1) If they want their YouTube App to run V9 video's (Google's proprietary format) then they should re-write the YouTube App to play V9 videos. The YouTube app is Google's app, not Apple's.
2) Otherwise, Google should stop blocking access to 4K MP4 Videos on Apple TV. MP4 is THE STANDARD for video.
BLAME Google for lack of 4K Videos on YouTube for Apple TV.
Google doesn't need to "re-write" the YouTube app. They've long had the capability to support H.265, but flipped the switch and cut off support for it in order to avoid paying licensing fees. This has nothing to do with development effort and everything to do with Google's crappy business model—which Apple has no obligation to prop up.
Surprised you’d link to the XDA article which is full of lies and misrepresentations.
No wait, I’m not surprised at all.
Well that's a bit vague. Do the readers a service and mention what those "lies" are. Certainly not obvious.
So you linked an article without reading?
Which of the following pays HEVC licensing fees? Content providers (like YouTube), hardware manufacturers (phones, PCs, set top boxes), CPU/GPU vendors (Intel, Nvidia, Qualcomm) or App developers?
The moratorium is only for the Internet Broadcast AVC video patent, which covers videos that are freely available via a web browser... you don’t have to pay MPEG LA royalties to watch H.264 video on the web from free services now, and you won’t have to in the future.
The MPEG LA says it will continue to collect fees on AVC/H.264 video that consumers pay for. The video format is used on Blu-Ray discs and on most on-demand and paid video delivery services, such as iTunes. It will also continue to collect fees from software that ships with the coders and decoders required to play H.264 video — even software that’s distributed for free, such as web browsers.
Since Apple IP is now part and parcel of the HEVC standard it's quite possible it costs Apple nothing to include it. The most recent licensing "synopsis" from HEVC, July of this year, makes it clear it is not otherwise free.
Note that Technicolor who was originally part of the patent pool for HVEC withdrew last year and has its own licensing terms for anyone wanting to use H.265 in their products.
Like usual you didn't answer my question.
Nor did you, tho your question to me was a red-herring anyway. Yes at some point content providers may hve to pay royalties to use H.265, and perhaps sooner rather than later. See below.
So back to the question I put to you that started this: What were these numerous "lies" you referred to in the XDA article? The claims it made about who had to be concerned over licensing referred to H.264 for one set of issues and H.265 over others. I still don't see the same "full of lies" as you claim to be seeing so please continue to expand on that.
Clearly H.265 is not the well-defined, license-friendly, and clear-cut standard that you are others are promoting it as in comparison to VP9. https://blog.streamingmedia.com/2017/05/velos-media-hevc-patent-pool.html Velos won't even say whether they have plans to monetize content providers, nor what rates they're considering, or even reveal the patents they claim are essential to the HEVC standard.
What patents are offered through Velos Media?
Velos Media makes available the entire standard-essential HEVC patent portfolios of our platform members including Ericsson, Panasonic, Qualcomm, Sharp and Sony. These companies have made large investments in time and resources and contributed significantly to developing the HEVC standard. The member companies are key drivers of the HEVC standard and are among the top contributors to the HEVC standard. The technology contributed by these companies covers all building blocks of an HEVC video codec. A license from Velos Media covers the HEVC standard-essential patents as well as technically necessary encoder patents within the members’ entire current portfolios, including future patents granted from currently pending applications, as well as any future fillings by a member during the term of the license.
What is the fee for a license from Velos Media?
We are meeting with many companies in the consumer electronics industry and will establish licensing rates that are reasonable for both licensees and HEVC patent owners. We will license on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms and our rates will help ensure further adoption of HEVC technology, while providing a fair return to those that created it.
Velos Media is offering licenses to end user product companies that manufacture and sell HEVC-enabled devices. As it relates to content, we will take our time to fully understand the dynamics of the ecosystem and ensure that our model best supports the advancement and adoption of HEVC technology. Does Velos Media plan to license content and, if so, when?
Does Velos Media plan to license content and, if so, when?
