I don’t know where this myth is coming from, that Apple needs the VP9 codec. Google serves their 4K Videos in a second format, which the iOS/ tvOS plattform is capable of.
The now defunct ProTube for iOS plays 4K YouTube. And this is what the developer says.
OK but are both formats 4K? VP9 may be 4K but H.264 may be 1080p. Anyway, since a developer speaks so strictly...
You've got your technical details mixed up a bit. This argument is all about competing video codecs—the algorithms used to compress video files into smaller sizes.
Years ago, H.264 emerged as a superior codec. It made it possible to compress video files into much smaller sizes while maintaining very high quality. This finally made it feasible for consumers to store, stream, and download higher quality video content, including 720p and 1080P video. Apple, Sony, and many other leading companies in the entertainment industry embraced this codec. But Google didn't like it, because it was built around some patented technologies and required paying royalties. This was anathema to Google's business model, which revolves around giving away products and services for "free" while making money from harvesting and monetizing users' data. So Google refused to support H.264 and instead threw their weight behind VP8, a competing standard based on open source technologies which did not require paying royalties. But eventually H.264 won over VP8 because it produced better quality results and already had the support of the most important players in the market, including Apple.
Fast forward a few years and we saw the emergence of even higher video resolutions including 4K. But these files were generally too large for streaming or downloading given the existing costs and limitations of storage space and internet bandwidth, even with H.264 compression. Eventually, though, the availability of faster and cheaper computer processors opened the door to much better compression algorithms, which led to H.265/HEVC. Coupled with today's faster internet speeds, this new codec made it feasible to stream 4K content to the masses. But again, we now have Google objecting to the required royalties for this technology, so again they're fighting against it by pushing for the open source VP9 alternative.
If history is any indication we may see the superior H.265 win out in the end. But this is still uncertain since Google now has more leverage in the market with YouTube.
1) If they want their YouTube App to run V9 video's (Google's proprietary format) then they should re-write the YouTube App to play V9 videos. The YouTube app is Google's app, not Apple's.
2) Otherwise, Google should stop blocking access to 4K MP4 Videos on Apple TV. MP4 is THE STANDARD for video.
BLAME Google for lack of 4K Videos on YouTube for Apple TV.
Google doesn't need to "re-write" the YouTube app. They've long had the capability to support H.265, but flipped the switch and cut off support for it in order to avoid paying licensing fees. This has nothing to do with development effort and everything to do with Google's crappy business model—which Apple has no obligation to prop up.
1. It's safe to say VP9 codec is not part of Apple silicon, and why would it be. The decoding of 4K via software for YouTube content would not be possible on the ARM CPU alone, just try to do on a lower end Intel like even an i5 it just does not cut it.
1) If they want their YouTube App to run V9 video's (Google's proprietary format) then they should re-write the YouTube App to play V9 videos. The YouTube app is Google's app, not Apple's.
2) Otherwise, Google should stop blocking access to 4K MP4 Videos on Apple TV. MP4 is THE STANDARD for video.
BLAME Google for lack of 4K Videos on YouTube for Apple TV.
Google doesn't need to "re-write" the YouTube app. They've long had the capability to support H.265, but flipped the switch and cut off support for it in order to avoid paying licensing fees. This has nothing to do with development effort and everything to do with Google's crappy business model—which Apple has no obligation to prop up.
I don’t know where this myth is coming from, that Apple needs the VP9 codec. Google serves their 4K Videos in a second format, which the iOS/ tvOS plattform is capable of.
The now defunct ProTube for iOS plays 4K YouTube. And this is what the developer says.
OK but are both formats 4K? VP9 may be 4K but H.264 may be 1080p. Anyway, since a developer speaks so strictly...
You've got your technical details mixed up a bit. This argument is all about competing video codecs—the algorithms used to compress video files into smaller sizes.
Years ago, H.264 emerged as a superior codec. It made it possible to compress video files into much smaller sizes while maintaining very high quality. This finally made it feasible for consumers to store, stream, and download higher quality video content, including 720p and 1080P video. Apple, Sony, and many other leading companies in the entertainment industry embraced this codec. But Google didn't like it, because it was built around some patented technologies and required paying royalties. This was anathema to Google's business model, which revolves around giving away products and services for "free" while making money from harvesting and monetizing users' data. So Google refused to support H.264 and instead threw their weight behind VP8, a competing standard based on open source technologies which did not require paying royalties. But eventually H.264 won over VP8 because it produced better quality results and already had the support of the most important players in the market, including Apple.
