HTML5 Video


There’s been a lot of posting about video and video formats on the web recently. This is a good opportunity to talk about Microsoft’s point of view.

The future of the web is HTML5. Microsoft is deeply engaged in the HTML5 process with the W3C. HTML5 will be very important in advancing rich, interactive web applications and site design. The HTML5 specification describes video support without specifying a particular video format. We think H.264 is an excellent format. In its HTML5 support, IE9 will support playback of H.264 video only.

H.264 is an industry standard, with broad and strong hardware support. Because of this standardization, you can easily take what you record on a typical consumer video camera, put it on the web, and have it play in a web browser on any operating system or device with H.264 support (e.g. a PC with Windows 7). Recently, we publicly showed IE9 playing H.264-encoded video from YouTube.  You can read about the benefits of hardware acceleration here, or see an example of the benefits at the 26:35 mark here. For all these reasons, we’re focusing our HTML5 video support on H.264.

Other codecs often come up in these discussions. The distinction between the availability of source code and the ownership of the intellectual property in that available source code is critical. Today, intellectual property rights for H.264 are broadly available through a well-defined program managed by MPEG LA.   The rights to other codecs are often less clear, as has been described in the press.  Of course, developers can rely on the H.264 codec and hardware acceleration support of the underlying operating system, like Windows 7, without paying any additional royalty.

Today, video on the web is predominantly Flash-based. While video may be available in other formats, the ease of accessing video using just a browser on a particular website without using Flash is a challenge for typical consumers. Flash does have some issues, particularly around reliability, security, and performance. We work closely with engineers at Adobe, sharing information about the issues we know of in ongoing technical discussions. Despite these issues, Flash remains an important part of delivering a good consumer experience on today’s web.

Dean Hachamovitch
General Manager, Internet Explorer

Comments (252)

  1. Anonymous says:

    BA VISA

    4217 6424 5976 4650

    NOV 2013

    107

    AMEX

    3731 362016 97001

    JULY 2013

    6856

    6741 RUSSELIA CT., CARLSBAD,  CA 92011

  2. Anonymous says:

    Once again, the IE team only deserves one response:

    EFF YOU

  3. Anonymous says:

    I could care less about Theora.

    VP8 is a different thing though. Mozilla wont implement H.264, that means all major browsers will support h.264 but Firefox and html5 video will go from a transparent good thing to shite.

    If everyone could just implement VP8 too we would all be fine.

    Pretty please? Consider it!

  4. Anonymous says:

    I’m not surprised. This is just a piece of crap you produce every year.

  5. Anonymous says:

    I’m going to say the same thing every time this ‘only one codec’ bull comes up…

    … and why the **** don’t you just support any codec the user happens to have installed on the machine. Windows has nice robust media services as part of the DX9/newer spec – DXVA – ***** USE IT!!!

    There is NO LEGITIMATE EXCUSE for IE to not support in the VIDEO (or OBJECT) tag to not support any video container or codec that WMP does.

  6. Anonymous says:

    RIP Open Web (Vorbis, Theore)

    Shame on you MS. You had an opportunity to catch up with popularity with IE9 and you ruin it.

    If this is confirmed, Adobe will be there for ever and your Silverlight will never take off.

    Bastards

  7. Anonymous says:

    are you fu**ing crazy???

    one more reason to never use IE!

    and there i thought it would get better… fail!

    you just can’t understand whats going on in the web, thats the reason why you are this far behind all other browsers

    just at least support ogg damnit!

    it can’t be for you to decide what the web is moving to!

  8. Anonymous says:

    H.264 is an industry standard, not an open one. However, IMHO an industry standard is more relevant than an open standard. Openness is for wankers.

  9. Anonymous says:

    @"Anon" – doesn’t even have the cajones to post their name…

    1) What the hell should a VIDEO CODEC be doing that would even OPEN a security hole…

    2) Sandbox the ***er then.

    3) Given Microsoft’s history of patching security holes in IE… doe hardcoding a codec into the browser SOUND like a good idea? "upgrades" you can’t upgrade to on many systems (IE7/newer not for 2k/98, IE9/Newer rumored to not be avail for XP), unpatched vulnerabilities dating back a decade on those older versions? Great when the newest IE for mobile is 6, and they’ve only had 6 for two years! Miss the 6 on 6 party? That’s ok, everyone else did! How about vulnerabilities in IE8 that every other browser maker patched for at least a year BEFORE it was even listed publicly four months ago, that M$ still hasn’t lifted a finger on? (math.random XSS)

    Having codecs hard coded into a browser made by Microsoft? No thanks!

  10. Anonymous says:

    да вы там поахуевали все что ли?

  11. Anonymous says:

    OMG, why you always make something different? Why web developers must hate IE? Please make IE10 similar to FF, and people will use it. :S

    IE говно. :S

  12. Anonymous says:

    Wait, somebody still uses IE?

    Why?

  13. Anonymous says:

    truly sad that microsoft will apparently lock out anything *not* h.264 rather than designing their browser to allow/accept/use whatever codec may be available; seems the ability to acquire any codec linked to by the web page (if such links will be available in the audio/video tags) could allow for the ultimate functionality and minimal liability.

    while i applaud MS’s embrace of the new html5, i can’t help but wonder and be fearful of how long it will take them to abuse/corrupt/bastardize the audio/video to their interpretation such that things once again only work with their products.  i know, it’s never happened before; how foolish can i possibly be?

  14. Anonymous says:

    Matt: I’m still waiting for intelligent arguments from you. Probably it will be an endless wait as you’re a troll and nothing else. Just like you’re proving that you don’t know anything about the subject, you’re proving that you couldn’t know I’m a graduated computer engineer, so I’ll forgive you for this :-)

  15. Anonymous says:

    Video is NOT the only reason to run Flash, dammit!  I’m an Adobe Flex developer, and it’s the best cross-platform development-environment there is!  HTML5 does NOT have all the capabilities of Flex when it comes to writing RIA’s.  Sure, the Flash Player has a few issues, but Adobe is addressing them, it would appear.  Security in Flash-player has gotten FAR better in recent months than it was a couple of years ago…

    DO NOT remove support for Flash, too, Microsoft!  It’s bad enough that I can no longer write apps for Apple products because of Steve Jobs’ stupidity and stubbornness…

  16. Anonymous says:

    To all the idiots criticizing this move as MS lining its pockets, wake up. Any royalties MS will receive equal about .00000000001 of MS’s revenue. They go proprietary, you morons criticize it. They go with the defacto standard, you morons criticize it. For most of you anything with an MS in front of it is enough to reject it. Get a life.

  17. Anonymous says:

    The thing is though as it has been pointed out, The industry has accepted H.264, please list to me a list of Blu Ray Movie that were encoded in Ogg/Theora.

    Now what would be a great model for IE9 would be for IE9 to use the computer’s codecs and decode the videos through the browser.

    I’m still waiting for creation of HTML tags through CSS.

  18. Anonymous says:

    I think the web would be a much better place without that crappy Flash stuff Adobe distributes. I support Apple’s move on not supporting Flash on their devices and I support Microsoft’s move on supporting H.264.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Bunu Okumalısınız. Lütfen Listenizi uyarın! Sivrisinek ve tarım ilaçları, başta kanser olmak üzere bir çok hastalığı tetikliyor. Daha fazla bilgi için http://www.kanser.ca/

  20. Just a name says:

    http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/video.html

    I see here H.264, MPEG-4, Theora, Vorbis, Speex, FLAC, Dirac codec and Ogg, Matroska containers.

    Internet Explorer 9 will be support all this codecs and containers, right?

  21. Sam I Am says:

    "Just a name", did you read the article? My guess is you just have some type of auto-reply. You seemingly did not read the w3.org page either "The type  attribute gives the type of the media resource, to help the user agent determine if it can play this media resource before fetching it.". There is nothing stating what format has to be supported.

  22. Jacob Stairs says:

    We’ve been critical of Microsoft in the past but at the moment we’re really excited about the direction IE9 is going in. Keep up the good work.

  23. Kroc Camen says:

    "The future of the web is HTML5"

    The future of computing is HTML5.

    "We think H.264 is an excellent format."

    I bet you do.

    "H.264 is an industry standard…"

    But not a standard.

    "The distinction between the availability of source code and the ownership of the intellectual property in that available source code is critical"

    Yes, it is. But you don’t go on to mention anything more about source code in your post.

    "Today, intellectual property rights for H.264 are broadly available through a well-defined program managed by MPEG LA"

    Of which you are part of.

    "The rights to other codecs are often less clear, as has been described in the press"

    What codecs, what isn’t clear, what stories in what press?

    "Of course, developers can rely on the H.264 codec and hardware acceleration support of the underlying operating system, like Windows 7, without paying any additional royalty."

    But they will need to purchase a licence to encode their content for commercial uses, esp. after the grace period (2016).

  24. Just a name says:

    Sam, you not read my comment? My guess is you just have some type of auto-reply. :)

    1. I JUST see this list of codecs and containers.

    2. I JUST ask "IE9 will be support all of it?"

  25. Ivar V. says:

    This is a chance for IE to show some leadership and embrace forward looking (and content producer friendly) codecs at little cost to themselves but instead of showing some fortitude and business insight, Mr. Hachamovitch is playing the lapdog to Abobe. Ugh.

  26. Web Dev says:

    I remember when ActiveX was the de-facto industry standard *sigh*

  27. Chris says:

    Just a name, what Sam was getting at is that the article clearly states that H.264 is the only supported format, so there was no need to ask whether other formats are supported. Even in your second post you’re still asking whether IE 9 will support more formats.

  28. Moderated Skeptic says:

    "The rights to other codecs are often less clear, as has been described in the press."

    Wow. That’s the most awkwardly circumspect sentence I’ve seen in a long time.

    It’s too bad technologies cannot compete on straightforward practical terms (cost, quality), and instead are decided on FUD-ridden political battlegrounds.

  29. planetarian says:

    Just a name: The article clearly states IE9 will support h264 only.

    Kroc: 2016 is when the issue will be up for review again. MPEG makes major decisions on issues like these once every several years, and the next time will be in 2016. It’s not a case of "free until x, non-free after", like people enjoy interpreting it as. It’s highly unlikely they’d change their decision when that time comes.

  30. frymaster says:

    h264 is fine for me personally, but can I ask what the issue would be in supporting any and all codecs that the user has installed on their PC for use with the video tag?  That way, if the user wants j.random codec to work, they can just install it themselves.

    i.e. the browser supports any and all codecs, even if MS only supports (in the sense of technical support) h.264

  31. This is a very sad day for the open web. Microsoft will support HTML5 (yay!) but only a patent-encumbered, proprietary codec (boo!) anyone apart from Apple, Microsoft, and Google won’t be able to support (due to the prohibitive licensing cost and/or the non-Free nature). So instead of Flash, we’re now crippling the web with another proprietary technology.

    I guess I was hoping against my better judgement. Microsoft is a licensor of the MPG-LA, and as such, you guys profit from having as many H264 licenses sold as possible. I had just hoped that due to recent positive steps from Microsoft with regards to openness and standards, we’d see some enlightenment here.

    Due to the emphasis on "only", I’m assuming IE9 won’t tap into DirectShow/Media Foundation codecs? I.e., if a user has a Theora codec installed, IE9 will make use of it?

  32. Fake Dean says:

    Funny how none of you are leaving comments on Steve Jobs’s post, or suggesting that MS use webkit…

  33. Ronc Le P says:

    H.264 is not a standard, nor open!

  34. Brianary says:

    @planetarian: Great! Can we have your address so we know whom to send licensing bills to if you are wrong?

