Hopefully, this will force Google to use HEVC instead of VP9 for YouTube.
Why? Force developers to pay royalties for using HEVC codecs? That's ridiculous. Part of the idea behind the Web Standards is to have open source code that can be used by anyone, personal or business without royalties.
Why would developers pay?
FUD from both sides is unhelpful.
Honest question now: Why is an open royalty free codec with wide-ranging support from some of the biggest players in tech so threatening to some of you?
VP9 is proprietary. It’s lower performance. It chews more bandwidth for similar quality. Also, remember Flash?
Proprietary? It's open to anyone to use and royalty-free. That's threatening? Seems to beat the alternative of buying into a standard being promoted by some companies with $-signs in their eyes (or "other reasons") that won't even commit to content providers being safe from royalty demands.
Comparing it to Flash?? That's just the type of FUD, vague IP implications, implied support and security issues, and veiled threats coming from the HVEC camp. Surprised you've embraced it.
IMO having a competing alternative is all that's kept 3 of the 4 different standards bodies (so far!) claiming to have a piece of the pie honest. Technicolor bolted for good reasons. You should read why.
And VP9 is still proprietary.
You got at least one claim right. Good move on your part to avoid commenting further on anything else.
But you were pretending it wasn’t until someone called it out. Classic. The mental gymnastics you go through are astounding. Will we ever discover your motive in doing so time and again?
Hopefully, this will force Google to use HEVC instead of VP9 for YouTube.
Why? Force developers to pay royalties for using HEVC codecs? That's ridiculous. Part of the idea behind the Web Standards is to have open source code that can be used by anyone, personal or business without royalties.
Why would developers pay?
FUD from both sides is unhelpful.
Honest question now: Why is an open royalty free codec with wide-ranging support from some of the biggest players in tech so threatening to some of you?
VP9 is proprietary. It’s lower performance. It chews more bandwidth for similar quality. Also, remember Flash?
Proprietary? It's open to anyone to use and royalty-free. That's threatening? Seems to beat the alternative of buying into a standard being promoted by some companies with $-signs in their eyes (or "other reasons") that won't even commit to content providers being safe from royalty demands.
Comparing it to Flash?? That's just the type of FUD, vague IP implications, implied support and security issues, and veiled threats coming from the HVEC camp. Surprised you've embraced it.
IMO having a competing alternative is all that's kept 3 of the 4 different standards bodies (so far!) claiming to have a piece of the pie honest. Technicolor bolted for good reasons. You should read why.
And VP9 is still proprietary.
You got at least one claim right. Good move on your part to avoid commenting further on anything else.
But you were pretending it wasn’t until someone called it out. Classic. The mental gymnastics you go through are astounding. Will we ever discover your motive in doing so time and again?
Good move on your part as well, not commenting on nearly any of the points I made. It's "inconvenient" to acknowledge them for a small selection of other posters too.
So with that further distraction out of the way have you had any experience with h.264 as compared to h.265? Anything you could add regarding GoPro specifically?
I have seen numerous mentions over the past year of their falling sales and revenues, and there seems to be a lot of quality competition and across a wide range of price points for what used to be a niche owned by them. When I bought an action cam last year I chose to go with another manufacturer that better matched what I wanted for one-the-water use. IMHO based on what I've been seeing GoPro's innovation has been lackluster in recent models. Do you agree? If so do you think the newest ones now coming to market will reverse the trend?
Hopefully, this will force Google to use HEVC instead of VP9 for YouTube.
Why? Force developers to pay royalties for using HEVC codecs? That's ridiculous. Part of the idea behind the Web Standards is to have open source code that can be used by anyone, personal or business without royalties.
Why would developers pay?
FUD from both sides is unhelpful.
Honest question now: Why is an open royalty free codec with wide-ranging support from some of the biggest players in tech so threatening to some of you?
VP9 is proprietary. It’s lower performance. It chews more bandwidth for similar quality. Also, remember Flash?
Proprietary? It's open to anyone to use and royalty-free. That's threatening? Seems to beat the alternative of buying into a standard being promoted by some companies with $-signs in their eyes (or "other reasons") that won't even commit to content providers being safe from royalty demands.
Comparing it to Flash?? That's just the type of FUD, vague IP implications, implied support and security issues, and veiled threats coming from the HVEC camp. Surprised you've embraced it.
IMO having a competing alternative is all that's kept 3 of the 4 different standards bodies (so far!) claiming to have a piece of the pie honest. Technicolor bolted for good reasons. You should read why.
And VP9 is still proprietary.
You got at least one claim right. Good move on your part to avoid commenting further on anything else.
But you were pretending it wasn’t until someone called it out. Classic. The mental gymnastics you go through are astounding. Will we ever discover your motive in doing so time and again?
Good move on your part as well, not commenting on nearly any of the points I made. It's "inconvenient" to acknowledge them for a small selection of other posters too.
So with that further distraction out of the way have you had any experience with h.264 as compared to h.265? Anything you could add regarding GoPro specifically?