Fast forward a few years and we saw the emergence of even higher video resolutions including 4K. But these files were generally too large for streaming or downloading given the existing costs and limitations of storage space and internet bandwidth, even with H.264 compression. Eventually, though, the availability of faster and cheaper computer processors opened the door to much better compression algorithms, which led to H.265/HEVC. Coupled with today's faster internet speeds, this new codec made it feasible to stream 4K content to the masses. But again, we now have Google objecting to the required royalties for this technology, so again they're fighting against it by pushing for the open source VP9 alternative.
If history is any indication we may see the superior H.265 win out in the end. But this is still uncertain since Google now has more leverage in the market with YouTube.
Yes I am confused a bit after that developer's claim. I will check again after installing High Sierra (bringing the HEVC codec) to see if YouTube will show any 4K option in the resolution menu of its player in Safari. Most probably it will not. Actually it only shows the 1440p option and the codec as avc1/h.264.
Sure. VP9 is "open source" and was developed by GOOG. May want to ask why they developed a new CODEC? Hint, it has nothing to do with licensing fees.
You could ask Netflix as well. Or Microsoft. Or Arm. Or Intel. Or Hulu. Or Cisco. Or ....
But since you already know don't hint around about it. Why did Google develop a new CODEC?
1) If they want their YouTube App to run V9 video's (Google's proprietary format) then they should re-write the YouTube App to play V9 videos. The YouTube app is Google's app, not Apple's.
2) Otherwise, Google should stop blocking access to 4K MP4 Videos on Apple TV. MP4 is THE STANDARD for video.
BLAME Google for lack of 4K Videos on YouTube for Apple TV.
Google doesn't need to "re-write" the YouTube app. They've long had the capability to support H.265, but flipped the switch and cut off support for it in order to avoid paying licensing fees. This has nothing to do with development effort and everything to do with Google's crappy business model—which Apple has no obligation to prop up.
Surprised you’d link to the XDA article which is full of lies and misrepresentations.
No wait, I’m not surprised at all.
Well that's a bit vague. Do the readers a service and mention what those "lies" are. Certainly not obvious. Surely you know something and not just creating doubt for the FUD of it.
I’m curious why Apple customers who live in Apples walled garden and protect that garden to the ends of the earth, why they would be upset with Google for protecting their walled garden other than they just want to get their way and that all companies should give in to Apple?. There are three competing ecosystems with Amazon, Apple, and Google, none of them are going to budge to help one another out at any cost. I’m so tired of hearing everyone use iOS and it’s customer base as a bargaining chip when the android bargaining chip is bigger, they have more customers and they primarily use Google services. I as an Apple customer am personally becoming really tired of this Apple and it’s closed system(look what it has done to Siri!), Apple TV is just another tool to keep using and purchasing apple purchased movies, they could care less if you watch youtube, that’s your concern, not theirs. I am sure googles going to do just fine with their profits through YouTube if they are not able to be used on Apple TV .
Here’s a London-inspired analogy for you:
The Android bargaining chip is the size of a football field, but is comprised of congealed cooking fat and discarded wet wipes.
The iOS bargaining chip is the size of a Land Rover, but is made of solid gold.
Which would you rather have delivered to your doorstep?
1) If they want their YouTube App to run V9 video's (Google's proprietary format) then they should re-write the YouTube App to play V9 videos. The YouTube app is Google's app, not Apple's.
2) Otherwise, Google should stop blocking access to 4K MP4 Videos on Apple TV. MP4 is THE STANDARD for video.
BLAME Google for lack of 4K Videos on YouTube for Apple TV.
Google doesn't need to "re-write" the YouTube app. They've long had the capability to support H.265, but flipped the switch and cut off support for it in order to avoid paying licensing fees. This has nothing to do with development effort and everything to do with Google's crappy business model—which Apple has no obligation to prop up.
Surprised you’d link to the XDA article which is full of lies and misrepresentations.
No wait, I’m not surprised at all.
Well that's a bit vague. Do the readers a service and mention what those "lies" are. Certainly not obvious.
So you linked an article without reading?
Which of the following pays HEVC licensing fees? Content providers (like YouTube), hardware manufacturers (phones, PCs, set top boxes), CPU/GPU vendors (Intel, Nvidia, Qualcomm) or App developers?
