or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google to push royalty-free VP9 4K video codec as H.265 alternative for YouTube
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google to push royalty-free VP9 4K video codec as H.265 alternative for YouTube

post #1 of 155
Thread Starter 
While VP8, Google's initial attempt at a royalty-free video codec, failed to gain much traction, the search giant is now focusing its efforts on ultra-high-resolution 4K video with its new VP9 codec, with a large-scale unveiling with YouTube multiple hardware partners set to take place next week, according to a new report.

VP9


At next week's Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, Nev., Google is expected to debut the new VP9 codec as an alternative to H.265, capable of streaming 4K video on YouTube with fewer bandwidth needs, according to GigaOm. The company is said to already have a slew of hardware partners that have pledged support, including ARM, Intel, Broadcom, Marvell, Nvidia, Samsung, Sony, Sharp and Toshiba.

Unsurprisingly not among the list of initial hardware supporters: Apple.

The successor to VP8 has been in development at Google for some time, and the company has suggested its intention is not to completely replace H.265. Instead, Google says it hopes to create a royalty-free alternative that would ease bandwidth issues associated with 4K video content on its popular streaming site YouTube.

Francisco Varela, global director of platform partnerships at YouTube, dismissed speculation that VP9 versus H.264 would be "war of the video codecs." He suggested that YouTube could add support for H.265 in the future, alongside VP9.



Varela claimed YouTube's main goal is to reduce the amount of data necessary to stream ultra-definition 4K video. The new VP9 codec aims to reduce bandwidth necessary by half, and went as far as to predict that YouTube users will be "surprised" whenever a video has to stop to buffer by 2015.

Google last attempted to push its own royalty-free codec in 2010, when the company announced its WebM format, also known as VP8. That codec was acquired by Google as part of the technology portfolio of On2.

Critics, however, contended that VP8 offered no real advantages over its established alternative, H.264, aside from being royalty free. Apple, for example, opted to stick with H.264 and continue paying the low royalty fees, rather than embrace VP8.

Google was later forced to settle a patent dispute with MPEG LA, the group that manages the licensing of H.264 patents, over its use of VP8. That meant that although VP8 was initially pushed as a "free" alternative to H.264, Google had instead begun paying licensing fees for related streaming video patents.
post #2 of 155

I guess it will be a nice sort of academic exercise to see YouTube choke and stall on another codec for a change.

 

YouTube has turned into garbage.

post #3 of 155
Demonstrating V9 against H.264 speaks volumes to the disigenuous nature of Google. Compare it to H.265: we know the outcome--inferior.
post #4 of 155
Any way of telling these fuckers to mind there own and not put H.265 six feet under? Truly 80's Microsoft all over again.
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
post #5 of 155

So what other code did Google steal to make VP9 4K?  You know they stole something.  Epic fail nonetheless.

post #6 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceek74 View Post
 

So what other code did Google steal to make VP9 4K?  You know they stole something.  Epic fail nonetheless.

 

And what sort of data mining code did they include in this VP9 codec? You know damn good and well Google never does anything without insuring themselves an advertising revenue stream.

post #7 of 155
For what it's worth VP9 isn't just for YouTube. It wouldn't hurt to read up on it before dismissing it out of hand. YouTube will probably support h.265 too whenever it's gets done too according to articles.It's not an either/or video codec war.

By the way, the articles author is making a bit of a stretch saying Google admitted that VP8 infringed on any MPEG-LA IP based on their being offered a license particularly since there's never been any mention by them that Google would pay any royalties. Google has never wavered from saying that VP8 was free of any patent encumbrances from outside parties.

