4 ms·

This is a myth that MS doesn't support WebM. They do. They just don't ship it in the box. But if you have it on your system, they'll use it. MS doesn't ship

This is a myth that MS doesn't support WebM. They do. They just don't ship it in the box. But if you have it on your system, they'll use it. MS doesn't ship a lot of its own technologies in the box -- it doesn't mean they don't support it.

micampe 15y ago
> if you have it on your system, they'll use it I don’t know i MS opposes WebM or not, but that doesn’t mean they support it: they have an API, you write a codec with that API and it works.
- kenjackson 15y ago
  From this page (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/03/16/html5-video-update-webm-for-ie9.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/03/16/html5-video-up...) they say, "IE9 supports HTML5 video using WebM for Windows customers who install third-party WebM support." From (http://blog.webmproject.org/2011/03/introducing-webm-in-internet-explorer-9.html http://blog.webmproject.org/2011/03/introducing-webm-in-inte...) the WebM team says, "Microsoft collaborated closely with us to make the components fully compatible with HTML5 in IE9, so features such as the <video> tag and its canPlayType method are fully enabled for WebM. Our thanks go out to the Microsoft engineers who provided technical assistance and hosted our team in Redmond last month." Does this sound like a company that opposes it?
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - micampe 15y ago
    Did I ever say that they do? In this context I intend “support” as “endorse”. I don’t think they endorse it, or they would be shipping it with the browser. That doesn’t mean they oppose to it. They implemented an API that allows 3rd party codecs, that’s it.
ajross 15y ago
How depressing that an operating system being able to run third party software is now held up as notable enough to count as "support" of that software.
- untog 15y ago
  We're not really talking about the OS here, though. We're talking about IE.
- pyre 15y ago
  More along the lines of "Internet Explorer's <video> support will use WebM if you install a 3rd party codec because it hooks into Windows' video codec system" vs "Internet Explorer only supports h264 for <video> because it's all linked in directly to the browser." Unless you were referring to IE as the 'operating system.'
  - ajross 15y ago
    In exactly the same way that running Chrome hooks into Window's "program execution system", or installing a new video card hooks into windows "driver extension system". Microsoft provided an API, and the WebM plugin implements it. That's how this sort of thing is supposed to work. That it doesn't any more (at least, not in the world dominated by a particularly popular mobile device vendor who shall remain nameless lest I be flamed into oblivion) is what I found depressing.
akavlie 15y ago
I think "support", for video codecs, would mean shipping with the browser. Adoption will be very limited as long as it requires a separate download and installation (unless the browser makes that seamless, with no admin password requirement).
- kenjackson 15y ago
  How is adoption going to be limited if Chrome and Mozilla both ship it? That's 50% of the market that get it w/o thinking. From all indications MS wants the codec to work well on their platform. They don't want the liability of shipping it.

micampe 15y ago

> if you have it on your system, they'll use it I don’t know i MS opposes WebM or not, but that doesn’t mean they support it: they have an API, you write a codec with that API and it works.

kenjackson 15y ago
From this page (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/03/16/html5-video-update-webm-for-ie9.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/03/16/html5-video-up...) they say, "IE9 supports HTML5 video using WebM for Windows customers who install third-party WebM support." From (http://blog.webmproject.org/2011/03/introducing-webm-in-internet-explorer-9.html http://blog.webmproject.org/2011/03/introducing-webm-in-inte...) the WebM team says, "Microsoft collaborated closely with us to make the components fully compatible with HTML5 in IE9, so features such as the <video> tag and its canPlayType method are fully enabled for WebM. Our thanks go out to the Microsoft engineers who provided technical assistance and hosted our team in Redmond last month." Does this sound like a company that opposes it?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- micampe 15y ago
  Did I ever say that they do? In this context I intend “support” as “endorse”. I don’t think they endorse it, or they would be shipping it with the browser. That doesn’t mean they oppose to it. They implemented an API that allows 3rd party codecs, that’s it.

ajross 15y ago

How depressing that an operating system being able to run third party software is now held up as notable enough to count as "support" of that software.

untog 15y ago
We're not really talking about the OS here, though. We're talking about IE.
pyre 15y ago
More along the lines of "Internet Explorer's <video> support will use WebM if you install a 3rd party codec because it hooks into Windows' video codec system" vs "Internet Explorer only supports h264 for <video> because it's all linked in directly to the browser." Unless you were referring to IE as the 'operating system.'
- ajross 15y ago
  In exactly the same way that running Chrome hooks into Window's "program execution system", or installing a new video card hooks into windows "driver extension system". Microsoft provided an API, and the WebM plugin implements it. That's how this sort of thing is supposed to work. That it doesn't any more (at least, not in the world dominated by a particularly popular mobile device vendor who shall remain nameless lest I be flamed into oblivion) is what I found depressing.

akavlie 15y ago

I think "support", for video codecs, would mean shipping with the browser. Adoption will be very limited as long as it requires a separate download and installation (unless the browser makes that seamless, with no admin password requirement).

kenjackson 15y ago
How is adoption going to be limited if Chrome and Mozilla both ship it? That's 50% of the market that get it w/o thinking. From all indications MS wants the codec to work well on their platform. They don't want the liability of shipping it.