...

Re:Priorities (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35080910)

Microsoft has interesting priorities... "Lets release a plug-in for a third party browser to fix a perceived short coming..." as opposed to "Lets fix the problems and short comings in our products". Slow clap for Microsoft.

Yeah, it's almost as if Microsoft were a large company with a lot of developers assigned to a diverse range of products and tasks, where some developer's responsibilities don't overlap with the projects you seem to think they should be fixing bugs on.

Re:Priorities (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080926)

How much does MS stand to gain from continued support of h264 by a competing browser?

I'd wonder if MS was involved in licensing the codec somehow. Are they a member of MPEG-LA?

Re:Priorities (4, Informative)

MHolmesIV (253236) | more than 2 years ago | (#35081054)

Yes. Microsoft is a patent holder in the H.264 patent pool.

Re:Priorities (1)

arose (644256) | more than 2 years ago | (#35081090)

Yes, but their royalties don't seem to cover their own licensing fees. Then again, Microsoft benefits from the status quo of big companies controlling and dividing the market among themselves.

Re:Priorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35081174)

Obviously they're trolling Google.

Re:Priorities (2)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#35081190)

Microsoft has interesting priorities... "Lets release a plug-in for a third party browser to fix a perceived short coming..." as opposed to "Lets fix the problems and short comings in our products". Slow clap for Microsoft.

To be fair, Google has done that (in a much bigger way) for IE [google.com] .

Holy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35080718)

No WONDER the Midwest is in the middle of Snowpocolypse 2011. Someone knit Satan a sweater! Hell froze over!

Poetic Justice (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35080720)

For when Chrome did the same for Internet Explorer

Re:Poetic Justice (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080864)

Soes this work with Chrome Frame running in IE running in IE Frame running in Firefox running in WINE running in Linux running in Virtual Box running on Windows?

Re:Poetic Justice (2)

WhiteDragon (4556) | more than 2 years ago | (#35081084)

Soes this work with Chrome Frame running in IE running in IE Frame running in Firefox running in WINE running in Linux running in Virtual Box running on Windows?

no, because the firefox extension is called IE Tab (or IE Tab Plus), not IEFrame. Still, it would be interesting if someone tries it.

Finally! (1)

Wamoc (1263324) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080730)

I can actually watch internet video in Chrome now!

Re:Finally! (1)

arose (644256) | more than 2 years ago | (#35081112)

You could before. [youtube.com]

NASA TV, yay (1)

Joe U (443617) | more than 2 years ago | (#35081132)

Well, at least NASA TV works in Chrome now.

That's a plus, if I ever remember to watch it.

Re:Finally! (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 2 years ago | (#35081228)

I can actually watch internet video in Chrome now!

Actually, you need flash for that, sorry.

Now if only they would negotiate with the H.264... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35080752)

Now if only they would negotiate with the H.264 patent holders to grant a F/OSS friendly license to that patent pool, it might be interesting.

Until then, it's just another example of embrace/extend/extinguish.

Re:Now if only they would negotiate with the H.264 (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080842)

That's not how 'embrace, extend, extinguish' works. They are embracing H.264, but not extending it, are extending Chrome (in a way different from e.e.e. however), and extinguishing neither.

Memory Leak (5, Informative)

Utopia (149375) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080756)

Microsoft's H.264 addon for Firefox has a bad memory leak.
See http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/971988-memory-leak-in-html5-extension-for-windows-media-player-firefox-add-on/ [neowin.net]

So this might be bad for Chrome.

Re:Memory Leak (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35080854)

Microsoft's Native Implementation for IE may also have a memory leak so no surprise there.

Re:Memory Leak (5, Insightful)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080856)

Well there's that, the intensive CPU usage, kernel panics, and it giving you cancer.

But it's still better than Flash.

Very few users will notice (2)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080938)

most end users don't keep windows up, they close them as soon as their down to avoid 'cluttering their desktops'. So it's not much of an issue.

Re:Very few users will notice (1)

SadButTrue (848439) | more than 2 years ago | (#35081078)

I have had the misfortune of being the go to IT guy at a couple of small firms. Getting called away from dev work to "fix" sales drones PCs is all to common. 90% of the time it involved killing the 50 or so open IE instances. They get stuck between not wanting to bookmark something and not wanting to lose it so they just minimize...

