Google details reasons behind upcoming removal of H.264 support in Chrome

Google has this morning detailed the reasons behind the upcoming removal of support for the H.264 video codec in their web browser, Chrome.

Earlier in the week the company made headlines across the technology sector with the news they will drop support for the popular video codec in an upcoming version of Chrome in a bid to support the more open web video standards WebM (VP8) and Theora like competing web browsers Opera and Firefox.

On the other hand, Microsoft's Internet Explorer and Apple's Safari web browsers both support H.264 which has become the subject of much scrutiny over the past year or so given it's commercial licensing requirements and the managing body's refusal to rule out charging for commercial use of the codec in future years. 

In a lengthy ten paragraph post on the Chromium blog, Chrome's Product Manager Mike Jazayeri explained the reasons behind the company's decision to drop support for the popular video codec in an upcoming version of Chrome, saying the web is at a "impasse" when it comes to video support and that they hope their decision to drop H.264 support will "move the web forward".

"Our choice was to make a decision today and invest in open technology to move the platform forward, or to accept the status quo of a fragmented platform where the pace of innovation may be clouded by the interests of those collecting royalties," Jazayeri said. "Seen in this light, we are choosing to bet on the open web and are confident this decision will spur innovation that benefits users and the industry."

They'll instead opt to re-position resources to make the most of their own WebM standard, in the hope it may one day become one of the selected underlying video codecs in HTML 5 - with Jazayeri explaining the search giant feels the core web technologies need to be open source and free for anyone to use.

"We genuinely believe that core web technologies need to be open and community developed to enable the same great innovation that has brought the web to where it is today," he wrote.

The move has angered many, who say Google's announcement will mean the formats of videos on the web will become even more fragmented, for example Apple's iOS devices don't support WebM or Flash, instead H.264 was one of the few formats that worked across the board. Google says while they could afford to pay any licensing fees which may eventually be placed on the H.264 codec, they feel innovation may be harmed by the unknown future and pricing at this stage of the codec.

"To companies like Google, the license fees may not be material, but to the next great video startup and those in emerging markets these fees stifle innovation," Jazayeri explained. "When technology decisions are clouded by conflicting incentives to collect patent royalties, the priorities and outcome are less clear and the process tends to take a lot longer. This is not good for the long term health of web video."

To be clear Google's announcement only relates to the forthcoming HTML 5 standard video tag, with users still able to play the videos through plug-ins such as the either loved or hated Adobe Flash Player or Microsoft Silverlight -- but its impact will be felt by all developing for HTML 5 with many beginning to choose H.264 as their video codec.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Review: BlackBerry Bold 9780

Next Story

HTC and Verizon rank highest for most Android upgrades

82 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Key point that everyone seems to be missing...

"...own WebM standard..."

WebM may be 'open' but it is a Google project with complete Google control over it.

It is not a 'standard' and is even a bit misleading on it being 'open' due to how Google is funneling the licensing around, go look up quotes from the OSI. They basically untied some copyrights to make it fit the 'open' definition, yet they still maintain the copyrights and can revoke how 'open' it is.

There is also the fact that 'open' means nothing, as both WebM and its VP8 are not submitted to any standards body. This means that what WebM does and how it works and what it provides are ONLY defined by Google.

There is no oversight, there is no reason for Google to bring any community additions back into their project, making any community changes based on the 'open' code worthless as they won't work with Google's WebM.

So not only is Google giving the finger to all the current content out there, they are telling everyone that they will design and tell everyone how video will be encoded and control everything from the base technologies to even the quality it will provide and if future versions will break everything or if new compression technologies will or will not be used, etc etc.

In contrast, go look at VC1, which is just another name for Microsoft's WMV/WMA technologies. Microsoft created them, added in some good features and turned them over to a standards body, which is how it became VC1.

VC1 is a 'standard' used on BluRay and only an official HD 'standard'. Microsoft can't one day say VC1 will no longer do this or that and destroy compatibility, as the standards body has this control to ensure this will never happen.

In contrast, Google can make changes to WebM down the road and destroy compatibility with any devices or hardware using the format.

Being 'open' IS NOT THE SAME as being an independant 'standard'.

I don't think most users or even some of the players in the industry understand how dangerous this move is, and how it basically gives Google total control.