I have seen numerous mentions over the past year of their falling sales and revenues, and there seems to be a lot of quality competition and across a wide range of price points for what used to be a niche owned by them. When I bought an action cam last year I chose to go with another manufacturer that better matched what I wanted for one-the-water use. IMHO based on what I've been seeing GoPro's innovation has been lackluster in recent models. Do you agree? If so do you think the newest ones now coming to market will reverse the trend?
What is this even about anymore? You're tilting at windmills.
Falling sales and revenues is surely because people can often replace a GoPro or similar device with a smartphone in a protective case. A similar fall in sales is happening in photography.
HEVC is a great call for any device including the GoPro. Most, if not all of your concerns are wrt streaming, which is what Google is concerned with. Apple made an easy choice of HEVC for its products, as do others, simply because they aren't in the business of hosting a shit ton of consumer media content on Facebook or Youtube.
HEVC is what native Blu-Ray 4K HDR uses, but there are various levels of implementations depending on the source, the desired output, and available bandwidth. VP9 might work as well, but hardware to be incorporated into consumer devices was available in HEVC earlier. While it used to be that most devices like televisions were exclusively HEVC, or more correctly, h.265 and h.264, now most come with VP9 as well. In fact, the only media stream that looks to be unavailable to the AppleTV is Youtube 4K. It would be short sighted for any of the others to forgo streaming HEVC because of the minimal risk from a rogue IP holder, or the minimal yearly cost, but if they do, it is a conscious business decision.
Hopefully, this will force Google to use HEVC instead of VP9 for YouTube.
Why? Force developers to pay royalties for using HEVC codecs? That's ridiculous. Part of the idea behind the Web Standards is to have open source code that can be used by anyone, personal or business without royalties.
Why would developers pay?
FUD from both sides is unhelpful.
Honest question now: Why is an open royalty free codec with wide-ranging support from some of the biggest players in tech so threatening to some of you?
VP9 is proprietary. It’s lower performance. It chews more bandwidth for similar quality. Also, remember Flash?
Proprietary? It's open to anyone to use and royalty-free. That's threatening? Seems to beat the alternative of buying into a standard being promoted by some companies with $-signs in their eyes (or "other reasons") that won't even commit to content providers being safe from royalty demands.
Comparing it to Flash?? That's just the type of FUD, vague IP implications, implied support and security issues, and veiled threats coming from the HVEC camp. Surprised you've embraced it.
IMO having a competing alternative is all that's kept 3 of the 4 different standards bodies (so far!) claiming to have a piece of the pie honest. Technicolor bolted for good reasons. You should read why.
And VP9 is still proprietary.
You got at least one claim right. Good move on your part to avoid commenting further on anything else.
But you were pretending it wasn’t until someone called it out. Classic. The mental gymnastics you go through are astounding. Will we ever discover your motive in doing so time and again?
Good move on your part as well, not commenting on nearly any of the points I made. It's "inconvenient" to acknowledge them for a small selection of other posters too.
So with that further distraction out of the way have you had any experience with h.264 as compared to h.265? Anything you could add regarding GoPro specifically?
I have seen numerous mentions over the past year of their falling sales and revenues, and there seems to be a lot of quality competition and across a wide range of price points for what used to be a niche owned by them. When I bought an action cam last year I chose to go with another manufacturer that better matched what I wanted for one-the-water use. IMHO based on what I've been seeing GoPro's innovation has been lackluster in recent models. Do you agree? If so do you think the newest ones now coming to market will reverse the trend?
What is this even about anymore? You're tilting at windmills.
I thought it was about GoPro and their change to h.265 in the Black. I'm curious what the actual user experience with h.265 vs. h.264 has been, and whether readers here are planning to buy the latest GoPro at least in part because of their new chipset and use of h.265.
I've zero interest in tilting at windmills. I'll guess you confused me with the posters who started the off-topic distraction. Other than your first sentence tho you've made an informative well-explained post, and one I largely agree with. Thanks!
Hopefully, this will force Google to use HEVC instead of VP9 for YouTube.
Why? Force developers to pay royalties for using HEVC codecs? That's ridiculous. Part of the idea behind the Web Standards is to have open source code that can be used by anyone, personal or business without royalties.
Why would developers pay?
FUD from both sides is unhelpful.
Honest question now: Why is an open royalty free codec with wide-ranging support from some of the biggest players in tech so threatening to some of you?
VP9 is proprietary. It’s lower performance. It chews more bandwidth for similar quality. Also, remember Flash?
Proprietary? It's open to anyone to use and royalty-free. That's threatening? Seems to beat the alternative of buying into a standard being promoted by some companies with $-signs in their eyes (or "other reasons") that won't even commit to content providers being safe from royalty demands.
Comparing it to Flash?? That's just the type of FUD, vague IP implications, implied support and security issues, and veiled threats coming from the HVEC camp. Surprised you've embraced it.
IMO having a competing alternative is all that's kept 3 of the 4 different standards bodies (so far!) claiming to have a piece of the pie honest. Technicolor bolted for good reasons. You should read why.
And VP9 is still proprietary.
