Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:For your own good (Score 1) 476

As far as I can tell, all that needs to be done is to implement a system-wide Windows Media Foundation component to render Theora, and IE will pick it up if it sees a Theora video.

For HTML5 video IE9 only allows H.264 and WebM regardless of whatever other codecs are installed. Originally it was H.264 only. Then, after Google's announcement and release of WebM, it became H.264 and WebM. Microsoft cites security, consistency and legal concerns as their primary reasons for restricting the number of codecs available for HTML5 video. Here are some posts from the IE blog which chart the changes:

H.264 announced as the only supported HTML5 video codec: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/04/29/html5-video.aspx
Explanation of exclusion of other codecs: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/05/03/follow-up-on-html5-video-in-ie9.aspx
WebM support announced: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/05/19/another-follow-up-on-html5-video-in-ie9.aspx
Video format support demo published, only interesting as a convenient test page for WebM in IE: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/03/16/html5-video-update-webm-for-ie9.aspx

It's a shame that Microsoft hasn't joined the WebM CCL yet. Dean Hachamovitch (corporate vice president for IE) called for the creation of such a body, it was created, and Microsoft still haven't joined for some reason. As far as I know they haven't yet said why they won't join.

Comment Re:For your own good (Score 3, Informative) 476

And then we can finally stop the H264 vs WebM battle, because IE9 will only support H264.

Internet Explorer 9 supports both H.264 and WebM. No other video codecs are supported by IE9. WebM support is added by installing the media foundation components:

http://tools.google.com/dlpage/webmmf/

You can test WebM support in IE9 with Microsoft's IE9 test drive video support demo:

http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/graphics/videoformatsupport/default.html

Comment Re:I'm shocked! (Score 5, Insightful) 309

When you give consumers a product that they want, at a price they find fair, in a form factor (format) that is convenient for them, in a location that is convenient for them, they are happy to pay for it!

The hard part is making that happen in the first place. From the article:

Louis CK used the $500,000 to pay off several costs, including the $170,000 it took to produce the show, and the $32,000 he spent on building and editing his own website.

Leaving aside the possibility of people acquiring the video without paying for it, he had $300,000 of costs (they don't indicate where the other $100,000 went, maybe the $202,000 figure mentioned was the up front cost and the next $98,000 was distribution). Sure, he could have perhaps found a lower cost way to distribute it but it's still $170,000 in production costs. Part of the deal with publishers of any kind is that they're taking on the risk of producing it. If it doesn't sell it's them who will be losing money, not the author or act or band, etc. In this case, Louis CK put himself in a position where he would potentially lose $170,000 at the minimum. It's only established acts who have the opportunity to take that sort of risk.

Patents

Submission + - Apple transfers patents to sue all phone makers th (techcrunch.com)

dell623 writes: A patent lawsuit by patent licensing firm Digitude Innovations curiously targeted all mobile manufacturers except Apple. A Techcrunch story has revealed that the patents used were transferred via a shell company to DI, and appear to cover features found in virtually all smartphones. The lawsuit even extends to companies that don't make Android phones like Nokia and RIM, and to Android OEMs that Apple have not directly sued yet like Sony. The business model of DI clearly implies that Apple would benefit financially from the lawsuit as a company that contributed patents to DI's portfolio.

Submission + - Royalty-Free MPEG Video Proposals Announced (robglidden.com)

theweatherelectric writes: Rob Glidden notes on his blog that MPEG has recently 'announced it has received proposals for a royalty-free MPEG standard and has settled on a deliberation process to consider them.' There two tracks towards royalty-free video currently under consideration by MPEG. The first track is IVC, a new 'standard based on MPEG-1 technology which is believed a safe royalty-free baseline that can be enhanced by additional unencumbered technology described in MPEG-2, JPEG, research publications and innovative technologies which are promised to be subject to royalty-free licenses.' The second proposed track is WebVC, an attempt to get the constrained baseline profile of H.264 licensed under royalty-free terms. Rob Glidden offers an analysis of both proposals. Also of interest is Rob's short history of why royalty-free H.264 failed last time.

Comment Re:Microsoft (Score 1) 644

It may not be endorsed by W3C, but that does not mean it is not an open standard.

Initially you said "I'm not seeing how they are trying to push developers away from W3C standards" and now you agree that the audio and video formats that Apple deem suitable for the Web are incompatible with W3C standards. Good. We are in agreement. As I said and as you now agree, it would be nice if Apple showed more commitment to an open web.

Comment Re:Microsoft (Score 1) 644

No, they really don't.

Yes, they really do. Please, this is beyond tedious. Here is the W3C's patent policy:

http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/

Have a read. Note that the W3C insists on standards that can be implemented on a royalty-free basis. Anything that does not meet that test cannot be considered a web standard.

Comment Re:Microsoft (Score 1) 644

You can't simply redefine the word "open" when it suits.

Sorry, but that's precisely what you're doing. There's no value in arguing semantics here. In the context of the Web when someone describes something as being "open" they always mean both open and royalty-free. I know that's what they mean. You know that's what they mean. We all know that's what they mean.

TCP/IP, HTTP, HTML, CSS, JPG, PNG and now even GIF are all both open and royalty-free. There's nothing so special about audio and video that they can't be the same and the troubled history of GIF is the only cautionary tale required. The MPEG LA could contribute to a better Web tomorrow by making H.264 royalty-free but they won't. They are only interested in the Web insofar as it offers them profit by the proliferation of formats they manage the license for. That kind of mentality is bad for everyone on the Web.

Comment Re:Microsoft (Score 1) 644

I'm not seeing how they are trying to push developers away from W3C standards given the work that has gone into getting Webkit to support those very standards you accuse them of trying to suppress.

One example is that Apple doesn't support open, royalty-free video and audio formats in Safari out of the box. This is quite amusing given that Siri uses Ogg Speex. It'd be nice if Apple showed more commitment to an open web. Even if Apple is still scared of WebM, there's no reason in the world why Safari couldn't have Ogg Vorbis support by default on the desktop and in iOS.

Comment Re:Sad (Score 1) 644

The problem is ultimately that Firefox was out-Firefoxed. Chrome is what Firefox was in its beginning

No. Chrome can't out-Firefox Firefox because it never has been and never will be what Firefox is. Firefox exists to promote the interests of Web users. Chrome, in contrast, exists to promote the interests of Google.

Corporations are only useful insofar as their interests coincide with your own. With Chrome, Google will decide that its interests trump the end user's. A simple example is Chrome's new in-browser advertising. In-browser advertising is only useful to Google and is utterly useless to me as a Web user. I prefer not to use adware so I don't use Chrome.

Comment Re:They screwed it with the new release process (Score 1) 511

So, from what I understood, we were going to have releases from often so that we could get more features more frequently. We got nothing! Or almost nothing.

There have been many features added between 6 and 10. If you want to know what those features are, look at the feature tracking pages: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Features/Release_Tracking https://wiki.mozilla.org/Features/Release_Tracking/Archives The two features I'm particularly looking forward to are type inference in Firefox 9 and OpenGL acceleration in Firefox Mobile 10.

Comment Re:Thank you (Score 1) 511

It was bundled with Skype updates a while back. I don't know if it still is. Adobe bundled it with Adobe Reader recently. I'd be interested to know how much of Chrome's growth can be attributed to deliberate and inadvertent installation when it gets delivered with other, perhaps more popular, software like Skype and Reader.

Slashdot Top Deals

They are called computers simply because computation is the only significant job that has so far been given to them.

Working...