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 3

post #81 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.metcalf View Post

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.

Yeah YouTube is quite pathetic, but sometimes I cannot find something on Vimeo and instead of using 3rd rate software from the Google crap camp, I use Jasmine on iOS.
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #82 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Google needs to be legally required to support h.264 and h.265 right alongside this BS. They’re in the same position Microsoft had in the ‘90s in regard to Internet video content.

Wonderful suggestion, and while they are at it, Apple should be legally required to licence FairPlay
post #83 of 155
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post
Wonderful suggestion, and while they are at it, Apple should be legally required to licence FairPlay

 

Because those arguments are totally similar¡

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #84 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Because those arguments are totally similar¡

Well why should Google be forced to use any codec in their product? There is no way you can compare this to Microsoft and IE. Apple seems to be happy with not allow anyone access to FairPlay, why should Google be forced to use a codec that requires a payment to encode for?
post #85 of 155
They shouldn't. YouTube may get a majority of internet video traffic, but it isn't a locked in monopoly; there are no significant barriers to competitors entering, or customers switching. Legal intervention is entirely unnecessary, anticompetitive, and discriminatory.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #86 of 155
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post
There is no way you can compare this to Microsoft and IE.

 

It’s not like YouTube commands an appreciable share of video on the Internet or anything¡

 

Are you listening to yourself?

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #87 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

They shouldn't. YouTube may get a majority of internet video traffic, but it isn't a locked in monopoly; there are no significant barriers to competitors entering, or customers switching. Legal intervention is entirely unnecessary, anticompetitive, and discriminatory.

Google already supports the h.264 codex so any discussion of VP9 being pushed to replace it is using a false premise anyway. Google already stated they'll be supporting h.265 too. They can all happily co-exist.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #88 of 155
Exactly. Which adds to the reasons why talk of a legal sanction is absurd.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #89 of 155
I am surprised Apple is not yet pushing h.265 yet...
post #90 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

It’s not like YouTube commands an appreciable share of video on the Internet or anything¡

Are you listening to yourself?

Yes, but you seem to be getting somewhat emotional over an issue that has very low impact on the consumer.

If they were forcing you to use Chrome to view YouTube, then yes I could understand why you are upset, but over a codec?
post #91 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

Yes, but you seem to be getting somewhat emotional over an issue that has very low impact on the consumer.

If they were forcing you to use Chrome to view YouTube, then yes I could understand why you are upset, but over a codec?

He gets mad at bananas for not being apples.
"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 #92 of 155
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post
Yes, but you seem to be getting somewhat emotional over an issue that has very low impact on the consumer.

 

You’re kidding. The entire Internet being forced to move to a mind-bogglingly substandard codec because its monopoly holder wanted complete control “has a very low impact on the consumer”?!

Imagine the world without MP4 files. Or imagine that Sony’s proprietary crap got picked up and we used their “I refuse to play with anyone else” hardware instead of what we do today? A world with MiniDisc and whatever they called their SD card knockoff. 

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #93 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

You’re kidding. The entire Internet being forced to move to a mind-bogglingly substandard codec because its monopoly holder wanted complete control “has a very low impact on the consumer”?!

What makes it "mind-bogglingly substandard"?

Also, Google isn't a monopoly

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Imagine the world without MP4 files. Or imagine that Sony’s proprietary crap got picked up and we used their “I refuse to play with anyone else” hardware instead of what we do today? A world with MiniDisc and whatever they called their SD card knockoff. 

OK, 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 other device?
post #94 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

He gets mad at bananas for not being apples.

Ain't that the truth
post #95 of 155
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post
Ain't that the truth

 

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

 

Originally Posted by jfanning View Post
What makes it "mind-bogglingly substandard"?

 

Its very existence:

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."
 

So there’s no way we can even call it a next-gen codec, as it doesn’t come close to H.265. We also can’t really call it a current-gen codec because it doesn’t come close to x264!

 
Also, Google isn't a monopoly

 

Sure thing¡

 
OK, I can imagine a word without MP4 files, not hard to do, but what is your point?

 

You might just be beyond hope. :wow:

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #96 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

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 other device?

http://appleinsider.com/articles/07/02/06/steve_jobs_apple_would_embrace_drm_free_music_in_a_heartbeat

http://www.apple.com/au/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #97 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.

