Having said that, I'm not happy with what Google did with YouTube either, the advertising is way too intrusive. I understand the need for advertising and ROI, but there are ads everywhere on the website, banners in every movie, and video ads before every movie (almost). That's just too much.
no doubt it will be released as "beta" perform terribly for years just like screwyou docs and then they will start charging for it just like some of their other crap , no thanks scoogle. lets see what other open standard did they do this with hmmm oh yeah they tried that and then siad it ws open then took it away from developers - oh yeah A claiming it neededto be protetced oh yeah "Android" which is rapidly turning into an epic technical fail
Hey Phil, Happy New Year! Ran 8 miles (slowly) on New Year's Day!
All with a low HR, no doubt. Good work sir, even it being without any NY's resolution.
It's like Google makes billions in spite of themselves! Same with MS! :)
Sad thing is these companies won't ever go away. No matter how much money the dumb in some black hole they'll always be around. And that's a waste of people; I'm sure the employees are quite capable in so much more, but are limited to what they can achieve due to narrow minded managers et cetera.
Having said that, I'm not happy with what Google did with YouTube either, the advertising is way too intrusive. I understand the need for advertising and ROI, but there are ads everywhere on the website, banners in every movie, and video ads before every movie (almost). That's just too much.
It's called "MacTubes" and it's great! Just make sure you change the "player type" to Quicktime via Pref>Player
BTW AI wouldn't let me post when using my Facebook to login, even though I have zero infractions. So....Now I have two accounts....YAY!
Information technology - High efficiency coding and media delivery in heterogeneous environments - Part 2: High efficiency video coding
ISO/IEC 23008-2:2013 specifies high efficiency video coding. It was developed in response to the growing need for higher compression of moving pictures for various applications such as videoconferencing, digital storage media, television broadcasting, internet streaming, and communications. It is also designed to enable the use of the coded video representation in a flexible manner for a wide variety of network environments as well as to enable the use of multi-core parallel encoding and decoding devices. The use of ISO/IEC 23008-2:2013 allows motion video to be manipulated as a form of computer data and to be stored on various storage media, transmitted and received over existing and future networks and distributed on existing and future broadcasting channels
Are you kidding? Expect the FOSS guys to respond with loving praise, much cooing, and come to the defense of Google in forums.
VP9 already has a pretty long list of hardware partners, and they're not FOSS folks.
"...ARM, Broadcom, Intel, LG, Marvell, MediaTek, Nvidia, Panasonic, Philips, Qualcomm, RealTek, Samsung, Sigma, Sharp, Sony and Toshiba" among others. Again it's not an either/or codec choice.
For what it's worth VP9 isn't just for YouTube. It wouldn't hurt to read up on it before dismissing it out of hand. YouTube will probably support h.265 too whenever it's gets done too according to articles.It's not an either/or video codec war.
By the way, the articles author is making a bit of a stretch saying Google admitted that VP8 infringed on any MPEG-LA IP based on their being offered a license particularly since there's never been any mention by them that Google would pay any royalties. Google has never wavered from saying that VP8 was free of any patent encumbrances from outside parties.
Perhaps Google did pay them something and perhaps they didn't, but it obviously wasn't much if anything since Google can freely sub-license any h.264 IP to any VP8 or VP9 user at no charge.
Of course it would be a small amount. MPEG-LA charges very low rates for using H.264. This is why Google trying to force another useless standard down our throats ridiculous and self-serving. Claiming that VP8 is "free" and offers an advantage over H.264 (which CAN cost money for some users) is a very weak argument for the use of VP8. MPEG-LA has many provisions in place to use H.264 for FREE. Once you get to enough users/devices where you'd have to pay, the fees are going to be a minor part of your expense. And MPEG-LA has a cap on fees so large companies like MS, Apple or Samsung don't pay huge fees for the 100's of millions of devices they sell.
Google originally announced VP8 was free from patent encumbrances. Then they settled with MPEG-LA. And Nokia is also in the process of suing vendors who use VP8 over their IP they feel is part of the spec. Convenient that you left that part out.
Google is an IP thief, plain and simple. You carefully choosing your words isn't going to change that. They stole IP for VP8 just like they stole IP for Android and gave it away for free. Then they have the nerve to complain when companies go after them or their vendors for illegally using their IP.
VP9 already has a pretty long list of hardware partners, and they're not FOSS folks.
ARM, Broadcom, Intel, LG, Marvell, MediaTek, Nvidia, Panasonic, Philips, Qualcomm, RealTek, Samsung, Sigma, Sharp, Sony and Toshiba
Please. These are vendors who make devices that would use VP9, not companies who have donated or somehow provided the patents and IP necessary to make VP9 work.
Android has a long list of hardware partners as well, but it has nothing to do with whether or not Android has stolen IP in it or if it's FOSS.
Please. These are vendors who make devices that would use VP9, not companies who have donated or somehow provided the patents and IP necessary to make VP9 work.