Google - 'Do KNOW Evil...'

thenetavenger said,
Key point that everyone seems to be missing...

"...own WebM standard..."

WebM may be 'open' but it is a Google project with complete Google control over it.

I didn't miss this; this is pretty much what I wrote above. They've favoring their own creation in order to push their own agenda--so they can maintain and expand their control into everything. There's nothing benevolent from Google in having them do this. That they would do this under the guise of "open is just better" is just disgusting.

Think in the end Google is damaging themselves. Chrome is a young browser with loads of potential; however, this move might cause a lot of people to rethink their selection. It seems they are handicapping themselves for no apparent reason. Meh, IE9 works just fine.

Without Firefox, Chrome, Opera, and the vast majority of other FOSS browsers supporting h.264, it's doomed to failure. It only exists now in web video because flash supports it. When HTML 5 supplants flash as the dominant web video container, this will be a non-issue. Another win for FOSS and an open standardised web.

Elliott said,
Stop bundling Flash if you care about the "open web", hypocrites.

Flash is an optional plugin, which I might add anyone can implement without paying royalties to Adobe, a la Gnash, therefore it's not part of the web per se. HTML 5 on the other hand seeks to standardise web video. And now that we have all agreed that h.264 is a precarious, patent encumbered mess, we can all move on to Theora and WebM nay?

Elliott said,
Stop bundling Flash if you care about the "open web", hypocrites.

I think they also care about users of their software being able to view the web properly. Point is, if Google provide flash, they can distribute an update with an update to Chrome, which helps the problem of people using outdated versions with security flaws.

Flawed said,

Flash is an optional plugin, which I might add anyone can implement without paying royalties to Adobe, a la Gnash, therefore it's not part of the web per se. HTML 5 on the other hand seeks to standardise web video. And now that we have all agreed that h.264 is a precarious, patent encumbered mess, we can all move on to Theora and WebM nay?

So you would rather have 'open' over a 'standard'?

What good is 'open source' when Google has complete control over what is used and what isn't. The only thing 'open' gets you is the ability to see the code and write your own decoder and not pay any licensing fees.

What you give up is having any say or control over the format, with Google being able to solely define every aspect of the format and the quality, with NO ONE having any say.

For example, if Google decides to shift the codec to performance over quality, and doesn't care that video looks like crap, you have to live with it, as you can modify your 'open' code, but you have NO input on the version of WebM Google uses and makes their 'standard' that everyone will have to use.

I get tired of the mentality that sees the word 'open' and assumes it is better or even 'good'. Think of it like this, if you can read machine code, all software is 'open source', it comes down to how the licensing works, how modifications are allowed or not, and the way Google has worked WebM, it might as well be the tightest 'closed source' project in history, as only Google will say what ships and what works and doesn't work.

(This is just like Apple's Darwin con, sure it was 'open', but it did NOT mean any additions you or anyone else contributed to the project would end up running on a Mac. Darwin was open to get through the licensing hurdles, but was never truly open and never a project that could be built on or gave people 'input' into OS X.)

Standards are far more important than 'open source' and 'open licensing'. Without standards you either have a horribly fragmented set of implementations or you have one entity dictating everything.

WebM and Google are probably going to give you both, with Google's famous insane lack of understanding of fragmentation, and then dictating to everyone how Video will look and work, with no 'body' or input from anyone.

The great thing about standards is that everybody's got their own.

But seriously, dick move from Google. This is choosing open source for the sake of open source, not for any technical merit, and completely discounts the fact that H.264 has already got a solid foothold in consumer electronics.

How would the market react if the next iPod dropped MP3 support in favor of OGG exclusively? Not that there's a frosty chance in hell that could happen, I'm just drawing parallels--I find Google's position just as absurd.

_dandy_ said,

But seriously, dick move from Google. This is choosing open source for the sake of open source, not for any technical merit, and completely discounts the fact that H.264 has already got a solid foothold in consumer electronics.

Do you not know what open source is about? There are lots of things that are "technically" better. Doesn't mean it's the best choice.

farmeunit said,

Do you not know what open source is about? There are lots of things that are "technically" better. Doesn't mean it's the best choice.

...hence my claim that Google choosing open source for the sake of being open source being a dick move. Google made a conscious decision to ignore what's already established in order to push something of their own creation.

