

Microsoft release a Firefox plugin enabling H.264 support - shawndumas
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/12/did-microsoft-just-take-interoperability-too-far.ars

======
woodall
The plugin is Windows only.

[http://www.interoperabilitybridges.com/html5-extension-
for-w...](http://www.interoperabilitybridges.com/html5-extension-for-wmp-
plugin)

~~~
sid0
It should be fairly easy to use the same idea on other platforms.

------
nextparadigms
I think it's obvious why thy did this. They don't want Google's open source
WebM codec to become the norm so they're going to push even harder for h.264.

The whole Internet is better off in the end if it's built only on open source
and free stuff.

~~~
gxti
They're not sitting around a conference table in an underground bunker,
stroking their beards and cackling maniacally while trying to screw the open
source community as hard as possible. Microsoft is a _business_. What
_business_ sense does it make to release this plugin?

~~~
natrius
As a member of the H.264 patent pool[1], Microsoft makes money when people use
H.264. If WebM becomes popular, Microsoft _directly_ makes less money.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_LA>

~~~
kprobst
I'm fairly sure they pay more than they receive in this particular case.

~~~
natrius
I doubt they pay more for their use of H.264 than they receive from
_everyone's_ use of H.264. Providing the codec may cost them money, but it's
far from obvious that it's an unprofitable act.

~~~
Someone
If everyone in the patent pool is making money of H264, who is paying that
money?

What big player that sells H264 is not on the list at
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_LA#H.264.2FMPEG-4_AVC_Lice...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_LA#H.264.2FMPEG-4_AVC_Licensors)?

Also, MPEG-LA does have costs to pay.

I guess that, for most of the companies on that list, it is a 'pay a bit to
prevent legal troubles' scenario, where 'a bit' is a couple of millions. Some
of that they will get back when MPEG-LA gets disbanded.

------
jbk
The problem with this is that they replace the html5 <video> tag with an
<object> one that WMP plugin will pick up.

It should be not important, but are we sure it does comply correctly to all
the <video> options and properties? I don't know why but I think not.

Maybe I should activate my activex plugin that replace IE9 <video> tag into a
VLC <object> and see how they take it?

~~~
Locke1689
I think Mozilla's refusal to allow use of OS installed codecs is worse,
though. I can see the justification for not providing support for the H264
codec in-browser but not allowing OS codecs seems like taking ideology over
technology too far.

------
jiaaro
I think this article overlooks the fact that outsourcing media playback to
environment specific codecs (WM9/VLC/etc) has been around for ages.

by the time html5 video is widespread each user will likely have several media
plugins installed willing to play h264 video for them in any browser.

I'm talking about quicktime, realplayer, vlc, and windows media, among others
- This is __SO __not a big deal

~~~
wmf
The context here is that Mozilla specifically said they will not allow Firefox
to use Windows's built-in codecs. MS found a workaround by rewriting <video>
tags into <embed>.

------
latch
I got a pit in stomach reading that....Microsoft just can't win. I'm sure they
have business motives for this, but it really seems like a damned if you do,
damned if you don't.

They release a free plugin for Firefox, which'll help address _the_ major
issue surrounding HTML5, and the question we ask is if they've gone too far?
Or why is it Windows 7 only? Really?!

------
buster
Motivation: Push H.264 on the web, give MS (and Apple) more money from license
fees in the future.

~~~
archangel_one
I doubt it. I think their motivation is to prevent WebM from replacing h.264
as the dominant web video format. Microsoft don't care about licensing fees -
their cash cows will be earning them orders of magnitude more. But if WebM
replaces h.264 then Firefox on Linux (or ChromeOS or whatever) will be able to
play that quite happily, whereas I'm sure MS would prefer h.264 to remain
dominant since it's patent-encumbered.

~~~
buster
Preventing WebM to become dominant has the exact same outcome of more license
income ;)

Also, why shouldn't they care about license fees? Think about all
encoders/decoders, all producers, all receivers, home cinema players. With
more and more videos (VOD) moving into the web, this is only at the beginning.
Once H.264 is established enough it's income for free!

