Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft release a Firefox plugin enabling H.264 support

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 38 posts

Re: Microsoft release a Firefox plugin enabling H.264 support

#11

Post by nuclear_eclipse »

annon wrote: post #5
nextparadigms wrote: post #3

I think it's obvious why thy did this. They don't want Google's open source WebM codec to become the norm so they're going to push even harder for h.264. The whole Internet is better off in the end if it's built only on open source and free stuff.

WebM is not that great technically ( http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377 ) and is unlikely to remain royalty-free if it ever takes off as there are many patents that could apply to it's code. H.264 will play in both flash and the browser. It's a standard codec that is used in most workflows already. On top of that, MPEG-LA has announced it will always be royalty free for video that is free to end users ( http:/…

MPEG-LA has also refused (IIRC) to license the H.264 patents to the Mozilla Foundation in a manner that would actually be compatible with an open source project. Eg., MF would not be allowed to distribute the source code of the H.264 codec/plugin for Firefox, and users who download the Firefox source code and compile Firefox would forced to license their own copy of the H.264 plugin, or else would not be able to use it with their build of Firefox. This then means that downstream projects like Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, etc would not be able to maintain their own modified builds of Firefox unless they too licensed the H.264 patents.

There are other restrictions that I am surely missing, but the point is that MF licensing H.264 is not a feasible solution for such a shining example of free and open source software projects.

Re: Microsoft release a Firefox plugin enabling H.264 support

#12

Post by natrius »

gxti wrote: post #7
nextparadigms wrote: post #3

I think it's obvious why thy did this. They don't want Google's open source WebM codec to become the norm so they're going to push even harder for h.264. The whole Internet is better off in the end if it's built only on open source and free stuff.

They're not sitting around a conference table in an underground bunker, stroking their beards and cackling maniacally while trying to screw the open source community as hard as possible. Microsoft is a business . What business sense does it make to release this plugin?

As a member of the H.264 patent pool[1], Microsoft makes money when people use H.264. If WebM becomes popular, Microsoft directly makes less money.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_LA

Re: Microsoft release a Firefox plugin enabling H.264 support

#13

Post by jamesaguilar »

natrius wrote: post #12
gxti wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not sitting around a conference table in an underground bunker, stroking their beards and cackling maniacally while trying to screw the open source community as hard as possible. Microsoft is a business . What business sense does it make to release this plugin?

As a member of the H.264 patent pool[1], Microsoft makes money when people use H.264. If WebM becomes popular, Microsoft directly makes less money. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_LA

Don't they also have to pay licensing fees to MPEG-LA? What's the overall impact on the bottom line? IMO it would have to be pretty substantial for it to really be a driving factor in the decision-making.

Re: Microsoft release a Firefox plugin enabling H.264 support

#14

Post by wmf »

jiaaro wrote: post #10

I think this article overlooks the fact that outsourcing media playback to environment specific codecs (WM9/VLC/etc) has been around for ages. by the time html5 video is widespread each user will likely have several media plugins installed willing to play h264 video for them in any browser. I'm talking about quicktime, realplayer, vlc, and windows media, among others - This is SO not a big deal

The context here is that Mozilla specifically said they will not allow Firefox to use Windows's built-in codecs. MS found a workaround by rewriting tags into .

Re: Microsoft release a Firefox plugin enabling H.264 support

#15

Post by wmf »

nuclear_eclipse wrote: post #11
annon wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WebM is not that great technically ( http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377 ) and is unlikely to remain royalty-free if it ever takes off as there are many patents that could apply to it's code. H.264 will play in both flash and the browser. It's a standard codec that is used in most workflows already. On top of that, MPEG-LA has announced it will always be royalty free for video that is free to end users ( http:/…

MPEG-LA has also refused (IIRC) to license the H.264 patents to the Mozilla Foundation in a manner that would actually be compatible with an open source project. Eg., MF would not be allowed to distribute the source code of the H.264 codec/plugin for Firefox, and users who download the Firefox source code and compile Firefox would forced to license their own copy of the H.264 plugin, or else would not be able to use…

Or the other way to look at it is that Mozilla has refused to build Firefox so that it will be compatible with MPEG-LA's licensing. Millions of users care about Web video; how many care about downstream modified versions of Firefox?

Re: Microsoft release a Firefox plugin enabling H.264 support

#16

Post by Locke1689 »

tvon wrote: post #8
annon wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WebM is not that great technically ( http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377 ) and is unlikely to remain royalty-free if it ever takes off as there are many patents that could apply to it's code. H.264 will play in both flash and the browser. It's a standard codec that is used in most workflows already. On top of that, MPEG-LA has announced it will always be royalty free for video that is free to end users ( http:/…

> (...) and is unlikely to remain royalty-free (...) The argument that there may be lurking patent issues in WebM doesn't carry a lot of weight, I think, unless they are actually demonstrated. After all, couldn't you say that about absolutely any software?

Citing from Jason's article that you obviously didn't take the time to read:

"With regard to patents, VP8 copies too much from H.264 for comfort, no matter whose word is behind the claim of being patent-free. This doesn’t mean that it’s sure to be covered by patents, but until Google can give us evidence as to why it isn’t, I would be cautious."

Re: Microsoft release a Firefox plugin enabling H.264 support

#17

Post by kprobst »

natrius wrote: post #12
gxti wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not sitting around a conference table in an underground bunker, stroking their beards and cackling maniacally while trying to screw the open source community as hard as possible. Microsoft is a business . What business sense does it make to release this plugin?

As a member of the H.264 patent pool[1], Microsoft makes money when people use H.264. If WebM becomes popular, Microsoft directly makes less money. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_LA

I'm fairly sure they pay more than they receive in this particular case.

Re: Microsoft release a Firefox plugin enabling H.264 support

#18

Post by jbk »

The problem with this is that they replace the html5 tag with an one that WMP plugin will pick up.

It should be not important, but are we sure it does comply correctly to all the options and properties? I don't know why but I think not.

Maybe I should activate my activex plugin that replace IE9 tag into a VLC and see how they take it?

Re: Microsoft release a Firefox plugin enabling H.264 support

#19

Post by [deleted] »

Locke1689 wrote: post #16
tvon wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (...) and is unlikely to remain royalty-free (...) The argument that there may be lurking patent issues in WebM doesn't carry a lot of weight, I think, unless they are actually demonstrated. After all, couldn't you say that about absolutely any software?

Citing from Jason's article that you obviously didn't take the time to read: "With regard to patents, VP8 copies too much from H.264 for comfort, no matter whose word is behind the claim of being patent-free. This doesn’t mean that it’s sure to be covered by patents, but until Google can give us evidence as to why it isn’t, I would be cautious."

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft release a Firefox plugin enabling H.264 support

#20

Post by ubernostrum »

nextparadigms wrote: post #3

I think it's obvious why thy did this. They don't want Google's open source WebM codec to become the norm so they're going to push even harder for h.264. The whole Internet is better off in the end if it's built only on open source and free stuff.

Yes, and they also are hard at work on a Firefox extension that kicks puppies and steals candy from babies.
Post reply on HN