BTW my xbox one S does not support 4k youtube video either. My Vizio 4k doesnt have a native 4k youtube app. The only way i can output youtube on 4k on my tv is by using chromecast, which is annoying, because its like airplay, its not native.
they need to sort this out, especially with the xbox one X coming out in november.
It's already sorted for the Xbox One X. It supports 4K 60Hz HEVC (H.265), VP9, and AVC (H.264) video formats. It also offers 10-bit high dynamic range (HDR) HEVC and VP9 playback.
Microsoft doesn't have the same reasons to avoid VP9 as Apple. While VP9 and the upcoming replacement for it, VC1, are freely licensed and have broad industry support, Apple went all in with the establishment MPEG-LA and HEVC, contributing patents and (presumably) collecting royalties as part of the standards group. Both Microsoft and Google (among other both large and small techs) have declined to include their applicable patents in that royalty-bearing pool.
IMO far too many hands trying to steal sweets from the h.265 cookie jar, and I'm guessing more will come flocking especially if higher royalties are obtained from standards pools reading on h.265 (ex. Velos Media) other than MPEG-LA.
Imagine that, technology companies which actually license/contribute to/create technology and want that technology to be the product (have value) instead of a means to deliver advertisements.
...It's basically come down to the companies which invest money in creating technology and who want that technology to have value vs the companies which want to either get it for free (spend little to nothing on R&D)...
Since neither VP9 nor its replacement VC1 are created for ad delivery purposes you can put them in the same "contributing and creating technology" group you've assigned Apple to.
No, but they are being created to get around paying licensing fees for H.265.
...and just like Apple has on occasion making it royalty-free and available for anyone to license with few strings attached.
I also don't think you actually believe what you said when claiming VP9 and VC1 require no R&D expense and will have no value, I'm assuming because no one is charging everyone $ to use it. Is that your measuring stick or more your shtick when discussing not-Apple companies? Your fingers should have stopped moving before you got to that ridiculous part. You were doing sorta OK for a moment.
And maybe you should stick to making real arguments instead of puns masquerading as arguments. But I guess I shouldn't expect more in a time where 140 character jokes and rants are valued higher than rational debate.
Even selfish motivation can lead to public value, and in this case it does IMO. VP9 and VC1 encourages MPEG and the other 3 standards bodies tied in to h.265 to be honest and a little less greedy, while allowing companies deeply dependent on streaming and compression to avoid royalty uncertainties while minimizing base-cost increases which lead to consumer cost increases.
I'm all for competition. And Alphabet/Google does do R&D spending (I have plenty of friends working for them). It's mainly the fact that, through their business model, they've convinced the average consumer (and the companies which bundle Android into their devices) that technology isn't worth anything anymore.
Even selfish motivation can lead to public value, and in this case it does IMO. VP9 and VC1 encourages MPEG and the other 3 standards bodies tied in to h.265 to be honest and a little less greedy, while allowing companies deeply dependent on streaming and compression to avoid royalty uncertainties while minimizing base-cost increases which lead to consumer cost increases.
I'm all for competition. And Alphabet/Google does do R&D spending (I have plenty of friends working for them). It's mainly the fact that, through their business model, they've convinced the average consumer (and the companies which bundle Android into their devices) that technology isn't worth anything anymore.
I don't think that's true either. Apple is a shining example of technology having a high value.
Even selfish motivation can lead to public value, and in this case it does IMO. VP9 and VC1 encourages MPEG and the other 3 standards bodies tied in to h.265 to be honest and a little less greedy, while allowing companies deeply dependent on streaming and compression to avoid royalty uncertainties while minimizing base-cost increases which lead to consumer cost increases.
I'm all for competition. And Alphabet/Google does do R&D spending (I have plenty of friends working for them). It's mainly the fact that, through their business model, they've convinced the average consumer (and the companies which bundle Android into their devices) that technology isn't worth anything anymore.
I don't think that's true either. Apple is a shining example of technology having a high value.
Which is why I support their business model and try to explain to people why it will lead to better technology and products. If people believe that devices should be cheap or free, then that same attitude carries into trying to get apps for free, cheap peripherals, etc. And that gives technology creators less incentive to invest in coming up with new ideas or refining technologies. Or they're forced to get into the advertising game and focus on making their technology a vehicle for advertisements instead of focusing on the quality and ease-of-use of it.
Even selfish motivation can lead to public value, and in this case it does IMO. VP9 and VC1 encourages MPEG and the other 3 standards bodies tied in to h.265 to be honest and a little less greedy, while allowing companies deeply dependent on streaming and compression to avoid royalty uncertainties while minimizing base-cost increases which lead to consumer cost increases.
I'm all for competition. And Alphabet/Google does do R&D spending (I have plenty of friends working for them). It's mainly the fact that, through their business model, they've convinced the average consumer (and the companies which bundle Android into their devices) that technology isn't worth anything anymore.
I don't think that's true either. Apple is a shining example of technology having a high value.
Which is why I support their business model and try to explain to people why it will lead to better technology and products. If people believe that devices should be cheap or free, then that same attitude carries into trying to get apps for free, cheap peripherals, etc. And that gives technology creators less incentive to invest in coming up with new ideas or refining technologies. Or they're forced to get into the advertising game and focus on making their technology a vehicle for advertisements instead of focusing on the quality and ease-of-use of it.
There is also a collateral issue that if innovation is devalued and nobody is ready to pay for anything, only those already with capital and in the market will be able to grow, since everyone else will always be cash starved.
Making millions from advertising cause no one wants to pay for anything is not something most small start ups can aspire too, it's even possible that what they produce is very hard to sell that way. How then make money if everyone expects everything for free. Apps are selling for bucks, most online content is selling for pennies to bucks... Only way to make big money is on volume and distribution.
Well known companies, artists, game producers, which already have name recognition and distribution channels get their volume and everyone else starves. That goes for music and most everything else.
I'd me more than willing to pay for content without ads.
I wish there was a way to get Youtube without ads. And after watching a video I can choose to pay a couple pennies to the content maker.
I just don't like ads in videos where the video was not created by the individual posting it. That is profiting off others work and Google promotes it...
I'd me more than willing to pay for content without ads.
I wish there was a way to get Youtube without ads. And after watching a video I can choose to pay a couple pennies to the content maker.
I just don't like ads in videos where the video was not created by the individual posting it. That is profiting off others work and Google promotes it...
How would you prefer to pay Google for the costs connected to Youtube? Servers, support staff and networking structure ain't free. Apple takes 30% to profit off other people's work, and Google does pay Youtubers' with channels a piece of the ad revenue. Some have even become millionaires from their Youtube programs.
Wait, you can watch YouTube videos on your computer and phone for free, no one asked them if you could stream their video to lots of devices, do you think Dell and MS and Apple all pay licensing fees to Google so YouTube video can be seen on those devices. So what would the Amazon Echo Show need a special license, hell it is running some bastardize version of Android, google should be happy.
This does sound a bit fishy...
...and now Youtube is back on the Amazon Echo Show. Whatever the issue was it was short-lived.
Comments
And maybe you should stick to making real arguments instead of puns masquerading as arguments. But I guess I shouldn't expect more in a time where 140 character jokes and rants are valued higher than rational debate.
I'm all for competition. And Alphabet/Google does do R&D spending (I have plenty of friends working for them). It's mainly the fact that, through their business model, they've convinced the average consumer (and the companies which bundle Android into their devices) that technology isn't worth anything anymore.