You only have to read some of your posts to see this proof

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Its very existence:

As I have said, you are getting overly emotional on this
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

So there’s no way we can even call it a next-gen codec, as it doesn’t come close to H.265. We also can’t really call it a current-gen codec because it doesn’t come close to x264!

Have 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Sure thing¡

Post some proof. Also, even if you can find some proof, there is nothing wrong with being a monopoly, it is when you abuse that monopoly that causes issues.
post #98 of 155
post #99 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

The entire Internet being forced to move to a mind-bogglingly substandard codec because its monopoly holder wanted complete control “has a very low impact on the consumer”?!
Where is this even suggested, let alone likely?

Youtube offering dual formats doesn't force anyone to do anything.

And if VP9 is lacking then Google will improve it. They have a vested interest in making the technologies they use as efficient as possible and have shown their competence in doing so, e.g. SPDY, Go.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #100 of 155
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post
You only have to read some of your posts to see this proof

 

No, no. Your claim. Burden of proof is on you.

 
Have 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.

 

No, not really. Because they don’t. Google exists to serve the end user. At least, in theory. Yes, we’re the product for them. I don’t care. I am not a product. As such, the experience should be for me as seamless as possible. I don’t see how using a worthless codec makes that seamless.

 
Post some proof.

 

Look at YouTube’s share of Internet video. Look at its competitors’ share of Internet video. Then stop asking silly questions.

 
Also, even if you can find some proof, there is nothing wrong with being a monopoly, it is when you abuse that monopoly that causes issues.

 

HEY. GUESS WHAT. That’s exactly what is happening here. Which is why I’m calling attention to it.

 

Is this really so difficult a concept that you needed those sentences written out for you? You couldn’t come to that conclusion on your own?

 

Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
Where is this even suggested, let alone likely?

 

It’s not like people were forced to develop their sites to cater specifically to Internet Explorer or anything.

 
Youtube offering dual formats…

 

Yeah, are they? Because they specifically said they’re not doing H.265 initially. They’re not even going to try.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #101 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

It’s not like people were forced to develop their sites to cater specifically to Internet Explorer or anything.
And Google have the power to force internet sites and browsers to support their video format how exactly? Microsoft had a monopoly with barriers to entry. Google have a popular video site. They don't compare. Google has no power to force anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Yeah, are they? Because they specifically said they’re not doing H.265 initially. They’re not even going to try.
Lots of things launch in a limited fashion with restricted support. Not unusual at all, Apple do it all the time. Google will add the extra format later, just like they added HTML5 video to Youtube, then WebM (VP8). They probably want a limited rollout of 4K video anyway so they can monitor performance in a more controlled sample.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #102 of 155
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
Google has no power to force anything.

 

Wow.

 
Google will add the extra format later, just like they added HTML5 video to Youtube, then WebM (VP8).

 

Just like Chrome removed H.264 supp… OOPS.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #103 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

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/

Ah, ok, movies. Yes, DRM-ed. Don't know why that is. I don't like to make assumptions, but if the record companies forced DRM on music downloads, I'd be surprised if the studio's weren't the also the ones forcing DRM on the movies as well. Sometimes this is the same company. Is Apple the only company selling and renting movies which are DRM-ed?

As for eBooks, I wouldn't expect a single author to be able to remove DRM from all resellers.
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #104 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Wow.

Just like Chrome removed H.264 supp… OOPS.

All we need is the porn industry to support H.264. Believe it or not they were one of the big deciding factors in VHS vs Beta Max, and HD DVD vs Blu Ray.
"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 #105 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Just like Chrome removed H.264 supp… OOPS.
Iirc it was put back.

EDIT: I looked it up, it's an easily installed plugin. Not a problem.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #106 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

No, no. Your claim. Burden of proof is on you.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/161428/google-to-push-royalty-free-vp9-4k-video-codec-as-h-265-alternative-for-youtube/80#post_2453696

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

No, not really. Because they don’t. Google exists to serve the end user. At least, in theory. Yes, we’re the product for them. I don’t care. I am not a product. As such, the experience should be for me as seamless as possible. I don’t see how using a worthless codec makes that seamless.

Google 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Look at YouTube’s share of Internet video. Look at its competitors’ share of Internet video. Then stop asking silly questions.

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 video steaming market. Are you able to provide more proof to assert you claim?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

HEY. GUESS WHAT. That’s exactly what is happening here. Which is why I’m calling attention to it.