There isn't a shred of doubt on my mind that the Youtube app will be updated to support 4K and VP9 very soon. I really don't think the hardware or software of the Apple TV prevents this.
I’m curious why Apple customers who live in Apples walled garden and protect that garden to the ends of the earth, why they would be upset with Google for protecting their walled garden other than they just want to get their way and that all companies should give in to Apple?. There are three competing ecosystems with Amazon, Apple, and Google, none of them are going to budge to help one another out at any cost. I’m so tired of hearing everyone use iOS and it’s customer base as a bargaining chip when the android bargaining chip is bigger, they have more customers and they primarily use Google services. I as an Apple customer am personally becoming really tired of this Apple and it’s closed system(look what it has done to Siri!), Apple TV is just another tool to keep using and purchasing apple purchased movies, they could care less if you watch youtube, that’s your concern, not theirs. I am sure googles going to do just fine with their profits through YouTube if they are not able to be used on Apple TV .
Considering that Apple clients are probably worth 3 android clients for their advertising revenues and google pays a bundle to access those clients on the iPhone I’d say you are wrong
google does care and if apple played hardball they would suffer
anyone with so few posts coming here to tell us we shouldn’t care (so, why are you bothered by our. Bother...) is playing for irony or is oblivious to their own words.
iOS is irrellevant in this discussion. It is about Apple TV. Can you any decent reason why Google would do something special for Apple TV. In terms of revenue on search it represents (citing Alberto Contador) 0.00000000005%
I don’t know where this myth is coming from, that Apple needs the VP9 codec. Google serves their 4K Videos in a second format, which the iOS/ tvOS plattform is capable of.
The now defunct ProTube for iOS plays 4K YouTube. And this is what the developer says.
OK but are both formats 4K? VP9 may be 4K but H.264 may be 1080p. Anyway, since a developer speaks so strictly...
You've got your technical details mixed up a bit. This argument is all about competing video codecs—the algorithms used to compress video files into smaller sizes.
Years ago, H.264 emerged as a superior codec. It made it possible to compress video files into much smaller sizes while maintaining very high quality. This finally made it feasible for consumers to store, stream, and download higher quality video content, including 720p and 1080P video. Apple, Sony, and many other leading companies in the entertainment industry embraced this codec. But Google didn't like it, because it was built around some patented technologies and required paying royalties. This was anathema to Google's business model, which revolves around giving away products and services for "free" while making money from harvesting and monetizing users' data. So Google refused to support H.264 and instead threw their weight behind VP8, a competing standard based on open source technologies which did not require paying royalties. But eventually H.264 won over VP8 because it produced better quality results and already had the support of the most important players in the market, including Apple.
Fast forward a few years and we saw the emergence of even higher video resolutions including 4K. But these files were generally too large for streaming or downloading given the existing costs and limitations of storage space and internet bandwidth, even with H.264 compression. Eventually, though, the availability of faster and cheaper computer processors opened the door to much better compression algorithms, which led to H.265/HEVC. Coupled with today's faster internet speeds, this new codec made it feasible to stream 4K content to the masses. But again, we now have Google objecting to the required royalties for this technology, so again they're fighting against it by pushing for the open source VP9 alternative.
If history is any indication we may see the superior H.265 win out in the end. But this is still uncertain since Google now has more leverage in the market with YouTube.
H264 was indeed great technology, but the main driver for H264 becoming the dominant standard was not about technology, but more about being first on the market, so that video cams had built in hardware support.
History has shown that when competing technologies fighting to become the standard, it is not always the technological superior that wins (Betamax/VHS is a classical example)
1) If they want their YouTube App to run V9 video's (Google's proprietary format) then they should re-write the YouTube App to play V9 videos. The YouTube app is Google's app, not Apple's.
2) Otherwise, Google should stop blocking access to 4K MP4 Videos on Apple TV. MP4 is THE STANDARD for video.
BLAME Google for lack of 4K Videos on YouTube for Apple TV.
Google doesn't need to "re-write" the YouTube app. They've long had the capability to support H.265, but flipped the switch and cut off support for it in order to avoid paying licensing fees. This has nothing to do with development effort and everything to do with Google's crappy business model—which Apple has no obligation to prop up.
Surprised you’d link to the XDA article which is full of lies and misrepresentations.
No wait, I’m not surprised at all.