_dandy_ said,

...hence my claim that Google choosing open source for the sake of being open source being a dick move. Google made a conscious decision to ignore what's already established in order to push something of their own creation.

+1

'Open' is just part of the con to make people think it is a good thing, as Google buys ups the rights to a video codec, slaps around the licensing a bit to make it look 'open' and then shoves it down the throat of everyone.

Google only cares about 'open' when they are using 'open source' so they don't have to do any heavy lifting. They do not care about 'open' when it comes to giving back. If anyone doubts this, ask Google for 'open' access to their server code or search code.

Even look at Android, the only reason it is 'open' is that Google doesn't have the engineers nor did they want to do the work to write their own kernel or even their own framework. Which is fine if they gave back, but even on Android, they give back NOTHING to the Linux or Java communities.

With Android they don't let the 'community' have any control over what Android does or is, it is a Google project and only Google gets to say what the 'official' Android can and can't do. With Android though, we can modify it and load it on our own hardware. However this will be very different with WebM, as we cannot ask content providers to re-encode their video using our 'better' version, and Google will not let Chrome ever decode or use our 'better' version of WebM either.

IE9s approach to codec support is better. Use what is available to the system if by default the browser won't use it. Hopefully MS will fix googles **** up on this by releasing an H264 plugin for it on windows at least.

I want to be able to define a page with video that works on all devices, not just google branded without resorting to fallback flash.

Wouldn't chrome on windows be able to support H264 in the same fashion firefox would? Since the codec (with GPU acceleration, I may add) is supplied with the OS rather than the browser.

Or Google are playing their cards in a way to force MPEG-LLA's hand to open up the oportunity for firefox etc... to also be able to support h.264 in their products in an OSS compatible manner. In terms of device integration, it makes sense for h.264 to be THE format for home use. Blu-ray is not going away, NOR is AVCHD for use in consumer camcorders. h.264 is also cheaper for google because it means they do not have to convert their entire youtube library from h.264 to webM.

webM could infact be a ticking time bomb, as it is almost guaranteed that there is a patent somewhere that covers a portion of the algorithm used. Forcing MPEG-LLA to open up h.264 has the benefit of patent protection for everyone involved.

smithy_dll said,
Forcing MPEG-LLA to open up h.264 has the benefit of patent protection for everyone involved.
h.264 is an open standard. MPEG4 Part 10 (ISO/IEC 14496-10).

you guys are looking at things in the short-term. By march the first chips with WebM encoding and decoding support will be out, i'm sure all mobile chips will support WebM by the end of the year so that will be all phones and tablets, pc's with a half decent cpu will play back webm smoothly, pc's with an nvidia or ati gpu will likely get hardware acceleration.

The only real downside is that IE9 won't support it properly (by bundling it in), very few people will know about the external codec so only 10% of IE9 users will install it, it basically might as well not exist. As for safari, its possible apple may include encoding and decoding support in their Apple A5 processor which will be in the iphone 5 and possibly ipad2 which would mean all new apple devices could add support, at which point they may add it to safari then only MS wouldn't have native support. They would probably have to include it within a security update on windows update in order to get it out to the masses.

All of this is possible, optomistic of course! I guess we'll have to wait and see if Apple's A5 processor has support for this, this would then trigger the desired effect

Saul Goodman said,
The way I see it. Google are looking out for themselves, whats in their best interests (what can they completely control).

+1 specially what is the cheapest investment...

Saul Goodman said,
The way I see it. Google are looking out for themselves, whats in their best interests (what can they completely control).

All this has to do is one thing and one thing only, and it's not about openness or not, it's about money, plane and simple. If people wanna buy into the open and free WebM kool-aid that's fine and it's all well and good that it is free, but for Google it's a ends to a means. And that means is making profit off of youtube. Nothing else.

Right now Youtube is a black pit that does nothing but burn cash, always has been and always will if it sticks to the same model. As everyone should know Google wants to add a pay pro version of some sort to get money from it, this is where the conflict with using h264 comes in since the licensing is free for non-profit-streaming, or just basically anythying that's free can use h264 and not have to pay a dime. The second google starts to try and charge for some part of youtube that uses h264 it has to pay royalties just like MS and Apple do and others do who ship the h264 with their software. It's the only reason the paid for VP8 and it's the only reason they've haded it out for free, get people to adopt it enough so they don't have to depend on h264, then flip the switch on html5 WebM video on youtube and start a paid pro version to make money.

