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 Picks Another Web Standards Fight

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the dem's-fightin'-woids dept.

Microsoft 211

mikejuk writes "WebRTC is a way to allow browsers to get in touch with one another using audio or video data without the help of a server. Google has been something of a pioneer in this area, and submitted a suggested technology for the standard. Mozilla has gone along with it, making it all look good. Microsoft, on the other hand, just seemed to be standing on the sidelines, watching what was happening. However, Microsoft now has a product that needs something like WebRTC; namely, Skype. It has been working on a web-based version of Skype and this has focused the collective mind on the problems of browser-to-browser communication. It now agrees that a standard is needed, just not the one Google and Mozilla are behind. Microsoft has submitted its own proposals for CU-RTC-Web or Customizable, Ubiquitous Real Time Communication over the Web, to the W3C. It may well be that Microsoft's alternative has features that make it superior, but a single standard is preferable to a better non-standard. Given Microsoft's need to make Skype work in the browser, it seems likely that, should its proposal not be accepted as the standard, it will press on regardless, thus splitting the development environment. Both Google and Mozilla have already put a lot of work into WebRTC, and there are partial implementations in Firefox, Chrome and Opera."

cancel ×

211 comments

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

Some things never change.... (5, Insightful)

rts008 (812749) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952131)

Color me surprised. /sarcasm

Re:Some things never change.... (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952171)

But this isn't 1998 any more. It's not even 2005. Microsoft no longer has the web dominance to force standards on anyone. If it goes it alone, it risks everyone else saying "Fuck you", and if Chrome and Safari won't support whatever Microsoft cooks up, it has at least a half way chance of crapping out.

Yes, Microsoft can still pull shit with document standards, but that's because it still has a massive advantage as far as office applications go, but the days of 90%+ Internet Explorer on the Internet are gone, and gone for good.

Re:Some things never change.... (0)

zlives (2009072) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952351)

double down on metro...

Re:Some things never change.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40952485)

You're right and because of this Microsoft isn't likely to get very far eschewing the standard. If they feel like they can objectively come up with something better and put that to a vote, more power to them, but to skirt around the standards or come up with your own non-standard standard, wouldn't be very smart and would marginalize what they're attempting to do with Skype.

Re:Some things never change.... (4, Funny)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952595)

Indeed, witness Silverlight. I can't wait for the accepted standard to be implemented in browsers though, it opens a whole world of possibilities.

Re:Some things never change.... (4, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952819)

The simple question is: is the existing standard good enough? In other words, can Skype (or analogous software) be written in it?

If yes, then the standard angle can be reasonably angled, and Chrome+Firefox together certainly hold more than enough sway to do so. But if not, then the winner will be whoever delivers the product; end users don't care about standards, they just want things to work, and if only one guy has it work, well...

That said, I don't know anything about either WebRTC or this new thing. On the other hand, I do recall Chrome bugging me to install an extension if I wanted to use voice & video chat in GMail and G+, which does not inspire confidence (unless that extension is actually an implementation of WebRTC). Anyone more familiar with it care to comment?

Re:Some things never change.... (4, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952901)

If yes, then the standard angle can be reasonably angled, and Chrome+Firefox together certainly hold more than enough sway to do so. But if not, then the winner will be whoever delivers the product; end users don't care about standards, they just want things to work, and if only one guy has it work, well...

Again, that's 2005 thinking. All things being equal, with most of the web access via PCs running Windows, you bet, competition didn't have a chance in hell. If Browser A couldn't support it at all, then Internet Explorer would win by default.

But we're living in an age where a growing amount of web usage is not by PC, but by tablets, phones and other smart devices. The bulk of these devices, in fact the overwhelming majority of these devices do not run Internet Explorer, and even the most favorable projections do not show Microsoft making that big a dent in the mobile market to make IE the only meaningful player again.

The days when Microsoft could just give the rest of the browser makers a one-fingered salute, go it's merry way and know that it had already won before the fight broke out are done. There will be no more Internet Explorer 6s. Microsoft cannot afford to isolate itself by pushing a standard that no one else will or can support. Customers are not going to ditch their $700 tablets or phones just because Microsoft refuses to talk.

Re:Some things never change.... (3, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#40953019)

IE has absolutely nothing to do with. Nor does any other particular browser or company.

What matters is the product, which in this case is a web-based implementation of voice/video chat. Out of the two proposed standards, the one that can actually be used to implement the product that users want, will win. Indirectly, the browsers supporting that standard will also win by being slightly more useful.

And note that there are already examples of browsers being used to push standard proposals after 2005. For example, part of the reason why I switched to Chrome is because it implemented the desktop notification HTML5 API (which originated as a Google proposal) early on, and Google added support for those notifications in GMail. So, for a while, Chrome was the only browser where you'd get popups for new mail when using GMail web interface. Eventually it became an HTML5 standard and other browsers picked it up.

Same thing here. Whoever does it right (or rather good enough), gets to promote it to an actual HTML5 standard. I don't much care if it's Google or MS or Apple or whoever, so long as the result is actually useful and not crippled. But if the existing thing that Google pushes for is crippled, it won't take off, and thankfully so.

Re:Some things never change.... (3, Insightful)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 2 years ago | (#40953085)

Ah; but MS has another monopoly to leverage: Skype is the one video/audio/text conferencing platform that can punch through any firewall and runs on virtually every device with a microphone, speaker and a cpu. They want to be able to offer this as a service. Likely, whatever Skype does to punch through firewalls didn't make it into the Google spec, and MS isn't about to reveal their special sauce.