Pretty sure that's just what I said sir. HARDWARE! Now if you want to discuss software patents and such to prove that VP9 is encumbered with IP belonging to others that Google has "stolen " feel free to cite examples as usual.
Of course it would be a small amount. MPEG-LA charges very low rates for using H.264. This is why Google trying to force another useless standard down our throats ridiculous and self-serving. Claiming that VP8 is "free" and offers an advantage over H.264 (which CAN cost money for some users) is a very weak argument for the use of VP8. MPEG-LA has many provisions in place to use H.264 for FREE. Once you get to enough users/devices where you'd have to pay, the fees are going to be a minor part of your expense. And MPEG-LA has a cap on fees so large companies like MS, Apple or Samsung don't pay huge fees for the 100's of millions of devices they sell.
Google originally announced VP8 was free from patent encumbrances. Then they settled with MPEG-LA. And Nokia is also in the process of suing vendors who use VP8 over their IP they feel is part of the spec. Convenient that you left that part out.
Google is an IP thief, plain and simple. You carefully choosing your words isn't going to change that. They stole IP for VP8 just like they stole IP for Android and gave it away for free. Then they have the nerve to complain when companies go after them or their vendors for illegally using their IP.
Do you have any examples of patents that Google has been found to infringe, which apparently qualifies as theft in your view? Other than two very old Lycos patents that PAE ("patent troll") Vringo bought it looks like a pretty sparse list. Much easier to find numerous examples of patent infringement by other techs, but of course those wouldn't be "theft" since it wasn't Google?
In the end isn't it which most popular devices are actually installed with the codec to play back all this amazing 4K video crap? If Apple supports their in-house codecs, along with historic versions but not Google's, they the point is moot. Google will be forced to update their systems to accept what their "shared" clients want. And secondly, as shown clearly, 80% of deployed Android devices never get current OS updates so they cannot even push a new codec anyways. It's true that they are seeming more and more like the monolithic MS each year passing. Who suffers most? The customer who make these companies uber-rich.
All with a low HR, no doubt. Good work sir, even it being without any NY's resolution.
Sad thing is these companies won't ever go away. No matter how much money the dumb in some black hole they'll always be around. And that's a waste of people; I'm sure the employees are quite capable in so much more, but are limited to what they can achieve due to narrow minded managers et cetera.
Yep! thx, bro.
Agreed! I think SJ's greatest contribution to the world was corralling SW/HW "engineers/programmers" and not allowing them to put out subpar products! If it was up to MS we would all still be using DOS! Ugh!
Here is Apple providing a blueprint on how to operate a healthy company and yet so many companies still take the Walmart approach of selling inferior stuff, at low prices in the hope of making a profit. (Sorry for the run-on sentences!)
Comments
'can' being the operative word here¡
According to the ISO/IEC, H.265 has been published back in November, why does Google want to push VP9?
http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=35424
Having said that, I'm not happy with what Google did with YouTube either, the advertising is way too intrusive. I understand the need for advertising and ROI, but there are ads everywhere on the website, banners in every movie, and video ads before every movie (almost). That's just too much.
'can' being the operative word here¡
Hey Phil, Happy New Year! Ran 8 miles (slowly) on New Year's Day!
It's like Google makes billions in spite of themselves! Same with MS!
no doubt it will be released as "beta" perform terribly for years just like screwyou docs and then they will start charging for it just like some of their other crap , no thanks scoogle. lets see what other open standard did they do this with hmmm oh yeah they tried that and then siad it ws open then took it away from developers - oh yeah A claiming it neededto be protetced oh yeah "Android" which is rapidly turning into an epic technical fail
All with a low HR, no doubt. Good work sir, even it being without any NY's resolution.
Sad thing is these companies won't ever go away. No matter how much money the dumb in some black hole they'll always be around. And that's a waste of people; I'm sure the employees are quite capable in so much more, but are limited to what they can achieve due to narrow minded managers et cetera.
Is that h.265? I didn't see mention of it but perhaps.
EDIT: A search of ISO/IEC docs returns no results for h.265.
Are you kidding? Expect the FOSS guys to respond with loving praise, much cooing, and come to the defense of Google in forums.
Already happening
According to the ISO/IEC, H.265 has been published back in November, why does Google want to push VP9?
http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=35424
Having said that, I'm not happy with what Google did with YouTube either, the advertising is way too intrusive. I understand the need for advertising and ROI, but there are ads everywhere on the website, banners in every movie, and video ads before every movie (almost). That's just too much.
It's called "MacTubes" and it's great! Just make sure you change the "player type" to Quicktime via Pref>Player
BTW AI wouldn't let me post when using my Facebook to login, even though I have zero infractions. So....Now I have two accounts....YAY!
Is that h.265? I didn't see mention of it but perhaps.
EDIT: A search of ISO/IEC docs returns no results for h.265.