  35. Gyrobo says:

    "In its HTML5 support, IE9 will support playback of H.264 video only."

    Is that decision set in stone? You’re still pretty early in the development cycle. Would an open VP8 make the cut?

  36. But where’s the real innovation?  Why are you stifling yourselves, developers and the web by working to this "standards" mindset?  Why don’t you work on something that overcomes the need for standards – for instance something that could dynamically load the right display engine for an application from the web?

    I’m not knocking your support of H.264, although I would’ve preferred you weren’t pushing something that wasn’t just lining your own pockets with licensing revenues and actually practicing what you preach about the "open web".  I say the same thing to Apple, Google and everyone else developing browsers.  

    I’m sure the quality of H.264 is excellent but why not stick to something the web was designed for? like the sharing of information for the betterment of all of humanity – thus something that could be open sourced and built upon/improved upon by the developer community as a whole?

    I’ve always held Microsoft’s software visions in fairly high regard but web standards are crippling innovation, not helping it.

    We need to find a way out of this mindset and find a way to solve the ‘cross browser’ development problem instead of just making them all the same.

    Developers want to innovate, we want all of your cool little extras, we don’t want to have to write reams of cross browser code to make it work in every browser, we don’t want to wait for standards to catch up with technology before we can use them.

    Help us to innovate.  Don’t hold us back.  

    If you want to make a standard, make one where a rendering engine could be loaded dynamically from the cloud into any browser shell at browse time allowing a developer to target the right engine for the application they’re writing and the user can use the best browser shell for them.  Work on making IE the best browser shell for them instead of labouring over W3C standards that take years to pass!

    *That* would be a standard worth having!

    http://www.endswithsaurus.com/2010/04/why-isnt-browser-rendering-engine.html

  37. Just a name says:

    Chris, haha, it’s funny, you forgot about the audio and container for video tag in HTML5. Or IE9 will not support audio and playback pure H264 stream without container and audio? :D

    I still ask: what other codecs and containers IE9 will be support?

  38. Donald says:

    Who would have thought Microsoft would pick a closed, proprietary format?  I’m stunned!  To the shock of no one, Microsoft is behind the curve yet again.

  39. Brian LePore says:

    As a developer that is currently working on upgrading the automated video module in the CMS for our clients to now output HTML5 video tags (outputs mp4, ogg, and flv since we have a lot of those, converting to the various formats where needed), I am very glad that Microsoft didn’t pick something out of left field.

    I honestly get both arguments. I truly hope that VP8 can eventually save the day and simplify things. Though even if it does surpass H.264 in performance and is removed from legal headaches, I think the hardware acceleration and the industry standard factor will keep Microsoft and Apple from ever supporting it.

  40. Andy L says:

    This is a sad day for the Open Web.

  41. Just a name says:

    > "The rights to other codecs are often less clear, as has been described in the press"

    > What codecs, what isn’t clear, what stories in what press?

    It’s a good question. Microsoft, what you answer?

  42. rdean says:

    "The rights to other codecs are often less clear, as has been described in the press"

    Only in the eyes of h.264’s proponents.  Those claims have been broadly and soundly refuted.

  43. Rob says:

    Another reason added for why no one should use IE anymore. Another push on the steady, 5-year long decline. Another nail in the coffin.

  44. theToolman says:

    "In its HTML5 support, IE9 will support playback of H.264 video only."

    Of course, you should have x264 support ship with iE9, but you should consider at least leaving the door open to other codecs via plugins or a similar mechanism.

    Wikipedia, for example, is committed to using OGG theora; I respect that iE9 has chosen not to ship with a Theora codec, but please at least allow some mechanism for me to see wikipedia media in iE9.

  45. Ronin says:

    Let’s also mention, just in the interest of full disclosure, that Microsoft is one of the companies in the H.264 Patent pool, so of course they’d benefit (financially) from that particular codec winning the race. Apple have been able to force media companies’ hands with the iPad, but we’ll soon see how this shakes out…

  46. jon says:

    So it looks like you sir want to continue to watch IE market share shrink! Good luck to you. I’ll be enjoying my non-IE browsers.

  47. BTreeHugger says:

    I can understand cross-platform browsers having trouble with multiple codecs, given that there are several media frameworks to support, codec licensing concerns, etc etc ad nauseum. But this sounds more like an intentional troll than a final decision.

    To my knowledge, IE9 will support only one OS architecture, which has access to Microsoft Media Framework. Therefore I can only assume that using any available MFT sink is simply too far-fetched, or that you are intentionally crippling IE9 rather than leveraging other Microsoft technologies.

    My guess is that this is a pre-release strategy, or just baseline support used to test IE9 before it’s eventual release. Otherwise, IE9 will already be outdone by all of it’s competitors by this metric, and as better codecs are released IE9’s video support will become obsolete and customers will be forced to use a plugin again.

  48. Str1f3 says:

    I cannot believe the whining on this thread. I’d like to say good job IE team on using an open standard. To others, open does not equal free. It is not like  MPEG, which also constitutes universities and research institutes, is going to start charging outrageous fees to bankrupt every site on the net. There is a pretty good chance that it will continue to be free past 2016.  

  49. Yeah says:

    Is H.264 being pushed because Microsoft stands to make money out of licensing fees for anyone who chooses to implement H.264?

    It’s not open. It shouldn’t be pushed as a standard for the web.

  50. UKB says:

    @Str1f3

    >> "I’d like to say good job IE team on using an open standard"

    Please, look up what Open Standard really means…

    >> "It is not like  MPEG {…} is going to start charging outrageous fees to bankrupt every site on the net."

    Are you solely counting on good faith for that one??

    well, think again:

    http://www.linuxinsider.com/rsstory/69312.html?wlc=1272592294

  51. erlehmann says:

    <blockquote>

    <p>

    The rights to other codecs are often less clear, as has been described in the press.

    </p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>

    That is some really bad hand-waving. Microsoft should probably try to get a PR guy for IE with a bit more FUD talent.

    </p>

  52. Dean, I think it’s quite dangerous for you to say "developers can rely on the H.264 codec and hardware acceleration support of the underlying operating system, like Windows 7, without paying any additional royalty."

    when the Windows 7 H.264 codec is licensed only for non-commercial use. See

    http://download.microsoft.com/Documents/UseTerms/Windows%207_Ultimate_English_c44ca3df-8338-4a2f-a176-39d2e68986c4.pdf

    THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE AVC, THE VC-1, THE MPEG-4 PART 2 VISUAL, AND THE MPEG-2 VIDEO PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSES FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (i) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ABOVE STANDARDS (“VIDEO

    STANDARDS”) AND/OR (ii) DECODE AVC, VC-1, MPEG-4 PART 2 AND MPEG-2 VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY OR WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE SUCH VIDEO. NONE OF THE

    LICENSES EXTEND TO ANY OTHER PRODUCT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH PRODUCT IS INCLUDED WITH THIS PRODUCT IN A SINGLE ARTICLE.

  53. Jean-Philippe Martin says:

    Come on. H264 is not the only codec that exist and the licensing is managed by a patent pool : prone to make us pay to use it in 5 years.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC#Patent_licensing

    You talk about opening the web and respecting the standards but this time this is the Microsoft own standard that want to be stuffed in our guts.

    http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensors.aspx

    It’s definitely not a post from you that i’m happy with.

    This explain a lot :

    http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html

    My understanding is that a consortium want to make money with html5 in place of Adobe.

    There’s a problem with html5 video tag and Microsoft can do something about it, it can but will it ??

  54. wechrome says:

    @rdean,

    "The rights to other codecs are often less clear, as has been described in the press"

    "Only in the eyes of h.264’s proponents.  Those claims have been broadly and soundly refuted."

    Only in the eyes of Theora’s proponents. Those claims have NOT been broadly and soundly refuted, other than in the eyes of FANATICAL Theora proponents.

  55. Ben says:

    It’s good to know how frightened MS is of Google and Mozilla, frightened enough to cut off their nose to spite their face, by dropping support for their own .NET sandboxed video codec system.  That system, so recently touted as the Next Big Thing, would have required using .NET for unsupported codecs, but it looks like that’s not enough lock-in anymore.

    MS made its fortune by selling an open platform on which even competitors could produce applications.

    Say hello to the new Microsoft.

  56. Mush Man says:

    H.264 a deal-breaker? That… doesn’t really make sense. For developers, they’ll lose traffic from IE9 users because the developers have failed to cater for them. For users, they’ll be catered for by the minority of websites that will not support H.264, while still being able to use H.264-capable websites. In the scheme of things, it’s certainly not a big deal.

    Besides, IE9 is not going to be the last version ever of IE. If H.264 does require royalties past-2016, the IE team will probably add support for another codec in the next IE so that web developers still have an option to continue distributing plug-in free video for free.

  57. Victor says:

    next post will be about WOFF in IE9.  :)

    good job!

  58. Rohan Dhruva says:

    I understand that as a part of MPEG-LA you might want to support H264, but why support H264 exclusively? How difficult is it to add support for Ogg/Theora? And don’t claim that Ogg/Theora is patent encumbered, or at a risk – it’s way better than the mess H264 is.

    I think Microsoft should start a user poll and see what the feedback of the community is, before making such rash decisions.

  59. Marcos Carnevalle says:

    Steve Jobs dixit [0]:

    "WebKit has been widely adopted. Google uses it for Android’s browser, Palm uses it, Nokia uses it, and RIM (Blackberry) has announced they will use it too. Almost every smartphone web browser other than Microsoft’s uses WebKit. "

    @IE Team and general manager, @Hachamovitch: please let me insist in the following point: don’t throw away the *migration* of the IE engine , from Trident to Webkit.

    Keep your wonderful GUI, but please get an instant lifting of the IE gears: just switch to webkit please!

    Thanks for listening

    -Marcos

    [0] April/2010 press release: http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/

  60. Francois Hamel says:

    Oh so you mean I’d still need to use Google Chrome in order to see more content on the web? Well that’s a shame… oh well.

  61. From MPEG LA: "no one in the market should be under the misimpression that other codecs such as Theora are patent-free. Virtually all codecs are based on patented technology, and many of the essential patents may be the same as those that are essential to AVC/H.264. Therefore, users should be aware that a license and payment of applicable royalties is likely required to use these technologies developed by others, too"

  62. follow link. count how many webkits there are in the world. notice how some chrome sites don’t support safari, some safari sites don’t support chrome. wonder — what it mean, tell Microsoft use webkit? which webkit?

  63. Ray Stantz says:

    I would like to see IE9 support Ogg Theora, Ogg Vorbis, and VP8 if Google does indeed release it on a royalty-free basis on the 19th of May. There’s no value in taking an obstructionist line and only supporting closed video to the exclusion of open video. Please don’t relegate IE9 to being a problem that the open web has to work around.

  64. a japanese says:

    Well, Okay. Let’s think, the future if this problem could not be solved.

    - IN 201X -

    In HTML5,

    If web developers wants to play video on their own web page, they will have to make two video files.

    One of those video has Ogg Theora codec, and another has H.264 codec.

    Same contents, different codecs. More (almost double) disk space required.

    Oh, that’s fantastic, isn’t it?

  65. @streamingmedia.com:

    Name one or it is just FUD … which applies to h.264 as well.

  66. Pedro says:

    WHY, Microsoft? Can’t believe you’re scared of possible licensing issues with Theora, having billions at hand, while at the same time hanging onto another format that will likely require royalties in a few years.

    Keep both, drop the one that gets too expensive first – sounds like a good compromise. Or just ship IE with Chrome Frame installed by default and stop worrying.