Long story short, it's about money, not this hyberboil BS about being open.

Nice post. I've never thought of it like that. Makes sense.

On another note, has Google actually said VP8 will always be free for commercial/non commercial use. Not sure if open source covers that.

OceanMotion said,
Nice post. I've never thought of it like that. Makes sense.

On another note, has Google actually said VP8 will always be free for commercial/non commercial use. Not sure if open source covers that.

Saying means nothing. It must be a signed deal / agreement / something.

"...the managing body's refusal to rule out charging for commercial use of the codec in future years."

Why is this lie being spread constantly. They've already stated that h.264 will remain royalty free indefinetly for free content. Also, the license terms prevents them from increasing the royalties by more than 10% every 5 years.

floopy said,
"...the managing body's refusal to rule out charging for commercial use of the codec in future years."

Why is this lie being spread constantly. They've already stated that h.264 will remain royalty free indefinetly for free content. Also, the license terms prevents them from increasing the royalties by more than 10% every 5 years.

Do you know what indefinitely means? "...the managing body's refusal to rule out charging for commercial use of the codec in future years." is a logically correct statement.

Athernar said,
Since when was the web ever "free"?
Apart from paying for the physical connection (which is a separate thing), yes, the web is basically free. Browsers cost nothing, and visiting websites cost nothing.

floopy said,

Why is this lie being spread constantly. They've already stated that h.264 will remain royalty free indefinetly for free content. Also, the license terms prevents them from increasing the royalties by more than 10% every 5 years.

Who cares? There's no justification for using patent encumbered codecs, no matter the promises made by the MPEG royalty collecting group.

Kirkburn said,
Apart from paying for the physical connection (which is a separate thing), yes, the web is basically free. Browsers cost nothing, and visiting websites cost nothing.

Unless its a subscription based website. Like porn.

Kirkburn said,
Apart from paying for the physical connection (which is a separate thing), yes, the web is basically free. Browsers cost nothing, and visiting websites cost nothing.

What about the site itself? The software and server the site is running on.

H264 support : Windows...check. MacOS X...check. Ubuntu...check.
The other 0.5% of people can get a Flash player.

Google once again show their excellent hypocrisy skills.

Aethec said,
H264 support : Windows...check. MacOS X...check. Ubuntu...check.
The other 0.5% of people can get a Flash player.

Google once again show their excellent hypocrisy skills.

The fact that an OS Supports it is irrelevant if royalties are involved. Way to show you have no understanding of the issues.

Aethec said,
H264 support : Windows...check. MacOS X...check. Ubuntu...check.
The other 0.5% of people can get a Flash player.
Google once again show their excellent hypocrisy skills.

h.264 runs fundamentally counter to the ideology of Ubuntu, GNU, and FOSS in general. HTML 5 with a patent unencumbered codec such as Theora or WebM is the future. Sorry to burst your pro-Patent, pro-Proprietary bubble.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: Google are thinking long-term. They don't want the evolution of video codecs to be impeded by the MPEG-LA and their patent royalties.

For now, the alternative isn't better in terms of image quality, performance, and widespread adoption; however, that can change in the future. The key here is openness - something that WebM has.

Also, one should note that both Firefox and Opera also support WebM.

Anaron said,
I've said this before and I'll say it again: Google are thinking long-term. They don't want the evolution of video codecs to be impeded by the MPEG-LA and their patent royalties.

For now, the alternative isn't better in terms of image quality, performance, and widespread adoption; however, that can change in the future. The key here is openness - something that WebM has.

Also, one should note that both Firefox and Opera also support WebM.

Finally, someone that speaks sense instead of going down the "ZOMG GOOGLE SUX0RZ THE BIG FAT ONE" road.

Using closed and proprietary codecs, with a licensing status that is murky at best is not conducive to an open web platform. Yes, H264 is being provided royalty free for now, but what happens if they suddenly decide to start charging when the codec reaches widespread adoption and use?

I'm a bit torn on the decision. On the one hand, there's the part of me that has always been afraid of H.264 being the dominant format - it simply wouldn't work with Firefox or Opera, as they can't afford the licensing fees, and it was unfair to them.

On the other hand, H.264 had kind of been adopted.