Perhaps Google did pay them something and perhaps they didn't, but it obviously wasn't much if anything since Google can freely sub-license any h.264 IP to any VP8 or VP9 user at no charge.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #8 of 155
Seeing the words 'free' and 'Google' in the same sentence seems ...off.
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
post #9 of 155
See...

http://iphome.hhi.de/marpe/download/Performance_HEVC_VP9_X264_PCS_2013_preprint.pdf

"A performance comparison of H.265/MPEG-HEVC, VP9, and H.264/MPEG-AVC encoders was presented. According to the experimental results, the coding efficiency of VP9 was shown to be inferior to both H.264/MPEG-AVC and H.265/MPEG-HEVC with an average bit-rate overhead at the same objective quality of 8.4% and 79.4%, respectively. Also, it was shown that the VP9 encoding times are larger by a factor of more than 100 compared to those of the x264 encoder."
post #10 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post
 

 

And what sort of data mining code did they include in this VP9 codec? You know damn good and well Google never does anything without insuring themselves an advertising revenue stream.

This question makes no sense because VP9 (like VP8 or x264) only specifies an algorithm. There is no code. 


Edited by d4NjvRzf - 1/3/14 at 6:59am
post #11 of 155

Typical working day at google's offices worldwide:

 

KEEP THROWING SHIT AND SEE WHICH ONE STICKS!

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply
post #12 of 155
Which ever codec gets used and is more popular/kills the other, it will have absolutely no bearing on us as users.
Both codecs create a higher quality picture with less comparable bit rate.
If Google bring out VP9 first, it'll have a good shot of being the main one, however, bringing out VP8 after a standard has been established was never going to work out.
The cost of licensing was less than the work required to use a new codec, free or not.
post #13 of 155
VP8's IP issues remain a concern and the only reason not in court is the little adoption that would either be a MPEG-LA funding source or draw funding away. Google's cavalier attitude towards non-Google IP is notorious and I suspect will eventually be discovered. Therefore, the adoption VP9 will be slow and dependent on either clear assurances to cover IP costs for users/companies or clear proof that it is not IP encumbered, e.g., MPEG-LA saying it is not encumbered. Given the foundational nature of much of the H.264 patents it is hard to imagine they can avoid either paying or ending up in court.

Therefore, given Googles track record it is hard to believe content producers, distributors, and in the end hardware designers can use VP9. I suspect Sony, et al have IP licenses to use MPEG-LA IP in VP9, not everyone has such broad IP licenses, in particular SAMSUNG another notorious abuser of IP.

This should be interesting to follow. It is clearly a play to get around MPEG-LA already low IP license fees and so will be interesting on market responds especially when 4K becomes popular, my bet not for 5 years, look at the adoption rate of HD Blueray.
post #14 of 155
Google has become the anti-Apple. Anything and everything Apple does, Google chooses to follow up with a low cost/free and inferior version.

The Google/Motorola Moto G and X smartphones are being pushed out and promoted as good enough smartphones that are low-cost.

The funny thing is the smartphones failed at a more expensive cost and were continuously lowered in price. The smartphones still did not sell well. Now the smartphones are being sold at prices that cannot be profitable (IMHO).
post #15 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by gprovida View Post

VP8's IP issues remain a concern and the only reason not in court is the little adoption that would either be a MPEG-LA funding source or draw funding away. Google's cavalier attitude towards non-Google IP is notorious and I suspect will eventually be discovered. Therefore, the adoption VP9 will be slow and dependent on either clear assurances to cover IP costs for users/companies or clear proof that it is not IP encumbered, e.g., MPEG-LA saying it is not encumbered. Given the foundational nature of much of the H.264 patents it is hard to imagine they can avoid either paying or ending up in court.

The licensing agreement between MPEG-LA and Google for VP8 from earlier last year also extends to VP9 AFAIK.
http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/07/google-and-mpeg-la-sign-licensing-agreement-covering-googles-vp8-video-codec-clearing-the-way-for-wider-adoption/

Quote: "The agreement allows Google to sub-license the techniques covered by the agreement to any VP8 user and also covers the next generation of the VPx codec. "
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #16 of 155

Google? YouTube? 

 

Is anybody still watching that crap anyway? 4k-crap is still crap.

post #17 of 155

I wish YouTube would just die.  Google has no concept of quality software or the end user experience.  What else do you expect an advertising company to do to a video sharing site but turn it to shit.  Google has no history or background in video.  They know the web and they know how to track you and sell your information to advertisers and that's about it.