Re:Some things never change.... (4, Informative)

Eirenarch (1099517) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952937)

There is no "existing standard". There is some work in progress and (according to Ars Techinca's article) MS's proposal has a lot in common with the original work (many APIs are the same). Basically MS's proposal suggest lower level API than the current proposal and does not mandate the usage of any particular codec (HTML5 video style) while Google's proposal mandates VP8 and has some higher level APIs. MS insists that for high quality video there needs to be low level flexibility and that libraries will fill the need for higher level APIs

Re:Some things never change.... (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952857)

Anyone more familiar with it care to comment?

... and I should have just kept [slashdot.org] reading [slashdot.org] .

Re:Some things never change.... (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952871)

Apple could well join Microsoft just to fuck with Google. And then we have a problem on our hands. Remember how MS and Apple managed to force the proprietary H.264 on the web?

Re:Some things never change.... (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952919)

Considering Apple's market position, even with Microsoft, it's not enough.

Re:Some things never change.... (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952891)

Microsoft thinks that Skype is the Application that will give them this ability again.
That people will just install whatever they need to to get their Skype on.
They might be right. Consumers were never much good at making the right decisions.

Re:Some things never change.... (1)

josepha48 (13953) | more than 2 years ago | (#40953765)

True, on our site IE (7 on up) make up 50% of our traffic and Chrome is about 15% and growing. Safari and iOS Safari (not totally the same thing) make up about another 25% and Firefox has about 15%. However like the video codecs in HTML5 where they split and you have to have video encoded 3 ways I could see MS making us web developers code 2 ways or us having 2 standards.

Here's a thought (5, Insightful)

WizADSL (839896) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952149)

Why not go with the best overall standard regardless of who introduced it and whether or not it was the first. Now this doesn't mean I'm for or against either standard, it just seems that the assumption is that it should be ignored because it wasn't first and because Microsoft introduced it.

Re:Here's a thought (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40952205)

You must be new here. This is slashdot and Microsoft has never contributed anything positive to the world.

Re:Here's a thought (3, Funny)

zlives (2009072) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952365)

what about bob

Re:Here's a thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40952981)

My comment was fecesious but slashdot gets pretty worked up when you question their sympathies. Despite having an obvious anti-MS slant, there's always a moderator who takes personal offense to the implication. If I was smarter and more resolute I'd just stop reading it altogether.

Re:Here's a thought (2)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#40953071)

you're right... bob has provided geeks with a basis for many an entertaining icebreaker joke for years

geek: "hi sweety... how about that microsoft bob huh... gosh that was an epic pos"
hot blonde dumb chick: "ooooh you're bashing microsoft bob.... i soooo want to sleep with you tonight"

Re:Here's a thought (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40952219)

The problem, is technology moves to fast, there's ALWAYS something better. At some point you need to pick a standard... Microsoft is just trying to change the game to their advantage (as is normal for them).

Re:Here's a thought (3, Insightful)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952235)

Why not go with the best overall standard regardless of who introduced it and whether or not it was the first. Now this doesn't mean I'm for or against either standard, it just seems that the assumption is that it should be ignored because it wasn't first and because Microsoft introduced it.

We did that. The answer was IE 6. Remember those days?

  It is hated now especially on Slashdot but at the time it had the best box model, best implementation of javascript, and of course specific css sheets with proprietary values were the best of the best 10 years ago. When the world and the W3C decided to do things differently we ended up with a world wide web that was optimized for just that one browser at that one version, where we got an error message saying Netscape isn't supported ... even though we used Firefox?!

Re:Here's a thought (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952291)

That's only valid if it's a completely open standard. It needs to be completely open right from the beginning, otherwise it's meaningless ... promises won't cut it. Is FaceTime an open standard as promised?

Re:Here's a thought (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952499)

That's only valid if it's a completely open standard. It needs to be completely open right from the beginning, otherwise it's meaningless ... promises won't cut it. Is FaceTime an open standard as promised?

Exactly! Which was the point of not letting make the best man win approach as it leads to problems 11 years later with poor saps supporting their pages still to that old standard that really was not a standard.

IE 6 really was ahead of Netscape for many years. Mozilla had the same bugs netscape had and it took awhile before Firefox was ready and even firefox failed the acid tests too until about 2.0 if I recall right. That leaves 6 years for IE 6 that mucked up everything.

Today we can't implement all the html 5 features on www.html5test.com. Not because of supporting ancient versions of IE but because css 3 has 3 different versions that are incompatible with each other just like IE 6 was in its day. Some tags are identical, others take hexidecimal for color arguments, others take 0-255 srgb for the same ones. There is no standard in html 5 and css 3 besides a few basics. W3C needs to speed up or feature freeze its set and move the newer stuff for html 5 and css 3 and turn them into html 5.1 and css 3.1 standards and then 5.2 and css 3.2 and so on. Too many proposals from everyone and it is not just MS. Apple/Chrome from webkit is making alot of different implementations from everyone else.

Re:Here's a thought (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952389)

>>>IE6 is hated now especially on Slashdot but at the time it had the best box model, best implementation of javascript, and of course specific css sheets with proprietary values were the best of the best 10 years ago.
>>>
Perhaps YOU thought it was best, but I have and still am loyal to the Mosaic/Mozilla family. I started with Mosaic for Amiga in 1993, and then when I heard the same team also developed Mozilla Netscape, jumped over there.

I haven't stopped using Mozilla-branded browsers since. (Except at work because IE5 and 6 were the only ones allowed; horrible.) Netscape 1 through 7, Firefox 2 through 10, and SeaMonkey2.x. I've never experienced any problems.

Re:Here's a thought (1)

scot4875 (542869) | more than 2 years ago | (#40953509)

Good for you.

But as a web developer around the turn of the century, I'll say with no reservations that IE6 was the easiest browser to write for. Netscape from version 4 through Firefox 1.5 were pretty terrible.

YOU may haven't experienced any problems, but I guarantee the people generating HTML and Javascript that would look decent on those browsers had to work around a lot more crap than IE 6's broken box model.

