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

1234579

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 164
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    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.
  • Reply 122 of 164
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,398member
    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/

    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.
    Look up usage of YouTube vs. Vimeo, say.

    What about Netflix, Hulu, iPlayer etc etc etc
    Not what I said.

    What did you say then?
    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
    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
  • Reply 123 of 164
    LOL, apple fan-boys. If it wasn't made at apple then it must be crap. Let me know when apple makes something original.
  • Reply 124 of 164
    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.

  • Reply 125 of 164
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,398member
    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
    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
    Sure you were.

    yes I was, but since it doesn't fit into your agenda you rubbish it.
    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?
  • Reply 126 of 164
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    He'll never mention it again, that's his way. All bluster, no bite.
  • Reply 127 of 164
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Originally Posted by jfanning View Post



    They are

     

    Not really, no, by your own admission.

     

    It is, you are complaining that Google is using their own product rather than a "standard", this is no different to what Apple does




    No, that’s not the complaint. Please actually read the original posts.

     

    yes I was, but since it doesn't fit into your agenda you rubbish it.


     

    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.

     

    Pot, kettle.


     

    Wok, spatula. Show me my ad-homs. 

     
    Now, why are you now ignoring this youtube monopoly stuff you brought up?

     

    Be…cause I’m not?

     

    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

    He'll never mention it again, that's his way. All bluster, no bite.

     

    “He’ll never mention again what he’s explicitly talking about right now,” what on earth is wrong with you?

  • Reply 128 of 164
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    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.
  • Reply 129 of 164
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,398member
    Not really, no, by your own admission.

    Are they not both Video streaming sites?
    No, that’s not the complaint. Please actually read the original posts.

    Sorry, your complaint is google is doing something, and you don't want to have to do something google suggests.
    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.

    Don't assume things
    Wok, spatula. Show me my ad-homs. 

    Look at at history of your posts, abusing people seems to be a profession for you.
    Be…cause I’m not?

    Ok, where is this proof of Google being a video streaming monopoly?
  • Reply 130 of 164
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,339member
    Wow.

    Just like Chrome removed H.264 supp… OOPS.

    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.
  • Reply 131 of 164
    gatorguy wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 132 of 164
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,428member

    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. 

  • Reply 133 of 164
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,339member
    philboogie wrote: »
    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.

    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
  • Reply 134 of 164
    dacloodacloo Posts: 890member
    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).
  • Reply 135 of 164
    Originally Posted by dacloo View Post

    Says the guy who gets emotional over everything and never ever backs up his stuff with sources/proof himself.



    Thanks for the lies. They prove my point well.

     
    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).

     

    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.

  • Reply 136 of 164
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,398member

    Thanks for the lies. They prove my point well.

    Over a week has gone by, yet you still refuse to post any proof, maybe it has slipped your mind?
  • Reply 137 of 164
    Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

    maybe it has slipped your mind?

     

    I’d imagine. What on Earth are you talking about?

  • Reply 138 of 164
    jfanning wrote: »
    Over a week has gone by, yet you still refuse to post any proof, maybe it has slipped your mind?

    You can't expect evidence from a troll like TS.
  • Reply 139 of 164
    Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

    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.

  • Reply 140 of 164
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member

    I would imagine he's referring to this:

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jfanning View Post





    Ok, where is this proof of Google being a video streaming monopoly?

     

    And he's not the first to ask...

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post



    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.

Sign In or Register to comment.