Re:Very few users will notice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35081182)

most end users don't keep windows up, they close them as soon as their down to avoid 'cluttering their desktops'. So it's not much of an issue.

Thoughts like that are why those of us in QA have grey hairs.

Re:Memory Leak (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080948)

When in Rome...

Crap - the H.264 disease just got better (1, Troll)

Sandb (691178) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080764)

This will make H.264 acceptable again for commercial use, infecting the web with patented video tech all over. Hold on to your Linux horses people, you can expect another round of "possibly illegal in your country" extensions to allow you to view the interweb's content. Just say NO to H.264!!

Re:Crap - the H.264 disease just got better (1, Insightful)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080818)

As opposed to the patent unknown of WebM. Yeah, I'm sure people will jump right on that bandwagon!

Re:Crap - the H.264 disease just got better (1)

arose (644256) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080896)

As opposed to the patent unknown of WebM. It's as known as H.264, e.i. we know who holds the known patents. If you are saying it is in violation of strong patents without naming them you are arguing against years of On2 selling video codecs withou being sued in the ground. In absence of contrary evidence the reasonable position is that On2 exhibited at least as much diligence with VP8 as VP6 even before Google went over things.

Re:Crap - the H.264 disease just got better (1)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 2 years ago | (#35081118)

Unless they were making at least enough money to cover the lawsuit costs for the plaintiff, there is no reason to sue. Usually they wait until business picks up to the extent that they have something worth suing over or a pile of cash that they can easily pay. Google has deep pockets so I imagine once they've got a full roll-out that's in heavy use they're going to get hit with a lawsuit whether it has merit or not. The opportunity is just too good to pass up.

It's pretty similar to the Oracle lawsuit. They've seen how much Android has taken off, and if they can get a few dollars for every unit sold, it more than makes up for the millions that will be spent on the lawsuit. Hell, it even makes the Sun acquisition pay for itself.

Re:Crap - the H.264 disease just got better (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080964)

As opposed to the patent unknown of WebM. Yeah, I'm sure people will jump right on that bandwagon!

A major worry actually given how the patent system is. Right now we think WebM is patent free (and it would be nice if it was - c'mon Google, don't you trust your engineers?), but you can bet everyone is quietly sitting on their patents and seeing where this WebM thing is leading. If it proves successful, you strike. But never before - let it be established and essential, then you strike so everyone has no choice but license your patent (or fight you).

That's a problem, these submarine patents.

And those of you claiming that you're in a software-patent free-zone, well, then you're technically in the clear about using h.264 as well since its patents wouldn't be valid, either.

Damned if you do (h.264 patents are recognized and that means WebM is also vulnerable), and damned if you don't (if h.264 patents aren't recognized, then yes, WebM is free, but so is h.264).

It's also a reason why WebM's spec is really source code - because it's close to h.264, alternative implementations may infringe on h.264 (or you use your already-paid-for h.264 licenses...).

Re:Crap - the H.264 disease just got better (0)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080846)

I would say no to H.264, if it had not revolutionized video delivery and became the standard format to deliver high quality HD video to end users.

OS (5, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080780)

I still believe that every browser should rely on the codecs installed on the OS. Every platform (and optionally the user) can then choose what they want.

Re:OS (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35080826)

Even if you do believe that way, H.264 has no place in Open Web (nor in HTML standard).

Re:OS (3)

dagamer34 (1012833) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080908)

Businesses aren't going nor should they care if a format is open or not. They just want a reliable product to be delivered to their customers.

Re:OS (3, Insightful)

mdielmann (514750) | more than 2 years ago | (#35081134)

Businesses aren't going nor should they care if a format is open or not. They just want a reliable product to be delivered to their customers.

The one key issue with that statement is that if you release a royalty-encumbered product that you can't charge for, you're on the hook for some amount of money. Hence the push for open formats in web browsers, and why a company may be uninterested in producing a free product that opens them for lawsuits at some time in the future.

This isn't a problem for paid-for products, because you can purchase royalties for the patented technologies and it becomes part of the product cost. So goes the theory, anyway.

Re:OS (1)

arose (644256) | more than 2 years ago | (#35081176)

Opera isn't a business?