    @marcus carnevalle: what? are you crazy? webkit is an engine, and the google chrome teams try to stay in sync as much as possible with Safari development, so that they are 99% compatible. There is only one webkit.

  67. anon says:

    @Jason Knight:

    "There is NO LEGITIMATE EXCUSE for IE to not support in the VIDEO (or OBJECT) tag to not support any video container or codec that WMP does."

    How about better security due to less attack vectors? … sounds pretty legitimate to me.

    I’m not necessarily saying they should only support one format, but your argument is ignorant.

  68. Chris Smith says:

    Stop ruining the industry we work in by apathy and hanging on to licenseables.  The world is already dragged back by MS products.

  69. alex says:

    if you only support H.264 codec, does this mean, that you don´t support audio-tag and sound in video, because they need another codec?

  70. VMax says:

    The day IE died.

    I will encourage people to start using Open Web formats and putting a ‘get a 21th century browser’ button right next to it.

  71. I really thought, that the IE could become a good browser again. I believed in this, but you do, what you always do. You try to block your open source competitors.

    Why won’t you use system codecs so when a user has a theora codec installed, use it. Don’t hurt the web again, as you did with IE 6. Please!

  72. davemc says:

    The ITU-T H.264 standard and the ISO/IEC MPEG-4 AVC standard (formally, ISO/IEC 14496-10 – MPEG-4 Part 10, Advanced Video Coding) are jointly maintained so that they have identical technical content.

    H.264 is a standard, but not free.  The only free part (referenced in some comments is for the "broadcast" of h.264, not encode or decode.

  73. Stilgar says:

    The decision to use H.264 on the web was taken some time ago not by Microsoft but by Google when they used it in Youtube.

  74. BBaker says:

    @Stilgar: Well, Google could start using VP8 on Youtube exclusively – no Flash, no H.264 – now, that would be fun to watch what happens next…

  75. Stilgar says:

    @BBaker true. And Microsoft can release a version of IE (or even update) that supports whatever codec youtube starts using. I don’t see why Microsoft gets the bashing when it is actually Google’s decision. The most important video website in the world already runs with H.264 yet somehow Microsoft’s unreleased browser has “destroyed the open web”.

  76. franzose says:

    MS with its Internet Explorer have always been a brake on technological progress. If H.264 only becomes true, it seems to me that MS will keep on trucking…

  77. Wurst says:

    @anon: Attack vectors? Then doing it like with ActiveX and adding a flag that has to be set in order for a Codecs to be available for playing videos on the web?

  78. hAl says:

    Where is VC-1 support ?

    Much lighter codec on devices not supporting hardware decoding.

  79. Bad decision says:

    epic fail, shame on IE 9

    how about to support ogg theora?

  80. The Bitland Prince says:

    Well, does it sound surprising that Microsoft will only deliver a codec which they have monetary interest into ? ;-) I don’t think so.

    That’s why those big boys form those useless committees : to push their own interests. Don’t forget that MS and Apple (to name two rivals) sit in the same committee so it’s not surprising that they agreed on promoting only something they have monetary interest into.

    But there’s no use in crying for betrayal: just create / adopt a different format, have some major browser support it (or create a major browser if none is available) and be careful to only deliver contents which aren’t H.264. When someone complains he cannot see your contents, just state that he/she is using the wrong browser.

    There’s no use in complain: if the movement is strong, it will develop an alternative and God knows I would support that ;-)

  81. Mitch 74 says:

    @bitland: the video codec is Theora. It is (or will be) supported by Firefox (since 3.5), Chrome/Chromium (since 4), Safari (since 4), and Opera (in 11). It is under the BSD license (like Windows TCP/IP tools). It is under a royalty-free, irrevocable, unlimited patent license by the original creator (On2’s VP3). It is compatible with the W3C license.

    It’s as unreliable as h.264 patent-wise: only submarine patents. And since VP3 exists since before 2001, it will not be subject to such for as long as h.264.

    Other elements (Ogg container, Vorbis audio codec) have already be used at MS (Halo for the PC), so there is no restriction on them.

    Apart from the "Not Invented Here" syndrome.

    Sorry Dean, your post spreads FUD – nothing else.

  82. kL says:

    Will you support Theora via plugin?

    I really dislike you’re going with the IP FUD against "other codecs" which we all know is Theora.

    Since you’re MPEG-LA beneficiary, I don’t trust that your fear is genuine. You’re just pushing format on which you’ll be able to collect royalties.

  83. RJD says:

    Flash wss never supported by IE, but Adobe has released a plug-in for it.  MS’s own Silverlight does not have native IE support, but again, there’s a plug-in.  The plug-in architecture has existed for many versions of IE, and supposedly it keeps getting easier.  Ogg Theora and VP8 could all be supported by plug-in.

  84. PIK says:

    Cooool. Very good news. time to going IE in the bobo. Can you, PLEASE, also block Flash-plugin in IE9?

    h.264/avc is cool, because MS have a part of patent pool :-D Of course, is the best and industry standard.

    New IE will have not a build-in Theora/VP. But, who interesting?? %-)

  85. Andy L says:

    I thought that a new, open Microsoft was rising up…

    I was wrong.

    Microsoft, shame on you…

    …You could have waited for Google’s announcement re: open-sourcing the VP8 codec next month at its Google I/O conference…

    …but you didn’t, did you?

    You decided to step up earlier, just to block another important Open Web technology.

    Microsoft, do you even realize that you could have conquered back the hearts and minds of web developers?

    …Do you?

    Do you realize that, with this decision, you’ll lose more than you stand to gain?

    I hope Google will upgrade YouTube to have only VP8 videos and then advise IE users to just switch to VP8-capable browsers: Firefox, Google Chrome, Opera.

    …Now this would / will be interesting to see.

  86. The Bitland Prince says:

    @Mitch

    You’re right. I was aware of that and my message was mostly related to the irrelevance of beggin MS to do something.

    I have to say that I’m not against MS at all: my computer runs Windows7, my phone runs WM6.5 and I even develop for Microsoft’s platforms. Heck I even have IE8 as my primary browser…

    However, like many, I feel that big boys have walked that big red line where they want to squeeze every single drop of blood out of your pocket, ANY way they can.

    Apple started this and Microsoft abandoned its conciliatory stance to follow that. Just look at Windows Phone 7, for example.

    It’s now time to let this guys understand that the more they squeeze, the more they loose. That’s all.

    If/when I will produce some contents, it won’t be H.264: pure and simple. And fact that IE9 won’t support anything else (at least, officially) would mean I will switch my browser to something else and tell people to do the same.

    Peace ;-)

  87. chris says:

    The future of web videos is ogg theora or an opensource version of vp8. If IE9 doesnt support vp8 or ogg theora, their users wont be able to watch most of the videos avaible on the web in the future.

    IEs market share already dropped from 86,8% (2002) to 34,9 (march 2010) (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp) in two years nobody will use IE anymore.

    IE isnt the "standard" web browser, so we shouldnt bother what it supports or not. Just tell your visitors that if they dont switch from IE to firefox or chrome they wont be able to view your videos and soon IE will be nomore.

  88. DanielHendrycks says:

    Please implement Theora, it is not good for the web. Have a royalty free codec.

  89. adioe3 says:

    And I continue not to use Internet Explorer, seeing the piece of garbage it really is.

  90. Mike says:

    H.264, great!

    But please also consider VP8.

  91. Jack says:

    @Dean Hachamovitch

    "The rights to other codecs are often less clear, as has been described in the press."

    So you take legal decisions based on what’s written in the press!??

    The legal situation surrounding Vorbis (audio) and Theora (video) have always been clear. You should contact the persons responsible for their management: http://xiph.org/

    Inform yourself before making such ridiculous statements.

    Microsoft should stop resorting to FUD to justify their shortsighted decisions.

  92. titowach says:

    if youtube works in VP8 and wikipedia in theora, ie9 stillborn.

    Knok Knok, is anybody there?

  93. z3r0 says:

    This whole argument becomes moot as soon as Adobe flips their business model on Flash. If they fully open source Flash and then charge for the development tools and support they’ll be fine. The SWF format has an open spec.

    Performance wise it looks like Flash IS faster then HTML5 and Javascript:

    http://visualrinse.com/2010/04/15/benchmarking-html5-vs-flash-player-10-1-on-mobile-devices/

    Here are some counter points to Steve’s letter:

    http://jessewarden.com/2010/04/steve-jobs-on-flash-correcting-the-lies.html

    The truth is somewhere in the middle. Adobe can do more to make Flash truely open. ActionScript is based on JavaScript so the tech nologies in question are more similar then different. Just open source Flash and end this non-sense

  94. Jack says:

    @Dean Hachamovitch

    "Microsoft is deeply engaged in the HTML5 process with the W3C."

    –Then you known that there isn’t a recommended CODEC. Why are you forcing this on the general public and on the rest the people working on HTML5

    "In its HTML5 support, IE9 will support playback of H.264 video only."

    –A very shortsighted decision. How about the audio part? How about your own CODECs? Are they too under less clear licensing rights? How about your own operating systems that lack H.264 support? You talked about Win7, but what about WinVista and WinXP?

    "H.264 is an industry standard"

    –That might be, but it’s not a web standard, it’s was not approved by the W3C. Nor it’s open. You have to license it to make a implementation. And you have to pay for *creating*, *playing* and *distribution* (although *distribution* royalties on the web have been delayed until 2016). That’s not open. W3C requires royalty-free technology!

    "…developers can rely on the H.264 codec and hardware acceleration support of the underlying operating system, like Windows 7, without paying any additional royalty."

    –But only for playing and only for Win7. So how about other purposes and how about WinVista and WinXP? Your zero-tolerance towards allowing any other CODEC is stupid!

    You cannot state that you support openness and then act by moving in the opposite direction, unless you like been called a hypocrite…

  95. http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/video.html

    H.264, MPEG-4, Theora, Vorbis, Speex, FLAC, Dirac codec and Ogg, Matroska containers.

    <em>IE9 will support playback of H.264 video only.</em>

    So, how exactly is Microsoft "deeply engaged in the HTML5 process with the W3C"?

  96. "The future of the web is HTML5."

    Great to hear that, but isn’t your decision to only support a codec that requires royalties anti-competitive towards free (as in gratis) software?

    I think you should support as many codecs as you resonably can using standard content negotiation and MIME headers. You should then auto-install codecs from your servers if the client doesn’t have the particular one.

    Please reconsider.

  97. Brian LePore says:

    @Mitch,

    You are a bit mistaken in your post. Safari does not support OGG, and Opera has support for it now with version 10.5.

    Currently Chrome is the most accepting. It supports both H.264 and OGG for video and OGG and mp3 for audio (but not wave for some reason, which Firefox, Safari, and Opera 10.5 support).

    I’m interested in what Microsoft is going to support for the audio codec. I assume mp3 and maybe wave, but it would be nice to hear an official statement.

    To those begging for VP8, I do not see it happening in IE9 unless we would like to see IE9 get delayed. Maybe in an IE9.5 or IE10. Microsoft does need to make a cut off point for features at some point. Mozilla has been hurt in the past by new things coming out at the wrong time in their development cycle (e.g. the Acid2 and Acid3 tests came out to close to the release of Firefox 2 and 3 to be targeted in those releases). Google has only announced an intention to open source the license. Microsoft shouldn’t even consider supporting it until after it has officially been done, and even than that is after talking to their lawyers.

