It will be interesting to see whether Apple decides to support Google’s codecs. It’s up to Apple to do that. Since it’s free to support, I can’t see why they wouldn’t, unless it just corporate rivalry on their part.
remember that Apple never supported FLAC for music either, but now they do. So that’s a change.
Maybe on a Mac or AppleTV, but decoding 4K video is rather computational intensive, and therefore Apple has implemented h.265 decoding in hardware on the iPhone. While it may be free of licensing costs to use VP9, implementing a hardware decoder for it is not. Therefore Apple can implement it in software, but that means the video might lag, because its too computational intensive to decode in software, or even if it's fast enough it will have a negative impact on the power consumption and battery life.
I think it's better if every streaming service could agree on one standard like HEVC.
You don’t actually know that. Older Apple devices can’t hardware decode any of this, it’s only since the A9 that it can be done, and only since the A10 that it can be done properly. So this isn’t a real issue. And there’s no reason to believe that Apple couldn’t use hardware decode if they wanted to. The hardware and software are all their own. If they wanted to, they could use it and decode it.
How do you know that Apple's A-series chips only offer HW decoding of HEVC with the A9? And what is "improper" about how the A9 does it v the A10? Are you saying that the iPhone 6 series used SW en/decoding for its HEVC when doing FaceTime over cellular?
This seems to go against your previous comments about the A10 in the Apple TV 4K being overkill, as I seem to recall you stating. If the A9 can't decode the codec "properly" then the A10 series would be the minimal option, especially when talking about HEVC for 2160p content with 10-bit color.
It will be interesting to see whether Apple decides to support Google’s codecs. It’s up to Apple to do that. Since it’s free to support, I can’t see why they wouldn’t, unless it just corporate rivalry on their part.
remember that Apple never supported FLAC for music either, but now they do. So that’s a change.
Why would Apple support Google codecs? Does Apple support Flash? No, but we can still use Flash thanks to the Flash plug-in on macOS. We use Microsoft's Silverlight plug-in to watch Netflix. Google must just provide its own plug-in for its codec. If it provides its own codec for tvOS and Apple refuses that then we may question that. But since Google doesn't provide a plug-in for macOS, it is most probably that it doesn't provide a codec for tvOS either. They might well implement it in their YouTube tvOS app. So the truth is not Apple does not support Google's codecs, the truth is Google's YouTube app does not support Google's own 4K codec on tvOS. If I'm wrong and it supports then correct me.
It's not on google to support the AppleTV 4k, it's on apple to support the VP9 codec...
That’s a matter of opinion. Google could certainly serve .265 4k videos if they wanted, yes? They choose what to serve. It’s a choice, just as Apple’s position is a choice.
It looks as there are two different thoughts in this. Apple wants to stick with standards that we seen in blu ray, netfilix and some other delivery systems. Google is going with the often desired route of no paid license. More the open software direction. Both have their advantages.
It will be interesting to see whether Apple decides to support Google’s codecs. It’s up to Apple to do that. Since it’s free to support, I can’t see why they wouldn’t, unless it just corporate rivalry on their part.
remember that Apple never supported FLAC for music either, but now they do. So that’s a change.
More like when will Google stop pushing their own inferior standards down everyone's throat and use the industry accepted HEVC (h.265) instead?
AFAIK, HEVC is entirely free to the viewer, so I'm not seeing that this is any issue for Google other than additional control of it's YouTube media ecosystem on the creation/upload side, and a relatively small license fee for HEVC content delivery.
I'm sure that Gatorguy will provide the details at some point.
Still, lots of YouTube content loses nothing at 480P, so me being forced to watch anything at 1080P quality in lieu of 4k isn't going to cause me any grief.
The license fee depends on usage. The more Google sends down the pipe, the more they pay. It could amount to several million a year for them. It’s not trivial.
I don't know that those are the final numbers, but the fees look trivial, although not free.
They aren’t trivial. I read that article back then. The protest over the fees being higher than the older ones got a lot of companies on edge. They were forced to back down. But large companies can pay millions a year for the licenses.
It will be interesting to see whether Apple decides to support Google’s codecs. It’s up to Apple to do that. Since it’s free to support, I can’t see why they wouldn’t, unless it just corporate rivalry on their part.
remember that Apple never supported FLAC for music either, but now they do. So that’s a change.
Maybe on a Mac or AppleTV, but decoding 4K video is rather computational intensive, and therefore Apple has implemented h.265 decoding in hardware on the iPhone. While it may be free of licensing costs to use VP9, implementing a hardware decoder for it is not. Therefore Apple can implement it in software, but that means the video might lag, because its too computational intensive to decode in software, or even if it's fast enough it will have a negative impact on the power consumption and battery life.
I think it's better if every streaming service could agree on one standard like HEVC.
You don’t actually know that. Older Apple devices can’t hardware decode any of this, it’s only since the A9 that it can be done, and only since the A10 that it can be done properly. So this isn’t a real issue. And there’s no reason to believe that Apple couldn’t use hardware decode if they wanted to. The hardware and software are all their own. If they wanted to, they could use it and decode it.
How do you know that Apple's A-series chips only offer HW decoding of HEVC with the A9? And what is "improper" about how the A9 does it v the A10?
This seems to go against your previous comments about the A10 in the Apple TV 4K being overkill, as I seem to recall you stating. If the A9 can't decode the codec "properly" then the A10 series would be the minimal option, especially when talking about HEVC for 2160p content with 10-bit color.
Because Apple said so. And as the A9 can decode it, the A10x was overkill. The A10 does better than the A9. Why the X version? For games, not for video.