I really do hope that WebM catches on. At this point, it's the last hope for the video tag.

Simon said,
I really do hope that WebM catches on. At this point, it's the last hope for the video tag.

Video tag was already on life support when no-one could agree on a codec to use. This is more of an improvement really... it stops developers from not bothering with Firefox or Opera and going with H.264. Microsoft said they'd support WebM right? They just preferred H.264? Which means the only ones missing from the party are Apple, and people always bend over backwards to make their stuff compatible with their devices anyway.

The web was supposed to be free, which means WebM is the only real choice. If WebM isn't good enough then people will just stick with Flash, so its not the end of the world.

Simon said,
I'm a bit torn on the decision. On the one hand, there's the part of me that has always been afraid of H.264 being the dominant format - it simply wouldn't work with Firefox or Opera, as they can't afford the licensing fees, and it was unfair to them.

On the other hand, H.264 had kind of been adopted.

I really do hope that WebM catches on. At this point, it's the last hope for the video tag.

Nothing has ever stopped Firefox or Opera from using QtKit or 'Media Foundation' which would provide h264 playback on Mac OS X and Windows respectively - without extra licensing costs.

Simon said,
On the other hand, H.264 had kind of been adopted.

Like GIF was adopted?

Doesn't matter what the press says.
Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say.
Doesn't matter if the whole world decides that something wrong is something right.
When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world - "No, you move."

Mr Nom Nom's said,

Nothing has ever stopped Firefox or Opera from using QtKit or 'Media Foundation' which would provide h264 playback on Mac OS X and Windows respectively - without extra licensing costs.


yeah they also said that for Apache Harmony

Simon said,
I'm a bit torn on the decision. On the one hand, there's the part of me that has always been afraid of H.264 being the dominant format - it simply wouldn't work with Firefox or Opera, as they can't afford the licensing fees, and it was unfair to them.

On the other hand, H.264 had kind of been adopted.

I really do hope that WebM catches on. At this point, it's the last hope for the video tag.


I doubt it will. Supported just to support a web browser or two? h.264 is miles ahead, with hardware support in mobile phones and all.

Mr Nom Nom's said,
Nothing has ever stopped Firefox or Opera from using QtKit or 'Media Foundation' which would provide h264 playback on Mac OS X and Windows respectively - without extra licensing costs.
And what of Linux? Or does that not count for some reason? Why should the two dominant OS platforms be the only viable ones?

NesTle said,
yeah they also said that for Apache Harmony

And what has a third party Java runtime environment have to do with saying to Firefox and Opera developers that they should hook into the native CODEC provided by the said operating systems. That is no different than Songbird which hooks into Quicktime to playback DRM protected music.

Kirkburn said,
And what of Linux? Or does that not count for some reason? Why should the two dominant OS platforms be the only viable ones?

They could hook into gstreamer and it is up to the end user to install the necessary plugins for it - most of the time these plugins can be installed through the add/remove tool; selecting gstreamer-plugins-ugly, gstreamer-plugins-bad and gstreamer-plugins-ffmpeg and away you go (I can't remember the exact names of the files, they names mentioned were only guesses).

Mr Nom Nom's said,
They could hook into gstreamer and it is up to the end user to install the necessary plugins for it - most of the time these plugins can be installed through the add/remove tool;
Yup, exactly what they're trying to avoid. Forcing users to do stuff to get it to work. The ideal is that it is native.

Kirkburn said,
Yup, exactly what they're trying to avoid. Forcing users to do stuff to get it to work. The ideal is that it is native.

So hang on, the idea of getting people to download and install a third party browser is ok but it is 'one step too far' for the end user, if they run Linux, to install the plugin separately? how many 'normal users' do you know of that use Linux and would be confused about the whole codec installation routine?

Mr Nom Nom's said,
So hang on, the idea of getting people to download and install a third party browser is ok but it is 'one step too far' for the end user, if they run Linux, to install the plugin separately? how many 'normal users' do you know of that use Linux and would be confused about the whole codec installation routine?
The same applies to Firefox currently, you have to download a separate thing - so this isn't a Linux issue. In any case, yes, it is a step too far.

ScottDaMan said,

+1
Yup, I myself dont understand why they say it will be fragmented, because:

IE6-8 doent support html5 which means we will have to use flash and flash has committed was hardware accelerated WebM.