Your research skills are poor: http://www.vcodex.com/h265.html
Clue: http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ISO/IEC+23008-2:2013
Information technology - High efficiency coding and media delivery in heterogeneous environments - Part 2: High efficiency video coding
ISO/IEC 23008-2:2013 specifies high efficiency video coding. It was developed in response to the growing need for higher compression of moving pictures for various applications such as videoconferencing, digital storage media, television broadcasting, internet streaming, and communications. It is also designed to enable the use of the coded video representation in a flexible manner for a wide variety of network environments as well as to enable the use of multi-core parallel encoding and decoding devices. The use of ISO/IEC 23008-2:2013 allows motion video to be manipulated as a form of computer data and to be stored on various storage media, transmitted and received over existing and future networks and distributed on existing and future broadcasting channels
VP9 already has a pretty long list of hardware partners, and they're not FOSS folks.
"...ARM, Broadcom, Intel, LG, Marvell, MediaTek, Nvidia, Panasonic, Philips, Qualcomm, RealTek, Samsung, Sigma, Sharp, Sony and Toshiba" among others. Again it's not an either/or codec choice.
For what it's worth VP9 isn't just for YouTube. It wouldn't hurt to read up on it before dismissing it out of hand. YouTube will probably support h.265 too whenever it's gets done too according to articles.It's not an either/or video codec war.
By the way, the articles author is making a bit of a stretch saying Google admitted that VP8 infringed on any MPEG-LA IP based on their being offered a license particularly since there's never been any mention by them that Google would pay any royalties. Google has never wavered from saying that VP8 was free of any patent encumbrances from outside parties.
Perhaps Google did pay them something and perhaps they didn't, but it obviously wasn't much if anything since Google can freely sub-license any h.264 IP to any VP8 or VP9 user at no charge.
Of course it would be a small amount. MPEG-LA charges very low rates for using H.264. This is why Google trying to force another useless standard down our throats ridiculous and self-serving. Claiming that VP8 is "free" and offers an advantage over H.264 (which CAN cost money for some users) is a very weak argument for the use of VP8. MPEG-LA has many provisions in place to use H.264 for FREE. Once you get to enough users/devices where you'd have to pay, the fees are going to be a minor part of your expense. And MPEG-LA has a cap on fees so large companies like MS, Apple or Samsung don't pay huge fees for the 100's of millions of devices they sell.
Google originally announced VP8 was free from patent encumbrances. Then they settled with MPEG-LA. And Nokia is also in the process of suing vendors who use VP8 over their IP they feel is part of the spec. Convenient that you left that part out.
Google is an IP thief, plain and simple. You carefully choosing your words isn't going to change that. They stole IP for VP8 just like they stole IP for Android and gave it away for free. Then they have the nerve to complain when companies go after them or their vendors for illegally using their IP.
VP9 already has a pretty long list of hardware partners, and they're not FOSS folks.
ARM, Broadcom, Intel, LG, Marvell, MediaTek, Nvidia, Panasonic, Philips, Qualcomm, RealTek, Samsung, Sigma, Sharp, Sony and Toshiba
Please. These are vendors who make devices that would use VP9, not companies who have donated or somehow provided the patents and IP necessary to make VP9 work.
Android has a long list of hardware partners as well, but it has nothing to do with whether or not Android has stolen IP in it or if it's FOSS.
Thanks, but I wasn't doing a websearch at the time. I simply typed h265 in their search box.
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/search.htm?qt=h265&sort=rel&type=simple&published=on
Pretty sure that's just what I said sir. HARDWARE! Now if you want to discuss software patents and such to prove that VP9 is encumbered with IP belonging to others that Google has "stolen " feel free to cite examples as usual.
I don't think Vimeo makes enough money yet to afford that.
Do you have any examples of patents that Google has been found to infringe, which apparently qualifies as theft in your view? Other than two very old Lycos patents that PAE ("patent troll") Vringo bought it looks like a pretty sparse list. Much easier to find numerous examples of patent infringement by other techs, but of course those wouldn't be "theft" since it wasn't Google?
As for Nokia I mentioned yesterday that they'd gone "lone wolf" when I first mentioned VP9. Pretty sure you would have seen it but in case you didn't.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/161387/npd-chromebook-sales-outperform-macbooks-in-commercial-sector-as-ipad-loses-ground/200#post_2452610
All with a low HR, no doubt. Good work sir, even it being without any NY's resolution.
Sad thing is these companies won't ever go away. No matter how much money the dumb in some black hole they'll always be around. And that's a waste of people; I'm sure the employees are quite capable in so much more, but are limited to what they can achieve due to narrow minded managers et cetera.
Yep! thx, bro.
Agreed! I think SJ's greatest contribution to the world was corralling SW/HW "engineers/programmers" and not allowing them to put out subpar products! If it was up to MS we would all still be using DOS! Ugh!
Here is Apple providing a blueprint on how to operate a healthy company and yet so many companies still take the Walmart approach of selling inferior stuff, at low prices in the hope of making a profit. (Sorry for the run-on sentences!)
Oh well!