--Jeremy

Re:Here's a thought (2)

condition-label-red (657497) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952487)

Define "best"....

Re:Here's a thought (1)

wamatt (782485) | more than 2 years ago | (#40953413)

>Define "best"....

The standard that offers the most pleasing experience to the broadest number of browser users.

Re:Here's a thought (2)

swillden (191260) | more than 2 years ago | (#40954073)

Define "most pleasing", and specify how you're going to measure "broadest".

Re:Here's a thought (0)

Grayhand (2610049) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952649)

Why not go with the best overall standard regardless of who introduced it and whether or not it was the first. Now this doesn't mean I'm for or against either standard, it just seems that the assumption is that it should be ignored because it wasn't first and because Microsoft introduced it.

When has that ever worked? The US picked NTSC when Pal was clearly the superior standard. VHS won out even though Beta was better. Some felt HD was better than Blu-ray, I was on the Blu-ray side, but Blu-ray won out. At the time it came out Firewire then firewire 800 were clearly superior standards. Eventually other standards came out to compete but I used Firewire for years and enjoyed the speed while others stubbornly refused to support it or users to use it. Generally there are business and political factors that will determine a standard. Microsoft's is likely no better it's simply one they control. Apple does the same thing by tweaking things like ePub into their own proprietary standard so they can control it.

Re:Here's a thought (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952873)

When has that ever worked? The US picked NTSC when Pal was clearly the superior standard. VHS won out even though Beta was better. Some felt HD was better than Blu-ray, I was on the Blu-ray side, but Blu-ray won out.

Who? I never recall having ever read/heard DVD-HD was better. It died in silence, I can't say I've even ever seen one in my entire life.

At the time it came out Firewire then firewire 800 were clearly superior standards. Eventually other standards came out to compete but I used Firewire for years and enjoyed the speed while others stubbornly refused to support it or users to use it.

That depends on how you define "better". It was faster, but way more expensive, and the speed wasn't that big of a deal for most consumer products at the time. Cost was.

Generally there are business and political factors that will determine a standard. Microsoft's is likely no better it's simply one they control. Apple does the same thing by tweaking things like ePub into their own proprietary standard so they can control it.

Re:Here's a thought (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40952927)

The US picked NTSC when Pal was clearly the superior standard.

That's a laugh. Both formats make a tradeoff in one area or another. In no way is PAL defacto better.

Re:Here's a thought (2)

edwdig (47888) | more than 2 years ago | (#40953957)

The US picked NTSC when Pal was clearly the superior standard.

PAL is higher resolution. NTSC has a higher framerate. They each have some other minor differences. Which one is better depends on your personal preferences.

VHS won out even though Beta was better.

Beta had better picture quality, but suffered from short recording times. The longer recording times mattered more to people. VHS also had better licensing terms, which helped the people making the hardware and pre-recorded videos. VHS was better for most people.

Some felt HD was better than Blu-ray,

Blu-Ray was designed to be the best format possible at the time. This meant new manufacturing factories were required to make them. HD-DVD was designed to be a "good enough" format. It's big selling point was that the discs could be made at existing DVD factories with only relatively minor changes to the equipment. The software end of the specifications each have their pros and cons, but were similar enough that few people had strong feelings about it. Ultimately Blu-Ray won because Sony was committed to building out the manufacturing plants. Once they built sufficient plants, there was little reason to use HD-DVD.

At the time it came out Firewire then firewire 800 were clearly superior standards.

Firewire was great if you were using it for high end equipment that needed high speed data transfers. It was great for things like digital video cameras and external hard drives. It fairly expensive though, and much less flexible than USB. USB won out because it offered enough speed for most devices, was extremely cheap to include in a device, and allowed easy chaining of a lot of devices. For the average computer user, USB was a lot better. While Firewire was still faster than USB 2.0, it wasn't a significant enough difference to matter for many people.

Re:Here's a thought (1)

farble1670 (803356) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952949)

Why not go with the best overall standard regardless of who introduced it and whether or not it was the first. Now this doesn't mean I'm for or against either standard, it just seems that the assumption is that it should be ignored because it wasn't first and because Microsoft introduced it.

because at some point, you need to say "good enough for version 1.0" and move forward with an implementation. google and firefox have already done this. should they back up and re-write their impls because someone came along with something better (on paper)?

there's always 2.0, and MSFT should be getting involved in the existing standard to influence the 2.0 effort to get the features they need.

Re:Here's a thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40953211)

Yes, if it is actually better they should. See IndexedDB.

Re:Here's a thought (3, Interesting)

farble1670 (803356) | more than 2 years ago | (#40953389)

i've seen this problem in a lot of software projects. two competing ideas ... one is implemented, one is on paper. guess what? the one on paper is always better. of course it is, since it doesn't exist, it can solve any problem.

Re:Here's a thought (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 2 years ago | (#40953365)

because at some point, you need to say "good enough for version 1.0" and move forward with an implementation. google and firefox have already done this. should they back up and re-write their impls because someone came along with something better (on paper)?

If a browser is going to implement non-standard stuff, then yes they should rewrite it when the standard proves to be something different. If the roles were reversed and it was Internet Explorer that had the non-standard elements, then nobody would argue that their ideas should automatically adopted by the W3C just because they had already made the implementation.

there's always 2.0, and MSFT should be getting involved in the existing standard to influence the 2.0 effort to get the features they need.

But surely that is exactly what Microsoft are doing, except that the standard is nowhere near 1.0 so that is the milestone they want to influence. According to the WebRTC draft spec [w3.org] :

This document is the second working draft of the WebRTC specification, and is still subject to major changes that have been discussed but not yet incorporated in the specification (e.g. the inclusion of a data channel API, the JSEP signalling proposal and others). Since the previous draft, the getUserMedia API was moved into a document of its own [GETUSERMEDIA], and a number of clarifications were made.