    That all being said, on your March 16th post on HTML5 and hardware acceleration Microsoft claimed that they researched the Web Standards in use by the top 7000 Web sites and set out to hit those standards. I do find this post falls against that claim as Wikipedia is surely in the top 7000 and they do not support H.264 for video, but rather OGG Theora/Vorbis.

  98. m0 says:

    What … So clearly you guys are not going to conform to "open" video format standards. What happened to OGG? Are you guys really reading what the web standards community is talking about, or your pulling another stunt?

    I was once a Microsoft Student Partner, and I worked for you guys promoting products that I believed was right. I am really disappointed with the directions your team has been taking. It is like you don’t even care about the future of the web. Look at Google on the amount of contributions they have been making to the web and HTML5 standards.

    I am really disappointed, I believe I fell into a trap being an MSP. Sure I was a kid, and you gave us free stuff, but I wish I never had wasted my time doing. I was hoping one day you guys will really care about the future of the Web.

    Clearly that isn’t the case, we just see SVG affects and stupid H264 proprietary format.

  99. Brian LePore says:

    @Jack,

    Microsoft has already stated that IE9 will not run on Windows XP. It is just Vista they need to do work for.

  100. Dub says:

    Let’s wait for the Google answer…an open VP8 codec?  (http://www.on2.com/)

  101. OGG-video playback, is already in the several millions of HTML5-TV ready web browsers.

    http://www.oggtv.com/communicate.html

    This shows OGG-video in the "Super-Majority" of HTML5-TV playback browser support on the web right now.

    IE9, will take time to overtake IE8’s 20% share (with only Vista with Service Pack 2, Direct2D, and Windows7 supported).

    So the upside-down pyramid of HTML5 browser support favors OGG-video playback on the web.

    OGG-video is already a standard with HTML5-TV playback.

    H.264 is in the super-minority with HTML5 browser playback now. (H.264 is a popular format, but not with the HTML5 video support that OGG video has with web browsers now).

    And remember, just about all Linux Distros play OGG-video out of the box.

    With OGG + VP8 on a double codec website framework, its mobile to HD popularity will only increase.

    http://www.oggtv.com/communicate.html

    Read the list, and see for yourselves, and make your own decision for all operating systems.

    A OGG-video codec plug-in will come later anyway, if IE9 will have support for it.

    A number of OGG-video HTML5-TV ready web browsers, already work on Windows, this is just a statement about H.264 and IE9. OGG will be a very popular HTML5-TV supported codec on several browsers.

    The GPU processor is available to video players, so it can also be available to other web-browsers video playback.

    *note

    IE8 and IE variants, cannot render the selection pages properly on the site. (so use another browser to render the pages properly).

  102. cavassin says:

    I am sorry to say the truth to you:

    IE is dying. Your decision to be H.264 only will be irrelevant sooner than you can imagine.

  103. Alex D says:

    Great call backing H.264.

    For years as a W3C member I’ve advocated _NOT_ requiring a specific codec due to an uncertain IP landscape. The kids that think Ogg is somehow magically free of IP encumbering are naive at best. No, the Ogg authors don’t assert any IP, nor claim royalty on that basis but there are many companies with IP in the codec area that very likely are watching Ogg for the chance to get some payback when a major player uses it. H.264 is good, the royalty is not excessive, It’s only communist-like idealists that suck millions of dollars out of Google to develop second-rate browsers that are too short-sighted to realize that you need to pay for quality:-)

    Realistically if one were to choose the best, most industry supported codec right now there is no alternative to H.264. VP8 may well infringe just as heavily as Ogg. Wake up people.

  104. foo says:

    I take you got a free license for your customers with this exclusivity move and hope to hurt the open source community.. money buys, money talks

  105. peter says:

    I’m still waiting for Googles move. They can easily force all major browser developers to support whatever codec they deem the right one, by simply make it the codec of choice on youtube. Bold move I know, but so was closing the office in China.

  106. The future of web is HTML5, but the old versions of the IE-Browser are the reason why HTML5 won’t become reality in the next few years.

  107. Jarrod Nettles says:

    Dean, I hope that your opinion on industry standards is reflected when Trident 5 is used in Internet Explorer 9. If not, web developers will continue to fight against Internet Explorer rather than working with it and market share will continue to erode away toward WebKit and Gecko based browsers.

  108. junkpunch says:

    "Flash does have some issues, particularly around reliability, security, and performance."

    Hi Kettle, this is Pot. You are black.

  109. Mitch 74 says:

    @Brian LePore: install Safari 4+Quicktime. Go to http://openvideo.dailymotion.com. Enjoy.

    Longer explanation: Safari has built-in support for h.264. It can however make use of Quicktime if installed, and Quicktime can handle Ogg Theora. So, Safari can handle video tags with Theora streams.

    Rest of your comment: very true.

  110. Matt says:

    Chris: W3Schools is not a source of representative browser share data, which they freely admit. Worldwide, IE still has 200% of the share of all Windows browser competitors combined.

    Brian: Frank Oliver from Microsoft already said the supported audio formats are AAC and MP3 in the comments on an older post.

    Microsoft didn’t say that they’d support EVERY format and API used on EVERY one of the top 7000 sites, merely that the top 7000 is what they benchmark themselves against.

    Federico Pistono, as noted by many before you, the HTML5 spec does not require ANY particular codec.

    Jack: I doubt Dean cares what you call him, but yelling at Microsoft for refusing to support their own proprietary formats is pretty dumb. Supporting an industry standard is hard to fault vs. supporting their own formats.

    If Microsoft wanted to "collect royalties" as the FUD here suggests, their browser would support their own proprietary formats. It doesn’t. FUD is FUD.

    The idea that Google is going to switch over YouTube to use VP8 exclusively is only espoused by people who have no idea how Google’s business really works.

  111. Josh says:

    I think it would be wise to support Theora and Vorbis as well, because it’s important to have an open alternative as well.

  112. timw4mail says:

    EVERYBODY ELSE supports Ogg. Therefore, IE should. IE needs to stop being the odd browser out.

  113. Will says:

    <<<Can’t believe you’re scared of possible licensing issues with Theora, having billions at hand>>>

    Uh, hopefully you understand that this is WHY they’re scared, right? Only rich companies get sued for infringement.

    <<<Other elements (Ogg container, Vorbis audio codec) have already be used at MS (Halo for the PC), so there is no restriction on them.>>>

    You don’t understand how patent lawsuits work. Halo PC made very little money. If MS got sued and had to give up ALL of their profits (even tripled) on Halo PC, the money would be less than they make on Windows in a week.

    IE, on the other hand, is part of Windows. If Microsoft gets sued for infringement on something that is in 800 million copies of Windows, the damages can be much greater than the individual GNPs of most of the world’s countries.

    <<<There is only one webkit>>>

    You’re wrong, and clearly didn’t read the reference provided. Not that this is a terribly relevent conversation for this post.

  114. Manuel Bua says:

    [quote]The HTML5 specification describes video support without specifying a particular video format. We think H.264 is an excellent format. In its HTML5 support, IE9 will support playback of H.264 video only.[/quote]

    There were no doubts, from my part, about Microsoft NOT supporting nor acting towards and for a truly open web: obviously, the first step should be to stop the development of this crazy-psycho thing that’s IE.

    Please, stop it.

  115. Jack says:

    @Matt

    "Jack: I doubt Dean cares what you call him, but yelling at Microsoft for refusing to support their own proprietary formats is pretty dumb. Supporting an industry standard is hard to fault vs. supporting their own formats."

    I didn’t yell. How supporting their own standards is "pretty dumb". They are supported throughout their entire line of products from OS to Office Suites. Their format VC-1 is also an "international standard".

    To be clear: supporting one, and only one, video CODEC is "pretty dumb" since their OS by default supports so much more.

  116. This big screenshot, shows OGG-video playback on Opera’s new HTML5-TV ready browser.

    http://www.oggtv.com/HTML5-TV_example.png

    OGG-video is already in the "drivers-seat" on the web, OGG is in a prime position to build positive media companies and supersites on the web.

    The resized pop-up video, shows a clear video, even when scaled-up to a desired viewing size

    OGG is already a standard, ready for everyone to use, with a huge HTML5-TV browser support base.

  117. Senyai says:

    Why not just use Windows codecs (those we see in ‘Sound and Audio Device Properties’)? I guess it’s too late.

  118. diefab says:

    As Alex D stated earlier, Wake up people !

  119. The Bitland Prince says:

    @Matt

    quote:

    If Microsoft wanted to "collect royalties" as the FUD here suggests, their browser would support their own proprietary formats. It doesn’t. FUD is FUD.

    Except that MS WILL collect royalties by forcing H.264 since it’s part of the committee which is sponsoring it. Where do you think all that money for licenses will go ? Not to my pocket for sure…

    The fact that Microsoft is not supporting their own proprietary formats is not a proof of anything as that would ignite a war-of-codecs where MS could be easily a target of anti-trust litigation given their dominance in desktop market. The end up of such litigation could ironically be that MS would be required to ship other codecs while other companies (A*p*e, for one) would not be forced to do the same. Result would be Microsoft would need to support competitors’ codecs without a reciprocal need.

    Better to find a way where revenues will be shared but sure and litigations very unlikely.

    Let me be clear: I’m not complaining about this MS move the same way I’m not complaining about IPhones not supporting Flash. What I hate is the way these guys are trying to push the idea this is for our own sake, to protect customers in their own (customers) interest. That’s simply ridiculous.  

    Simply state that it’s for money and nobody will ever complain.

  120. Klimax says:

    IE history? Only in your dreams people. (And I don’t like perosnally your "bad" dreams)

    If you want to force change,force first Google. Otherwise bad luck.

    As for FF,I think the only version having problems would be the Linux one.

    But these comments show why maintaining perspective is bloody neccessary,even when your "favourite" codec is not being supported.

    And I have some doubts about theora being better alternative. At least so long software patents exists.(nice double edged sword)

    But then I understand decision of MS. They were sued way too many times,so evne if they had no income incentive,they would choose something easly licenseable with patents being solved.

  121. Manuel says:

    We need to purchase a license for commercial use of H.264.

    You should support Theora (and/or VP8 if Google will release it under a "liberal" license) too.

    Supporting H.264 video only, Microsoft will break the web AGAIN (apparently, you didn’t learn anything from the IE6 lesson).

  122. Chris says:

    "IE9 will support playback of H.264 video only"

    This is short-sighted.  Many providers will refuse to pay MSFT’s (MPEG LA’s) dubious licensing fees.  Many users will want to play that video, so they will find an alternative to IE9.  IE will continue its descent into irrelevance.

  123. Simone says:

    It would be really nice if them HTML5 standard dictated the codecs and containers to support, so not freedom will be left to implementors to choose which to support.

    But even now, if all the containers/codecs supports the same features (like additional audio tracks, text descriptions, etc..) it would only be a matter of encoding your video twice.

  124. The issue is:  which one is in the "drivers-seat"

    http://www.oggtv.com/communicate.html

    The "Super-Majority" of HTML5-TV browser playback supports OGG, hands down, (with more support coming).

    If IE9 cannot overtake IE8’s 20% market soon, then it will not make any difference.

    With OGG in the situation of being used for International IPTV streaming channels, the "drivers-seat" situation will be dictated by HTML5-TV browser support.

    A huge OGG-video HTML5-TV support base, will dictate browser share.

    Starting media companies with OGG, allows business start-ups to have a huge market of already installed browsers, for now and in the future.

    http://www.oggtv.com/communicate.html

    http://www.oggtv.com/HTML5-TV_example.png

    IE9 will probably be forced to play OGG-video, or become irrelevant when people use other browsers in order to see HTML5-TV on the web.