Well that's a bit vague. Do the readers a service and mention what those "lies" are. Certainly not obvious.
So you linked an article without reading?
Which of the following pays HEVC licensing fees? Content providers (like YouTube), hardware manufacturers (phones, PCs, set top boxes), CPU/GPU vendors (Intel, Nvidia, Qualcomm) or App developers?
Per Ars "The moratorium is only for the Internet Broadcast AVC video patent, which covers videos that are freely available via a web browser... you don’t have to pay MPEG LA royalties to watch H.264 video on the web from free services now, and you won’t have to in the future.
The MPEG LA says it will continue to collect fees on AVC/H.264 video that consumers pay for. The video format is used on Blu-Ray discs and on most on-demand and paid video delivery services, such as iTunes. It will also continue to collect fees from software that ships with the coders and decoders required to play H.264 video — even software that’s distributed for free, such as web browsers."
Since Apple IP is now part and parcel of the HEVC standard it's quite possible it costs Apple nothing to include it. The most recent licensing "synopsis" from HEVC, July of this year, makes it clear it is not otherwise free.
Note that Technicolor who was originally part of the patent pool for HEVC withdrew last year and has its own licensing terms for anyone wanting to use H.265 in their products. Big plus: Their displeasure with the relatively greedy rates the HEVC Advance was planning may well have been yet another impetous behind HEVC's capitulation.
Same goes for Velos Media who also declined to include their IP reading on HVEC from the MPEG-LA standards. They require a separately negotiated contract and royalties.
Rest easy, Gatorguy will soon explain, with numerous links, why this is all good and Google are right and Apple are wrong. He's just waiting for the data from Mountain View to arrive.
No, no, no... Google isn't always right, but they always have the best intentions... pure as the driven snow! (Am I doing this right?)
1) If they want their YouTube App to run V9 video's (Google's proprietary format) then they should re-write the YouTube App to play V9 videos. The YouTube app is Google's app, not Apple's.
2) Otherwise, Google should stop blocking access to 4K MP4 Videos on Apple TV. MP4 is THE STANDARD for video.
BLAME Google for lack of 4K Videos on YouTube for Apple TV.
Google doesn't need to "re-write" the YouTube app. They've long had the capability to support H.265, but flipped the switch and cut off support for it in order to avoid paying licensing fees. This has nothing to do with development effort and everything to do with Google's crappy business model—which Apple has no obligation to prop up.
Surprised you’d link to the XDA article which is full of lies and misrepresentations.
No wait, I’m not surprised at all.
Well that's a bit vague. Do the readers a service and mention what those "lies" are. Certainly not obvious.
So you linked an article without reading?
Which of the following pays HEVC licensing fees? Content providers (like YouTube), hardware manufacturers (phones, PCs, set top boxes), CPU/GPU vendors (Intel, Nvidia, Qualcomm) or App developers?
The moratorium is only for the Internet Broadcast AVC video patent, which covers videos that are freely available via a web browser... you don’t have to pay MPEG LA royalties to watch H.264 video on the web from free services now, and you won’t have to in the future.
The MPEG LA says it will continue to collect fees on AVC/H.264 video that consumers pay for. The video format is used on Blu-Ray discs and on most on-demand and paid video delivery services, such as iTunes. It will also continue to collect fees from software that ships with the coders and decoders required to play H.264 video — even software that’s distributed for free, such as web browsers.
Since Apple IP is now part and parcel of the HEVC standard it's quite possible it costs Apple nothing to include it. The most recent licensing "synopsis" from HEVC, July of this year, makes it clear it is not otherwise free.
Note that Technicolor who was originally part of the patent pool for HVEC withdrew last year and has its own licensing terms for anyone wanting to use H.265 in their products.
Comments
You've got your technical details mixed up a bit. This argument is all about competing video codecs—the algorithms used to compress video files into smaller sizes.
Years ago, H.264 emerged as a superior codec. It made it possible to compress video files into much smaller sizes while maintaining very high quality. This finally made it feasible for consumers to store, stream, and download higher quality video content, including 720p and 1080P video. Apple, Sony, and many other leading companies in the entertainment industry embraced this codec. But Google didn't like it, because it was built around some patented technologies and required paying royalties. This was anathema to Google's business model, which revolves around giving away products and services for "free" while making money from harvesting and monetizing users' data. So Google refused to support H.264 and instead threw their weight behind VP8, a competing standard based on open source technologies which did not require paying royalties. But eventually H.264 won over VP8 because it produced better quality results and already had the support of the most important players in the market, including Apple.