No, you have lost me, how exactly is google abusing their non-monopoly power?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Yeah, are they? Because they specifically said they’re not doing H.265 initially. They’re not even going to try.

Apple does this all the time, do you complain when consumers are "hurt" in the same way?
post #107 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Ah, ok, movies. Yes, DRM-ed. Don't know why that is. I don't like to make assumptions, but if the record companies forced DRM on music downloads, I'd be surprised if the studio's weren't the also the ones forcing DRM on the movies as well. Sometimes this is the same company. Is Apple the only company selling and renting movies which are DRM-ed?

As for eBooks, I wouldn't expect a single author to be able to remove DRM from all resellers.

It was more the fact that Apple refused to remove it, DRM is bad when someone else does it.
post #108 of 155
Monopoly is generally held to be 70%

Don't know the figures, but it's plausible that YouTube could be serving 70% of internet video, it's a big site.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #109 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

It was more the fact that Apple refused to remove it, DRM is bad when someone else does it.

That's actually wrong. DRM was the music industry's doing. Apple pushed for music to be DRM free.
"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 #110 of 155
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post
Google pays to encode h.264, they will have to pay to encode h.265. 

 

If h.265 requires payment for encoding, then that stands to reason, of course. EXCEPT that Google said they will not be encoding to h.265 in the first place.

 
And just because the encoder isn't as efficient as another one, doesn't automatically meant the decoder will have the same issue.

 

Well, no! But if they actually wanted to save money, they’d save it on the electricity used to power the hardware they use to transcode the HUNDRED HOURS OF VIDEO PER MINUTE they get uploaded by using the more efficient code.

 
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 video steaming market. 

 

Please do not talk about this subject again until you comprehend what a monopoly is. This is really depressing.

 
No, you have lost me, how exactly is google abusing their… …monopoly power?

 

Vast majority share uses YouTube. Internet required to fall in line with standard set by YouTube. Standard set by YouTube is poor. Overall experience becomes poor.

 
Apple does this all the time…

 

Apple ignores vastly superior technologies to push others that make for a worse experience? Apple is a monopoly?

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #111 of 155
Why is the internet required to fall in line with the standard set by YouTube? That's where your argument falls over.

If YouTube does something that pisses users off, there are alternatives. It may be a monopoly by market share, but not a lock in, and there are other players, e.g. Netflix, that hold just as much power (not a lot). M

Safari will never support VP9 unless they are absolutely forced to. IE probably not either. Firefox might, but it'll support others too. Chrome is the only browser that would support VP9 and not h.265, but since h.264 capability is easily added by an extension, it's likely that h.265 will too.

This is nothing like the problem you're painting it as. Plus Google have a good record at iterating and making things better rapidly.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #112 of 155
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
Why is the internet required to fall in line with the standard set by YouTube? That's where your argument falls over.

 

I suppose if a site doesn’t want its content to show up properly, meaning fewer visits, meaning less revenue, that’s their decision.

 

History shows that it’s ludicrous to think that would happen, though.

 
If YouTube does something that pisses users off, there are alternatives.

 

Right, and it’s a visibly different situation than, say, OS or browser marketshare from the way back, but it’s close. Hopefully Google won’t be able to shut things out, but they’ve already committed to not encoding to h.265.

 
…there are other players, e.g. Netflix, that hold just as much power (not a lot).

 

I hadn’t thought about them (thanks) primarily because they’re moving to embedded streaming over on-computer streaming. You make a point, though. Netflix uses… what, Silverlight on the computer (which channels what codecs?), and what does Hulu use? They’re Flash-based, sure, but… 

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #113 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

That's actually wrong. DRM was the music industry's doing. Apple pushed for music to be DRM free.

But when they have been asked to remove DRM from other media (media they directly control) they have refused.
post #114 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

If h.265 requires payment for encoding, then that stands to reason, of course. EXCEPT that Google said they will not be encoding to h.265 in the first place.

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 them
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Well, no! But if they actually wanted to save money, they’d save it on the electricity used to power the hardware they use to transcode the HUNDRED HOURS OF VIDEO PER MINUTE they get uploaded by using the more efficient code.

I 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 them
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Please do not talk about this subject again until you comprehend what a monopoly is. This is really depressing.