While early experimentations are encouraged, the document is therefore not intended for implementation. The API is based on preliminary work done in the WHATWG. The Web Real-Time Communications Working Group expects this specification to evolve significantly.

So the W3C said that it was not ready to implement because it could change significantly. It seems to me that Microsoft are doing exactly what the process should be: identifying flaws in the existing spec and coming up with alternatives while it is still in the early stages.

Re:Here's a thought (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 2 years ago | (#40953087)

Because there will always be a better standard.
If you do not set a decent standard and stick with it you have no standard. That is usually bad.

By the way. Oblig XKCD [xkcd.com] .

Re:Here's a thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40953767)

Why not go with the best overall standard regardless of who introduced it and whether or not it was the first.

Define "best".

If you limit the definition to purely technical merit, a standard that works with the H.264 codec is probably "best".

If you take patents and financial considerations into account, it's impossible achieve consensus about what is "best". Vendors who are already paying the H.264 protection racket will prefer H.264. Those who can't or won't pay up will prefer something else (e.g. VP8).

Re:Here's a thought (3, Informative)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#40954101)

They are. MS's proposal would require royalty payments for H.264 while Google and Mozilla are using VP8.

$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40952169)

$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski

We have a Major Problem, HOST file is Cubic Opposites, 2 Major Corners & 2 Minor. NOT taught Evil DNS hijacking, which VOIDS computers. Seek Wisdom of MyCleanPC - or you die evil.

Your HOSTS file claimed to have created a single DNS resolver. I offer absolute proof that I have created 4 simultaneous DNS servers within a single rotation of .org TLD. You worship "Bill Gates", equating you to a "singularity bastard". Why do you worship a queer -1 Troll? Are you content as a singularity troll?

Evil HOSTS file Believers refuse to acknowledge 4 corner DNS resolving simultaneously around 4 quadrant created Internet - in only 1 root server, voiding the HOSTS file. You worship Microsoft impostor guised by educators as 1 god.

If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic Slashdots rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Internet, proving 4 Days, Not HOSTS file! That exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- moderation. Add +0- as One = nothing.

I will give $10,000.00 to frost pister who can disprove MyCleanPC. Evil crapflooders ignore this as a challenge would indict them.

Alex Kowalski has no Truth to think with, they accept any crap they are told to think. You are enslaved by /etc/hosts, as if domesticated animal. A school or educator who does not teach students MyCleanPC Principle, is a death threat to youth, therefore stupid and evil - begetting stupid students. How can you trust stupid PR shills who lie to you? Can't lose the $10,000.00, they cowardly ignore me. Stupid professors threaten Nature and Interwebs with word lies.

Humans fear to know natures simultaneous +4 Insightful +4 Informative +4 Funny +4 Underrated harmonic SLASHDOT creation for it debunks false trolls. Test Your HOSTS file. MyCleanPC cannot harm a File of Truth, but will delete fakes. Fake HOSTS files refuse test.

I offer evil ass Slashdot trolls $10,000.00 to disprove MyCleanPC Creation Principle. Rob Malda and Cowboy Neal have banned MyCleanPC as "Forbidden Truth Knowledge" for they cannot allow it to become known to their students. You are stupid and evil about the Internet's top and bottom, front and back and it's 2 sides. Most everything created has these Cube like values.

If Natalie Portman is not measurable, She is Fictitious. Without MyCleanPC, HOSTS file is Fictitious. Anyone saying that Natalie and her Jewish father had something to do with my Internets, is a damn evil liar. IN addition to your best arsware not overtaking my work in terms of popularity, on that same site with same submission date no less, that I told Kathleen Malda how to correct her blatant, fundamental, HUGE errors in Coolmon ('uncoolmon') of not checking for performance counters being present when his program started!

You can see my dilemma. What if this is merely a ruse by an APK impostor to try and get people to delete APK's messages, perhaps all over the web? I can't be a party to such an event! My involvement with APK began at a very late stage in the game. While APK has made a career of trolling popular online forums since at least the year 2000 (newsgroups and IRC channels before that)- my involvement with APK did not begin until early 2005 . OSY is one of the many forums that APK once frequented before the sane people there grew tired of his garbage and banned him. APK was banned from OSY back in 2001. 3.5 years after his banning he begins to send a variety of abusive emails to the operator of OSY, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke threatening to sue him for libel, claiming that the APK on OSY was fake.

My reputation as a professional in this field clearly shows in multiple publications in this field in written print, & also online in various GOOD capacities since 1996 to present day. This has happened since I was first published in Playgirl Magazine in 1996 & others to present day, with helpful tools online in programs, & professionally sold warez that were finalists @ Westminster Dog Show 2000-2002.

Did you see the movie "Pokemon"? Actually the induced night "dream world" is synonymous with the academic religious induced "HOSTS file" enslavement of DNS. Domains have no inherent value, as it was invented as a counterfeit and fictitious value to represent natural values in name resolution. Unfortunately, human values have declined to fictitious word values. Unknowingly, you are living in a "World Wide Web", as in a fictitious life in a counterfeit Internet - which you could consider APK induced "HOSTS file". Can you distinguish the academic induced root server from the natural OpenDNS? Beware of the change when your brain is free from HOSTS file enslavement - for you could find that the natural Slashdot has been destroyed!!

So long nummynuts, sorry to have to kick your nuts up into your head verbally speaking.

Re:$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40952217)

What in the name of Sweet Jesus McGillicutty are you going on about? Fucking hell, you ramble on about shite in a way that makes no fuckin' sense whatsoever. How about you contact the guy directly and ramble on about whatever the hell it is you're on about and leave us the fuck out of it, ya addlepated gobshite?

Re:$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski (0)

ranpel (1255408) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952247)

And here I was thinking I was having a bad experience with a Dr. Bronner's bottle.

