3 ms·
Gotta disagree with you a bit. Most content that users watch online isn't (easily) downloadable and playable anywhere except in a browser. And even if it was,
by Kadin 16y ago
Gotta disagree with you a bit. Most content that users watch online isn't (easily) downloadable and playable anywhere except in a browser. And even if it was, I'm not sure that anyone except a very small minority of users would ever take advantage of it. To a growing number of users, the OS is just something that you need in order to run a web browser, nothing more.
I think it's far more important to ensure that video plays easily and looks consistent across multiple machines, at least when played in the same browser. I can see someone understanding if a video doesn't look the same in Firefox as it does in WMP, but I suspect they'll be pretty annoyed if it works in Firefox on the computer downstairs, but not on the computer upstairs.
Most users don't know what the hell a codec is and don't care. They just want the software to work, and they want it to work the same across multiple computers and platforms. And if bundling the codecs in with the browser makes stuff 'just work,' then that's where the codecs ought to live, bloat be damned. Bits are cheap, goodwill and usability are expensive.
Web video is too important to a user's experience with a browser for browser developers to leave it up to the underlying OS. Bake it in, and it's guaranteed to work. If you let it depend on plugins or underlying media frameworks, then you're just asking for trouble.
That said, some sort of option to let the OS handle video wouldn't be bad, with a fallback to the embedded decoder -- this would let users take advantage of OS features or plugins that are tailored for their hardware (or just bleeding edge), while still ensuring that everyone gets at least basic video support just by virtue of installing the browser.
Put bluntly, video is a core part of the web and has been for some time; it's part of what many users expect a browser to do, and do well. You don't outsource core features if you want them to be done right and consistently.
- kenjackson 16y agoMS can't do due dilligence on every codec in the world. I suspect they spent a fair amount of money and time getting confidence in H264. Just because one of their rival companies pushes another codec hardly seems to be justification to take on responsibility for it (which they would if they shipped it).
- chc 16y agoNobody's suggesting they should perform due diligence on every codec in the world. WebM is the only codec that has any chance of actually becoming universal — that's why they should support it. The next two biggest browsers in the market are already supporting it zealously. If Microsoft really supports Web standards, they need to support WebM.
- kenjackson 16y agoIf Google indemnifies all users on all browsers (and also pick up any losses due to injunctions and such that may occur in the process of a lawsuit), that would be a good first step to having more web vendors pick it up. Until then, I think most companies are more comfortable not shipping it. Putting it in the box puts a lot more legal repsonsibility on you.
- chc 16y agoIt's already shipping from Google and Mozilla, and their site suggests that Nvidia and ATI are building hardware decoders. It's not like this is some rinky, fly-by-night operation. And I don't see how any of what you said is not true of any other video format. Does MPEG-LA offer indemnification? I'm pretty sure not.
- kenjackson 16y agoI don't believe MPEG-LA offers indemnification, but that's why MS has been planning this for literally years. I've talked to people that say MS has spent millions just in due dilligence around this specific codec. Plus you can go to every vendor in MPEG-LA and you'll get the same response, that it looks safe so far. What about WebM? If it were me at MS, I'd do exactly what they're doing. Support the codec if its there. If it turns out that this codec looks good with respect to IP (start investigating now, knowing it will take a while) then add support in IE10 or IE11. There's very little upside to rushing adding this in the box. And they're not blocking its use. They're simply saying, we don't want to ship it right now.