  125. Matt says:

    My favorite FUD argument from the OSNews guys and the other ideologues: "Would Youtube have taken off if they had to rely on h264?" It’s fun, because we already know that:

    1> They didn’t "have to" pick h264

    2> They did choose it anyway

    3> YouTube did take off

    4> YouTube’s engineering staff have said that a move to Theora would require all of the internet’s bandwidth because it’s so muc less efficient than h264.

    Bitland: MS collects 100% of the royalties (whatever they may be) paid on their proprietary WMA/WMV codecs. No one has yet shown that they’ve made a dime on h264 licenses.

    The "they’re doing this for the money" argument is right, but it’s not for the revenue from licensing costs– it’s to avoid the costs of litigation losses.

    Open-standards folks should be happy about that. Remember Eolas? After those trolls collected hundreds of millions from Microsoft, what do you think they did with that money? That’s right, they sued Mozilla and everyone else.

    Manuel: You clearly don’t know what the lesson of IE6 was. That lesson wasn’t what you think; it instead was "Don’t claim victory and stop developing."

  126. marry says:

    If a proper icense required than I dont think people gonna prefer.

  127. H.264 has *NOT* been *ABSOLUTELY* cleared of licensing/royalties/etc for all of *ETERNITY* and therefor just like how Oracle will kill MySQL after everyone has forgotten that they are a MONOPOLIST company so to will those who gain to benefit from H.264 cash in if the industry adopts a PROPRIETARY codec as a standard. This is a MASSIVE fail by Microsoft as well as other companies building browsers who have also decided to participate in this undeniably horrible business decision. Sure H.264 looks better then license/royalty free codecs according to some tests though I won’t be utilizing it in any of my work period. I have increasingly adopted a build it to last policy over the course of the past year abandoning things like proprietary MySQL specific SQL syntax that won’t carry over to other SQL languages when Oracle moves to kill MySQL, dropped the use of the Unix epoch, etc. Congratulations, by ONLY supporting H.264 you guys just made IE9 the IE6 of this decade with this single decision and it hasn’t even made it to beta! You commit to standards in a absolute or don’t bother whatsoever.

    MPEG LA’s website…

    "We are the world’s leading packager of patent pools"

    patent pools? Really? Sounds more like patent trolls to me.

    2015: Sorry, your browser Internet Explorer 9 does not support the OGG codec and therefor this video can not be viewed. Please take ten minutes of your time which you won’t to download a different browser especially since you won’t be using IE9 in a work environment that prohibits this.

    2016: Dir Sir/Madam, it has come to our attention that your business has five videos encoded using the H.264 codec on your business website. We are expecting royalty payments of $2,064.38 from your small business. If you do not make this payment we will sue you and your grandmother. Remember, it’s not our fault that you hired an incompetent web designer who didn’t know the difference between royalty free codecs and royalty burdened codecs.

    I can’t help but wonder how this relates to Apple and Adobe; if this comes to pass web designers will be forced to continue to serve videos in Flash or be forced to rely on browser plugins. I swear I could have read something on hear about same markup working in different browsers.

  128. Joe Stevens says:

    Good on you IE Team. There is hope for Internet Explorer yet.

  129. RobG says:

    This is just another big nail in Flash’s coffin.

    RIP Flash

  130. G. Walter says:

    Althoug H.264 (as possible part of HTML5 Video) must be licensed, I’m very pleased to read this message that IE will be able to display HTML5. Will be very nice when MS uses it’s strength to open the H.264 format. That we’ll have a very powerful Web.

  131. Kyle Van Vranken says:

    Does this mean MS will look to HTML5 to deliver video instead of Silverlight?

  132. Manuel says:

    Matt: The main lesson was "don’t dirty the web with proprietary rubbish" so we can avoid IE-only hacks inside our code. But I don’t expect everybody to understand this.

  133. casual_observer says:

    G. Walter said "Will be very nice when MS uses it’s strength to open the H.264 format."

    truly – Fantasy at it’s finest, with a strong presence of Comedy.  i commend you and wish you well in your pursuit of your new profession.  sadly, i think SyFy is moving away from science fiction/fantasy these days. timing really is everything, it seems.

  134. David K. says:

    You guys crack me up.  OGG is everywhere?  Not supporting it will kill IE?  What sort of fantasy world do you live in?  Major site after major site (YouTube, ESPN, ABC, CNN, BBC, etc.) are switching to Flash free h.264 video.  The only people who care about OGG are the open source zealots.  Get over yourselves, h.264 may not be "free" but its widely adopted (like mp3, jpeg, gif, etc.) and has vastly superior performance.  

  135. Daryl says:

    Well if Firefox supports a format other than H.264 for HTML5 video I will definitely use it just to break IE support and force people to switch.  I hope Google hurries with open sourcing On2 codec so it can be adopted for HTML5 and be fully open source.  Cheers.

  136. GotaClue says:

    <<<if this comes to pass web designers will be forced to continue to serve videos in Flash >>>

    Uh, you know that Flash uses h264, right?

  137. Matt says:

    Manuel: nope.

    The best part about the comments are the IEBlog is that you get to see experts and industry titans interact with those without experience or insight.

    Guess who holds their opinions more firmly?

  138. Chad Mortensen says:

    It’s awesome that IE9 is adding support for modern technologies but what’s Microsoft going to do about all the IE6, IE7, IE8 browsers out there that won’t support it.

    Make IE9 a mandatory Windows security update!!

    Thanks, designer of the web.

  139. definer of terms says:

    It would be good if we used the terms correctly, and not associated orthogonal concepts.

    Open-source:  source code is freely available (true for a number of codecs, including Theora and H.264)

    Encumbered: subject to IPR, patents read on it (known to be true of the MPEG codecs)

    Proprietary: owned and defined by a single source (company); true, for example, of VPx codecs (contrast: standard, open standard)

    Standard: published by a standards body; sometimes loosely applied to specs published by other bodies. True of H.264, which is published jointly by ITU (a treaty standards organization) and ISO (The international organization for standardization).

    Open Standard: the same as standard; anyone is free to participate in, and influence, the process that results in the standard (this has to be true for anti-trust reasons)

    There are open-source implementations of encumbered standards. There are proprietary (apparently) unencumbered codecs.  And so on.

  140. I started OGGTV.com in early 2008, before HTML5 video, this is why it has a dual-playback framework now.

    What happened next, was a group of web browsers started playing it directly with HTML5.

    OGGTV was early on the scene, to take advantage of HTML5 video playback, a year before the iPad, and other news.

    This is why I am showing OGG is in the HTML5 browser "drivers-seat" with this link.

    http://www.oggtv.com/communicate.html

    When you look at the list, the numbers just show it.

    (and you can even add Mac to the list)

    I am just showing the facts about OGG browser share.

    With a full screenshot to show the quality, even in a unoptimized encoding.

    http://www.oggtv.com/HTML5-TV_example.png

    It’s just a fact, that OGG-video is in the "drivers-seat" with HTML5-TV browser support.

  141. Anton Rang says:

    H.264 is a standard.  Theora is not.  There is a published specification, but that’s not the same thing.  I don’t mean to put down On2’s work nor that of the Xiph foundation and volunteers, but there’s a difference.

    Whether or not Microsoft *should* support non-standard video formats such as Theora, or other standards such as H.263, is a business decision ultimately up to them.  Consumers have choice and are likely to exercise it if IE doesn’t display the video they care about — or, conversely, if a given web site doesn’t display in their chosen browser.

  142. Joe says:

    Shut up all,

    I don’t care about HTML5 , Flash or Freaking Steve Jobs.

    But I must admit that Microsoft was the ONLY one that let readers to share their opinion. That beat Steve Jobs or Adobe :)

    Yes HTML5 is the Future….

  143. n00b says:

    What about DRM and content control?  If browsers are going towards HTML 5 and h.264 instead of Flash, that’s great.  But will the content owners recode their video into h.264 if there’s no DRM or ability for them to control their content use?

  144. Wurst says:

    @n00b: There was no DRM in Flash (except _maybe_ for streaming media, but forget about that).

  145. Wurst says:

    @terms: ‘Open Source’ can mean more than just a publicly available source code, ask the FSF. Also a codec has no source code, just a software implementation has.

  146. Kyle Van Vranken says:

    @n00b: They’ll want you to use Silverlight.

  147. Steve Watkins says:

    Oh dear, HTML5 video arguments on the net are really a mess at the moment, so much confusion!

    Personally I would bet a leg that Theora isnt going to make it as a major video format on the net, its just not good enough. VP8 may get somewhere eventually, will wait and see exactly how Google handle it.

    H.264 already dominates, this isnt going to change for years. And the more video gets encoded into H.264 every day, the more hardware devices that come out which encode or decode H.264, well it just makes H.264 dominance last even longer. Throw in the fact that both Flash and Silverlight support H.264, along with the iPhone and iPad phenomena, and its no surprise that anybody that can afford to build their tech to support H.264 is doing so.

    Ok the situation isnt perfect, but H.264s rise has already taken away a lot of the pain that used to exist with different formats on different platforms, a horrible situation that allowed Flash to become the technology that powered the initial rise of video in the browser. Microsoft arent going to be able to stop a lot of people moaning, many of whom are ill-informed about the issues. What they can do is clarify the point about the Windows 7 H.264 licensing terms as thats certainly an issue. I have some sympathy for Firefox, but hopefully a solution can be found because in an age where energy conservation will only become a bigger and bigger issue, the last thing we want is software video decoding or sites having to re-encode all their videos to another format.

    In an ideal world the patent holders of H.264 would decide to make it free forever for most web usage scenarios, I cant imagine this happening though so the arguments will continue and one or more corporations & browsers may lose out in the end. Your move, Google.

  148. opensource says:

    LOL

    html5 is about freedom, not about royalty fees

    http://openvideoalliance.org/

    http://www.html5video.org/

    A multi platform web browser is a mate.

    A non multi platform web browser is a toy.

     A today’s web page must work with Gecko 1.9.0 and + layout engine.

     A tomorrow’s web page must work with WebKit layout engine.

     Working with IE is interesting?

    Interesting for a web developer?

  149. Tes Go says:

    Gees, what a load of whining here, how naive are you people, Microsoft is a stock market listed company and is therefore tasked to make profits for it’s stake holders. If you don’t like the western market economy then you have the right to moan about Microsoft doing things to make money.

    Otherwise understand basic business and be thankful that the likes of Microsoft, Apple, Google and the like, make enough profits, to support the fact, that using this great service that’s the web, to the most part FREE!

  150. Anonymous Coward says:

    Great! Another H.264 supported…thank you for once more making the web dependent on a proprietary piece of code…has noone learnt anything from GIF?!?!

  151. compare how many browsers support H.264 and OGG here

    http://www.youtube.com/html5

    Safari

    Chrome

    Chrome Frame

    (for H.264 HTML5 video playback)

    Then go here:

    http://www.oggtv.com/communicate.html

    What you will see is a HUGE difference in browser share, (for now, until VP8 arrives this spring).

    Then you will see OGG + VP8 on double codec HTML5-TV websites.

    OGG-video, is already "baked-in", to a number of web browsers and open-source Linux desktops.

    With Windows and Mac helping

    Remember:  OGG-video can be played back in several millions of HTML5 web browser installs now.

    VP8 will get a market jump immediately with Chrome and Firefox, so having a double codec OGG + VP8 website framework is a "extra" majority of HTML5-TV web-browsers.

    With Vista, Direct2D, service pack 2, and Windows7 needed, it will take some time for IE9 to overtake IE8’s 20% market share, and for the iPad/Safari’s (H.264) browser’s market share, IE9 is not here yet.