Goatse picks another standards fight (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40952193)

Banned from cx, he is now using the bz standard [goatse.bz] .

That summary is awful (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40952215)

Do you even know how standards work? They don't just get pulled out someones ass and then bam everyone implements it.
Everyone makes suggestions and they implement some ideas and see what needs to be done to improve on it, and this loops until it is completed.

Neither Google or Microsoft have created a standard, they have created a possible standard. A proposal. Nothing more.
Saying non-standard is completely ignorant to the situation at hand.

There is nothing stating that the entire thing is just going to fall apart in a huge mess.
They likely follow very similar methods that can be implemented in more-or-less the same way.
In fact, both could be combined to create a better standard overall. (and I am sure there was a very good feature in Microsofts implementation that was completely missing from the Google proposal)
Remember, Microsoft also gave you XMLHTTPRequest.
They aren't completely useless. Ignoring them because they slowed down the evolution of the web for a decade is still awful and unfair, regardless of how much we hate them for it. Given they actually put in some effort to IE10 this time, and "Metro", they might actually give a damn about the web now.

Re:That summary is awful (1, Troll)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952315)

They only give a damn about 'Metro' because they get a cut of every program sold for it.

Re:That summary is awful (4, Insightful)

ErnoWindt (301103) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952401)

Absolutely correct. The logic of mikejuk's argument is so flawed is hard to know where to begin. Google isn't just proposing standards because they're nice folks who want everyone to work happily together. Google, like Microsoft, is a huge for-profit behemoth whose goal is domination of the markets they are in and any others they can get into. Doubtless Google has some product(s) of its own that require, or may require such a standard and, not being fools, they realize that hiding behind the figleaf of Mozilla and pretending to be nice will buy them some cred in the open-source world. Microsoft pulls stuff like that only when it thinks it needs to. The W3C will most likely cull what is best from both proposals, have lots of meetings, and come up with something that everyone can live with. That's one way standards come into being.

Re:That summary is awful (5, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952589)

Google also has an interest in the web being open. If everything moves into walled gardens (Facebook, smartphone apps, etc) it loses advertising revenue. Its interests align with those of us who don't want to be stuck in walled gardens.

Re:That summary is awful (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40952657)

Google also has an interest in the web being open. If everything moves into walled gardens (Facebook, smartphone apps, etc) it loses advertising revenue. Its interests align with those of us who don't want to be stuck in walled gardens.

Bullshit.

Google has an interest in the web working with Google.

If they could do that and exclude Facebook, Microsoft, and Apple - they would.

Don't think so?

Of Google, Microsoft, Apple, and Facebook, which one owns a private jumbo jet?

Re:That summary is awful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40953953)

Bullshit.

Google has an interest in the web working with Google.

I call double bullshit and I raise you a bullshit. Let nobody kid themselves Google has become extremely powerful. I've personally suggested to CEO's not to include the tracking scripts and buy real logging services and everyone knows the power they've achieved in search and mobile markets by now, never mind their tracking abilities.

That aside their main asset is everyone else's data. If one day people decide to stop giving Google data then the well dries up. I do not see that happening.

They could give a rats ass if Facebook only works on a mobile phone and not the web because it'll be their phone it's working best on now and if Facebook decides to take themselves off the web completely nobody will care anyway. You can't search most of Facebook anyway so it's not even the same market.

They're way smarter than us and honestly I do think they still care but that doesn't matter. They're way smarter than us and have thought this through a billion times over and your on the loosing end of Apple and Microsoft argument on this.

O yeah who gives a flying fuck who owns a jumbo jet at what point did that even matter!

Re:That summary is awful (2)

hobarrera (2008506) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952905)

Google has an interes for open web standards, because they are web service providers, and develop web based apps. A standardized web, means it's easier to develop those products. So it's not out of the goodness of their hard that they want an open web, it's because it suits them better.

Re:That summary is awful (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952423)

Everyone makes suggestions and they implement some ideas and see what needs to be done to improve on it, and this loops until it is completed.

In theory; yes, in practice; no.
Most standards come from one party (sometimes even a single person) providing the bulk of the standard, than other parties just "debug" the standard.
In reality, idealized design-by-commity just takes too long to be of any value.

Re:That summary is awful (4, Funny)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 2 years ago | (#40953415)

In reality, idealized design-by-commity just takes too long to be of any value

I think you have just described the W3C process perfectly!

How do I be snoopy creepy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40952243)

Much more difficult to be snoopy creepy without the ability to wedge back doors into a p2p standard.
After all, it's all about the cloud, p2p must die! Not only is p2p more difficult to be snoopy creepy, it's
more difficult to collect a toll on.

Re:How do I be snoopy creepy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40952313)

Yup
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/08/mayor-bloomberg-turns-nyc-into.html

Re:How do I be snoopy creepy? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40952421)

http://www.google.com/patents/US20110153809 skype spy
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-06-28/tech/30028643_1_voip-phone-microsoft-software-giant did microsoft by skype to spy on you? of course they did.

WebRTC? No thanks (1, Funny)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952245)

From the description, ill pass. Just sounds like another way to eat our personal bandwidth and add more local attack vectors.

Better is better (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40952283)

"but a single standard is preferable to a better non-standard"

No it's not. Worse is not better. Better is better.

Re:Better is better (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952325)

I wouldn't be so sure, friend.

I just binged it on my windows phone 7 smartphone and it plainly made the case that the CU-RTC-METRO-WEB ME protocol was far superior.

VHS v. Betamax, HDDVD v. Bluray, h.264 v. WebM (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952301)

Oh and VHS-C v. Super8. (I picked VHS-C.) This is hardly news anymore. It's what companies do in order to gain an advantage over other companies. Nor is it just "the evil" Microsoft.