Not sure what your definition of proprietary is - HEVC has royalty cap of 60-100 million depending on the number of patent pools (there are already 3 different ones) and at least $2 per device. Sounds pretty "proprietary" to me (that it's an ITU standard doesn't mean much). Certainly, HEVC is an order of magnitude more expensive than any of the predecessors such as H.264 (which by the way also implemented lower license fees when Google came out with VP8).
VP9 has been out for 4 years, is open-source, hasn't had a patent challenge except for some insignificant attempt by Nokia in Germany in 2013 which went nowhere and by now is incorporated into most TVs as well as AMD and Intel processors with GPUs. The patent risk of VP9 is extremely low at the moment - certainly not much higher than HEVC which sprouts new patent pools left and right.
VP9 is slightly less efficient than HEVC (about 20% - but less so for 4k video) but more efficient than H.264. AC1 is the successor which is co-developed by Netflix, Intel, AMD, Amazon etc - it will be interesting to see how quickly it will replace VP9.
Certainly, GoPro's decision will have zero impact on the codec wars - they are not important enough anymore.
Google has zero incentives to give in here - they paid 120 million for On2 (which developed VP8 and most of VP9). They already got their money back because thanks to VP8 the royalty rates for H.264 were lowered drastically back in 2011. They got their money back twice, because HEVC Advance lowered its license rates back in 2015 when it became clear that their initial demands (0.5% of REVENUE without a cap) were ridiculous and would just accelerate the switch to VP9. And they might get their money back many times more if AC1 becomes successful.
So it doesn't matter much to Google - they already won with On2 and VP8/9 and they might win more with AC1 (but if not, it was still a great return for 120 million).
Hopefully, this will force Google to use HEVC instead of VP9 for YouTube.
Why? Force developers to pay royalties for using HEVC codecs? That's ridiculous. Part of the idea behind the Web Standards is to have open source code that can be used by anyone, personal or business without royalties.
Why would developers pay?
FUD from both sides is unhelpful.
Honest question now: Why is an open royalty free codec with wide-ranging support from some of the biggest players in tech so threatening to some of you?
VP9 is proprietary. It’s lower performance. It chews more bandwidth for similar quality. Also, remember Flash?
Proprietary? It's open to anyone to use and royalty-free. That's threatening? Seems to beat the alternative of buying into a standard being promoted by some companies with $-signs in their eyes (or "other reasons") that won't even commit to content providers being safe from royalty demands.
Comparing it to Flash?? That's just the type of FUD, vague IP implications, implied support and security issues, and veiled threats coming from the HVEC camp. Surprised you've embraced it.
IMO having a competing alternative is all that's kept 3 of the 4 different standards bodies (so far!) claiming to have a piece of the pie honest. Technicolor bolted for good reasons. You should read why.
And VP9 is still proprietary.
Not sure what your definition of proprietary is - HEVC has royalty cap of 60-100 million depending on the number of patent pools (there are already 3 different ones) and at least $2 per device. Sounds pretty "proprietary" to me (that it's an ITU standard doesn't mean much). Certainly, HEVC is an order of magnitude more expensive than any of the predecessors such as H.264 (which by the way also implemented lower license fees when Google came out with VP8).
VP9 has been out for 4 years, is open-source, hasn't had a patent challenge except for some insignificant attempt by Nokia in Germany in 2013 which went nowhere and by now is incorporated into most TVs as well as AMD and Intel processors with GPUs. The patent risk of VP9 is extremely low at the moment - certainly not much higher than HEVC which sprouts new patent pools left and right.
VP9 is slightly less efficient than HEVC (about 20% - but less so for 4k video) but more efficient than H.264. AC1 is the successor which is co-developed by Netflix, Intel, AMD, Amazon etc - it will be interesting to see how quickly it will replace VP9.
Certainly, GoPro's decision will have zero impact on the codec wars - they are not important enough anymore.
Google has zero incentives to give in here - they paid 120 million for On2 (which developed VP8 and most of VP9). They already got their money back because thanks to VP8 the royalty rates for H.264 were lowered drastically back in 2011. They got their money back twice, because HEVC Advance lowered its license rates back in 2015 when it became clear that their initial demands (0.5% of REVENUE without a cap) were ridiculous and would just accelerate the switch to VP9. And they might get their money back many times more if AC1 becomes successful.
So it doesn't matter much to Google - they already won with On2 and VP8/9 and they might win more with AC1 (but if not, it was still a great return for 120 million).
If it's all the same to you, please post wrt to the royalty rates for HEVC. I think that what you posted are a magnitude or more too high. I think that the successor is AV1 not AC1.
As I have stated, Google is much more sensitive to streaming royalties than Apple or other consumer hardware manufacturers that went with HEVC hardware early. Youtube on its own has many more potential streams than Apple, Netflix, or Amazon has to deal with. It makes sense for Google, and Facebook for that matter, to want control those costs. At the same time, I am under the impression that Google's cap for HEVC would be at or under $5m a year, which, in the scheme of things, isn't a big number.
Gatorguy contends that other parties are threatening HEVC license holders, and maybe there is something to that, but again, it would have little or no impact on Apple, and so far, no impact on Google.
Hopefully, this will force Google to use HEVC instead of VP9 for YouTube.
Why? Force developers to pay royalties for using HEVC codecs? That's ridiculous. Part of the idea behind the Web Standards is to have open source code that can be used by anyone, personal or business without royalties.
Why would developers pay?
FUD from both sides is unhelpful.
Honest question now: Why is an open royalty free codec with wide-ranging support from some of the biggest players in tech so threatening to some of you?
VP9 is proprietary. It’s lower performance. It chews more bandwidth for similar quality. Also, remember Flash?
Proprietary? It's open to anyone to use and royalty-free. That's threatening? Seems to beat the alternative of buying into a standard being promoted by some companies with $-signs in their eyes (or "other reasons") that won't even commit to content providers being safe from royalty demands.
Comparing it to Flash?? That's just the type of FUD, vague IP implications, implied support and security issues, and veiled threats coming from the HVEC camp. Surprised you've embraced it.
IMO having a competing alternative is all that's kept 3 of the 4 different standards bodies (so far!) claiming to have a piece of the pie honest. Technicolor bolted for good reasons. You should read why.
And VP9 is still proprietary.
You got at least one claim right. Good move on your part to avoid commenting further on anything else.
But you were pretending it wasn’t until someone called it out. Classic. The mental gymnastics you go through are astounding. Will we ever discover your motive in doing so time and again?
Good move on your part as well, not commenting on nearly any of the points I made. It's "inconvenient" to acknowledge them for a small selection of other posters too.
So with that further distraction out of the way have you had any experience with h.264 as compared to h.265? Anything you could add regarding GoPro specifically?
I have seen numerous mentions over the past year of their falling sales and revenues, and there seems to be a lot of quality competition and across a wide range of price points for what used to be a niche owned by them. When I bought an action cam last year I chose to go with another manufacturer that better matched what I wanted for one-the-water use. IMHO based on what I've been seeing GoPro's innovation has been lackluster in recent models. Do you agree? If so do you think the newest ones now coming to market will reverse the trend?
Hopefully, this will force Google to use HEVC instead of VP9 for YouTube.
Why? Force developers to pay royalties for using HEVC codecs? That's ridiculous. Part of the idea behind the Web Standards is to have open source code that can be used by anyone, personal or business without royalties.
Why would developers pay?
FUD from both sides is unhelpful.
Honest question now: Why is an open royalty free codec with wide-ranging support from some of the biggest players in tech so threatening to some of you?
VP9 is proprietary. It’s lower performance. It chews more bandwidth for similar quality. Also, remember Flash?
Proprietary? It's open to anyone to use and royalty-free. That's threatening? Seems to beat the alternative of buying into a standard being promoted by some companies with $-signs in their eyes (or "other reasons") that won't even commit to content providers being safe from royalty demands.
Comparing it to Flash?? That's just the type of FUD, vague IP implications, implied support and security issues, and veiled threats coming from the HVEC camp. Surprised you've embraced it.
IMO having a competing alternative is all that's kept 3 of the 4 different standards bodies (so far!) claiming to have a piece of the pie honest. Technicolor bolted for good reasons. You should read why.
And VP9 is still proprietary.
You got at least one claim right. Good move on your part to avoid commenting further on anything else.
Hopefully, this will force Google to use HEVC instead of VP9 for YouTube.
Why? Force developers to pay royalties for using HEVC codecs? That's ridiculous. Part of the idea behind the Web Standards is to have open source code that can be used by anyone, personal or business without royalties.
Why would developers pay?
FUD from both sides is unhelpful.
Honest question now: Why is an open royalty free codec with wide-ranging support from some of the biggest players in tech so threatening to some of you?
VP9 is proprietary. It’s lower performance. It chews more bandwidth for similar quality. Also, remember Flash?
Proprietary? It's open to anyone to use and royalty-free. That's threatening? Seems to beat the alternative of buying into a standard being promoted by some companies with $-signs in their eyes (or "other reasons") that won't even commit to content providers being safe from royalty demands.
Comparing it to Flash?? That's just the type of FUD, vague IP implications, implied support and security issues, and veiled threats coming from the HVEC camp. Surprised you've embraced it.
IMO having a competing alternative is all that's kept 3 of the 4 different standards bodies (so far!) claiming to have a piece of the pie honest. Technicolor bolted for good reasons. You should read why.
And VP9 is still proprietary.
You got at least one claim right. Good move on your part to avoid commenting further on anything else.
I got every single claim right. VP9 is good but behind the quality of HEVC. Simple fact.
Hopefully, this will force Google to use HEVC instead of VP9 for YouTube.
Why? Force developers to pay royalties for using HEVC codecs? That's ridiculous. Part of the idea behind the Web Standards is to have open source code that can be used by anyone, personal or business without royalties.
Why would developers pay?
FUD from both sides is unhelpful.
Honest question now: Why is an open royalty free codec with wide-ranging support from some of the biggest players in tech so threatening to some of you?
VP9 is proprietary. It’s lower performance. It chews more bandwidth for similar quality. Also, remember Flash?
Proprietary? It's open to anyone to use and royalty-free. That's threatening? Seems to beat the alternative of buying into a standard being promoted by some companies with $-signs in their eyes (or "other reasons") that won't even commit to content providers being safe from royalty demands.
Comparing it to Flash?? That's just the type of FUD, vague IP implications, implied support and security issues, and veiled threats coming from the HVEC camp. Surprised you've embraced it.
IMO having a competing alternative is all that's kept 3 of the 4 different standards bodies (so far!) claiming to have a piece of the pie honest. Technicolor bolted for good reasons. You should read why.
And VP9 is still proprietary.
Not sure what your definition of proprietary is - HEVC has royalty cap of 60-100 million depending on the number of patent pools (there are already 3 different ones) and at least $2 per device. Sounds pretty "proprietary" to me (that it's an ITU standard doesn't mean much). Certainly, HEVC is an order of magnitude more expensive than any of the predecessors such as H.264 (which by the way also implemented lower license fees when Google came out with VP8).
VP9 has been out for 4 years, is open-source, hasn't had a patent challenge except for some insignificant attempt by Nokia in Germany in 2013 which went nowhere and by now is incorporated into most TVs as well as AMD and Intel processors with GPUs. The patent risk of VP9 is extremely low at the moment - certainly not much higher than HEVC which sprouts new patent pools left and right.
VP9 is slightly less efficient than HEVC (about 20% - but less so for 4k video) but more efficient than H.264. AC1 is the successor which is co-developed by Netflix, Intel, AMD, Amazon etc - it will be interesting to see how quickly it will replace VP9.
Certainly, GoPro's decision will have zero impact on the codec wars - they are not important enough anymore.
Google has zero incentives to give in here - they paid 120 million for On2 (which developed VP8 and most of VP9). They already got their money back because thanks to VP8 the royalty rates for H.264 were lowered drastically back in 2011. They got their money back twice, because HEVC Advance lowered its license rates back in 2015 when it became clear that their initial demands (0.5% of REVENUE without a cap) were ridiculous and would just accelerate the switch to VP9. And they might get their money back many times more if AC1 becomes successful.
So it doesn't matter much to Google - they already won with On2 and VP8/9 and they might win more with AC1 (but if not, it was still a great return for 120 million).
If it's all the same to you, please post wrt to the royalty rates for HEVC. I think that what you posted are a magnitude or more too high. I think that the successor is AV1 not AC1.
As I have stated, Google is much more sensitive to streaming royalties than Apple or other consumer hardware manufacturers that went with HEVC hardware early. Youtube on its own has many more potential streams than Apple, Netflix, or Amazon has to deal with. It makes sense for Google, and Facebook for that matter, to want control those costs. At the same time, I am under the impression that Google's cap for HEVC would be at or under $5m a year, which, in the scheme of things, isn't a big number.
Gatorguy contends that other parties are threatening HEVC license holders, and maybe there is something to that, but again, it would have little or no impact on Apple, and so far, no impact on Google.
"Companies such as Apple and Amazon which offer both mobile and connected home devices would be liable for up to $40 million in device royalties per year, in addition to their MPEG-LA HEVC license which will cost up to $25 million per year."
(so this adds to $65 million but doesn't yet include the other two HEVC patent tools such as Technicolor etc.)
"Royalty rates for 4K TVs are now proposed to be $1.20 per unit, plus up to 75 cents per unit if HEVC profile extensions are supported. PCs and set-top boxes would be liable for 80 cents per unit, and mobile devices would cost 40 cents per unit."
(these are just the per unit royalty rates for HEVC - you have to add the other 3 pools as well; the cap applies beyond 65 million)
On top of this there are content fees of up to 5 million (just for HEVC again) if you offer paid content (such as Youtube Red of Google Play).
Let's take Amazon: with their Fire TV and tablets they could conceivably reach this 65 million cap for just the HEVC and the MPEG license pools. On top of this, they would have to pay just for HEVC 5 million in content fees (due to Prime video - ad supported video is free). When you add up all the other pools (I don't have those precise numbers) you could get to 100 million +.
For Google: On top of the 5 million contents fees, there would be 20 million Chromecasts - I guess those count as "set-top boxes", so at least 16 million just for those and HEVC - if we assume that the MPEG fees are 3/4 of the HEVC advance, then we get 28 million for Chromecasts (but we still have to add the other 2 patent pools). I don't know the sales numbers for Pixels (I think it's 2 million + units) - so you are probably right, Google would probably not have to pay as much as Amazon but still in the 35-50 million region while Amazon would approach 100 million due to their larger hardware business.
I do believe that inventors should get paid - but with these numbers, the patent holders could easily get a stream of a billion dollars across the industry every single year - this is an obscene amount given the cost of developing HEVC codec (hard to estimate that exactly but I don't believe it could be more than 200 million which is equal to the annual salary of 250 engineers @ 200,000 a year for four years; given what Google paid for On2 it's likely to be far less). Moreover, this wasn't a very risky piece of R&D - the principles of video compression are well understood and H.265 is an evolutionary upgrade to H.264 - anyone with sufficient expertise and the resources would have arrived at a similar codec (this is not like medical research where only a small share of medical trials amount to a drug).