Fast forward a few years and we saw the emergence of even higher video resolutions including 4K. But these files were generally too large for streaming or downloading given the existing costs and limitations of storage space and internet bandwidth, even with H.264 compression. Eventually, though, the availability of faster and cheaper computer processors opened the door to much better compression algorithms, which led to H.265/HEVC. Coupled with today's faster internet speeds, this new codec made it feasible to stream 4K content to the masses. But again, we now have Google objecting to the required royalties for this technology, so again they're fighting against it by pushing for the open source VP9 alternative.
If history is any indication we may see the superior H.265 win out in the end. But this is still uncertain since Google now has more leverage in the market with YouTube.
http://aomedia.org/
https://www.xda-developers.com/av1-future-video-codecs-google-hevc/
2. And for reference H.264 licensee include Google. http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensees.aspx 461 is Google. but they don't license H.265 http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/HEVC/Pages/Licensees.aspx
3. Last there is nothing worth watching in 4K being put on YouTube for anyone to really give a shit about, it's mostly home brew content.
Surprised you’d link to the XDA article which is full of lies and misrepresentations.
No wait, I’m not surprised at all.
YouTube just isn't a source for feature movies that can be delivered in 4K and HDR.
If users were stuck with 1080 for the next 10 years it just won't impact funny cat video, instruction videos, toy opening video.
I can't wait for 4k for everything...I'm just saying I'm not sure watching in 1080 will ever impact the value that youtube provides.
The Android bargaining chip is the size of a football field, but is comprised of congealed cooking fat and discarded wet wipes.
The iOS bargaining chip is the size of a Land Rover, but is made of solid gold.
Which would you rather have delivered to your doorstep?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/12/total-monster-concrete-fatberg-blocks-london-sewage-system
So you linked an article without reading?
Which of the following pays HEVC licensing fees? Content providers (like YouTube), hardware manufacturers (phones, PCs, set top boxes), CPU/GPU vendors (Intel, Nvidia, Qualcomm) or App developers?
https://www.hevcadvance.com/pdf/Licensing_RatesandStructure.pdf
mean that Google would not pay any royalties for HEVC-encoded stuff? Or is that totally irrelevant to this discussion?
H264 was indeed great technology, but the main driver for H264 becoming the dominant standard was not about technology, but more about being first on the market, so that video cams had built in hardware support.
History has shown that when competing technologies fighting to become the standard, it is not always the technological superior that wins (Betamax/VHS is a classical example)
You claim about H265/HEVC being superior than VP9 is not generally accepted. See http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/Editorial/Featured-Articles/The-Great-UHD-Codec-Debate-Googles-VP9-Vs.-HEVC-H.265-103577.aspx ; On some aspects it is better on others VP9 is better.
Per Ars "The moratorium is only for the Internet Broadcast AVC video patent, which covers videos that are freely available via a web browser... you don’t have to pay MPEG LA royalties to watch H.264 video on the web from free services now, and you won’t have to in the future.
The MPEG LA says it will continue to collect fees on AVC/H.264 video that consumers pay for. The video format is used on Blu-Ray discs and on most on-demand and paid video delivery services, such as iTunes. It will also continue to collect fees from software that ships with the coders and decoders required to play H.264 video — even software that’s distributed for free, such as web browsers."
Since Apple IP is now part and parcel of the HEVC standard it's quite possible it costs Apple nothing to include it. The most recent licensing "synopsis" from HEVC, July of this year, makes it clear it is not otherwise free.
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/HEVC/Documents/HEVCweb.pdf
Note that Technicolor who was originally part of the patent pool for HEVC withdrew last year and has its own licensing terms for anyone wanting to use H.265 in their products. Big plus: Their displeasure with the relatively greedy rates the HEVC Advance was planning may well have been yet another impetous behind HEVC's capitulation.
https://www.thebroadcastbridge.com/content/entry/5020/technicolor-exits-hevc-patent-pool-in-bid-to-end-advanced-codec-war
Same goes for Velos Media who also declined to include their IP reading on HVEC from the MPEG-LA standards. They require a separately negotiated contract and royalties.
http://www.fiercecable.com/online-video/velos-media-launches-independent-hevc-licensing-platform
Like usual you didn't answer my question.