Also, it is funny that you talk about Sony, yet Apple refused to let anyone else play in their sandpit, how do I play my iTunes DRM filled movies on any other device?
So there’s no way we can even call it a next-gen codec, as it doesn’t come close to H.265. We also can’t really call it a current-gen codec because it doesn’t come close to x264!
Have you ever thought that the benefit, and costs savers that using a royalty free encoder provide Google far outweigh any encoding (that document only talks about encoding, something the end user doesn't have to worry about) inefficiencies.
Post some proof. Also, even if you can find some proof, there is nothing wrong with being a monopoly, it is when you abuse that monopoly that causes issues.
The entire Internet being forced to move to a mind-bogglingly substandard codec because its monopoly holder wanted complete control “has a very low impact on the consumer”?!
Where is this even suggested, let alone likely?
Youtube offering dual formats doesn't force anyone to do anything.
And if VP9 is lacking then Google will improve it. They have a vested interest in making the technologies they use as efficient as possible and have shown their competence in doing so, e.g. SPDY, Go.
You only have to read some of your posts to see this proof
No, no. Your claim. Burden of proof is on you.
Have you ever thought that the benefit, and costs savers that using a royalty free encoder provide Google far outweigh any encoding (that document only talks about encoding, something the end user doesn't have to worry about) inefficiencies.
No, not really. Because they don’t. Google exists to serve the end user. At least, in theory. Yes, we’re the product for them. I don’t care. I am not a product. As such, the experience should be for me as seamless as possible. I don’t see how using a worthless codec makes that seamless.
Post some proof.
Look at YouTube’s share of Internet video. Look at its competitors’ share of Internet video. Then stop asking silly questions.
Also, even if you can find some proof, there is nothing wrong with being a monopoly, it is when you abuse that monopoly that causes issues.
HEY. GUESS WHAT. That’s exactly what is happening here. Which is why I’m calling attention to it.
Is this really so difficult a concept that you needed those sentences written out for you? You couldn’t come to that conclusion on your own?
Originally Posted by Crowley
Where is this even suggested, let alone likely?
It’s not like people were forced to develop their sites to cater specifically to Internet Explorer or anything.
Youtube offering dual formats…
Yeah, are they? Because they specifically said they’re not doing H.265 initially. They’re not even going to try.
It’s not like people were forced to develop their sites to cater specifically to Internet Explorer or anything.
And Google have the power to force internet sites and browsers to support their video format how exactly? Microsoft had a monopoly with barriers to entry. Google have a popular video site. They don't compare. Google has no power to force anything.
Yeah, are they? Because they specifically said they’re not doing H.265 initially. They’re not even going to try.
Lots of things launch in a limited fashion with restricted support. Not unusual at all, Apple do it all the time. Google will add the extra format later, just like they added HTML5 video to Youtube, then WebM (VP8). They probably want a limited rollout of 4K video anyway so they can monitor performance in a more controlled sample.
Ah, ok, movies. Yes, DRM-ed. Don't know why that is. I don't like to make assumptions, but if the record companies forced DRM on music downloads, I'd be surprised if the studio's weren't the also the ones forcing DRM on the movies as well. Sometimes this is the same company. Is Apple the only company selling and renting movies which are DRM-ed?
As for eBooks, I wouldn't expect a single author to be able to remove DRM from all resellers.
All we need is the porn industry to support H.264. Believe it or not they were one of the big deciding factors in VHS vs Beta Max, and HD DVD vs Blu Ray.
No, not really. Because they don’t. Google exists to serve the end user. At least, in theory. Yes, we’re the product for them. I don’t care. I am not a product. As such, the experience should be for me as seamless as possible. I don’t see how using a worthless codec makes that seamless.
Google pays to encode h.264, they will have to pay to encode h.265. And just because the encoder isn't as efficient as another one, doesn't automatically meant the decoder will have the same issue.
Look at YouTube’s share of Internet video. Look at its competitors’ share of Internet video. Then stop asking silly questions.
let's see, google has less than 100% of the video streaming market, the competitors have more than 0%, thus google is not a monopoly in the video steaming market. Are you able to provide more proof to assert you claim?