I know what a monopoly is, the issue I have is your lack of evidence, please provide some figures which prove Google has a monopoly over internet streaming video.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Vast majority share uses YouTube. Internet required to fall in line with standard set by YouTube. Standard set by YouTube is poor. Overall experience becomes poor.

Again, where are the figures showing usage per provider? Also, why does the who internet need to fall in line with YouTube? Are all the other streaming services falling in line now (paid and non paid)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Apple ignores vastly superior technologies to push others that make for a worse experience? Apple is a monopoly?

Apple ignores industry standards and implements their own, they have done this countless times. And, yes, according to your definition of a monopoly Apple is, they are the dominant player in online music purchasing, and it I want to purchase music from iTunes, I am forced to use an Apple product. They also most likely have a dominant position in online movie purchasing as well, again, I am forced to use Apple devices if I want to purchase from them.
post #115 of 155
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post
In the first place, i.e. they havent ruled anything out

 

Right, but until they actually start encoding to h.265, them saying “we won’t be encoding to h.265” and them also not doing it is enough to keep me upset. If they start doing it, that’s another story and I’ll drop this.

 
Also, why wouldn't encoding require payment?

 

Because there are free codecs? Isn’t that the entire idea here? I just personally know nothing of the requirements of licensing of h.265 specifically, and therefore did not say anything about it without knowing.

 
I know what a monopoly is…

 

No, you don’t.

 
…please provide some figures which prove Google has a monopoly over internet streaming video.

 

Look up usage of YouTube vs. Vimeo, say.

 
Apple ignores industry standards and implements their own 

 

Not what I said.

 
And, yes, according to your definition of a monopoly Apple is, they are the dominant player in online music purchasing

 

As I said, you don’t know what a monopoly is.

 
…and it I want to purchase music from iTunes, I am forced to use an Apple product. 

 

Thanks for the tautology. What does that prove, again?

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #116 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Look up usage of YouTube vs. Vimeo, say.
Being bigger than one competitor doesn't make you a monopoly.

I've had a bit of a search and figures are actually pretty hard to come by, and there are conflicting figures around. This link: http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2255255/Does-Latest-comScore-Data-Indicate-Online-Video-Viewing-Is-Moving-Sideways seems fairly well researched and credible, and it claims that Youtube (plus other Google sites) had 11 billion video content views out of 33 billion total in February 2013. That's 34%, which is definitely not a monopoly.

Number of unique viewers is a similar proportion.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #117 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Because there are free codecs? Isn’t that the entire idea here? I just personally know nothing of the requirements of licensing of h.265 specifically, and therefore did not say anything about it without knowing.

h.264 isn't free

http://www.geek.com/apps/cisco-buys-everyone-a-license-for-h-264-the-worlds-most-despised-codec-1575594/

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

No, you don’t.

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Look up usage of YouTube vs. Vimeo, say.

What about Netflix, Hulu, iPlayer etc etc etc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Not what I said.

What did you say then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

As I said, you don’t know what a monopoly is.

Strange, I was using the exact example you were, but when you do it Google becomes a monopoly, when I do it Apple isn't
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Thanks for the tautology. What does that prove, again?

That you are what some people in NZ would refer to as a one eyed Cantab
post #118 of 155
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post
What about Netflix, Hulu, iPlayer etc etc etc

 

You have to compare comparable services.

 
What did you say then?

 

Well, given that you’ve quoted it, I’d think you would have read it and known. Since you didn’t, is there really any reason to bother replying to you again? You’ll just choose not to read it again.

 
Strange, I was using the exact example you were

 

Sure you were.

 
That you are what some people in NZ would refer to as a one eyed Cantab

 

And when you have no argument whatsoever, you drop back to the ad-homs. That’s nice.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #119 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

You have to compare comparable services.

They are, YouTube and Netflix are both video streaming services, Youtube get's their revenue via advertising, Netflix by subscription
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Well, given that you’ve quoted it, I’d think you would have read it and known. Since you didn’t, is there really any reason to bother replying to you again? You’ll just choose not to read it again.

It is, you are complaining that Google is using their own product rather than a "standard", this is no different to what Apple does
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Sure you were.

yes I was, but since it doesn't fit into your agenda you rubbish it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

And when you have no argument whatsoever, you drop back to the ad-homs. That’s nice.

Pot, kettle.

Now, why are you now ignoring this youtube monopoly stuff you brought up?
post #120 of 155
He'll never mention it again, that's his way. All bluster, no bite.

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