 

Vimeo is a million times better.  I actually suggested Apple build a Vimeo app in the home screen of iOS but I don't think they will.

post #18 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Algernon Blue View Post

See...

http://iphome.hhi.de/marpe/download/Performance_HEVC_VP9_X264_PCS_2013_preprint.pdf

"A performance comparison of H.265/MPEG-HEVC, VP9, and H.264/MPEG-AVC encoders was presented. According to the experimental results, the coding efficiency of VP9 was shown to be inferior to both H.264/MPEG-AVC and H.265/MPEG-HEVC with an average bit-rate overhead at the same objective quality of 8.4% and 79.4%, respectively. Also, it was shown that the VP9 encoding times are larger by a factor of more than 100 compared to those of the x264 encoder."

"On the other hand, when compared to the H.265/MPEG-HEVC reference encoder implementation, the VP9 encoding times are lower by a factor of 7.35, on average."
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #19 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Algernon Blue View Post

See...

http://iphome.hhi.de/marpe/download/Performance_HEVC_VP9_X264_PCS_2013_preprint.pdf

"A performance comparison of H.265/MPEG-HEVC, VP9, and H.264/MPEG-AVC encoders was presented. According to the experimental results, the coding efficiency of VP9 was shown to be inferior to both H.264/MPEG-AVC and H.265/MPEG-HEVC with an average bit-rate overhead at the same objective quality of 8.4% and 79.4%, respectively. Also, it was shown that the VP9 encoding times are larger by a factor of more than 100 compared to those of the x264 encoder."

This article is all about 4K encoding and none of the videos tested in that experiment were at 4K resolution. I have no idea whether these encoding codecs can be optimized for certain resolutions, but it's worth mentioning that discrepancy.
post #20 of 155
Can Google do anything right?
post #21 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceek74 View Post

So what other code did Google steal to make VP9 4K?  You know they stole something.  Epic fail nonetheless.

What hasn't Google "borrowed without permission?"
post #22 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

Can Google do anything right?

'can' being the operative word here¡
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
post #23 of 155
Love or Hate it if it doesn't support the iPad or the iPhone it's dead in the water.
post #24 of 155

According to the ISO/IEC, H.265 has been published back in November, why does Google want to push VP9?

http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=35424

 

Having said that, I'm not happy with what Google did with YouTube either, the advertising is way too intrusive. I understand the need for advertising and ROI, but there are ads everywhere on the website, banners in every movie, and video ads before every movie (almost). That's just too much.

bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #25 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


'can' being the operative word here¡

Hey Phil, Happy New Year! Ran 8 miles (slowly) on New Year's Day! :)

 

It's like Google makes billions in spite of themselves! Same with MS! :) 

post #26 of 155

no doubt it will be released as "beta" perform terribly for years just like screwyou docs and then they will start charging for it just like some of their other crap , no thanks scoogle. lets see what other open standard did they do this with hmmm oh yeah they tried that and then siad it ws open then took it away from developers - oh yeah A claiming it neededto be protetced oh yeah "Android" which is rapidly turning into an epic technical  fail

post #27 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

Hey Phil, Happy New Year! Ran 8 miles (slowly) on New Year's Day! 1smile.gif

All with a low HR, no doubt. Good work sir, even it being without any NY's resolution.
Quote:
It's like Google makes billions in spite of themselves! Same with MS! 1smile.gif 

Sad thing is these companies won't ever go away. No matter how much money the dumb in some black hole they'll always be around. And that's a waste of people; I'm sure the employees are quite capable in so much more, but are limited to what they can achieve due to narrow minded managers et cetera.
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
post #28 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

According to the ISO/IEC, H.265 has been published back in November, why does Google want to push VP9?
http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=35424

Is that h.265? I didn't see mention of it but perhaps.