Velos Media is offering licenses to end user product companies that manufacture and sell HEVC-enabled devices. As it relates to content, we will take our time to fully understand the dynamics of the ecosystem and ensure that our model best supports the advancement and adoption of HEVC technology.
It should be clear even to a "Google-hater" why a royalty-free CODEC may be needed, and why companies from Google to Netflix to Cisco to the BBC are on-board with it. It's becoming a bit of a thicket for companies who haven't contributed to the HVEC/h.265 standard with no guarantees on what the costs are or the terms will be going forward. Apple of course is part of the royalty-bearing standard which brings licensing advantages, and has a both a profit and competition motive in promoting it while excluding VP9 which is perfectly proper.
1) If they want their YouTube App to run V9 video's (Google's proprietary format) then they should re-write the YouTube App to play V9 videos. The YouTube app is Google's app, not Apple's.
2) Otherwise, Google should stop blocking access to 4K MP4 Videos on Apple TV. MP4 is THE STANDARD for video.
BLAME Google for lack of 4K Videos on YouTube for Apple TV.
Google doesn't need to "re-write" the YouTube app. They've long had the capability to support H.265, but flipped the switch and cut off support for it in order to avoid paying licensing fees. This has nothing to do with development effort and everything to do with Google's crappy business model—which Apple has no obligation to prop up.
Surprised you’d link to the XDA article which is full of lies and misrepresentations.
No wait, I’m not surprised at all.
Well that's a bit vague. Do the readers a service and mention what those "lies" are. Certainly not obvious.
So you linked an article without reading?
Which of the following pays HEVC licensing fees? Content providers (like YouTube), hardware manufacturers (phones, PCs, set top boxes), CPU/GPU vendors (Intel, Nvidia, Qualcomm) or App developers?
The moratorium is only for the Internet Broadcast AVC video patent, which covers videos that are freely available via a web browser... you don’t have to pay MPEG LA royalties to watch H.264 video on the web from free services now, and you won’t have to in the future.
The MPEG LA says it will continue to collect fees on AVC/H.264 video that consumers pay for. The video format is used on Blu-Ray discs and on most on-demand and paid video delivery services, such as iTunes. It will also continue to collect fees from software that ships with the coders and decoders required to play H.264 video — even software that’s distributed for free, such as web browsers.
Since Apple IP is now part and parcel of the HEVC standard it's quite possible it costs Apple nothing to include it. The most recent licensing "synopsis" from HEVC, July of this year, makes it clear it is not otherwise free.
Note that Technicolor who was originally part of the patent pool for HVEC withdrew last year and has its own licensing terms for anyone wanting to use H.265 in their products.
Like usual you didn't answer my question.
Nor did you, tho your question to me was a red-herring anyway. What were these numerous "lies" you referred to in the XDA article? The claims it made about who had to be concerned over licensing referred to H.264 for one set of issues and H.265 over others. I still don't see the same "full of lies" as you claim to be seeing so please continue to expand on that.
Clearly H.265 is not the clearly defined and license-friendly standard that you are others are promoting it as in comparison to VP9. It's becoming a bit of a thicket for companies who haven't contributed to the standard. Apple of course is part of the royalty-bearing standard and has a both a profit and competition motive in promoting it while excluding VP9 which is perfectly proper. Companies contribute to royalty-bearing standards in part help control the direction of the industry. https://blog.streamingmedia.com/2017/05/velos-media-hevc-patent-pool.html
Are you really that dense? I doubt it.
They claimed that companies (like Mozilla) would need to spend "hundreds of millions" in licensing fees to support h.265. This is not true. They don't have to include a decoder in the actual browser and can offload decoding to the OS/hardware. My understanding is that Mozille already does this with h.264 as well. The Mac or PC you use would have already paid the licensing fees. So would the iPhone, iPad or Apple TV. Their premise that HEVC is bad for small companies and would prevent them from competing (due to excessive costs) is false.
1) If they want their YouTube App to run V9 video's (Google's proprietary format) then they should re-write the YouTube App to play V9 videos. The YouTube app is Google's app, not Apple's.