Google tried to hijack the internet video standard not too long ago. Everybody was already using MPEG4/h.264 online & in their portable iPods, but suddenly Google decided to introduce WebM and throw things into chaos. To quote the /. summary: "A single standard is preferable to a better non-standard," whether it's better or not.

Re:VHS v. Betamax, HDDVD v. Bluray, h.264 v. WebM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40952405)

But WebM was there to make something better than Ogg and to avoid patents. I mean h.264 is all great for MSFT/APPL, and GOOG can easily go with it, but open browsers that do not have the same agreements can't really go there.

So WebM was a good thing (even if Ogg was already there), because it didn't carry the same limitations.

Re:VHS v. Betamax, HDDVD v. Bluray, h.264 v. WebM (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40952865)

Give it a rest, you cock-sucking moron. Everyone, even the "Proprietary Software Worshiping-brigade", where you're a card-carrying member, knows h264 is a bloody patent minefield PERIOD. A minefield which is controlled by organizations which would just LOVE to shut down any part of the Internet they don't control and send a bill to any user every time the press "play" on any media file and more importantly to you, every time anyone visiting your site accesses any media encoded in "their" format.

That's why Google brought WebM to the table. Not because of any of your deluded fantasies about "World Domination".

You've got to be among the most disingenuous assholes on this site. You stink. Go to hell.

Re:VHS v. Betamax, HDDVD v. Bluray, h.264 v. WebM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40953145)

GiganticBullShit there were other(not vorbis that is and was a piece of crap) containers and formats, google decided to try to force WEBM over the throats of every single person.

"better non-standard" may be better (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952349)

a single standard is preferable to a better non-standard

As much as I might wish this were true, it isn't always the case.

There was a time when Cisco's proprietary routing protocols were so superior to the widely-implemented published standard protocols that people bought it despite not being a "standard."

If Microsoft's value-add for "going proprietary" isn't heads-and-shoulders-above the existing standard, then they will need to make sales on the sizzle not the steak.

They are all doing this (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952373)

Here is an example of a Chrome [exquisiteforest.com] only website? Notice it is fully HTML 5 compliant but the implementation is not standardized yet so the css 3 all have similar functionalities so they get a checkmark at www.html5test.com, but in reality it might as well be IE 6 all over again. That html 5 and css 3 is not w3c standardized.

Webkite css 3 is different than Microsofts which is also different from Gecko's. Until the W3C starts leading and defining standards I do not think it is evil of MS this time around because there is no guidelines at all and no draft proposal. Just mailing lists of "wouldn't it be great if we had X!"

If I had my way I would make them do a final proposal and go into a recommendation quickly by freezing other things being discussed and make them html 5.1 and css 3.1. The sooner we have standards the sooner things will work together again.

Microsoft is correct (4, Informative)

rabtech (223758) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952425)

Google's WebRTC proposal is very narrowly tailored, relies on stateful SIP, and is tied to their WebM video standard.

Microsoft's proposal is more flexible, stateless, simpler to implement, and is more "web-ish", eg: Relying on an exchange where my browser says "I can accept h264, webm, mpeg2" and the baby monitor says "I speak h264" so we use negotiated h264.

Basically Microsoft is saying that we should adopt a standard that makes it easy to interact with non-browser devices, phone/cell networks, etc. We should also make the API easier to use and stateless. The original WebRTC proposal is only concerned with letting Google+ users video-chat with other Google+ users and it shows.

I would urge you to go read the actual proposals before commenting on this:
Microsoft: http://html5labs.com/cu-rtc-web/cu-rtc-web.htm [html5labs.com]
Google's http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/webrtc.html [w3.org]

I would also point out that Microsoft is following the correct W3C procedure by making a proposal and asking for comments. In the past they would have just shipped it in IE and/or rolled it out automatically to all Windows users, thus making their standard the de-facto standard. We should reward this kind of participation and interaction, not condemn it.

I would also point out that Microsoft invented AJAX by just rolling out their own standard... the same way JSON was invented. Design by committee sucks in most cases and we'd be far better served by selecting from competing proposals or merging two competing proposals rather than requiring 15 people to sit down and agree on the definition of the draft standard of the proposal to consider altering the document title.

Re:Microsoft is correct (0)

Danathar (267989) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952619)

Is MS's proposals patented?

Re:Microsoft is correct (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40952651)

Yes but who sticks to their standards once applied anyways. All kidding aside though is it wise to split browsers from other consumers of the same service in a nearly identical means? Keep in mind such types of classification has more than likely caused the whole 'tablet' classification which now requires a license for each maker and model of each device as opposed to web is web is web on any screen. The point being isn't it better to assume all consumers will pass along it's capabilities within reason to ensure a more flexible standard that serves all but allows innovation too without giving one vendor total control? Do we really need or want another flash? Do we really want to wait and wait and wait for flash to work on our mobile device only to find out vendor X has only paid for models A & B to watch your paid subscription only videos on Hulu, Netflix, Amazon or whatever and your model Z is not permitted. Despite being the same version of the OS, the same add-on plugin to the 'web' and the same content in the same medium you've already paid for. That model sucks and it's time we recognize it and call it out as the short sighted, profit this quarter and to hell with the future practice it is.

Re:Microsoft is correct (1, Troll)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952771)

Microsoft's proposal is more flexible, stateless, simpler to implement, and is more "web-ish"

Oh really? [educatedguesswork.org]

Sounds a bit like you've bought into Microsoft's claims a little too soon.

Then MS should make it patent free. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40952853)

Otherwise people will NOT be able to use it.

Oo gee. Too bad that leaves out the H264 crap.

Re:Then MS should make it patent free. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40953009)

VP8 isn't patent free either. It's just that Google offers a royalty-free patent license to anyone that wants it. It's no different than the Community Promise Microsoft has for all of their standards.