Ah, ok, movies. Yes, DRM-ed. Don't know why that is. I don't like to make assumptions, but if the record companies forced DRM on music downloads, I'd be surprised if the studio's weren't the also the ones forcing DRM on the movies as well. Sometimes this is the same company. Is Apple the only company selling and renting movies which are DRM-ed?
As for eBooks, I wouldn't expect a single author to be able to remove DRM from all resellers.
It was more the fact that Apple refused to remove it, DRM is bad when someone else does it.
Google pays to encode h.264, they will have to pay to encode h.265.
If h.265 requires payment for encoding, then that stands to reason, of course. EXCEPT that Google said they will not be encoding to h.265 in the first place.
And just because the encoder isn't as efficient as another one, doesn't automatically meant the decoder will have the same issue.
Well, no! But if they actually wanted to save money, they’d save it on the electricity used to power the hardware they use to transcode the HUNDRED HOURS OF VIDEO PER MINUTE they get uploaded by using the more efficient code.
let's see, google has less than 100% of the video streaming market, the competitors have more than 0%, thus google is not a monopoly in the video steaming market.
Please do not talk about this subject again until you comprehend what a monopoly is. This is really depressing.
No, you have lost me, how exactly is google abusing their… …monopoly power?
Vast majority share uses YouTube. Internet required to fall in line with standard set by YouTube. Standard set by YouTube is poor. Overall experience becomes poor.
Apple does this all the time…
Apple ignores vastly superior technologies to push others that make for a worse experience? Apple is a monopoly?
Why is the internet required to fall in line with the standard set by YouTube? That's where your argument falls over.
If YouTube does something that pisses users off, there are alternatives. It may be a monopoly by market share, but not a lock in, and there are other players, e.g. Netflix, that hold just as much power (not a lot). M
Safari will never support VP9 unless they are absolutely forced to. IE probably not either. Firefox might, but it'll support others too. Chrome is the only browser that would support VP9 and not h.265, but since h.264 capability is easily added by an extension, it's likely that h.265 will too.
This is nothing like the problem you're painting it as. Plus Google have a good record at iterating and making things better rapidly.
Why is the internet required to fall in line with the standard set by YouTube? That's where your argument falls over.
I suppose if a site doesn’t want its content to show up properly, meaning fewer visits, meaning less revenue, that’s their decision.
History shows that it’s ludicrous to think that would happen, though.
If YouTube does something that pisses users off, there are alternatives.
Right, and it’s a visibly different situation than, say, OS or browser marketshare from the way back, but it’s close. Hopefully Google won’t be able to shut things out, but they’ve already committed to not encoding to h.265.
…there are other players, e.g. Netflix, that hold just as much power (not a lot).
I hadn’t thought about them (thanks) primarily because they’re moving to embedded streaming over on-computer streaming. You make a point, though. Netflix uses… what, Silverlight on the computer (which channels what codecs?), and what does Hulu use? They’re Flash-based, sure, but…
If h.265 requires payment for encoding, then that stands to reason, of course. EXCEPT that Google said they will not be encoding to h.265 in the first place.
In the first place, ie they haven't ruled anything out, just they are going to support their own technology before someone elses.
Also, why wouldn't encoding require payment? I'm sure the patent holders love donating their technologies so someone else can profit off them
Well, no! But if they actually wanted to save money, they’d save it on the electricity used to power the hardware they use to transcode the HUNDRED HOURS OF VIDEO PER MINUTE they get uploaded by using the more efficient code.
I imagine you would need to talk to Google's business analysts about that, I'm sure they have performed some cost benefit analysts to determine what is going to be the best for them
Please do not talk about this subject again until you comprehend what a monopoly is. This is really depressing.
I know what a monopoly is, the issue I have is your lack of evidence, please provide some figures which prove Google has a monopoly over internet streaming video.
Vast majority share uses YouTube. Internet required to fall in line with standard set by YouTube. Standard set by YouTube is poor. Overall experience becomes poor.
