Microsoft Offers H.264 Plug-in For Google Chrome 332
Apparently Firefox was just the beginning: Pigskin-Referee writes "Microsoft has released a Windows Media Player HTML5 Extension for Chrome so as to enable H.264-encoded video on HTML5 by using built-in capabilities available on Windows 7. As you may recall, less than two months ago, Microsoft released the HTML5 Extension for Windows Media Player Firefox Plug-in with the same goal in mind. Even though Firefox and Chrome are big competitors to Microsoft's own Internet Explorer, the software giant has decided Windows 7 users should be able to play back H.264 video even if they aren't using IE9. Here's the current state of HTML5 video: Microsoft and Apple are betting on H.264, while Firefox, Chrome, and Opera are rooting for WebM. Google was actually in favor of both H.264 and WebM up until earlier this month, when the search giant decided to drop H.264 support completely, even though the former is widely used and the latter is not. The company also announced that it would release WebM plugins for Internet Explorer 9 and Safari. Although IE9 supports H.264, excluding all other codecs, Microsoft is making an exception for WebM, as long as the user installs the corresponding codec, and is helping Google ensure the plug-in works properly."
Re:.. Not again (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Microsoft supporting choice? (Score:3, Informative)
Well, actually Office was available for the Mac in 1990 and not for Windows until 1992 (version 3.0) was the first Windows version.
Google is at least trying (Score:3, Informative)
At this point, WebM is a closed codec because there are not enough specs and no standard for which someone can create a compatible codec of their own.
WebM is Matroska, Vorbis, and VP8. Matroska [matroska.org] and Vorbis [xiph.org] are already well documented, and Google is at least trying with VP8, having submitted a draft RFC to IETF [dig-life.com].
Re:Missing the point (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, they could do that, but that would guarantee continuation of the current situation, where Linux users privately infringe patents, and everybody else running a business that needs to use H.264 has to pay royalties
There are no royalties on internal use of H.264 video.
There are no royalties on H.264 Internet video free to the viewer. No royalties on sales of video shorts less than twelve minutes.
The lesser of 2% of sales or 2 cents a title on feature length videos sold by title. Think about that the next time you go shopping for Pixar on Blu-Ray at Walmart.
Subscription services with less than 100,000 subscribers pay nothing.
Broadcasters and cable services serving more than 100,000 households and less than 500,000 have the option of a one-time charge per encoder of $2,500 or $2,500/yr.
MPEG LA is major league ball.
They do not want to hear from you until you are raking in the green.