EDIT: A search of ISO/IEC docs returns no results for h.265.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #29 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Seeing the words 'free' and 'Google' in the same sentence seems ...off.

Are you kidding? Expect the FOSS guys to respond with loving praise, much cooing, and come to the defense of Google in forums.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #30 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Are you kidding? Expect the FOSS guys to respond with loving praise, much cooing, and come to the defense of Google in forums.


Already happening 1biggrin.gif
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
post #31 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Is that h.265? I didn't see mention of it but perhaps.

EDIT: A search of ISO/IEC docs returns no results for h.265.

 

Your research skills are poor: http://www.vcodex.com/h265.html

 

Clue: http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ISO%2fIEC+23008-2%3a2013

 

Quote:
 

Information technology - High efficiency coding and media delivery in heterogeneous environments - Part 2: High efficiency video coding

ISO/IEC 23008-2:2013 specifies high efficiency video coding. It was developed in response to the growing need for higher compression of moving pictures for various applications such as videoconferencing, digital storage media, television broadcasting, internet streaming, and communications. It is also designed to enable the use of the coded video representation in a flexible manner for a wide variety of network environments as well as to enable the use of multi-core parallel encoding and decoding devices. The use of ISO/IEC 23008-2:2013 allows motion video to be manipulated as a form of computer data and to be stored on various storage media, transmitted and received over existing and future networks and distributed on existing and future broadcasting channels

 

post #32 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Are you kidding? Expect the FOSS guys to respond with loving praise, much cooing, and come to the defense of Google in forums.

VP9 already has a pretty long list of hardware partners, and they're not FOSS folks.
"...ARM, Broadcom, Intel, LG, Marvell, MediaTek, Nvidia, Panasonic, Philips, Qualcomm, RealTek, Samsung, Sigma, Sharp, Sony and Toshiba" among others. Again it's not an either/or codec choice.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #33 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

For what it's worth VP9 isn't just for YouTube. It wouldn't hurt to read up on it before dismissing it out of hand. YouTube will probably support h.265 too whenever it's gets done too according to articles.It's not an either/or video codec war.

By the way, the articles author is making a bit of a stretch saying Google admitted that VP8 infringed on any MPEG-LA IP based on their being offered a license particularly since there's never been any mention by them that Google would pay any royalties. Google has never wavered from saying that VP8 was free of any patent encumbrances from outside parties.

Perhaps Google did pay them something and perhaps they didn't, but it obviously wasn't much if anything since Google can freely sub-license any h.264 IP to any VP8 or VP9 user at no charge.

 

Of course it would be a small amount. MPEG-LA charges very low rates for using H.264. This is why Google trying to force another useless standard down our throats ridiculous and self-serving. Claiming that VP8 is "free" and offers an advantage over H.264 (which CAN cost money for some users) is a very weak argument for the use of VP8. MPEG-LA has many provisions in place to use H.264 for FREE. Once you get to enough users/devices where you'd have to pay, the fees are going to be a minor part of your expense. And MPEG-LA has a cap on fees so large companies like MS, Apple or Samsung don't pay huge fees for the 100's of millions of devices they sell.

 

Google originally announced VP8 was free from patent encumbrances. Then they settled with MPEG-LA. And Nokia is also in the process of suing vendors who use VP8 over their IP they feel is part of the spec. Convenient that you left that part out.

 

Google is an IP thief, plain and simple. You carefully choosing your words isn't going to change that. They stole IP for VP8 just like they stole IP for Android and gave it away for free. Then they have the nerve to complain when companies go after them or their vendors for illegally using their IP.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #34 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


VP9 already has a pretty long list of hardware partners, and they're not FOSS folks.
ARM, Broadcom, Intel, LG, Marvell, MediaTek, Nvidia, Panasonic, Philips, Qualcomm, RealTek, Samsung, Sigma, Sharp, Sony and Toshiba

 

Please. These are vendors who make devices that would use VP9, not companies who have donated or somehow provided the patents and IP necessary to make VP9 work.