Hopefully, this will force Google to use HEVC instead of VP9 for YouTube.
Why? Force developers to pay royalties for using HEVC codecs? That's ridiculous. Part of the idea behind the Web Standards is to have open source code that can be used by anyone, personal or business without royalties.
Why would developers pay?
FUD from both sides is unhelpful.
Honest question now: Why is an open royalty free codec with wide-ranging support from some of the biggest players in tech so threatening to some of you?
VP9 is proprietary. It’s lower performance. It chews more bandwidth for similar quality. Also, remember Flash?
Proprietary? It's open to anyone to use and royalty-free. That's threatening? Seems to beat the alternative of buying into a standard being promoted by some companies with $-signs in their eyes (or "other reasons") that won't even commit to content providers being safe from royalty demands.
Comparing it to Flash?? That's just the type of FUD, vague IP implications, implied support and security issues, and veiled threats coming from the HVEC camp. Surprised you've embraced it.
IMO having a competing alternative is all that's kept 3 of the 4 different standards bodies (so far!) claiming to have a piece of the pie honest. Technicolor bolted for good reasons. You should read why.
And VP9 is still proprietary.
Not sure what your definition of proprietary is - HEVC has royalty cap of 60-100 million depending on the number of patent pools (there are already 3 different ones) and at least $2 per device. Sounds pretty "proprietary" to me (that it's an ITU standard doesn't mean much). Certainly, HEVC is an order of magnitude more expensive than any of the predecessors such as H.264 (which by the way also implemented lower license fees when Google came out with VP8).
VP9 has been out for 4 years, is open-source, hasn't had a patent challenge except for some insignificant attempt by Nokia in Germany in 2013 which went nowhere and by now is incorporated into most TVs as well as AMD and Intel processors with GPUs. The patent risk of VP9 is extremely low at the moment - certainly not much higher than HEVC which sprouts new patent pools left and right.
VP9 is slightly less efficient than HEVC (about 20% - but less so for 4k video) but more efficient than H.264. AC1 is the successor which is co-developed by Netflix, Intel, AMD, Amazon etc - it will be interesting to see how quickly it will replace VP9.
Certainly, GoPro's decision will have zero impact on the codec wars - they are not important enough anymore.
Google has zero incentives to give in here - they paid 120 million for On2 (which developed VP8 and most of VP9). They already got their money back because thanks to VP8 the royalty rates for H.264 were lowered drastically back in 2011. They got their money back twice, because HEVC Advance lowered its license rates back in 2015 when it became clear that their initial demands (0.5% of REVENUE without a cap) were ridiculous and would just accelerate the switch to VP9. And they might get their money back many times more if AC1 becomes successful.
So it doesn't matter much to Google - they already won with On2 and VP8/9 and they might win more with AC1 (but if not, it was still a great return for 120 million).
Proprietary means just what it means. Owned and controlled by a single entity. Being open and being proprietary are not mutually exclusive. Given the mega watts of power used to compress and stream video every day, 20% is significant. BTW: VP9 and HEVC are similar for 1080P but HEVC tends to be about 20% more efficient on 4K.
Hopefully, this will force Google to use HEVC instead of VP9 for YouTube.
Why? Force developers to pay royalties for using HEVC codecs? That's ridiculous. Part of the idea behind the Web Standards is to have open source code that can be used by anyone, personal or business without royalties.
Why would developers pay?
FUD from both sides is unhelpful.
Honest question now: Why is an open royalty free codec with wide-ranging support from some of the biggest players in tech so threatening to some of you?
VP9 is proprietary. It’s lower performance. It chews more bandwidth for similar quality. Also, remember Flash?
Proprietary? It's open to anyone to use and royalty-free. That's threatening? Seems to beat the alternative of buying into a standard being promoted by some companies with $-signs in their eyes (or "other reasons") that won't even commit to content providers being safe from royalty demands.
Comparing it to Flash?? That's just the type of FUD, vague IP implications, implied support and security issues, and veiled threats coming from the HVEC camp. Surprised you've embraced it.
IMO having a competing alternative is all that's kept 3 of the 4 different standards bodies (so far!) claiming to have a piece of the pie honest. Technicolor bolted for good reasons. You should read why.
And VP9 is still proprietary.
You got at least one claim right. Good move on your part to avoid commenting further on anything else.
But you were pretending it wasn’t until someone called it out. Classic. The mental gymnastics you go through are astounding. Will we ever discover your motive in doing so time and again?
Good move on your part as well, not commenting on nearly any of the points I made. It's "inconvenient" to acknowledge them for a small selection of other posters too.
So with that further distraction out of the way have you had any experience with h.264 as compared to h.265? Anything you could add regarding GoPro specifically?
I have seen numerous mentions over the past year of their falling sales and revenues, and there seems to be a lot of quality competition and across a wide range of price points for what used to be a niche owned by them. When I bought an action cam last year I chose to go with another manufacturer that better matched what I wanted for one-the-water use. IMHO based on what I've been seeing GoPro's innovation has been lackluster in recent models. Do you agree? If so do you think the newest ones now coming to market will reverse the trend?