Again, where are the figures showing usage per provider? Also, why does the who internet need to fall in line with YouTube? Are all the other streaming services falling in line now (paid and non paid)
Apple ignores vastly superior technologies to push others that make for a worse experience? Apple is a monopoly?
Apple ignores industry standards and implements their own, they have done this countless times. And, yes, according to your definition of a monopoly Apple is, they are the dominant player in online music purchasing, and it I want to purchase music from iTunes, I am forced to use an Apple product. They also most likely have a dominant position in online movie purchasing as well, again, I am forced to use Apple devices if I want to purchase from them.
In the first place, i.e. they haven’t ruled anything out…
Right, but until they actually start encoding to h.265, them saying “we won’t be encoding to h.265” and them also not doing it is enough to keep me upset. If they start doing it, that’s another story and I’ll drop this.
Also, why wouldn't encoding require payment?
Because there are free codecs? Isn’t that the entire idea here? I just personally know nothing of the requirements of licensing of h.265 specifically, and therefore did not say anything about it without knowing.
I know what a monopoly is…
No, you don’t.
…please provide some figures which prove Google has a monopoly over internet streaming video.
Look up usage of YouTube vs. Vimeo, say.
Apple ignores industry standards and implements their own
Not what I said.
And, yes, according to your definition of a monopoly Apple is, they are the dominant player in online music purchasing
As I said, you don’t know what a monopoly is.
…and it I want to purchase music from iTunes, I am forced to use an Apple product.
Thanks for the tautology. What does that prove, again?
Comments
http://appleinsider.com/articles/07/02/06/steve_jobs_apple_would_embrace_drm_free_music_in_a_heartbeat
http://www.apple.com/au/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/
You only have to read some of your posts to see this proof
As I have said, you are getting overly emotional on this
Have you ever thought that the benefit, and costs savers that using a royalty free encoder provide Google far outweigh any encoding (that document only talks about encoding, something the end user doesn't have to worry about) inefficiencies.
Post some proof. Also, even if you can find some proof, there is nothing wrong with being a monopoly, it is when you abuse that monopoly that causes issues.
Sorry, the magic word in my post was MOVIES.
Also, I have always found Steves thoughts funny when there are articles like this around... http://www.teleread.com/copy-right/cory-doctorow-places-drm-free-e-books-with-amazon-barnes-noble-and-kobo-apple-and-sony-hold-out/
Youtube offering dual formats doesn't force anyone to do anything.
And if VP9 is lacking then Google will improve it. They have a vested interest in making the technologies they use as efficient as possible and have shown their competence in doing so, e.g. SPDY, Go.
No, no. Your claim. Burden of proof is on you.
No, not really. Because they don’t. Google exists to serve the end user. At least, in theory. Yes, we’re the product for them. I don’t care. I am not a product. As such, the experience should be for me as seamless as possible. I don’t see how using a worthless codec makes that seamless.
Look at YouTube’s share of Internet video. Look at its competitors’ share of Internet video. Then stop asking silly questions.
HEY. GUESS WHAT. That’s exactly what is happening here. Which is why I’m calling attention to it.
Is this really so difficult a concept that you needed those sentences written out for you? You couldn’t come to that conclusion on your own?
It’s not like people were forced to develop their sites to cater specifically to Internet Explorer or anything.
Yeah, are they? Because they specifically said they’re not doing H.265 initially. They’re not even going to try.
Wow.
Just like Chrome removed H.264 supp… OOPS.
Ah, ok, movies. Yes, DRM-ed. Don't know why that is. I don't like to make assumptions, but if the record companies forced DRM on music downloads, I'd be surprised if the studio's weren't the also the ones forcing DRM on the movies as well. Sometimes this is the same company. Is Apple the only company selling and renting movies which are DRM-ed?
As for eBooks, I wouldn't expect a single author to be able to remove DRM from all resellers.
All we need is the porn industry to support H.264. Believe it or not they were one of the big deciding factors in VHS vs Beta Max, and HD DVD vs Blu Ray.
