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.
It's hard to see Google beat anyone. Except for their stock.
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.
Sometimes, yes.
But sometimes, Chrome and Android, which have certainly kept Apple on its toes.
Every time I use Vimeo I feel embarrassed for YouTube: embarrassed for their GUI designers and embarrassed for their video streaming tech. But in fairness they probably have far more users.
Every time I use Vimeo I feel embarrassed for YouTube: embarrassed for their GUI designers and embarrassed for their video streaming tech. But in fairness they probably have far more users.
More users should result in more attention, time and larger funding to create something...worthwhile watching. Instead YouTube is just the opposite of that. Save the user comments for another discusion; that is the worst thing I've ever seen and makes me feel ashamed to be of the same species.
I wish YouTube would just die. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">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.</span>
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 wish YouTube would just die. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">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.</span>
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
"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?
Comments
It's hard to see Google beat anyone. Except for their stock.
But sometimes, Chrome and Android, which have certainly kept Apple on its toes.
Every time I use Vimeo I feel embarrassed for YouTube: embarrassed for their GUI designers and embarrassed for their video streaming tech. But in fairness they probably have far more users.
More users should result in more attention, time and larger funding to create something...worthwhile watching. Instead YouTube is just the opposite of that. Save the user comments for another discusion; that is the worst thing I've ever seen and makes me feel ashamed to be of the same species.
But that's Google alright; anything goes.
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.
Wonderful suggestion, and while they are at it, Apple should be legally required to licence FairPlay
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?
It’s not like YouTube commands an appreciable share of video on the Internet or anything¡
Are you listening to yourself?
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.
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.
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.
What makes it "mind-bogglingly substandard"?
Also, Google isn't a monopoly
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?
Ain't that the truth
I love how you think you have the right to hold a conversation like this without posting any proof.
Its very existence:
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!
Sure thing¡
You might just be beyond hope.