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 - Page 4

post #121 of 155
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post
They are

 

Not really, no, by your own admission.

 
It is, you are complaining that Google is using their own product rather than a "standard", this is no different to what Apple does


No, that’s not the complaint. Please actually read the original posts.

 
yes I was, but since it doesn't fit into your agenda you rubbish it.

 

Well, if you were right, your attitude would suggest you’d love to rub it in my face. You didn’t, because you can’t, so here we are.

 
Pot, kettle.

 

Wok, spatula. Show me my ad-homs. 

 
Now, why are you now ignoring this youtube monopoly stuff you brought up?

 

Be…cause I’m not?

 

Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
He'll never mention it again, that's his way. All bluster, no bite.

 

“He’ll never mention again what he’s explicitly talking about right now,” what on earth is wrong with you?

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #122 of 155
You haven't mentioned the YouTube "monopoly" since I gave you some actual figures to play with that show it isn't a monopoly.

Respond to the figures please. You, who are always demanding proof.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #123 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Not really, no, by your own admission.

Are they not both Video streaming sites?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

No, that’s not the complaint. Please actually read the original posts.

Sorry, your complaint is google is doing something, and you don't want to have to do something google suggests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Well, if you were right, your attitude would suggest you’d love to rub it in my face. You didn’t, because you can’t, so here we are.

Don't assume things
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Wok, spatula. Show me my ad-homs. 

Look at at history of your posts, abusing people seems to be a profession for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Be…cause I’m not?

Ok, where is this proof of Google being a video streaming monopoly?
post #124 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Wow.

Just like Chrome removed H.264 supp… OOPS.

Here's something that really does need to be more restricted in Chrome: Extensions.
While it's not strictly a Google problem it's imperative they be the ones to fix it.
http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/01/malware-vendors-buy-chrome-extensions-to-send-adware-filled-updates/

Not good. Right now it's a minor issue. If Google lets it go it may fast become a major nuisance.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #125 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Here's something that really does need to be more restricted in Chrome: Extensions.
While it's not strictly a Google problem it's imperative they be the ones to fix it.
http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/01/malware-vendors-buy-chrome-extensions-to-send-adware-filled-updates/

Not good. Right now it's a minor issue. If Google lets it go it may fast become a major nuisance.

If people are stupid enough to let Google auto-update software on their machine without first reading what this software is going to do then yeah, you can get surprised. No surprise there. If people trust Google that auto-updating extensions is good for them then they are extremely foolish in thinking that Google can write quality designed software.
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #126 of 155

I really don't need Google to spearhead royalty free CODEC.   They really haven't taken their product in a different area.  

 

The darkhorse here is Daala 

 

http://wiki.xiph.org/Daala

 

https://www.xiph.org/daala/

 

We'll see if Mozilla and Xiph can get this CODEC off the ground. 

He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #127 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

If people are stupid enough to let Google auto-update software on their machine without first reading what this software is going to do then yeah, you can get surprised. No surprise there. If people trust Google that auto-updating extensions is good for them then they are extremely foolish in thinking that Google can write quality designed software.

Pretty quick response by Google. 1bugeye.gif
They've already begun banning and purging extensions that have changed hands for adware delivery.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/20/5326582/google-bans-chrome-extensions-purchased-to-deliver-adware
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #128 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I love how you think you have the right to hold a conversation like this without posting any proof.

Proof! :-) ...Says the guy who gets emotional over everything and never ever backs up his stuff with sources/proof himself.

You might have found an article on Google's (most likely inferior) codec, h265 hasn't been properly tested yet and in the end requires a subjective, human review of the resulting image. I have a Panasonic GH3 which can record footage to a 200 mbit intraframe version of h264, however after seeing a recent implementation of h264 at CES 2014 for their new line up, it's impossible to tell the difference with their 28mbit implementation. Let's wait and see how all the footage will hold up and do a comparison in a year or so (and yes, I expect Google's implementation to lose as well).
Edited by dacloo - 1/20/14 at 11:23pm
post #129 of 155
Originally Posted by dacloo View Post
Says the guy who gets emotional over everything and never ever backs up his stuff with sources/proof himself.


Thanks for the lies. They prove my point well.

 
Let's wait and see how all the footage will hold up and do a comparison in a year or so (and yes, I expect Google's implementation to lose as well).

