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

1246789

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 164
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    Multiple accounts. Just message the staff; they’d be glad to help you out with fixing your first one!


    I'm not sure if FB login is technically an "account" as I didn't register to create an account. I just press a button and it logs me in ;)

     

    I will comply though, and thus I have written an email regarding my situation. Thanks for a direct reply. Thanks for letting me edit 9 times to get my thoughts straight :P

  • Reply 62 of 164
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,339member
    Still obtuse as ever.

    How about the Microsoft patents that virtually EVERY SINGLE Android OEM pays license fees to MS to use

    Here's an oddity sure to muddy the waters: Intel is apparently introducing dual-OS PC's and/or other devices next week. What OS you might ask? Why Windows and . . . Android.

    Anyone up for a rendition of Ebony and Ivory?:err:
  • Reply 63 of 164
    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" among others. Again it's not an either/or codec choice.



    Yeah, VP8 had a pretty looooooooonger list of hardware partners .... ROFLMAO

  • Reply 64 of 164
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,396member

    and another

     

    http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/12/google-maps-and-navigation-under-patent.html

     

    Google's free ride is nearing its apex; all downhill from there.

  • Reply 65 of 164
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,339member
    disturbia wrote: »

    Yeah, VP8 had a pretty looooooooonger list of hardware partners .... ROFLMAO

    I don't know that VP8 had any at all. They've apparently learned from their error.
  • Reply 66 of 164
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,339member
    tmay wrote: »
    and another

    http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/12/google-maps-and-navigation-under-patent.html

    Google's free ride is nearing its apex; all downhill from there.

    Ah yes, Nokia. A patent-troll in training? They're still after Apple too. Should be a clearer path now that they've mostly shed their hardware side so not as easily counter-sued.
    http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/03/microsoft-and-nokia-sue-apple-for-patent-infringement-through-a-holding-company.html
    http://www.techradar.com/us/news/phone-and-communications/mobile-phones/eu-warns-nokia-not-to-become-patent-troll--1206769


    EDIT: Forgot the second link where Nokia has been warned about it's patent monetization policies going forward.
  • Reply 67 of 164
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Originally Posted by BNZfive View Post

    I'm not sure if FB login is technically an "account" as I didn't register to create an account. I just press a button and it logs me in ;)

     

    Oh, that’s horrible. How are we to police anything, then?

  • Reply 68 of 164
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    Oh, that’s horrible. How are we to police anything, then? I like little boys


     

    Considering you can't even keep people from making multiple accounts, I'd say you can't. You could try to restrict via IP, but then TOR would get by that. What will you do?

  • Reply 69 of 164
    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.


    The scary thing is that time after time they seem to get away with it.  Strange world in which we live...

  • Reply 70 of 164
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Originally Posted by BNZfive 

    [Libel]


     

    Later, skater. Hey, head on over to MacRumors. They enjoy people like you.

  • Reply 71 of 164
    Something strange here%u2026

    As algernon points out, independent testing shows that VP9 is *far* less efficient than HVEC, and even MPEG-AVC.

    I suspect that Google's tests are not using AVC, but an older version. I think this is slight-of-hand.
  • Reply 72 of 164
    benyubenyu Posts: 4member

    At 36:54, Microsoft PowerPoint crashes on their presentation Mac. *sigh* Poor form, Google. Why not Keynote.app?

     

  • Reply 73 of 164
    ksecksec Posts: 1,569member

    There are many implementation and spec of H.264 and the difference in quality are HUGE. The simplest implementation of H.264 could look even worst then the old xvid codec.

     

    And if you compare vp9 against the best of H.264, x264 encoder. Most would agree x264 is still better in quality, and less prone to encoding error. 

     

    So, thx for the BS from Google. So much about doing no evil.

  • Reply 74 of 164
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Originally Posted by benyu View Post

    At 36:54, Microsoft PowerPoint crashes on their presentation Mac. *sigh* Poor form, Google. Why not Keynote.app?

     

    Google using terrible software is fine with me. They deserve all the punishment they get.

  • Reply 75 of 164
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,675member
    benyu wrote: »
    At 36:54, Microsoft PowerPoint crashes on their presentation Mac. *sigh* Poor form, Google. Why not Keynote.app?

    Because they're used to crap software; it's in their DNA.
  • Reply 76 of 164
    macarenamacarena Posts: 365member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    "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."
    You conveniently omitted the fact that it was a software implementation of H.265.

    The biggest advantage of h.265 is that it is quite similar to h.264 from hardware acceleration perspective. Chips that support h.264 hardware decoding can be extended to support h.265 in as little as a week development time.

    VP9 on the other hand is a much dicier issue. Even VP8 never had any support in hardware, so it is a from-scratch problem.

    Don't under-estimate the advantage H.265 has from just this one reason. It is a no brainer for any chip to support h.265 in hardware.

    In fact Google's licensing agreement with MPEG-LA is quite meaningless - because until there is widespread hardware support for VP8 and VP9, it is just free money for MPEG-LA.

    In its efforts to undermine others IP, Google has made several missteps that have actually costed it way more than it would have, if they just operated clean and took a license.

    The Motorola acquisition is one, and this MPEG-LA license is another.
  • Reply 77 of 164
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Since there don't seem to be any other players ofnsignificance in the video codec space, I suppose a bit of competition from Google couldn't hurt. Keep MPEG on their toes.
  • Reply 78 of 164
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,675member
    crowley wrote: »
    Since there don't seem to be any other players ofnsignificance in the video codec space, I suppose a bit of competition from Google couldn't hurt. Keep MPEG on their toes.

    That were true if Google was an innovative company, creating incentive for the competition to outdo them. But alas, they are mediocre at best, trying to stick their pesky little fingers into things they do not understand, nor how they should work. Ultimately do stuff just to tick of check boxes for bragging rights. Only to discontinue after they come to the sad realisation they couldn't create something of value to begin with.

    Google. A checkbox company.
  • Reply 79 of 164
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    "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."

     

    Well, in the Abstract of the same paper, that same sentence is given a little bit different:

     

    "When compared to the full-fledged H.265/MPEG- HEVC reference software encoder implementation, the VP9 encoding times are lower by a factor of 7.35, on average."

     

    Also, the goal of a reference implementation is to increase understanding, not performance. That's why most if not all such implementations have awful performance.

  • Reply 80 of 164
    ksecksec Posts: 1,569member

    Again no point in comparing VP9 against H.265. Those are two very different thing. And the best encoder of H.265 is guarantee to beat VP9 hands down. That is why Google have VPx ( 10 ) in the pipeline. Which to me still wont beat H.265.

Sign In or Register to comment.