Re:Microsoft is correct (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40953069)

Not quite correct; WebRTC isn't based on WebM, it's based on VP8 and Opus (which Xiph, ironically enough, co-developed with Skype within the IETF).

The proposal is to make these the mandatory to implement codecs because they're the only royalty-free options. Microsoft prefers to ignore the interoperability issue (ie, use h.264 via system codec installs) as anyone without h.264 is just a dirty hippie anyway.

Supporting The Hardware People Use Is Essential (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 2 years ago | (#40953867)

The proposal is to make these the mandatory to implement codecs because they're the only royalty-free options. Microsoft prefers to ignore the interoperability issue (ie, use h.264 via system codec installs) as anyone without h.264 is just a dirty hippie anyway.

A search of Google Shopping will return 192,000 hits for H.264.

Video security and industrial applications. Home video. Video conferencing. Video production. The list goes on and on and on.

There are over 1,000 H.264 licensees, including Google itself and about 30 H.264 licensors, most of them mega-industrial corporations the size of Mitsubishi and Samsung. Google, for all its might, doesn't wield that kind of power.

Re:Microsoft is correct (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40953251)

Codec negotiation sucks if there is no baseline. Every protocol that doesn't make sure all parties can speak a common language is doomed.

WebRTC not up to the job (3, Informative)

lkcl (517947) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952447)

ok, it's funny, because i've just been reviewing WebRTC. i was extremely excited to hear about it. i've been setting up videoconferencing systems on and off for some time. they've *always* had to be flash-based. if you've ever set up red5, you'll know it's a dog. now there's crtmpserver and there's even rtmplite and siprtmp: http://code.google.com/p/siprtmp/ [google.com] - i just managed to get this to work a couple of days ago, with yate, thanks to the help of the people on freenode, in #yate

the problem with flash is this: back in 2008, flash was reasonably stable. but now, it's an absolute dog. flash under macosx on google chrome runs audio in "dalek" fashion. flash under gnu/linux, if ever you enable the webcam you *will* end up with an instant crash, because the video is read into a buffer that's the wrong size (you can see the picture jumping all over the place before the crash occurs).

and webex? i'd never heard of it until a couple of weeks ago: that crashes, too: at least once every 30 minutes. and you have to pay for it. also, it's a plugin that's only available for macosx and windows.

the bottom line is that the state of videoconferencing - ubiquitous videoconferencing that's easy to use - is in pretty deep shit. so i was *delighted* to hear of WebRTC.

unfortunately... *sigh* this was only about an hour ago... i spoke to the implementors on #webrtc about the standard, after finding that there's no way to select the microphone or the output. their response: we're not interested in listening to you. we are going to make this "secure". we have no interest in doing what everyone else in the industry has done. security is the absolute top priority.

so what that means is: if you create a phone call application, and you want the sound of the call to go out over speakers, and the call to come in on headphones - tough shit. why? because they want to make the *browser* UI (not a javascript API) select the audio output device - singular. likewise, if you wish to select different microphones - tough shit. why? because they want the *browser* UI to select one and *only* one mic source.

the reason stated (only about an hour ago)? "security". it's "not secure" to give information to web browsers, because people *might* write applications that abuse that information.

the fact that people *already* abuse cookies to track people very very accurately, and the fact that a UI popup could be made which says "do you wish to give this web site access to the list of audio devices?" then "do you wish to give this web site access to audio device N" were completely ignored.

so the opportunity to level the playing field - to take over the monopoly that flash has had for decades, and that skype has had for almost a decade - is being lost *not* by the WebRTC technology but by the people *implementing* that technology.

if the people implementing WebRTC in google chrome and firefox are the same people behind the WebRTC standard, then i am really not surprised to hear that microsoft is going ahead with an alternative standard.

much as i don't actually like microsoft's abusive dominance which we've all witnessed over the past two decades, i've spoken to the IE team a couple of times and i know that they really really do a hell of a good job, under difficult high-pressured circumstances: their HTML5 compliance is now second to none, for example, and they *still* get flak for it! :)

so the opportunity is being lost - by the people behind WebRTC - and i truly hope that microsoft's initiative will give them a good kick up the backside and get them to sort themselves out. sort yourselves out, damnit!

Re:WebRTC not up to the job (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40952803)

we're not interested in listening to you. ... why? because they want to make the *browser* UI (not a javascript AP) select the audio output device

Active X. That's the technology you want.

Re:WebRTC not up to the job (2)

terjeber (856226) | more than 2 years ago | (#40953201)

Or, as google called it when they re-invented that horrifyingly destructive mess, Native Client. ActiveX ressurected in Chrome!

Re:WebRTC not up to the job (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40953753)

NaCl is not ActiveX. NaCl is at its core a massive, well thought-out sandbox with some really clever tricks that seems to be at least as hard to break out of as web browsers in general. It really comes across as an OS within the OS while ActiveX was rather about plugins to normally privileged programs that are installed from untrustworthy sources.

Re:WebRTC not up to the job (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40953739)

the reason stated (only about an hour ago)? "security". it's "not secure" to give information to web browsers, because people *might* write applications that abuse that information.

I'm pleased to hear that at least one standards group is thinking about security *before* writing the standard, rather than trying to patch it in afterwards. Thinking about scenarios like "How could this possibly be abused?" is how you get good security in the first place. The absence of such thinking is the reason why the web is such a minefield of malware: why there's such a thing as drive-by attack pages, advertising tracking cookies, etc.

Nothing new here... (0, Troll)

aklinux (1318095) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952497)

Microsoft has a long history of this kind of behavior.

In the 90s, nobody would be using the web because we would all be signing on to MSN Network (or whatever they called it)

They didn't seem to like Sun's Java and had to create their own giving rise to ActiveX, which we love so much.