Re:OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35081130)

I just want it to work in the web browser without I have to download at least one codec just because companies can't agree on a standard. The minimum interaction I have to do while browsing the web is what I want. Why should the OS and I be bothered? And why should web services have to create all possible available codec on all OS' just to display a video on their web site? If they could use a single standard then less usage on their servers and costs.

Re:OS (1)

arose (644256) | more than 2 years ago | (#35081140)

And I believe that cross platform software should work out of the box by minimizing it's platform specific dependencies.

Can't win (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35080786)

If you can't beat 'em, appear to fix them.

Translation (2)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080794)

"No way are we at Microsoft letting Chrome users off the hook for autoplayed videos with our advertisements in them."

Downright evil (0)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080798)

Google dropped support for that crap because it's a patent trap, while a technologically equivalent format exists - WebM. I hope Youtube will remove h.264 encoding from their videos as soon as most Firefox and Chrome users migrated to a version that supports WebM.

Re:Downright evil (1, Informative)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080850)

x264 is not a patent trap, its patent implications are well known. WebM, on the other hand, is a patent trap - nobody knows who's going to come out of the woodwork to sue over some small piece of it that someone has a vague patent over.

Re:Downright evil (2)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080954)

x264 is a patent trap whose teeth are so ginormous people are afraid to go near it.

Re:Downright evil (4, Informative)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080968)

Bullshit. Let me break it down:

Patent risk from submarine patents: neither h.264 nor WebM offers any protection from it.

Patent risk from MPEG-LA for h.264: significant, as it can decide to raise prices / start charging for content at any time. Bait and switch is their strategy.

Patent risk from Google for WebM: none, they offered irrevocable indemnification [webmproject.org] :

Google hereby grants to you a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable ⦠patent license to [infringe VP8 patents owned by Google].

Re:Downright evil (1)

arose (644256) | more than 2 years ago | (#35081212)

Patent risk from submarine patents: neither h.264 nor WebM offers any protection from it.

At least not to the general public, I wouldn't be too surprised if there is an indemnification scheme of some soft behind the broad support Google was able to attract from other companies.

Re:Downright evil (3, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#35081002)

264 IS a patent trap, and one of the trap owners is microsoft. this is why they are being so charitable in this occasion.

H.264 good. Not supporting it, bad. Good for MS (0, Troll)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080822)

H.264 is the standard. Browsers should play it.

Re:H.264 good. Not supporting it, bad. Good for MS (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35080978)

Microsoft Office is the industry standard. Everyone should have a copy.

Re:H.264 good. Not supporting it, bad. Good for MS (1)

SadButTrue (848439) | more than 2 years ago | (#35081102)

de facto standard you mean?

Re:H.264 good. Not supporting it, bad. Good for MS (1)

toriver (11308) | more than 2 years ago | (#35081218)

ISO/IEC 14496-10 - MPEG-4 Part 10, Advanced Video Coding

Sounds like a formal standard to me.

Unlike, say, a spec made by a small company that Google bought.

Re:H.264 good. Not supporting it, bad. Good for MS (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#35081128)

LAMP stacks are the standard, everyone should be using Linux.

Re:H.264 good. Not supporting it, bad. Good for MS (1)

sqldr (838964) | more than 2 years ago | (#35081150)

popular =/= standard. Standards need to be published in a way that people can implement without being sued. You can't even avoid the patents, since by following the standard, you're implementing the patents.

Re:H.264 good. Not supporting it, bad. Good for MS (2)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 2 years ago | (#35081196)

H.264 is the standard. Browsers should play it.

Not really, flash is the standard. Barely nothing uses the video tag out there and the places that do offer currently flash support over it. The biggest provider of video tag content (youtube), while not enabled by default provides the majority of that content in webm only for the video tag.

Thus, I wouldn't even say h.264 is the 'standard' for video tags either.

Sure MS... Sure (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080852)

This is making you sound like you want chrome users to use H264... I wonder why.

I'm sure this is to give the choice, and not because you have interests in H264 yourself.

Good going guys!

[This post brought to you by the Sarcastic Foundation]

Whoever wins, I win (1)

mibe (1778804) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080876)

I can't help but think I can only benefit from Google and Microsoft fighting.

bravo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35080882)

I rarely praise M$ for anything (you know their history), but bravo to M$ for this one. I hope to see other plug-ins for several browsers on several platforms to enable H.264 - basically any browser that doesn't support it natively. Despite Google's attempt at thwarting an emerging standard, H.264 IS the standard, get used to it.

no. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080982)

h264 is patent encumbered proprietary crap. you get used to it.