2) Otherwise, Google should stop blocking access to 4K MP4 Videos on Apple TV. MP4 is THE STANDARD for video.
BLAME Google for lack of 4K Videos on YouTube for Apple TV.
Google doesn't need to "re-write" the YouTube app. They've long had the capability to support H.265, but flipped the switch and cut off support for it in order to avoid paying licensing fees. This has nothing to do with development effort and everything to do with Google's crappy business model—which Apple has no obligation to prop up.
Surprised you’d link to the XDA article which is full of lies and misrepresentations.
No wait, I’m not surprised at all.
Well that's a bit vague. Do the readers a service and mention what those "lies" are. Certainly not obvious.
So you linked an article without reading?
Which of the following pays HEVC licensing fees? Content providers (like YouTube), hardware manufacturers (phones, PCs, set top boxes), CPU/GPU vendors (Intel, Nvidia, Qualcomm) or App developers?
The moratorium is only for the Internet Broadcast AVC video patent, which covers videos that are freely available via a web browser... you don’t have to pay MPEG LA royalties to watch H.264 video on the web from free services now, and you won’t have to in the future.
The MPEG LA says it will continue to collect fees on AVC/H.264 video that consumers pay for. The video format is used on Blu-Ray discs and on most on-demand and paid video delivery services, such as iTunes. It will also continue to collect fees from software that ships with the coders and decoders required to play H.264 video — even software that’s distributed for free, such as web browsers.
Since Apple IP is now part and parcel of the HEVC standard it's quite possible it costs Apple nothing to include it. The most recent licensing "synopsis" from HEVC, July of this year, makes it clear it is not otherwise free.
Note that Technicolor who was originally part of the patent pool for HVEC withdrew last year and has its own licensing terms for anyone wanting to use H.265 in their products.
Like usual you didn't answer my question.
Nor did you, tho your question to me was a red-herring anyway. What were these numerous "lies" you referred to in the XDA article? The claims it made about who had to be concerned over licensing referred to H.264 for one set of issues and H.265 over others. I still don't see the same "full of lies" as you claim to be seeing so please continue to expand on that.
Clearly H.265 is not the clearly defined and license-friendly standard that you are others are promoting it as in comparison to VP9. It's becoming a bit of a thicket for companies who haven't contributed to the standard. Apple of course is part of the royalty-bearing standard and has a both a profit and competition motive in promoting it while excluding VP9 which is perfectly proper. Companies contribute to royalty-bearing standards in part help control the direction of the industry. https://blog.streamingmedia.com/2017/05/velos-media-hevc-patent-pool.html
Are you really that dense? I doubt it.
They claimed that companies (like Mozilla) would need to spend "hundreds of millions" in licensing fees to support h.265. This is not true.
The fact they've put the Marconi Group in charge of licensing activities should be putting up a big red flag in front of you. Yes web-browsers and even free media streaming could potentially be subject to millions of dollars in licensing fees just as the XDA author wrote. The picture is cloudy.
The XDA article is plainly accurate AFAICT. There is far less certainty regarding patents and standards and royalties surrounding h.265 than you apparently realize. Since that seems to be to only "lie" you've been able to identify, and since it turns out not be be one then the XDA article is generally correct in what it says?
This may be where you do a silent "oops" and exit the discussion.
I’m curious why Apple customers who live in Apples walled garden and protect that garden to the ends of the earth, why they would be upset with Google for protecting their walled garden other than they just want to get their way and that all companies should give in to Apple?. There are three competing ecosystems with Amazon, Apple, and Google, none of them are going to budge to help one another out at any cost. I’m so tired of hearing everyone use iOS and it’s customer base as a bargaining chip when the android bargaining chip is bigger, they have more customers and they primarily use Google services. I as an Apple customer am personally becoming really tired of this Apple and it’s closed system(look what it has done to Siri!), Apple TV is just another tool to keep using and purchasing apple purchased movies, they could care less if you watch youtube, that’s your concern, not theirs. I am sure googles going to do just fine with their profits through YouTube if they are not able to be used on Apple TV .