 

Android has a long list of hardware partners as well, but it has nothing to do with whether or not Android has stolen IP in it or if it's FOSS.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #35 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Your research skills are poor: http://www.vcodex.com/h265.html

Clue: http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ISO%2fIEC+23008-2%3a2013

Thanks, but I wasn't doing a websearch at the time. I simply typed h265 in their search box.
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/search.htm?qt=h265&sort=rel&type=simple&published=on
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #36 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Please. These are vendors who make devices that would use VP9, not companies who have donated or somehow provided the patents and IP necessary to make VP9 work.

Pretty sure that's just what I said sir. HARDWARE! Now if you want to discuss software patents and such to prove that VP9 is encumbered with IP belonging to others that Google has "stolen " feel free to cite examples as usual.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #37 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.metcalf View Post

Vimeo is a million times better.  I actually suggested Apple build a Vimeo app in the home screen of iOS but I don't think they will.

I don't think Vimeo makes enough money yet to afford that.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #38 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Of course it would be a small amount. MPEG-LA charges very low rates for using H.264. This is why Google trying to force another useless standard down our throats ridiculous and self-serving. Claiming that VP8 is "free" and offers an advantage over H.264 (which CAN cost money for some users) is a very weak argument for the use of VP8. MPEG-LA has many provisions in place to use H.264 for FREE. Once you get to enough users/devices where you'd have to pay, the fees are going to be a minor part of your expense. And MPEG-LA has a cap on fees so large companies like MS, Apple or Samsung don't pay huge fees for the 100's of millions of devices they sell.

Google originally announced VP8 was free from patent encumbrances. Then they settled with MPEG-LA. And Nokia is also in the process of suing vendors who use VP8 over their IP they feel is part of the spec. Convenient that you left that part out.

Google is an IP thief, plain and simple. You carefully choosing your words isn't going to change that. They stole IP for VP8 just like they stole IP for Android and gave it away for free. Then they have the nerve to complain when companies go after them or their vendors for illegally using their IP.

Do you have any examples of patents that Google has been found to infringe, which apparently qualifies as theft in your view? Other than two very old Lycos patents that PAE ("patent troll") Vringo bought it looks like a pretty sparse list. Much easier to find numerous examples of patent infringement by other techs, but of course those wouldn't be "theft" since it wasn't Google?

As for Nokia I mentioned yesterday that they'd gone "lone wolf" when I first mentioned VP9. Pretty sure you would have seen it but in case you didn't.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/161387/npd-chromebook-sales-outperform-macbooks-in-commercial-sector-as-ipad-loses-ground/200#post_2452610
Edited by Gatorguy - 1/3/14 at 8:36am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #39 of 155
In the end isn't it which most popular devices are actually installed with the codec to play back all this amazing 4K video crap? If Apple supports their in-house codecs, along with historic versions but not Google's, they the point is moot. Google will be forced to update their systems to accept what their "shared" clients want. And secondly, as shown clearly, 80% of deployed Android devices never get current OS updates so they cannot even push a new codec anyways. It's true that they are seeming more and more like the monolithic MS each year passing. Who suffers most? The customer who make these companies uber-rich.
post #40 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


All with a low HR, no doubt. Good work sir, even it being without any NY's resolution.

Sad thing is these companies won't ever go away. No matter how much money the dumb in some black hole they'll always be around. And that's a waste of people; I'm sure the employees are quite capable in so much more, but are limited to what they can achieve due to narrow minded managers et cetera.

Yep! thx, bro.

 

Agreed! I think SJ's greatest contribution to the world was corralling SW/HW "engineers/programmers" and not allowing them to put out subpar products! If it was up to MS we would all still be using DOS! Ugh!

 

Here is Apple providing a blueprint on how to operate a healthy company and yet so many companies still take the Walmart approach of selling inferior stuff, at low prices in the hope of making a profit. (Sorry for the run-on sentences!) 

 

Oh well! :)

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google to push royalty-free VP9 4K video codec as H.265 alternative for YouTube