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

1235789

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 164
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,675member
    ksec wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 82 of 164
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    philboogie wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 83 of 164
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member

    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.

  • Reply 84 of 164
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,675member
    ascii wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 85 of 164
    dacloodacloo Posts: 890member
    Seems Vimeo is your place to be. Why care about a site you don't use?
    s.metcalf wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 86 of 164
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,675member
    s.metcalf wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 87 of 164
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,398member
    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
  • Reply 88 of 164
    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¡

  • Reply 89 of 164
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,398member
    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?
  • Reply 90 of 164
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    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.
  • Reply 91 of 164
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    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?

  • Reply 92 of 164
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,339member
    crowley wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 93 of 164
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Exactly. Which adds to the reasons why talk of a legal sanction is absurd.
  • Reply 94 of 164
    I am surprised Apple is not yet pushing h.265 yet...
  • Reply 95 of 164
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,398member
    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?
  • Reply 96 of 164
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    jfanning wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 97 of 164
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    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. 

  • Reply 98 of 164
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,398member
    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

    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?
  • Reply 99 of 164
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,398member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    He gets mad at bananas for not being apples.

    Ain't that the truth
  • Reply 100 of 164
    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:

Sign In or Register to comment.