or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by jfanning

They are, YouTube and Netflix are both video streaming services, Youtube get's their revenue via advertising, Netflix by subscriptionIt is, you are complaining that Google is using their own product rather than a "standard", this is no different to what Apple doesyes I was, but since it doesn't fit into your agenda you rubbish it.Pot, kettle.Now, why are you now ignoring this youtube monopoly stuff you brought up?
h.264 isn't freehttp://www.geek.com/apps/cisco-buys-everyone-a-license-for-h-264-the-worlds-most-despised-codec-1575594/Fine, I don't understand what a monopoly is. Please explain it to me, while you explain it can you please put in some figures to show why you think Google has a monopoly over internet streaming video.What about Netflix, Hulu, iPlayer etc etc etcWhat did you say then?Strange, I was using the exact example you were, but when you do it Google becomes a...
In the first place, ie they haven't ruled anything out, just they are going to support their own technology before someone elses.Also, why wouldn't encoding require payment? I'm sure the patent holders love donating their technologies so someone else can profit off themI imagine you would need to talk to Google's business analysts about that, I'm sure they have performed some cost benefit analysts to determine what is going to be the best for themI know what a monopoly...
But when they have been asked to remove DRM from other media (media they directly control) they have refused.
It was more the fact that Apple refused to remove it, DRM is bad when someone else does it.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/161428/google-to-push-royalty-free-vp9-4k-video-codec-as-h-265-alternative-for-youtube/80#post_2453696Google pays to encode h.264, they will have to pay to encode h.265. And just because the encoder isn't as efficient as another one, doesn't automatically meant the decoder will have the same issue.let's see, google has less than 100% of the video streaming market, the competitors have more than 0%, thus google is not a monopoly in the...
Sorry, the magic word in my post was MOVIES.Also, I have always found Steves thoughts funny when there are articles like this around... http://www.teleread.com/copy-right/cory-doctorow-places-drm-free-e-books-with-amazon-barnes-noble-and-kobo-apple-and-sony-hold-out/
You only have to read some of your posts to see this proofAs I have said, you are getting overly emotional on thisHave you ever thought that the benefit, and costs savers that using a royalty free encoder provide Google far outweigh any encoding (that document only talks about encoding, something the end user doesn't have to worry about) inefficiencies.Post some proof. Also, even if you can find some proof, there is nothing wrong with being a monopoly, it is when you...
Ain't that the truth
What makes it "mind-bogglingly substandard"?Also, Google isn't a monopolyOK, I can imagine a word without MP4 files, not hard to do, but what is your point? No one is getting rid of mp4 files, no one is getting rid of h.265 files. Google wants to reduce their costs, they found a way to do it, and will give away their way.Also, it is funny that you talk about Sony, yet Apple refused to let anyone else play in their sandpit, how do I play my iTunes DRM filled movies on any...
New Posts  All Forums: