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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
If you’d be so kind as to shut your trap and tell me what you’re talking about, I’d be glad to confirm that you are the idiot you’re making yourself out to be.
Comments
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.
h.264 isn't free
http://www.geek.com/apps/cisco-buys-everyone-a-license-for-h-264-the-worlds-most-despised-codec-1575594/
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.
What about Netflix, Hulu, iPlayer etc etc etc
What did you say then?
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
That you are what some people in NZ would refer to as a one eyed Cantab
You have to compare comparable services.
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.
Sure you were.
And when you have no argument whatsoever, you drop back to the ad-homs. That’s nice.
They are, YouTube and Netflix are both video streaming services, Youtube get's their revenue via advertising, Netflix by subscription
It is, you are complaining that Google is using their own product rather than a "standard", this is no different to what Apple does
yes I was, but since it doesn't fit into your agenda you rubbish it.
Pot, kettle.
Now, why are you now ignoring this youtube monopoly stuff you brought up?
Not really, no, by your own admission.
No, that’s not the complaint. Please actually read the original posts.
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.
Wok, spatula. Show me my ad-homs.
Be…cause I’m not?
“He’ll never mention again what he’s explicitly talking about right now,” what on earth is wrong with you?
Respond to the figures please. You, who are always demanding proof.
Are they not both Video streaming sites?
Sorry, your complaint is google is doing something, and you don't want to have to do something google suggests.
Don't assume things
Look at at history of your posts, abusing people seems to be a profession for you.
Ok, where is this proof of Google being a video streaming monopoly?
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.
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.
Pretty quick response by Google. :err:
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
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).
Thanks for the lies. They prove my point 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.
Over a week has gone by, yet you still refuse to post any proof, maybe it has slipped your mind?
I’d imagine. What on Earth are you talking about?
You can't expect evidence from a troll like TS.
If you’d be so kind as to shut your trap and tell me what you’re talking about, I’d be glad to confirm that you are the idiot you’re making yourself out to be.
I would imagine he's referring to this:
Quote:
Ok, where is this proof of Google being a video streaming monopoly?
And he's not the first to ask...
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.