 

VLC already has h.265 playback, to my memory. I imagine it’ll turn out like everything else VLC plays back, but that won’t be the fault of the codec.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #130 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


Thanks for the lies. They prove my point well.

Over a week has gone by, yet you still refuse to post any proof, maybe it has slipped your mind?
post #131 of 155
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post
maybe it has slipped your mind?

 

I’d imagine. What on Earth are you talking about?

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #132 of 155

I would imagine he's referring to this:

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfanning View Post


Ok, where is this proof of Google being a video streaming monopoly?

 

And he's not the first to ask...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

You haven't mentioned the YouTube "monopoly" since I gave you some actual figures to play with that show it isn't a monopoly.

Respond to the figures please. You, who are always demanding proof.
 

Live up to your own standards please, proof-demander.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #133 of 155
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
I would imagine he's referring to this:

 

Five minutes of searching and you can’t come up with it yourself?

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #134 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Five minutes of searching and you can’t come up with it yourself?


Well you claimed it, why should we look it up.
Quote:

mo·nop·o·ly
[muh-nop-uh-lee] Show IPA
noun, plural mo·nop·o·lies.
1.
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
2.
an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3.
the exclusive possession or control of something.
4.
something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.
5.
a company or group that has such control.

But still, your little pictures don't show anything, where is the proof that they are a monopoly?
post #135 of 155
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post
But still, your little pictures don't show anything, where is the proof that they are a monopoly?

 

In your definition.

 

Thanks for posting it, by the way. You really look idiotic at this point.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #136 of 155

Oh so you're redefining monopoly to be 63% now?

 

You're as shameless as Samsung in your hypocrisy, as well as your double standard of putting the onus on other people to look stuff up.

 

I note that you've posted an image, not a link to any interrogable data or context.

 

Typical.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #137 of 155
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
Oh so you're redefining monopoly to be 63% now?

 

No, really, keep it up, boyo. I’m sure you’re outraged at how Microsoft was so wrongly tried for their monopoly.

 

Shut up already. Were you literate, you’d read the image and see this magical ‘text source’ of yours.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #138 of 155

Microsoft were never put on trial for having a monopoly, they were investigated and convicted for abusing the monopoly power they had.  And yes, by every conventional measure, they had monopoly power, which is generally to held to be around the 70% mark for market dominance  Get your facts straight.


Edited by Crowley - 1/22/14 at 3:37pm

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #139 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

Were you literate, you’d read the image and see this magical ‘text source’ of yours.

Again, attempting to shift the burden.

 

Substantiate your arguments when you make them, not days or weeks later, and properly source them, don't just post images.  You're the worst offender of one of the things you complain about the most.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #140 of 155
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
Again, attempting to shift the burden.

 

Nope. Provided the evidence. Now instead of whining about how it “isn’t evidence”, how about you explain why it isn’t? By going to that link and systematically pointing out what is and is not valid.

 
Substantiate your arguments when you make them, not days or weeks later

 

Yeah, see, common knowledge doesn’t require substantiation. This has been the case with YouTube for many years now.

 
and properly source them

 

Again, already did.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #141 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

Nope. Provided the evidence.

 

In a poor format, inconvenient for interrogation, with attitude.  Not condusive to good argument, so you're not going to get it.  I'm not going to justify your tardiness and passive aggressiveness by accepting that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

Now instead of whining about how it “isn’t evidence”

 

Never happened.  Never said that.  We've gone over this before, only use quotation marks when you're quoting something.  Otherwise you're being disingenuous and in poor form.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

By going to that link and systematically pointing out what is and is not valid.

 

Post a link and I might do that.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Yeah, see, common knowledge doesn’t require substantiation.

 

Yes it does, that's a laughable assertion as "common knowledge" (defined by who, exactly?) is often proven to be common fallacy.  Saying otherwise is the resort of the lazy or the corrupt.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 This has been the case with YouTube for many years now.

 

And yet other links (note: links) posted say otherwise.  The jury has not settled.  Your claims don't get accepted just because you say that everyone knows them.  Because that's (i) not true and (ii) shoddy diligence.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

Again, already did.

 

Nope, no link, no dice.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #142 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

In a poor format, inconvenient for interrogation, with attitude.  Not condusive to good argument, so you're not going to get it.  I'm not going to justify your tardiness and passive aggressiveness by accepting that.

Never happened.  Never said that.  We've gone over this before, only use quotation marks when you're quoting something.  Otherwise you're being disingenuous and in poor form.