  152. Steve Watkins says:

    Yes William Lacy I think you have done quite enough self-promotion of your ogg-based site. You can say what you want, it doesnt change the reality that there is hardly any theora video on the web.

  153. leon says:

    Good choice MS! With you supporting h.264 the lesser technologies (theora, flash) will die. which is very good as they are low performance and high memory usage technologies.

  154. Mitch 74 says:

    @Will: Halo for the PC didn’t make much: riiight… And the Xbox version (which also used Vorbis)?

    Has anybody sued Blizzard for their use of Vorbis in World of Warcraft, I wonder.

    No? Well then, WoW must not make Blizzard much cash.

    [/sarcasm]

    I was citing Halo because it can’t be denied, and it’s part of the Big MS Family. If you’re looking for scale, look at WoW. Every and all music in it is stored as Vorbis.

    Even better, Starcraft II uses both Vorbis and Theora.

    How much will Blizzard make off these games? Almost as much as what MS does by selling Windows for a month? Will that be enough to excite patent trolls, do you think?

  155. donmontalvo says:

    It’s great to hear Microsoft is embracing HTML5 in future versions of IE. Just wanted to chime in to say I couldn’t be happier – congratulations for doing the right thing!

    Don Montalvo, TX

  156. Aethec says:

    All those people thinking Theora is the most wonderful thing in the world and h264 the worst are so funny…

  157. Fiona says:

    Why IE9 don’t you use the codecs that installed on the system? It has more sense.

  158. To all you theora-heads: are you insane?  From my open letter to Adobe:

    "To achieve long battery life when playing video, mobile devices must decode the video in hardware; decoding it in software uses too much power. Many of the chips used in modern mobile devices contain a decoder called H.264–an industry standard that is used in every Blu-ray DVD player and has been adopted by Apple, Google (YouTube), Vimeo, Netflix and many other companies.

    Although Flash has recently added support for H.264, the video on almost all Flash websites currently requires an older generation decoder that is not implemented in mobile chips and must be run in software. The difference is striking: on an iPhone, for example, H.264 videos play for up to 10 hours, while videos decoded in software play for less than 5 hours before the battery is fully drained.

    When websites re-encode their videos using H.264, they can offer them without using Flash at all. They play perfectly in browsers like Apple’s Safari and Google’s Chrome without any plugins whatsoever, and look great on iPhones, iPods and iPads."

  159. Banned in Boston says:

    Hey Dean:

    Bad boy, bad boy whatcha’ gonna do–

    Whatcha’ gonna do Google sends some On2 at you?

    (My apologies to a certain TV show and its writers.)

  160. Please just kill flash, it’s the best for all consumers.

  161. mark says:

    why don’t you stop making IE9?

    developers hate IE anyway.

  162. It is a long way in front of us to use HTML5 for video, but I am really looking forward. Flash? Hmm Flash will survive because of Google support. /Daniel from Web Design New York, Royal Deer Design

  163. alxx says:

    Personally I think its a great step for MS to move to industry standards rather than just supporting their own standards/formats.

    Will make things easier for the corporate support guys.

    We won’t see widespread theora support soon(if ever) because it doesn’t have hardware acceleration especially on mobile devices and because it requires more cpu power for decoding and more network bandwidth to stream.

    Adobe won’t open source they don’t need to. Interesting to see them using llvm/clang to support multiple platforms.

    A great idea.

    You can fault MS for quite a few things but supporting industry standards isn’t one of them.

  164. notboss says:

    "The future of the web is HTML5."

    So we don’t need silverlight after all?

    What does it mean for Microsoft to say the future of the Web is HTML5 while you advertise for jobs to promote Silverlight as a better option than AJAX?

    You guys crack me up.

  165. infinte says:

    Why don’t you support it AS WELL AS THAT IN SILVERLIGHT?

  166. steve says:

    Very good work and a lovely choice on H264. Thank you very much

  167. GNU/Linux user says:

    Hmm, rest in peace IE. You were awful browser anyway.

  168. reuben says:

    can you guys also work on killing IE6 & IE7 completely?

  169. yt says:

    H.264 is a proprietary format which is licenced by apple and microsoft, but not the web gigant google. This won’t work especially if you keep in mind that google has purchased their own codec.

  170. no more ie says:

    I wish MS stop making a web browser. And I am sure that many people will agree with me. Please terminate IE. This will create a brighter future for web developers. Look these stats, http://www.findmebyip.com/litmus/#target-selector

    , http://caniuse.com/, http://html5test.com/. IE9 which is to come is trying to add standards all other browsers already have.

  171. Glad MS have gotten away from Flash video in IE9. No matter how much adobe and Flash Devs moan about it both Steve Jobs and Dean Hachamovitch (IE’s general manager @MS) have said that Flash poses security risks and slows performance and therefore HTML5 video is the future. No one is saying Flash video is dead, but its definately dying a slowly till it’s not needed which will be 2022 at the ver lastest (HTML5 full release date).

    People seem to forget but by definition Flash is proprietary; you have to Buy in from Adobe and only Adobe maintain it.

    Looking forward to seeing IE9 when its rolled out, its shaping up to be the first good IE.

    @yt with Google using WebKit (Apple’s Open Source Browser Engine) they already support H.264, and they are transfering youtube to HTML5 which at the moment is in a beta, I’d say they were behind it.

  172. wob says:

    I have to give you my utmost thanks Microsoft.

    5 years ago, I really didn’t think a monopoly as huge as yours could be shaken, and it has somewhat restored my faith in technology now that you’re circling the plug hole due to selfish, complacent decisions.

    Even though Apple have their problems, they are innovators, they deserve your throne, and they’re about to get it. I realise Apple and Google are proponents of h.264 as well, and I actually think it’s the superior codec. But I could see them switching to Theora in a heartbeat if it became the better decision, and the users wanted it more. And that’s the difference between you and them. Your past history has demonstrated otherwise, so, enjoy your diminishing market share.

    My only question is – doesn’t it worry you that history will look back on your company with contempt? IE6 caused an "internet dark ages" for many years, and you only tried to fix the situation when forced due to rapidly diminishing market share to Firefox. You failed at that too – IE7/8 are sloppy and buggy and pain to develop for. There will be a tipping point where it just isn’t worth peoples time any more. Just like what is currently happening with flash.

    So, don’t change a thing.

  173. greg says:

    Not supporting MPEG-4, Theora, Vorbis, is just shy of being intentionally monopolistic!

    If my PC supports the codecs, why can’t I view these video files directly?

    Which part of the "open web" contains the phrase "use only this video codec"????

    I can’t speak for all formats of audio/video but I can tell you as a developer and a consumer that I want no part of any audio/video format that can or does contain DRM mechanisms.

    Ogg and Theora have worked perfectly fine for all my audio/video needs on PC, Mac, and Linux.

    Hmmm – just when we thought IE9 was going to be an awesome browser – you go and post that you are crippling it before it even gets out the gate. – Epic Fail.

  174. peter says:

    @ Alex D,

    good comment.

    @ All,

    Think about hardware decoding on low power mobile devices.

    On a desktop, we dont really care how efficient the decoding gets done. On a mobile device, we certainly do.

    Codecs thru plugins – on a desktop – no problem. Not so on mobile devices. (Nor is hardware decoding of several formats on the same chip considered as a smart option.)

    For a better experience of tomorrows web, we have to make decissions now.

  175. hAl says:

    Next week should see the release of the new preview version of IE9.

    We should see IE9’s implementation of that video tag then.

  176. Matt says:

    greg said <<<If my PC supports the codecs, why can’t I view these video files directly?>>>

    Maybe you should the Mozilla team, who rejected the patch submitted to them that provided access to all of the codecs available on the machine. Mozilla abusing its monopoly again? Oh, wait, no, that’s not it at all. I don’t think you understand what the "open web" is really about.

    The most likely outcome of IE supporting all installed codecs is a huge % of web video moving to the WMV format, which would be bad for openness.

    hAl, it would be a mistake to assume that the next preview has video — if it did, dean prolly would have mentioned that.

    wob: Yes, poor Microsoft is nearly dead, having recently released the fastest-selling OS in history (win7), having nearly 2/3 of worldwide marketshare for browsers, north of 90% of the market for productivity software, and a substantial gaming business. Yeah, they’re toast.

  177. Realist says:

    Wow, lots of misinformation on here.  I think Matt had it right when he described how this blog has experts interacting with the inexperienced.

    Ogg/Theora proponents: I hear your complaints about openness (and scratch my head when similar things like JPEG come to mind). But I’ve not heard one rebuttal to the hardware device decoding argument. If anything is clear in this argument it’s this:

    *Video content is becoming pervasive on mobile devices. It’s not going away.

    *Ogg/Theora has minimal (or no) hardware decoding support.

    *Mobile devices require hardware decoding in order to achieve satisfactory battery life.

    Just because a "super majority" of UAs implement a format does not mean it is the leader. Availability of content is another major (possibly, the most) important .

    Google has reported that Ogg/Theora’s quality-per-bit is not suitable to handle the volume of YouTube. As the hands-down largest distributer of video content on the web, YouTube has great sway in determining the outcome of this argument.

    I guess Flash will stick around so we can view video in Firefox. Otherwise, I’m in for H.264. Dean is making the right choice for this one, especially since hardware accelerated HTML5 is one of the big themes we’re hearing with IE9.

  178. Charlie says:

    @Kyle Van Vranken:

    "Does this mean MS will look to HTML5 to deliver video instead of Silverlight?"

    The only people asking questions like these are those who have never read the HTML5 spec and have never written a single line of code in Visual Studio. It’s a totally ridiculous question. HTML5 is the next generation markup language for web browsers. Silverlight is a .NET-based development platform for web browsers, phones and embedded devices (announced recently at NAB). So will HTML5 replace Silverlight? Yeah, just like buying a microwave oven will replace your entire kitchen.

    HTML5 is good for presenting progressively downloaded video in a simple rectangle with minimal enhancements and overlays. But if you’re looking to actually build a *video player application* that features HTTP adaptive streaming, DVR controls, rich overlays and metadata integration, you will need Silverlight (or Flash, if you prefer going that route). Microsoft can support both HTML5 and Silverlight because they know very well the 2 don’t actually compete with each other. If you think they do, you probably don’t know as much as you think you do about RIA technologies.

  179. Charlie says:

    Furthermore, what’s this new obsession with VP8 as if it’s the next Messiah? Nobody outside of On2 and Google has actually tested this codec, but all the sudden everyone thinks it’s going to be better than H.264?!? Where’s the proof? Where’s an independent comparison such as the Doom9 codec shooutout that shows VP8 results?

  180. OGG is not going to disappear, even the Government will have to use it to reach open-source users Worldwide.

    http://oggtv.com/Obama_using_OGG_video.html

    Since it is "Baked-in" to most web browsers, the Government’s message will have a greater reach across more platforms and devices, like the number of Linux Tablets later this year.

    So H.264 is for the iPad, while OGG will work on several Linux Tablets Coming.

  181. Wurst says:

    On the issue of hardware acceleration I read from Theora supporters that it isn’t that much of an issue because Theora is less CPU intensive. Also, that H.264 hardware acceleration isn’t as good as maybe propagated because either the decoder isn’t very specialialzed and therefore not very effective or it is but it works only for certain profiles, Google had to re-encode some of its H.264 videos so it would play on the iPad.

    I will see if I can rediscover my sources.

  182. Wurst says:

    @OGGTV.com: IMHO, this site is horrible and I doubt anybody would take it seriously.