It’s amazing how many people regurgitate propaganda. This post is wrong on so many levels.
No there isn’t 3 eco systems. There is Apple and two others trying to be Apple.
You criticize Apples ORIGINAL build from THE GROUND UP eco sushem they worked hard to create and then in the same paragraph ask us to accept the knockoff bottom-feeding shameless eco system that mimics the original.
Google doesn’t make much money on YouTube. They’re even discontinuing paid content.
Those freeloading iKnockoff users are not bringing money to Google. These are the same losers who brag about stealing the latest movies.
Youre comparing a shopping mall(Apple) to a mega corner store littered with loiterers, thieves, drunks, welfare mamas and low-lives and trying to convince us the mega corner store customers are spending big money theee.
I’m curious why Apple customers who live in Apples walled garden and protect that garden to the ends of the earth, why they would be upset with Google for protecting their walled garden other than they just want to get their way and that all companies should give in to Apple?. There are three competing ecosystems with Amazon, Apple, and Google, none of them are going to budge to help one another out at any cost. I’m so tired of hearing everyone use iOS and it’s customer base as a bargaining chip when the android bargaining chip is bigger, they have more customers and they primarily use Google services. I as an Apple customer am personally becoming really tired of this Apple and it’s closed system(look what it has done to Siri!), Apple TV is just another tool to keep using and purchasing apple purchased movies, they could care less if you watch youtube, that’s your concern, not theirs. I am sure googles going to do just fine with their profits through YouTube if they are not able to be used on Apple TV .
Google doesn’t make much money on YouTube. They’re even discontinuing paid content.
Google doesn't reveal how much they earn from YouTube specifically but "RBC Capital analyst Mark Mahaney estimates YouTube's annual revenue has reached $10 billion and is increasing by as much as 40% a year. The growth makes YouTube one of the strongest assets fundamentally on the Internet today." ... "YouTube's audience has surpassed 1 billion, with 80% of the viewers outside the U.S. YouTube also boasts that it reaches more people between the ages of 18 and 34 than any cable network. That segment of YouTube's audience is a major reason more than half its video clips are watched on mobile devices".
I’m curious why Apple customers who live in Apples walled garden and protect that garden to the ends of the earth, why they would be upset with Google for protecting their walled garden other than they just want to get their way and that all companies should give in to Apple?. There are three competing ecosystems with Amazon, Apple, and Google, none of them are going to budge to help one another out at any cost. I’m so tired of hearing everyone use iOS and it’s customer base as a bargaining chip when the android bargaining chip is bigger, they have more customers and they primarily use Google services. I as an Apple customer am personally becoming really tired of this Apple and it’s closed system(look what it has done to Siri!), Apple TV is just another tool to keep using and purchasing apple purchased movies, they could care less if you watch youtube, that’s your concern, not theirs. I am sure googles going to do just fine with their profits through YouTube if they are not able to be used on Apple TV .
Google doesn’t make much money on YouTube. They’re even discontinuing paid content.
Google doesn't reveal how much they earn from YouTube specifically but "RBC Capital analyst Mark Mahaney estimates YouTube's annual revenue has reached $10 billion and is increasing by as much as 40% a year. The growth makes YouTube one of the strongest assets fundamentally on the Internet today." ... "YouTube's audience has surpassed 1 billion, with 80% of the viewers outside the U.S. YouTube also boasts that it reaches more people between the ages of 18 and 34 than any cable network. That segment of YouTube's audience is a major reason more than half its video clips are watched on mobile devices".
Just curious. Did you spend much time today on any Google / Android sites or were you too busy here on our Apple enthusiast site? You know, for people who own and use Apple equipment.
I’m curious why Apple customers who live in Apples walled garden and protect that garden to the ends of the earth, why they would be upset with Google for protecting their walled garden other than they just want to get their way and that all companies should give in to Apple?. There are three competing ecosystems with Amazon, Apple, and Google, none of them are going to budge to help one another out at any cost. I’m so tired of hearing everyone use iOS and it’s customer base as a bargaining chip when the android bargaining chip is bigger, they have more customers and they primarily use Google services. I as an Apple customer am personally becoming really tired of this Apple and it’s closed system(look what it has done to Siri!), Apple TV is just another tool to keep using and purchasing apple purchased movies, they could care less if you watch youtube, that’s your concern, not theirs. I am sure googles going to do just fine with their profits through YouTube if they are not able to be used on Apple TV .