Post a link and I might do that.


Yes it does, that's a laughable assertion as "common knowledge" (defined by who, exactly?) is often proven to be common fallacy.  Saying otherwise is the resort of the lazy or the corrupt.


And yet other links (note: links) posted say otherwise.  The jury has not settled.  Your claims don't get accepted just because you say that everyone knows them.  Because that's (i) not true and (ii) shoddy diligence.


Nope, no link, no dice.

You and TS are becoming the Hatfields and McCoy's, fighting for generations and can't remember what started it. lol.gif
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #143 of 155

He starts it anew every time he posts this arrogant, condescending bs.

 

I'm fully aware that engaging with him is useless.  I should stop.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #144 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

He starts it anew every time he posts this arrogant, condescending bs.

I'm fully aware that engaging with him is useless.  I should stop.

He's not beyond admitting when he's wrong (yes I've seen it), but at a certain point just admit that you're not going to convince him nor is he going to convince you.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #145 of 155
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
He starts it anew every time he posts this arrogant, condescending bs.

 

I'm fully aware that engaging with him is useless.  I should stop.

 

You should; you’re wrong. It’s embarrassing.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #146 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

In your definition.

Thanks for posting it, by the way. You really look idiotic at this point.

My definition, no sorry, that was from dictionary.com

But from the Apple dictionary on my Mac
Quote:
monopoly |məˈnɒp(ə)li|
noun (pl.monopolies)
1 the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service: the state's monopoly of radio and television broadcasting.
• a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service. passenger services were largely in the hands of state-owned monopolies. France's electricity monopoly, EDF.
• a commodity or service in the exclusive control of a company or group. electricity, gas, and water were considered to be natural monopolies.
• [ usu. with negative ] the exclusive possession, control, or exercise of something: men don't have a monopoly on unrequited love.
2 (Monopoly) trademark a board game in which players engage in simulated property and financial dealings using imitation money. It was invented in the US and the name was coined by Charles Darrow c.1935.

Yet again, this doesn't meet your claim. You claimed Google had a monopoly on streaming video, please provide proof, or quit claiming it.
post #147 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

No, really, keep it up, boyo. I’m sure you’re outraged at how Microsoft was so wrongly tried for their monopoly.

They weren't tried for having a 'monopoly', they were tried for being abusive, and effectively eliminate the competition. One could say that Apple has a monopolistic stranglehold on the tablet market but they're not abusing their position
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #148 of 155
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post
My definition, no sorry, that was from dictionary.com

 

This is the only argument you have, is it?

 
Yet again, this doesn't meet your claim. You claimed Google had a monopoly on streaming video, please provide proof, or quit claiming it.

 

Actually look at the image.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #149 of 155

The image does not prove YouTube has a monopoly over streaming video.  63% of traffic and 40% of users is not a monopoly.

 

In  addition

  • the stats are USA only
  • the stats appear not to include a lot of players, where is Vimeo? (claimed 27m unique viewers per month in the US - http://vimeo.com/about/advertisers)
  • the stats of "number of videos" is a questionable representation.  The average Netflix video is likely to be 10 or 20 times longer that the average YouTube video.  "Minutes/hours of video" would be a better stat.
  • the stats also appear to ignore one of the main movers of streaming video, pornography.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #150 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

You should; you’re wrong. It’s embarrassing.

 

See you say that, but the opposite is actually true.  I'm forever torn between thinking you're an idiot or a troll.  I think you're probably both.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #151 of 155
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
The image does not prove YouTube has a monopoly over streaming video.  63% of traffic and 40% of users is not a monopoly.

 

Sure thing. You looked at the image, right?

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #152 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Sure thing. You looked at the image, right?

he said he had, and I have. You posted a US stat from some random place (no link to the data to back it up), and I will ask it this time, how does having 63% of videos make it a monopoly? And even it they were, how are they abusing their position to force people to upload their videos to YouTube?
post #153 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Sure thing. You looked at the image, right?

Are you insane?  What exactly do you think your image is showing?

 

On advice I'm not going to engage with this idiocy any more.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #154 of 155
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
What exactly do you think your image is showing?

 

Nah, I won’t play that game.

 

What do YOU think the image is showing?

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #155 of 155

Oh wait, I get it.  You finally posted proof of something.  You're a troll.

 

Quite clever actually.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
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