What is this even about anymore? You're tilting at windmills.
I thought it was about GoPro and their change to h.265 in the Black. I'm curious what the actual user experience with h.265 vs. h.264 has been, and whether readers here are planning to buy the latest GoPro at least in part because of their new chipset and use of h.265.
Lots of people will choose the GoPro because of HEVC/h.265. But they’re not going to say “Yo, that new Hero6 rockin’ HEVC, need to grab that ASAP.” What they will buy it for is the high quality 4K/60 and 1080P/240 and recording longer videos on the same amount of storage. Real world tangible benefits as a result of using the superior codec.
Wow Googleguy is earning his money in this thread! lol
Do you really think the name calling is helpful to any argument you may have? As feeble as that attack is it's still an ad hominem against the person and not his comments.
Not at all, had it been deliberate your premise would be correct. It was a completely accidental mind slip. I typed Googleguy intending to write Gatorguy. I suppose I must come to the conclusion his comments over the years have had a subliminal effect on me. I've found myself doing this before but I think I have always caught it and corrected it in the past. My apologies to Gatorguy. I do however stand by the my intended comment, 'Wow, Gatorguy is earning his money in this thread! lol' since he is a non Mac or iApple Device owning' person who spends his entire time on AI to promoting all things against any Apple view point. A position that seems profoundly pointless from an individual's perspective unless a troll, which I am sure he isn't, or a person with some other reason to be the official spokesman for all things Google on AI. After all, for most people time is valuable and 16,968 posts defending Google, Android and Samsung is a lot of time for someone with no Apple investment. I'm retired surrounded by Macs, iPads and iPhones and with a healthy load of AAPL stock, so I have the time to spend on AI. I do wonder about those of working age with high post counts motives,... if not mental conditions. My only other and possibly 'tin foil' hat thought is, Gaotorguy is a plant by AI to stimulate posts. Now who's crazy?
At least you got a vote for your chiding, if feeble.
Wow Googleguy is earning his money in this thread! lol
Do you really think the name calling is helpful to any argument you may have? As feeble as that attack is it's still an ad hominem against the person and not his comments.
Not at all, had it been deliberate your premise would be correct. It was a completely accidental mind slip. I typed Googleguy intending to write Gatorguy. I suppose I must come to the conclusion his comments over the years have had a subliminal effect on me. I've found myself doing this before but I think I have always caught it and corrected it in the past. My apologies to Gatorguy. I do however stand by the my intended comment, 'Wow, Gatorguy is earning his money in this thread! lol' since he is a non Mac or iApple Device owning' person who spends his entire time on AI to promoting all things against any Apple view point. A position that seems profoundly pointless from an individual's perspective unless a troll, which I am sure he isn't, or a person with some other reason to be the official spokesman for all things Google on AI. After all, for most people time is valuable and 16,968 posts defending Google, Android and Samsung is a lot of time for someone with no Apple investment. I'm retired surrounded by Macs, iPads and iPhones and with a healthy load of AAPL stock, so I have the time to spend on AI. I do wonder about those of working age with high post counts motives,... if not mental conditions. My only other and possibly 'tin foil' hat thought is, Gaotorguy is a plant by AI to stimulate posts. Now who's crazy?
At least you got a vote for your chiding, if feeble.
Also, ad hominem means attacking the person; that wasn't it at all.. Calling someone who only posts about Google stuff that way is well, pretty * factual *, and even a bit snarky.
If some person kept posting about the Yankees in say a forum dedicated to Boston teams, I'm pretty sure calling him Yankee Guy instead of whatever screen name he was using wouldn't be too out there at all.
Comments
So with that further distraction out of the way have you had any experience with h.264 as compared to h.265? Anything you could add regarding GoPro specifically?
I have seen numerous mentions over the past year of their falling sales and revenues, and there seems to be a lot of quality competition and across a wide range of price points for what used to be a niche owned by them. When I bought an action cam last year I chose to go with another manufacturer that better matched what I wanted for one-the-water use. IMHO based on what I've been seeing GoPro's innovation has been lackluster in recent models. Do you agree? If so do you think the newest ones now coming to market will reverse the trend?
Falling sales and revenues is surely because people can often replace a GoPro or similar device with a smartphone in a protective case. A similar fall in sales is happening in photography.
HEVC is a great call for any device including the GoPro. Most, if not all of your concerns are wrt streaming, which is what Google is concerned with. Apple made an easy choice of HEVC for its products, as do others, simply because they aren't in the business of hosting a shit ton of consumer media content on Facebook or Youtube.
HEVC is what native Blu-Ray 4K HDR uses, but there are various levels of implementations depending on the source, the desired output, and available bandwidth. VP9 might work as well, but hardware to be incorporated into consumer devices was available in HEVC earlier. While it used to be that most devices like televisions were exclusively HEVC, or more correctly, h.265 and h.264, now most come with VP9 as well. In fact, the only media stream that looks to be unavailable to the AppleTV is Youtube 4K. It would be short sighted for any of the others to forgo streaming HEVC because of the minimal risk from a rogue IP holder, or the minimal yearly cost, but if they do, it is a conscious business decision.