Google doesn’t make much money on YouTube. They’re even discontinuing paid content.
Google doesn't reveal how much they earn from YouTube specifically but "RBC Capital analyst Mark Mahaney estimates YouTube's annual revenue has reached $10 billion and is increasing by as much as 40% a year. The growth makes YouTube one of the strongest assets fundamentally on the Internet today." ... "YouTube's audience has surpassed 1 billion, with 80% of the viewers outside the U.S. YouTube also boasts that it reaches more people between the ages of 18 and 34 than any cable network. That segment of YouTube's audience is a major reason more than half its video clips are watched on mobile devices".
Just curious. Did you spend much time today on any Google / Android sites or were you too busy here on our Apple enthusiast site? You know, for people who own and use Apple equipment.
I own Apple equipment. and if you followed my links you'd see I was on other tech sites as well, including Android fan sites. BONUS: You probably learned some things you didn't know by reading them.
There is an absurd amount of criticism against Google for promoting 100% royalty-free open source standards in this thread. Many even seem to miss the central point: That VP9 is a free open standard, while the MPEG standards are commercially controlled by patent holders. Who (except the patent holders) have any interest in supporting that? Patents are a protection against competition, and the very idea that you can patent maths (which is essentially what codecs are) is in itself absurd.
You find native support for Matroska and WebM containers, Opus and FLAC audio and VP9 video in Windows these days. There is a whole industry (Apple are against it, of course) who are now backing the upcoming AV1 video codec (the successor of VP9) which will likewise be a royalty-free video format that anyone can implement in their solutions without any risk of having to pay license fees to anybody. This is certainly not the case for H.264 and H.265.
So why the Hell should the rest of the industry care about Apple not wanting to support free, open video and audio standards? Apple could simply decide to add support for VP9, Opus, FLAC and the Matroska containers themselves without having to worry about license fees. But they won't, because they have huge commercial interests in NOT promoting free open media standards. For everyone else it would be completely counterproductive to give in to that pressure from 'the old elephants' of the industry.
Comments
So back to the question I put to you that started this: What were these numerous "lies" you referred to in the XDA article? The claims it made about who had to be concerned over licensing referred to H.264 for one set of issues and H.265 over others. I still don't see the same "full of lies" as you claim to be seeing so please continue to expand on that.
Clearly H.265 is not the well-defined, license-friendly, and clear-cut standard that you are others are promoting it as in comparison to VP9.
https://blog.streamingmedia.com/2017/05/velos-media-hevc-patent-pool.html
Velos won't even say whether they have plans to monetize content providers, nor what rates they're considering, or even reveal the patents they claim are essential to the HEVC standard.
What patents are offered through Velos Media?
Velos Media makes available the entire standard-essential HEVC patent portfolios of our platform members including Ericsson, Panasonic, Qualcomm, Sharp and Sony. These companies have made large investments in time and resources and contributed significantly to developing the HEVC standard. The member companies are key drivers of the HEVC standard and are among the top contributors to the HEVC standard. The technology contributed by these companies covers all building blocks of an HEVC video codec. A license from Velos Media covers the HEVC standard-essential patents as well as technically necessary encoder patents within the members’ entire current portfolios, including future patents granted from currently pending applications, as well as any future fillings by a member during the term of the license.What is the fee for a license from Velos Media?
We are meeting with many companies in the consumer electronics industry and will establish licensing rates that are reasonable for both licensees and HEVC patent owners. We will license on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms and our rates will help ensure further adoption of HEVC technology, while providing a fair return to those that created it.
Does Velos Media plan to license content and, if so, when?
Does Velos Media plan to license content and, if so, when?
