Under video "<video> MP4 H.264 playback support, using hardware or software decoding. Support for WebM software is not included in this release."
Does that mean that IE9 is planning to support WebM? All I can find is mentions that IE9 can use codecs installed on the users computer but I can't find any commitment to WebM being bundled.
I think that statement is just an indication that they aren't recognizing the WebM content type yet in the video tag. I have tested this version of the preview with WebM Directshow installed and it indeed doesn't work yet.
That's called being technically competent, not being halfhearted. Codecs do not belong in browsers.
People want video outside of browsers. Should everything that wants to support video have its own built-in copy of every codec? That's bloated.
In addition to bloat, if each thing has its own implementation, there will be subtle (and probably not so subtle) differences in them. It will annoy users if their videos look different depending on whether they are in a browser, or they downloaded the file and are playing it in a media player.
If the codec has user-setable options, the user has to set their preferences in multiple places.
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.
MS 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).
Nobody'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.
WebM is not a "web standard" anymore than H264. By that logic, if Mozilla really supported web standards, they'd support h264 playback since Safari, Chrome, and IE will. Even if I have an h264 codec on my system, FF won't play the stupid video.
Web standards would be so much easier if we could just have 2 browsers implement something to make it a standard ;)
If 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.
It'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.
I 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.
Is that similar to how they were not blocking Netscape back in the '90s, because you could use it if you decided to install it? (I mean, ignoring the fact that a computer user in the '90s was vastly more likely to have the knowledge and inclination to install Netscape on Windows than the average consumer is to install a video codec nowadays.)
The fact is, bundling MPEG-LA's wares and not Google's is the same thing as supporting MPEG-LA over Google. Microsoft can wave their hands till the cows come home, but merely allowing a user to go through the difficult and technical process of installing a video codec is not "support."
Is Microsoft's non-support for WebM any different than Mozilla's refusal to let me play H264 videos in their browser? You can't just look the other way cos you like the underdog. To my mind it's the same thing. My mac can play h264 videos, but not in Firefox. Cos they're having a standards tantrum.
One word: patents. This is why I believe schools should require more rigorous legal training of engineering and computer science graduates. I've met too many engineers (one would be too many) who, when confronted with potential IP issues, say "who cares anyway?" Since Mozilla wants to distribute a free product to millions of users in the US, they have to care about patents, and that prevents them from including H.264. However, contrary to H.264, WebM is explicitly designed to avoid patents that aren't owned by Google/On2, so Microsoft could implement WebM with significantly less risk than Mozilla could implement H.264.
Why is installing a video codec difficult? Here's how it can be done:
When users go to Google.com, Google automatically installs the video codec on the users machine. The user of course will get the install prompt, but as most users do, they'll click "OK". Done. The codec is now installed.
Since Google is such a popular site, almost everyone will get the codec (or have the chance to get it). And since it is Google distributing it, they take on ownership if there are IP or security issues. And since Google is the one that really wants to use this codec, they'll be motivated to make this happen. That's a win-win.
Oh, I absolutely agree it should be included with the OS itself, but having it just in the browser is better than not having it at all. We need a standard video format that everyone can use. A standard video tag is worthless without one — you'd be better off sticking with Flash video otherwise. WebM has the chance to be that, but not if the user is required to have already installed it himself.
Safari use Quicktime to playback H.264 on OS X all the time. If Microsoft is halfhearted they could have used WMPlayer control for all <video> and <audio> tags.
Does that mean that IE9 is planning to support WebM? All I can find is mentions that IE9 can use codecs installed on the users computer but I can't find any commitment to WebM being bundled.