I've zero interest in tilting at windmills. I'll guess you confused me with the posters who started the off-topic distraction. Other than your first sentence tho you've made an informative well-explained post, and one I largely agree with. Thanks!
VP9 has been out for 4 years, is open-source, hasn't had a patent challenge except for some insignificant attempt by Nokia in Germany in 2013 which went nowhere and by now is incorporated into most TVs as well as AMD and Intel processors with GPUs. The patent risk of VP9 is extremely low at the moment - certainly not much higher than HEVC which sprouts new patent pools left and right.
VP9 is slightly less efficient than HEVC (about 20% - but less so for 4k video) but more efficient than H.264. AC1 is the successor which is co-developed by Netflix, Intel, AMD, Amazon etc - it will be interesting to see how quickly it will replace VP9.
Certainly, GoPro's decision will have zero impact on the codec wars - they are not important enough anymore.
Google has zero incentives to give in here - they paid 120 million for On2 (which developed VP8 and most of VP9). They already got their money back because thanks to VP8 the royalty rates for H.264 were lowered drastically back in 2011. They got their money back twice, because HEVC Advance lowered its license rates back in 2015 when it became clear that their initial demands (0.5% of REVENUE without a cap) were ridiculous and would just accelerate the switch to VP9. And they might get their money back many times more if AC1 becomes successful.
So it doesn't matter much to Google - they already won with On2 and VP8/9 and they might win more with AC1 (but if not, it was still a great return for 120 million).
http://x265.org/hevc-advance-reduces-proposed-license-fees/
As I have stated, Google is much more sensitive to streaming royalties than Apple or other consumer hardware manufacturers that went with HEVC hardware early. Youtube on its own has many more potential streams than Apple, Netflix, or Amazon has to deal with. It makes sense for Google, and Facebook for that matter, to want control those costs. At the same time, I am under the impression that Google's cap for HEVC would be at or under $5m a year, which, in the scheme of things, isn't a big number.
Gatorguy contends that other parties are threatening HEVC license holders, and maybe there is something to that, but again, it would have little or no impact on Apple, and so far, no impact on Google.
Quoting from your article at http://x265.org/hevc-advance-reduces-proposed-license-fees/
(after HEVC dropped their license demand)
"Companies such as Apple and Amazon which offer both mobile and connected home devices would be liable for up to $40 million in device royalties per year, in addition to their MPEG-LA HEVC license which will cost up to $25 million per year."
(so this adds to $65 million but doesn't yet include the other two HEVC patent tools such as Technicolor etc.)
"Royalty rates for 4K TVs are now proposed to be $1.20 per unit, plus up to 75 cents per unit if HEVC profile extensions are supported. PCs and set-top boxes would be liable for 80 cents per unit, and mobile devices would cost 40 cents per unit."
(these are just the per unit royalty rates for HEVC - you have to add the other 3 pools as well; the cap applies beyond 65 million)
On top of this there are content fees of up to 5 million (just for HEVC again) if you offer paid content (such as Youtube Red of Google Play).
Let's take Amazon: with their Fire TV and tablets they could conceivably reach this 65 million cap for just the HEVC and the MPEG license pools. On top of this, they would have to pay just for HEVC 5 million in content fees (due to Prime video - ad supported video is free). When you add up all the other pools (I don't have those precise numbers) you could get to 100 million +.
For Google: On top of the 5 million contents fees, there would be 20 million Chromecasts - I guess those count as "set-top boxes", so at least 16 million just for those and HEVC - if we assume that the MPEG fees are 3/4 of the HEVC advance, then we get 28 million for Chromecasts (but we still have to add the other 2 patent pools). I don't know the sales numbers for Pixels (I think it's 2 million + units) - so you are probably right, Google would probably not have to pay as much as Amazon but still in the 35-50 million region while Amazon would approach 100 million due to their larger hardware business.
I do believe that inventors should get paid - but with these numbers, the patent holders could easily get a stream of a billion dollars across the industry every single year - this is an obscene amount given the cost of developing HEVC codec (hard to estimate that exactly but I don't believe it could be more than 200 million which is equal to the annual salary of 250 engineers @ 200,000 a year for four years; given what Google paid for On2 it's likely to be far less). Moreover, this wasn't a very risky piece of R&D - the principles of video compression are well understood and H.265 is an evolutionary upgrade to H.264 - anyone with sufficient expertise and the resources would have arrived at a similar codec (this is not like medical research where only a small share of medical trials amount to a drug).
Lots of people will choose the GoPro because of HEVC/h.265. But they’re not going to say “Yo, that new Hero6 rockin’ HEVC, need to grab that ASAP.” What they will buy it for is the high quality 4K/60 and 1080P/240 and recording longer videos on the same amount of storage. Real world tangible benefits as a result of using the superior codec.
At least you got a vote for your chiding, if feeble.