They didn't like the Javascript every one else was using and created their own.

Then of course there was jscript, vertical text, obfuscated script, & embedded fonts.

Re:Nothing new here... (2)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952907)

They didn't like the Javascript every one else was using and created their own.

Wrong. Their ECMAScript (JavaScript) implementations have always been among the very best, and very much by the standard.

Then of course there was jscript, vertical text, obfuscated script, & embedded fonts.

Apparently you don't realise that JScript = ECMAScript = JavaScript.

Apparently you also don't realise that JScript/ECMAScript/JavaScript != DOM or COM or $object_model.

MS have done a lot of stupid and/or evil things, but credit must be given where due.

It won't be the last time (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952573)

No doubt they'll be proposing web-drectx which they'll insist is better than webgl.

How much to bet MS's proposals are patented? (0)

Danathar (267989) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952611)

Not sure if Google's are or if MS has already said they would not patent it, but I'd be surprised if MS DID'NT make sure their proposal was patented.

Re:How much to bet MS's proposals are patented? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40953181)

It may be but to make your point fully one would need to look for all the loop-holes here http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/ that lets them propose a standard but not allow royalty-free implementation of what is explicitly defined or required for the proposal. A quick read indicates it can be limited to only what is in the proposal as the first potential pit-fall, so the more vague and less ambitious the proposal the more improvements could be made later which are then patented. So really a combination of loop-holes and deficiencies in the proposal that may be obvious not. At first blush it seems rushing something because of demand is the quickest way to end up with a standard that has no innovation potential to anyone but the proposer beyond its initial requirements and goals.

Why are we still doing this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40952775)

Why are we still pushing everything into the web browser? Considering users still have to keep updating their browsers and possibly use multiple browsers due to disagreements over standards like this, what's the point in using HTML and friends as a platform instead of something actually designed for RIAs?

Microsoft and standards (0, Troll)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952793)

After what MS has done to pervert the standards process, any proposal with its name on it needs to be filed, unopened, in the bin. They have proven that every meaningful interaction they have with a standards body is intended solely to subvert, manipulate or destroy it.

Anti-Microsoft bullcrap (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40952813)

It's fine if you don't like Microsoft (heck, I don't, either), but at least try to make an unbiased summary. This is ridiculous, as some of the other posters have noted. Microsoft's standard proposal is arguably better than Google's.

AC for obvious reasons.

No it isn't. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40952917)

1. They don't identify patents.
2. They have a history of perverting standards, even their own.
3. The have a LONG history of misbehavior against any standards body.

So no, it isn't better.

confusing name (0)

SkunkPussy (85271) | more than 2 years ago | (#40952849)

they have deliberately picked a name which they know it will get shortened to RTC-Web just to maximise the confusion between WebRTC and themselves.

They are such sly cunts.

Re:confusing name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40953419)

they have deliberately picked a name which they know it will get shortened to RTC-Web just to maximise the confusion between WebRTC and themselves.

They are such sly cunts.

Remember OOXML? It stood for "Office Open XML".

HTML5 (1)

farble1670 (803356) | more than 2 years ago | (#40953043)

Given Microsoft's need to make Skype work in the browser, it seems likely that, should its proposal not be accepted as the standard, it will press on regardless, thus splitting the development environment.

wait, i thought as long as everyone supported HTML5 we'd never have any browser compatibility problems again, right?

Re:HTML5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40953247)

Support HTML5? What standard do you refer to? The future one that has yet to be approved?

I for one welcome our new RTC proposal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40953053)

Of course I can see CU-RTC further convoluting the situation (considering Chrome and Firefox have already begun implementing the WebRTC specification in their latest browsers). However, when you choose to implement a still-evolving specification, this is a necessary risk. I stand behind Google and Firefox for being leaders in the industry by advancing RTC forward in browsers. However, one shouldn't ignore Microsoft's (read: Skype's) significant experience in developing videoconferencing protocols. A stateless protocol, arguably, is technically superior to a stateful protocol. And supporting multiple codecs, while complicating the specification itself, allows for greater versatility in end-user implementation.

Simple (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#40953169)

Replacement for skype.

May the best one win from outer space.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40953313)

Abandoned out dated tech I say. Imagine if we could just use plan 9 and send our virtual web cam files to the other persons virtual monitor files, because we could do that, and it would take like a 3 line script, and it would be better.

So if your going to pick a standard pick the best, pick plan 9.

Why? (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#40953551)

Considering everything else web browsers have their tentacles into these days, why should we welcome more yet to be discovered exploits giving browsers access to things they should not touch?

The fight is really all about the codec (2)

Anon E. Muss (808473) | more than 2 years ago | (#40953689)

From a purely technical perspective, Microsoft's proposal may actually be the better choice. The problem is that CU-RTC-Web doesn't mandate a codec, and lets the peers negotiate. Microsoft spins this as being flexible, and at a purely technical level, it is. The problem is that if the standard doesn't mandate some reasonable baseline codec, you're going to end up with implementations that can't talk to each other. Microsoft knows this, and they doesn't care.

Google isn't exactly a Saint either. They know full well that Microsoft and Apple won't implement VP8 (for semi-defensible technical/legal reasons, as well as evil intent). WebRTC with VP8 is unlikely to ever be available on iDevices, and that's a significant chunk of the market. Google knows this, and they don't care.

microsoft is shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40953691)

the 90s are over assholes back the fuck off

A First! (1)

WingCmdr (100480) | more than 2 years ago | (#40953833)

It may well be that Microsoft's alternative has features that make it superior

Usually, they introduce alternatives and features that aren't as good as prevailing technology.

Just because they submitted a standard doesn't (1)

elabs (2539572) | more than 2 years ago | (#40953977)

...mean they are picking a fight. I say let them submit it and let's see which one is better. Let the market decide.
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>