Velos Media is offering licenses to end user product companies that manufacture and sell HEVC-enabled devices. As it relates to content, we will take our time to fully understand the dynamics of the ecosystem and ensure that our model best supports the advancement and adoption of HEVC technology.
It should be clear even to a "Google-hater" why a royalty-free CODEC may be needed, and why companies from Google to Netflix to Cisco to the BBC are on-board with it. It's becoming a bit of a thicket for companies who haven't contributed to the HVEC/h.265 standard with no guarantees on what the costs are or the terms will be going forward. Apple of course is part of the royalty-bearing standard which brings licensing advantages, and has a both a profit and competition motive in promoting it while excluding VP9 which is perfectly proper.
Are you really that dense? I doubt it.
They claimed that companies (like Mozilla) would need to spend "hundreds of millions" in licensing fees to support h.265. This is not true. They don't have to include a decoder in the actual browser and can offload decoding to the OS/hardware. My understanding is that Mozille already does this with h.264 as well. The Mac or PC you use would have already paid the licensing fees. So would the iPhone, iPad or Apple TV. Their premise that HEVC is bad for small companies and would prevent them from competing (due to excessive costs) is false.
Look no further than Velos Media Q&A. Read more.
http://velosmedia.com/technology/q-and-a/
The fact they've put the Marconi Group in charge of licensing activities should be putting up a big red flag in front of you. Yes web-browsers and even free media streaming could potentially be subject to millions of dollars in licensing fees just as the XDA author wrote. The picture is cloudy.
The XDA article is plainly accurate AFAICT. There is far less certainty regarding patents and standards and royalties surrounding h.265 than you apparently realize. Since that seems to be to only "lie" you've been able to identify, and since it turns out not be be one then the XDA article is generally correct in what it says?
This may be where you do a silent "oops" and exit the discussion.
Apple TV reviewers are literally saying Apple failed to provide 4k YouTube content and failed to provide Disney content in 4k.
Funny how other companies didn’t get bashed for not making content deals with ANY studios including Disney.
No there isn’t 3 eco systems. There is Apple and two others trying to be Apple.
You criticize Apples ORIGINAL build from THE GROUND UP eco sushem
they worked hard to create and then in the same paragraph ask us to accept the knockoff bottom-feeding shameless eco system that mimics the original.
Google doesn’t make much money on YouTube. They’re even discontinuing paid content.
Those freeloading iKnockoff users are not bringing money to Google. These are the same losers who brag about stealing the latest movies.
Youre comparing a shopping mall(Apple) to a mega corner store littered with loiterers, thieves, drunks, welfare mamas and low-lives and trying to convince us the mega corner store customers are spending big money theee.
... "YouTube's audience has surpassed 1 billion, with 80% of the viewers outside the U.S. YouTube also boasts that it reaches more people between the ages of 18 and 34 than any cable network. That segment of YouTube's audience is a major reason more than half its video clips are watched on mobile devices".
As for paid content it's not clear yet what Google's plans are. Reportedly a new subscription model, YouTube Plus, may be announced in the very near future. http://www.androidpolice.com/2017/09/22/youtube-v12-37-hints-new-subscription-tier-called-youtube-plus-apk-teardown/
and if you followed my links you'd see I was on other tech sites as well, including Android fan sites. BONUS: You probably learned some things you didn't know by reading them.
You find native support for Matroska and WebM containers, Opus and FLAC audio and VP9 video in Windows these days. There is a whole industry (Apple are against it, of course) who are now backing the upcoming AV1 video codec (the successor of VP9) which will likewise be a royalty-free video format that anyone can implement in their solutions without any risk of having to pay license fees to anybody. This is certainly not the case for H.264 and H.265.
So why the Hell should the rest of the industry care about Apple not wanting to support free, open video and audio standards? Apple could simply decide to add support for VP9, Opus, FLAC and the Matroska containers themselves without having to worry about license fees. But they won't, because they have huge commercial interests in NOT promoting free open media standards. For everyone else it would be completely counterproductive to give in to that pressure from 'the old elephants' of the industry.