The Chrome h.264 plug-in seems to work fine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35080928)

Google is readying a WebM plug-in for IE9. No complaints about either.

c'mon! (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080932)

I eagerly await a wall of text explaining why this is actually an evil move by MS, and how .h264 is the devil's codec that will steal the internet from all of us!

Remember Google bringing SVG to IE? (2)

infernalC (51228) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080936)

Do you remember this: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/08/22/1246248/Google-Brings-SVG-Support-To-IE [slashdot.org] ?

I remember when Google announced the svgweb javascript library to enable SVG support in IE. That sort of reinforced the notion that Microsoft was playing catch-up in the browser technology arena. Microsoft is now, at least trying, I think, to present the appearance that Google is the company that is behind. Not to mention it doesn't hurt MS to have value added to Chrome when it runs on Windows. They're not going to make this happen for Chrome running on GNU/Linux.

Spyware (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35080942)

Yay. Now Microsoft can steal Google search results from Chrome too!

And (5, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#35080958)

will it report which videos i choose to watch on youtube to microsoft ? so that they can use it to 'improve their results' in any potential video service they may be launching, depending on what youtube shows ?

Re:And (-1, Troll)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#35081066)

If you're using Chrome, you've already proven you don't care about the app phoning home.

Re:And (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#35081216)

If you're using Chrome, you've already proven you don't care about the app phoning home.

No, you've shown that you are willing to accept an app phoning home to Google for what Chrome gives you. That doesn't mean that you are willing to accept an app phoning home to Microsoft for what the H.264-in-HTML5-video-tag-plugin gives you.

Anything you can do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35081016)

"I heard they released a plugin for our browser that supposedly 'fixes' it. Well guess what? We just released a plugin for their browser that fixes it. You're welcome." - Steve Ballmer

no, I'm pretty sure not (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#35081030)

'At Microsoft we respect that Windows customers want the best experience of the web including the ability to enjoy the widest range of content available on the internet in H.264 format,'

No, I'm pretty sure that most Microsoft customers just get confused and glazed-over eyes when someone mentions H.264 or any other numbers.

Don't do it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35081080)

It's a trap!

When I first read the headline... (1)

cvtan (752695) | more than 2 years ago | (#35081086)

I thought it said "Microsoft Makes Crime Pay".

Why doesn't Google add a patent indemnity clause? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35081192)

If Google wanted to stand behind WebM and end this mess all they need to do is put some type of patent indemnity clause into the WebM license. Because, when all is said and done, that's all it boils down to. Companies like Microsoft pay for H.264 licensing because it is safer for them to do so. If a lawsuit arises then the MGEP LA steps in and takes care of it (ideally through patent-pooling, I guess).

That said, it isn't the *big guys* who are really worrying about it. It's the smaller shops that generally are the first targets in the patent troll "war chest" strategy. Who's going to go to bat for you when your company is the target of a WebM patent troll?

IE + Chrome + Frame + This = Awesome? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35081204)

So to have the ultimate in browsing experience, I need to install Google Chrome Frame and this new Microsoft Chrome extension so that I can run an Internet Explorer interface with the Chrome rendering engine with support for H.264 videos?

Bing? (1)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | more than 2 years ago | (#35081208)

Maybe they really just want people to install a chrome addon so they can send even more google searches to Bing for optimization!

Microsoft interoperability????? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35081224)

"...said Claudio Caldato, Microsoft interoperability program manager"

WHAT? Microsoft has an interoperability czar? What good is he since, in particular, Silverlight is not interoperable. I'd sure like to watch my netflix streams using Linux - maybe I wouldn't have to reboot my media pc as often. Plus any Linux-using Zune [if there are any :-] owners might want some interoperability, too.

OTOH maybe it's better we don't have any Microsoft crap-apps for Linux...

I've heard this one before (1, Funny)

Boawk (525582) | more than 2 years ago | (#35081236)

That wording seems odd:

Microsoft Makes Chrome Play H.264 Video

Chrome tries to file a police report. Officer replies, "Well, yea. Just look at the way you're dressed."

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>