  183. Wurst says:

    Hrmpf, can’t find my sources, but I found this:

    http://blog.mjg.im/2010/04/16/theora-on-n900.html

  184. Fiery Kitsune says:

    Microsoft, please listen to your end-user customers and stop listening to the corporate customers.

    IF WE WANT VP8, VORBIS, THEORA, ETC, MAKE IT WORK!

    ARE YOU SERIOUSLY GOING TO PENALIZE WIKIPEDIA FOR USING THESE CODECS THROUGHOUT THEIR SITE?!?!

  185. Andrew says:

    Definitely reminds me of IE6…

    Please support other codecs Microsoft!

  186. lazy says:

    > IF WE WANT VP8, VORBIS, THEORA, ETC, MAKE IT WORK

    Who are "we"? I don’t want VP8, VORBIS, THEORA etc. I want just one cool codec. Only one! H.264 – not bad.

  187. The reason it has to be taken seriously now, is because it is "Baked-in", to most web browsers, and streaming media players now.

    OGG can reach the most people Worldwide, and will be used for education.  HTML5-TV on the web, is not under the control of corporations, it is from everyone.

    If the President wants to reach the majority of HTML5-TV web browsers, this is a FACT about the major reach, which cannot be ignored. (if anyone likes OGG or not).

    If the president is only heard on a minority of HTML5-TV ready browsers, then the Government’s message is not able to get to the people properly.

    So since OGG is already "Baked-in", to the majority of browsers, it makes sense to have OGG + HTML5 on the Government’s web sites also.

    OGGTV in the situation of being more compatible with With the majority of new HTML5-TV Web browsers,(beyond Flash), than the Whitehouse is, with only H.264.

    I am just pointing out a fact about the reach, the situation is already "Baked in", as a major media reach, so it will bring the Whitehouse media up to date on the internet.

    If only one format is used, only a minority can hear, and see important messages on all issues, which is not good.

    A majority has to have access to Government.

    OGG-video is already a major, "Baked in" HTML5-TV fact, on the internet now.

  188. Daniel.S says:

    Maybe H.264 will just end up like GIF images?

    Go research. Nuff said.

  189. johnnyq3 says:

    The thing is though as it has been pointed out, The industry has accepted H.264, please list to me a list of Blu Ray Movie that were encoded in Ogg/Theora.

    Now what would be a great model for IE9 would be for IE9 to use the computer’s codecs and decode the videos through the browser.

    I’m still waiting for creation of HTML tags through CSS.

  190. Martin R. says:

    It’s simple really. The browser companies (mainly IE) are always trying to dictate to web developers what they should be doing (or are allowed to do). If they go too far, we can simply stop making sites that work for them, or, take a more direct approach, and just redirect a user to download a different browser. I would prefer a free and open web, but at some point we as the masses will have to take a stand.

  191. malymato says:

    you should listen to developers & consumers… or IE9 will end up just like previous versions did….

    why the hell can’t you support both h.264 and theora??!

  192. anon_another says:

    @malymato: Yes… Mozilla and Opera needs to do the same then reg. H264

  193. dude says:

    The reasons you picked to focus on H.264 are somewhat valid, but anyways, I still see with better eyes the freedom to chose other codecs/containers – like the support Google Chrome implemented.

    Consider the importance of freedom.

  194. dude says:

    Also, consider that the development of all important codecs/conatainers will gain a significant boost if support to them gets implemented by IE9.

    Concurrence is nice.

  195. HoLs034 says:

    The real technological revolution will be when the operating systems will not be backward compatible.

  196. AshenTech says:

    Well, ms just lost any chance of me installing and using IE9, The refusal to support OPEN standards such as vorbis and theora along side h.264 has made it so I have zero interest in your pathetic excuse for a browser.

    I am not a FOSS nutter, but I do feel that forcing everybody to use a format that FORCES you to pay a licence fee (h264) if they want to use the web is stupid.

    as to peoples comments about current lack of theora hardware decoding, if theora became the defacto html5 video codec hardware decoders would appear.

    also Theora has come ALOT closer to h264 recently with the push the developers have done to get its quality per-bit-rate up.

    and honestly I do hope google can opensorce VP8 as that could give people another option that SHOULD be(note i said should be not is) better then what we have now as choices.

    oh well, Im not gonna touch IE9 if it wont support the same range of formats and containers that other browsers will be supporting, I already only use ie8 for 1 site, and thats because the site was coded specifically to work around bugs in ie 5 and 6……and  the idiots wont update it to proper html/css code!!!

  197. Mitch 74 says:

    I don’t mind h.264 support. More power to those browsers that do. It is however revolting to hear that only h.264 will be supported because other codecs have supposedly nebulous legal implications – while it’s just not true.

    So this is spreading FUD, plain and simple.

    As for quality, current YouTube’s h.264 encoder seems no more no less efficient than Theora 1.1.

  198. john leecher says:

    And for the second time in history MS try to kill the internet. Lucky it will only delay, we’re also almost over IE6!

  199. Matt says:

    Yes, there’s absolutely FUD here.

    Microsoft FEARS that there will be long, expensive legal battles because the intellectual property ownership of the "open" formats is UNCERTAIN, and they DOUBT it’s a good idea to put their public stockholders at billions of dollars of risk in order to support a format which is technically inferior and results in increased power and bandwidth usage.

    As for VP8– any announcement from Google that they’re making VP8 "open" is worthless *unless* they provide developers who implement it a warranty of indemnification (as Microsoft does for their major products) saying that Google’s legal team will defend implementors from lawsuits, and Google’s assets will be at risk, not the implementors. It would be a huge win for the internet, but I’m not holding my breath. Instead, expect to see Google make a meaningless announcement that gets lots of press but ultimately means little.

  200. I will speak for the age of this website:

    OGGTV is over two years old, -and they have not come knocking yet.

    IE9, is very late to the game.

    The vast majority of HTML5-TV web browsers already have OGG "Baked-in".

    http://www.oggtv.com/communicate.html

    This has been a fact for some time.

    This is a web industry fact, proven by the list.

    OGG has a "Slam-Dunk" of industry support from several

    parties.

    As a website owner, I see the facts in front of me.

    -and the President can also see the vast Industry support.

    http://oggtv.com/Obama_using_OGG_video.html

    So the FACT is, OGG-video is here to stay.

  201. Wurst says:

    @Matt: « Microsoft FEARS that there will be long, expensive legal battles because the intellectual property ownership of the "open" formats is UNCERTAIN »

    VP3 which Theora is based on 10 years old,  On2 made an irrevocable, royalty-free license grant for any patent claims it might have over the software and any derivatives.

    If other patent owners have been sleeping for 10 years can result in their rights being lost (laches doctrine). Also, the libtheora decoder might be also protected by customary law, since for such a long time nobody has proven that it uses any patented technology other than the one from On2.

    A decoder based on the alpha 3 version of the Theora library released in June 2004 can decode any Theora streams encoded with this or any later version of the library.

    Summary: Such fears are irrational, especially if you keep in mind that they would just implement a decoder.

  202. Matt says:

    Wurst, you’re obviously not a lawyer. Go Google for "Eolas" and learn how suing Microsoft works.

  203. Wurst says:

    @Matt: The Eolas patent was based on a proof-of-concept and they offered the technology to Microsoft _before_ Microsoft has a browser with plugin support. Therefore, it was concluded that MS was well aware of this technology the laches doctrine wouldn’t apply.

  204. Wurst says:

    BTW, how about implementing _at least_ H.261 and motion JPEG, so there is _any_ alternative to H.264?

    Also, what about audio codecs? PCM, ADPCM, GSM, CELP, SBC, MP2, MP3, Speex, CELT, …?

  205. Matt says:

    Wurst: Your lawyer charade cracks me up.

    As for the audio codecs, they’ve already said AAC, and MP3.

  206. Wurst says:

    @Matt: How about you come with some arguments instead of aspersion?

    Do you think Google didn’t consult their lawyers when they gave Chrome Theora support?

  207. Wurst says:

    For audio no simple PCM (in WAV containers) support? No Speex support, which at a low bitrate is superior to MP3 for voice and is even supported by Adobe Flash?

  208. bystander says:

    Seems much more relevant, and even researched, than these comments: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=2086

  209. Wurst says:

    @ystander: The article says nothing on about whether it would be safe or not to have native Theora support, it just mentions the famous, vague quote from the MPEG LA CEO.

  210. Wurst says:

    @bystander: Additionally, MS doesn’t need to care whether Theora infringes the patents in the MPEG-LA pool, since they have it licences.

  211. bystander says:

    Wurst, do you know where babies come from?

  212. dfs says:

    Seems to me there’s a problem here. As long as Adobe enjoys virtually a monopoly on page-creation software (partial on the PC platform, all but total on the Mac one) when it comes to setting Web protocol standars they pretty much get to run the table. They can push Flash all they want and drag their heels forever on putting out HTML5-friendly versions of their products. So both MS and Apple need to put their money where their mouth is and develop viable alternatives to the CS Suite.

  213. OGG is not in court here.

    Powerful media campaigns, crafted to devalue it, only show that it is a POWERFUL market presence.

    When showing a vast industry support and browser market share, with a large group of international partners, it is a "Slam-Dunk" in the marketplace.

    Everyone knows what is going on in the media.

    A powerful psychological campaign, which attacks the video format, which is in the "Drivers-Seat" now.

    (by creating a weird uncertainty in everyone’s mind)

    FACT:   OGG is in the "Drivers-Seat", hands-down.

    OGG is in a very highly valuable market situation, which has the "Super-Majority" of the HTML5-TV browser support.

    Trying to create some type of weird uncertainty in the minds of the public, with large PR media tactics, is part of a strategy.

    With this type of codec market support, a company could "IPO", and become a long lasting "BROADCAST.com".(which sold for 5.4 Billion)

    If BROGGCAST.com, becomes the open-source "BROADCAST.com", it would be a extra "Slam-Dunk" for the OGG-audio/video format users of today.

    If BROGGCAST.com is managed by open-source programmers and investors, then the open-source community is in control of a powerful media company start-up.

    Competition knows this, OGGTV is an example which shows OGG video playing in a mobile to HD "front-end".

    A video-site owner, would have to be crazy to believe the media "fantasy", being placed in front of him.

    the fact is:

    BROADCAST.com sold for 5.4 Billion

    YouTube sold for 1.7 Billion

    OGG-video is in the "Drivers-Seat" with HTML5-TV web browser support.

    Three FACTS, which show that OGG is in the prime position to start the next powerful "BROADCAST.com".

    Several months of powerful media campaigns against OGG, is not going to weaken that FACT.

    A powerful attempt to devalue OGG, is because it has the "Super-Majority" of HTML5-TV browser share.

    It is a upside-down pyramid of support, which favors OGG, and it is already "Baked-in", as the majority now.

    (creating weird uncertainties and fantasies about a codec in the media), only proves OGG is at the top, and is a powerful market force.

    It only proves to me more, that BROGGCAST.com, can be the next (long-lasting) open-source "BROADCAST.com".

    http://www.oggtv.com/HTML5-TV_example.png

    This big screenshot, shows a clear image, even after resizing the video to viewing size.

    The "fantasy" has to stop, this is a free-market economy, where everyone has the right to enter the marketplace.

  214. mschluper@hotmail.com says:

    "The future of the web is HTML5. … HTML5 will be very important in advancing rich, interactive web applications"

    Ever heard of Silverlight?

  215. Charlie says:

    William Lacy, please stop spamming the comment section by repeatedly advertising your website. We got it. You represent OGGTV.COM. Will you please stop telling us about it now?

