Microsoft backs H.264.

#1

Post by dansingerman » Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 2:10 PM UTC

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#2

Post by powrtoch » Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 2:20 PM UTC

Here's what I'm not clear on: why did we scrap the whole Ogg Theora thing in favor of WebM at all? Isn't Ogg actually unencumbered by lawsuit-fodder?

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#3

Post by latch » Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 2:25 PM UTC

And they just released a Chrome plugin (like they recently did for firefox):

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/interoperability/archive/2011/02/01/...

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#4

Post by JoachimSchipper » Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 2:34 PM UTC

powrtoch wrote: post #2

Here's what I'm not clear on: why did we scrap the whole Ogg Theora thing in favor of WebM at all? Isn't Ogg actually unencumbered by lawsuit-fodder?

As I understand, Ogg Theora is an odd format (in a way that makes it exceptionally hard to implement in hardware, for instance) that doesn't perform very well.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#5

Post by carson » Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 2:34 PM UTC

The link to the actual post referenced in the techcrunch article but not linked to: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/02/02/html5-and-web-...

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#6

Post by mcritz » Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 2:34 PM UTC

powrtoch wrote: post #2

Here's what I'm not clear on: why did we scrap the whole Ogg Theora thing in favor of WebM at all? Isn't Ogg actually unencumbered by lawsuit-fodder?

Ogg (like mp4 or mov) is actually a container format that can have Theora or WebM compressed media inside.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#7

Post by cgranade » Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 2:39 PM UTC

I get really tired of people saying that the patents on H.264 are a "red herring." How is open source software like Firefox supposed to use H.264 if they have to pay massive licensing fees? That enforcement thus far has been weak to non-existent doesn't imply that it will continue to be so in the future.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#8

Post by mgw » Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 2:41 PM UTC

powrtoch wrote: post #2

Here's what I'm not clear on: why did we scrap the whole Ogg Theora thing in favor of WebM at all? Isn't Ogg actually unencumbered by lawsuit-fodder?

Theora is derived from VP3 which, as the name suggests, is a predecessor to VP8 which Google recently renamed to WebM. As such, VP3 is inferior to VP8 (WebM) and a huge step backwards from H.264.

One could also say that as long as software patents exist, no codec can ever be unencumbered by lawsuit-fodder.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#9

Post by DrJokepu » Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 2:44 PM UTC

cgranade wrote: post #7

I get really tired of people saying that the patents on H.264 are a "red herring." How is open source software like Firefox supposed to use H.264 if they have to pay massive licensing fees? That enforcement thus far has been weak to non-existent doesn't imply that it will continue to be so in the future.

For example, by trying to use the codec that is provided by the underlying operating system. The latest versions of both Windows and OS X ship with a H264 codec.

Re: Microsoft backs H.264.

#10

Post by cgranade » Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 2:45 PM UTC

DrJokepu wrote: post #9

cgranade wrote: post #7

I get really tired of people saying that the patents on H.264 are a "red herring." How is open source software like Firefox supposed to use H.264 if they have to pay massive licensing fees? That enforcement thus far has been weak to non-existent doesn't imply that it will continue to be so in the future.

For example, by trying to use the codec that is provided by the underlying operating system. The latest versions of both Windows and OS X ship with a H264 codec.

And what of Linux, and its variants like Android or MeeGo?