EDIT: I looked it up, it's an easily installed plugin. Not a problem.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/161428/google-to-push-royalty-free-vp9-4k-video-codec-as-h-265-alternative-for-youtube/80#post_2453696
Google pays to encode h.264, they will have to pay to encode h.265. And just because the encoder isn't as efficient as another one, doesn't automatically meant the decoder will have the same issue.
let's see, google has less than 100% of the video streaming market, the competitors have more than 0%, thus google is not a monopoly in the video steaming market. Are you able to provide more proof to assert you claim?
No, you have lost me, how exactly is google abusing their non-monopoly power?
Apple does this all the time, do you complain when consumers are "hurt" in the same way?
It was more the fact that Apple refused to remove it, DRM is bad when someone else does it.
Don't know the figures, but it's plausible that YouTube could be serving 70% of internet video, it's a big site.
That's actually wrong. DRM was the music industry's doing. Apple pushed for music to be DRM free.
If h.265 requires payment for encoding, then that stands to reason, of course. EXCEPT that Google said they will not be encoding to h.265 in the first place.
Well, no! But if they actually wanted to save money, they’d save it on the electricity used to power the hardware they use to transcode the HUNDRED HOURS OF VIDEO PER MINUTE they get uploaded by using the more efficient code.
Please do not talk about this subject again until you comprehend what a monopoly is. This is really depressing.
Vast majority share uses YouTube. Internet required to fall in line with standard set by YouTube. Standard set by YouTube is poor. Overall experience becomes poor.
Apple ignores vastly superior technologies to push others that make for a worse experience? Apple is a monopoly?
If YouTube does something that pisses users off, there are alternatives. It may be a monopoly by market share, but not a lock in, and there are other players, e.g. Netflix, that hold just as much power (not a lot). M
Safari will never support VP9 unless they are absolutely forced to. IE probably not either. Firefox might, but it'll support others too. Chrome is the only browser that would support VP9 and not h.265, but since h.264 capability is easily added by an extension, it's likely that h.265 will too.
This is nothing like the problem you're painting it as. Plus Google have a good record at iterating and making things better rapidly.
I suppose if a site doesn’t want its content to show up properly, meaning fewer visits, meaning less revenue, that’s their decision.
History shows that it’s ludicrous to think that would happen, though.
Right, and it’s a visibly different situation than, say, OS or browser marketshare from the way back, but it’s close. Hopefully Google won’t be able to shut things out, but they’ve already committed to not encoding to h.265.
I hadn’t thought about them (thanks) primarily because they’re moving to embedded streaming over on-computer streaming. You make a point, though. Netflix uses… what, Silverlight on the computer (which channels what codecs?), and what does Hulu use? They’re Flash-based, sure, but…
But when they have been asked to remove DRM from other media (media they directly control) they have refused.
In the first place, ie they haven't ruled anything out, just they are going to support their own technology before someone elses.
Also, why wouldn't encoding require payment? I'm sure the patent holders love donating their technologies so someone else can profit off them
I imagine you would need to talk to Google's business analysts about that, I'm sure they have performed some cost benefit analysts to determine what is going to be the best for them
I know what a monopoly is, the issue I have is your lack of evidence, please provide some figures which prove Google has a monopoly over internet streaming video.
Again, where are the figures showing usage per provider? Also, why does the who internet need to fall in line with YouTube? Are all the other streaming services falling in line now (paid and non paid)
Apple ignores industry standards and implements their own, they have done this countless times. And, yes, according to your definition of a monopoly Apple is, they are the dominant player in online music purchasing, and it I want to purchase music from iTunes, I am forced to use an Apple product. They also most likely have a dominant position in online movie purchasing as well, again, I am forced to use Apple devices if I want to purchase from them.
Right, but until they actually start encoding to h.265, them saying “we won’t be encoding to h.265” and them also not doing it is enough to keep me upset. If they start doing it, that’s another story and I’ll drop this.
Because there are free codecs? Isn’t that the entire idea here? I just personally know nothing of the requirements of licensing of h.265 specifically, and therefore did not say anything about it without knowing.
No, you don’t.
Look up usage of YouTube vs. Vimeo, say.
Not what I said.
As I said, you don’t know what a monopoly is.
Thanks for the tautology. What does that prove, again?