The rest of the world lies here (market share) which will use these codecs:
Firefox 25%
Chrome 10%
Opera 2-4%
IE9 0.09%

and Safari 5% which doesnt matter much, so we can embed WebM in flash for safari and old IE and all mobile devices support flash and will support WebM, so only odd man out is iOS we dont make standards based on one person, when rest of the world thinks something else. And iOS dont cares about their users because even though Adobe had submitted a mobile optimized flash they rejected it. Flash hardware accelerated doesnt consume more resources than html5 which has been proved (dont have reference for it now.)

Edited by Shishant, Jan 15 2011, 10:51am :

Shishant said,
IE6-8 doent support html5 which means we will have to use flash and flash has committed was hardware accelerated WebM.

Get an operating system that doesn't force you to use outdated, non-compliant browsers. Problem solved.

If you're an IT admin and your business is still using IE6-8, you should be fired and replaced with people who actually have a clue.

Miuku said,

Get an operating system that doesn't force you to use outdated, non-compliant browsers. Problem solved.

If you're an IT admin and your business is still using IE6-8, you should be fired and replaced with people who actually have a clue.

If you know that people generally dont update softwares often, and IE updates are served as optional which further reduces the chances.

Currently only corporates are using IE6 because their software were developed based on it, upgrading means extra costs, In corporate world CEOs dont spend money for upgrading browsers unless its an IT company or necessity.

Miuku said,
If you're an IT admin and your business is still using IE6-8, you should be fired and replaced with people who actually have a clue.

+1

Shishant said,
If you know that people generally dont update softwares often, and IE updates are served as optional which further reduces the chances.

Currently only corporates are using IE6 because their software were developed based on it, upgrading means extra costs, In corporate world CEOs dont spend money for upgrading browsers unless its an IT company or necessity.


Yup, but this year, IE8 / IE9 Shall prevail. Win XP officially dies this year, meaning people are upgrading to Windows 7.
In the other hand, I don't know why Microsoft didn't RTM IE9 with SP1.... that should have make things easier.

Jose_49 said,

Yup, but this year, IE8 / IE9 Shall prevail. Win XP officially dies this year, meaning people are upgrading to Windows 7.
In the other hand, I don't know why Microsoft didn't RTM IE9 with SP1.... that should have make things easier.
IE9 is still in beta it will be included in SP2.

Shishant said,
IE9 is still in beta it will be included in SP2.

IE never get included with service packs

hance why vista sp2 still has IE7
and XP SP3 have the age old IE6

Miuku said,

If you're an IT admin and your business is still using IE6-8, you should be fired and replaced with people who actually have a clue.

This comes up every time browsers are mentioned. It's happening, but it's a slow process. Get over it.

Ie8 is fine for the moment, but I completely agree that saying "IE6-7 don't support it" is a stupid excuse. Those are old, outdated browsers and the whole purpose of this is to look to the future. As the article states, plugins still work fine so what difference does it make if you're using a plugin on IE7 or a plugin on Chrome?

I welcome Google's decision.

Miuku said,

Get an operating system that doesn't force you to use outdated, non-compliant browsers. Problem solved.

If you're an IT admin and your business is still using IE6-8, you should be fired and replaced with people who actually have a clue.

For one, IE9 hasn't even been released to the public, so organization should be using it. XP will let you use any other browser. And finally some websites still REQUIRE certain versions of IE, and those are out of our control. Obviously you're not an IT admin and have no clue what it takes.

trix said,

This comes up every time browsers are mentioned. It's happening, but it's a slow process. Get over it.

Exactly. Geting ORACLE and SAP to get their application web guis off IE6 is like trying to pull teeth on a rhino

Ci7 said,

IE never get included with service packs

hance why vista sp2 still has IE7
and XP SP3 have the age old IE6

yor are not 100% correct. Windows XP SP1 got IE6 SP1 update included.

Faisal Islam said,

yor are not 100% correct. Windows XP SP1 got IE6 SP1 update included.

you said it yourself 'update'

going from say IE8 > IE9 is 'upgrade'
which never happened to be deployed with windows service pack

Miuku said,

Get an operating system that doesn't force you to use outdated, non-compliant browsers. Problem solved.

Yeah get a IMac
If you're an IT admin and your business is still using IE6-8, you should be fired and replaced with people who actually have a clue.