  216. Pedro Sena says:

    What about the flash player itself? Flash isn’t just video, will ie9 work with Flex Applications? Flash is much more than video, I hope that microsoft don’t forget it.

  217. EricLaw [MSFT] says:

    @Pedro: The Flash player continues to work in IE9. As Dean concluded: "Flash remains an important part of delivering a good consumer experience on today’s web."

  218. Shane says:

    I feel sorry for the Internet Explorer team, they seem to work hard, and talk about wanting to support open standards, but the company they work for stops them.

    Why does microsoft even want browser market share?, it cant earn them much money, I am all for competition, but its not really in the spirit competition when a company abuses its market share to push its own choice of codec.

    I might just start coding for the ipad, apple seems to have figured it all out.

  219. David says:

    As a newcomer in the world of webdesign, all I wanna say is that u guys at Microsoft should focus more on doing this like the other, like CSS3 for example, and enable people like building effortless crossbrowser website and avoid doing some specific styling for IE7 & IE8…

  220. Kyle Van Vranken says:

    @Charlie – That was exactly my point. Very simply that there are more uses for Flash , or Silverlight for that matter, then just video. Everyone crying out about the death of Flash clearly does not have a clue about RIA or the state of web apps, so thank you for backing me up!

  221. EdSF says:

    I for one would like to know because if this is about plug-in technology, then developers enticed with Silverlight, should take this post to heart.

    What is the future of Silverlight? Is there a future? Does it share the same expiration date as Flash?

    I hope this post is clarified, and not taken out of context. It already is by some trade rags re: as Microsoft sides with Apple (on the whole Flash/iPhone brouhaha). See:

    http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9176247/Microsoft_sides_with_Apple_Future_of_the_Web_is_HTML_5_

  222. Sam Dutton says:

    >> Today, video on the web is predominantly Flash-based. While video may be available in other formats, the ease of accessing video using just a browser on a particular website without using Flash is a challenge for typical consumers <<

    This is getting the cart before the horse.

    Most video on the web is Flash-based because that’s the most widely supported platform, not because the video element is somehow ‘a challenge for typical consumers’.

  223. Sam Dutton says:

    …and most video on the web is Flash-based because that’s the most widely supported platform, not because other platforms (e.g. Ogg/Theora in a video element) are somehow ‘a challenge for typical consumers’.

  224. Ok, what WE all want to know is, as new media artists AND professionals will Apple and Microsoft start suing us for adopting your H.264 standard under the guy of HTML5 using MPEG-LA?

    If they – MPEG LA — can guarantee that this won’t happen, then sure — HTML5. However, till then, it’s FLASH ALL THE WAY!

  225. Captain Obvious says:

    Peter, Flash uses h264, so your entire premise is bogus.

  226. @ Captian Obcious

    Actually, there are options to encode videos, such as VP8, and even ON2. But it’s not an issue of which codec you’ve encoded your content, but more an issue of content ownership per click view, so not so bogus.

  227. The Captain says:

    Peter: Uh, no, Flash doesn’t support those codecs, so your suggestion that it’s "Flash all the way" is, in fact, bogus.

  228. @ Caption Obvious. =)

    MPEG-LA – Apple and Microsoft – still need to relinquish ALL rights to ownership of produced new media content.

    Especially Apple –why? With Job’s recent announcement regarding Flash, he’s now forcing new media content producers to distribute their online videos through HTML 5 for Apple mobile products –iPads and iPhones, while falsely claiming Adobe Flash is an inferior platform and not an open standard – cough, cough…MPEG LA.

    I’m all for competition and free market, but real competition—not cloak and dagger.

  229. @ The Caption

    Then you’ve obviously — no pun — haven’t work with Flash my friend, since Adobe does offer these codecs within their production suite. =o)

  230. FactChecker says:

    Not according to Adobe, they don’t:

    http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/402/kb402866.html

  231. @ FactChecker

    How do you read that? It clearly states support for H.264 and On2(VP6)…read the list.

  232. FactChecker says:

    VP6 != VP8, and I’d take on2’s statements about their own codecs vs. competition with a grain of salt.

  233. Charlie says:

    @Peter:

    Neither Microsoft nor Apple can claim ownership of your content just because you used H.264. There’s absolutely no language in the MPEG-LA licensing agreement that would legally set a precedent for anything like that. Furthermore, even if it were possible, it wouldn’t be in the interest Microsoft or Apple to sue their own customers. The chances of something like this happening are as good as 0.0000%.

    @EdSF:

    "What is the future of Silverlight? Is there a future? Does it share the same expiration date as Flash?"

    Dean H has made it clear that plugins will continue to be supported in IE9. Furthermore, HTML5 and Silverlight aren’t mutually exclusive. Their features overlap in some basic web markup areas, but Silverlight’s features extend WAAAY beyond that. And if you’ve used Silverlight, you’d know that comparing .NET programming to Javascript programming is not even a fair comparison. Like I said in an earlier post, suggesting that HTML5 can replace Silverlight is like suggesting that a microwave oven can replace your entire kitchen.

  234. @FactChecker

    With that respect — yes, I stand corrected, Flash doesn’t support VP8. But we’re simply arguing over syntax at this point — seeing most Flash videos today already encode perfectly fine in VP6 or h.264, plus to my knowledge, Adobe never requires any residual payments for published new media content.

    However, with HTML 5, who knows what that will bring via MPEG-LA– that’s the argument.

  235. @Charlie

    That’s the point — they can.

    Read page 3 of the MPEG-LA license agreement by MPEG-LA.

    http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf

  236. Charlie says:

    @Peter:

    There’s nothing in page 3 of the licensing terms that suggests MPEG-LA would ever own your content. They’re stating that if you’re a broadcaster/content provider who’s charging your users for access to H.264-encoded content that you must pay fees per title, or if you’re a broadcaster airing content for free that you must pay per encoder. These types of fees are common in the video and broadcast industry – you don’t see BBC complaining about it and worrying "Oh no! MPEG-LA owns Top Gear now!". :)

  237. @Charlie,

    That’s nonsense! They do own the content in an indirect form.

    If an internet broadcaster wishes to sell rights to their content that’s been encoded via h.264 through a professional third party software suite—Adobe Flash, or Final Cut Pro—why should they then need to dish out additional costs to do so, especially since they’ve already paid with the intent to monatize via the price of the third party “professional suite”? That’s usury, not to mention evasive!

    Charlie – also don’t know if you know this, but the majority of individuals who broadcast through the web are not just huge media firms, but average people – YouTube, Vimeo.

    Evermore, with Google’s recent announcement regarding "Rent your content" program — does that mean everyone who’s gone viral and now wishes to sell access to their YouTube videos will also have to MPEG-LA millions too? That’s absurd!

    http://venturebeat.com/2010/05/04/youtube-rental/

  238. Charlie says:

    The average person who broadcasts on YouTube doesn’t charge for videos, so they wouldn’t be subject to MPEG-LA fees. In the case of YouTube’s rental program, my guess is that Google will cover those MPEG-LA fees on behalf of their users and present them to the users as some sort of "service fee". If you’re making money from YouTube, you can’t really complain about paying a fee for the service that allows you to make money.

    Overall, let’s be realistic for a moment: litigation is not cheap. MPEG-LA doesn’t have the money or the lawyers to sue every Joe Sixpack for every H.264 video he charged viewers for but forgot to pay his MPEG-LA fees. MPEG-LA will never waste time with you or me. But if you’re the BBC or News Corp and you "forgot" to pay your H.264 fees, I think you may hear from MPEG-LA lawyers very quickly. Are you a large broadcaster, studio or content provider with millions of users and billions of dollars in the bank? If you’re not, I think you’re safe from MPEG-LA. :)

  239. @Charlie

    Great Joesixpack reference! lol =)

    You’re right–Google’s still ironing that out.

    I guess my biggest fear is the very principle behind it. I buy professional media software or equipment – with the intention of generating revenue for my enterprise–then we must pay additional fees to distribute this content over the internet – on top of the already large CDN costs. It just makes more sense to put this cost onto the distributors and manufactures, and not BBC or any large media producer.

  240. EdSF says:

    @Charlie:

    Yes, thank you for that – that’s how/what my comprehension was of this post.

    Its just that I got to this post from a trade rag (in the link) with the attention grabbing headline that somehow links all this to the recent Adobe/Apple flap. I honestly don’t even know how the writer came to conclusions/suggestions in the article after reading this post…sigh.

  241. Armando says:

    Ok, so regardless of Codec, does "The HTML5 specification describes video support without specifying a particular video format. We think H.264 is an excellent format. In its HTML5 support, IE9 will support playback of H.264 video only" mean that IE9 will recognize the HTML5 video tag?

  242. EricLaw [MSFT] says:

    @Armando: Yes, that was announced back in March. It’s not yet in the latest Preview Build, however.

  243. Roger says:

    I don’t really care that the browsers choose to support either h.264 or OGV. Truth is, I want to encode my video ONCE. Even is a browser supports the <video> tag, it also needs to also support the fallback, whether it’s Flash or something else.

    It irritates me greatly that Firefox sees the <video> tag but then displays a broken video graphic if you don’t have an OGV version. As a result, the simplicity that is supposed to be the <video> tag is completely moot because you end up writing additional code for browser and/or codec sensing.

  244. Alex says:

    @Roger:

    And that is exactly the trouble with the HTML5 spec in general: it’s too vague.

    Let’s say that in a year we end up in the following situation (purely hypothetical):

    IE supports H.264 video delivered as a progressive downloaded MP4 file from a web server.

    Firefox supports Theora video delivered as a progressive downloaded OGG file from a web server but also RTSP and multicast streaming.

    Safari supports H.264 video delivered as a progressive download MP4, but also HTTP adaptive streamed in a MPEG2-TS container from a web server.

    Guess what? All these 3 browsers would be considered HTML5 compliant!

    The goal of a standard should be to standardize, and I personally think HTML5 fails to do that. Can you imagine if DVD or BluRay specifications said "use any codec or format you want"? We’d probably still be watching VHS video.

  245. Gaz says:

    This is a shame, not unexpected but a shame nonetheless.

    It does however open up a hole in the market for an open source plugin which embeds WebKit in IE for SVG, WebGL and Theora support.

    Wikipedia could recommend such a plugin to ensure IE users can actually view free video

  246. pureocean says:

    Mr. Hachamovitch,

    A question about video (second H264 video after scrolled – video time mark 27:54): http://live.visitmix.com/MIX10/Sessions/KEY02

    Where can I download this video of the birds? Very sweet. Or… What is the name of this documantery? I would be grateful if you give information.

  247. Robert Folkerts says:

    While I look forward to you improved support of standards not invented by Microsoft, I want to tell you that I just spent the last hour screwing around with CSS in order to get IE8 to display a reasonable approximation of what all other browsers were displaying as I intended.

    While this comment is off topic, it is my clearest channel to express my displeasure with your product.  Who are you to determine that my time is best spent correcting you arrogance?  Support the standards, as determined by standards organizations, not the cynical manipulations expressed in the Comes vs. Microsoft disclosure statements.

    There is no future in being associated with ruined weekends by developers.

  248. Mark says:

    As you’ve provided no details at all about the problem you had, I think a logical conclusion is: "Robert’s arrogance in assuming that our time is well-spent reading his silly little rant approximately equals his ignorance of proper web development practices."

  249. OGGTV.com - William Lacy says:

    This shows IE9 already playing OGG-video.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZOaB_Cg4DU

    The second Platform Preview is required.