It will be interesting to see whether Apple decides to support Google’s codecs. It’s up to Apple to do that. Since it’s free to support, I can’t see why they wouldn’t, unless it just corporate rivalry on their part.
remember that Apple never supported FLAC for music either, but now they do. So that’s a change.
Maybe on a Mac or AppleTV, but decoding 4K video is rather computational intensive, and therefore Apple has implemented h.265 decoding in hardware on the iPhone. While it may be free of licensing costs to use VP9, implementing a hardware decoder for it is not. Therefore Apple can implement it in software, but that means the video might lag, because its too computational intensive to decode in software, or even if it's fast enough it will have a negative impact on the power consumption and battery life.
I think it's better if every streaming service could agree on one standard like HEVC.
You don’t actually know that. Older Apple devices can’t hardware decode any of this, it’s only since the A9 that it can be done, and only since the A10 that it can be done properly. So this isn’t a real issue. And there’s no reason to believe that Apple couldn’t use hardware decode if they wanted to. The hardware and software are all their own. If they wanted to, they could use it and decode it.
How do you know that Apple's A-series chips only offer HW decoding of HEVC with the A9? And what is "improper" about how the A9 does it v the A10?
This seems to go against your previous comments about the A10 in the Apple TV 4K being overkill, as I seem to recall you stating. If the A9 can't decode the codec "properly" then the A10 series would be the minimal option, especially when talking about HEVC for 2160p content with 10-bit color.
Because Apple said so.
You may want to verify that and post a link since Apple also "said" that the iPhone 6 series can en/decode HEVC which puts it an entire year before your said it was possible and 2 years before you said it was "done properly." I'd love to see some evidence from Apple saying that they had years of an improper solution when I experienced no issues during that time.
It will be interesting to see whether Apple decides to support Google’s codecs. It’s up to Apple to do that. Since it’s free to support, I can’t see why they wouldn’t, unless it just corporate rivalry on their part.
remember that Apple never supported FLAC for music either, but now they do. So that’s a change.
More like when will Google stop pushing their own inferior standards down everyone's throat and use the industry accepted HEVC (h.265) instead?
AFAIK, HEVC is entirely free to the viewer, so I'm not seeing that this is any issue for Google other than additional control of it's YouTube media ecosystem on the creation/upload side, and a relatively small license fee for HEVC content delivery.
I'm sure that Gatorguy will provide the details at some point.
Still, lots of YouTube content loses nothing at 480P, so me being forced to watch anything at 1080P quality in lieu of 4k isn't going to cause me any grief.
The license fee depends on usage. The more Google sends down the pipe, the more they pay. It could amount to several million a year for them. It’s not trivial.
I don't know that those are the final numbers, but the fees look trivial, although not free.
They aren’t trivial. I read that article back then. The protest over the fees being higher than the older ones got a lot of companies on edge. They were forced to back down. But large companies can pay millions a year for the licenses.
Free if your content is free, capped at $2.5 m if it isn't; looks to be trivial for Netflix, Google, Amazon, so yeah, trivial.
It will be interesting to see whether Apple decides to support Google’s codecs. It’s up to Apple to do that. Since it’s free to support, I can’t see why they wouldn’t, unless it just corporate rivalry on their part.
remember that Apple never supported FLAC for music either, but now they do. So that’s a change.
Maybe on a Mac or AppleTV, but decoding 4K video is rather computational intensive, and therefore Apple has implemented h.265 decoding in hardware on the iPhone. While it may be free of licensing costs to use VP9, implementing a hardware decoder for it is not. Therefore Apple can implement it in software, but that means the video might lag, because its too computational intensive to decode in software, or even if it's fast enough it will have a negative impact on the power consumption and battery life.
I think it's better if every streaming service could agree on one standard like HEVC.
You don’t actually know that. Older Apple devices can’t hardware decode any of this, it’s only since the A9 that it can be done, and only since the A10 that it can be done properly. So this isn’t a real issue. And there’s no reason to believe that Apple couldn’t use hardware decode if they wanted to. The hardware and software are all their own. If they wanted to, they could use it and decode it.
How do you know that Apple's A-series chips only offer HW decoding of HEVC with the A9? And what is "improper" about how the A9 does it v the A10?
This seems to go against your previous comments about the A10 in the Apple TV 4K being overkill, as I seem to recall you stating. If the A9 can't decode the codec "properly" then the A10 series would be the minimal option, especially when talking about HEVC for 2160p content with 10-bit color.
Because Apple said so.
You may want to verify that and post a link since Apple also "said" that the iPhone 6 series can en/decode HEVC which puts it an entire year before your said it was possible and 2 years before you said it was "done properly." I'd love to see some evidence from Apple saying that they had years of an improper solution when I experienced no issues during that time.
They did it in software back then. As I said, it isn’t all that hard to do.
It will be interesting to see whether Apple decides to support Google’s codecs. It’s up to Apple to do that. Since it’s free to support, I can’t see why they wouldn’t, unless it just corporate rivalry on their part.
remember that Apple never supported FLAC for music either, but now they do. So that’s a change.
More like when will Google stop pushing their own inferior standards down everyone's throat and use the industry accepted HEVC (h.265) instead?
AFAIK, HEVC is entirely free to the viewer, so I'm not seeing that this is any issue for Google other than additional control of it's YouTube media ecosystem on the creation/upload side, and a relatively small license fee for HEVC content delivery.
I'm sure that Gatorguy will provide the details at some point.
Still, lots of YouTube content loses nothing at 480P, so me being forced to watch anything at 1080P quality in lieu of 4k isn't going to cause me any grief.
The license fee depends on usage. The more Google sends down the pipe, the more they pay. It could amount to several million a year for them. It’s not trivial.
I don't know that those are the final numbers, but the fees look trivial, although not free.
They aren’t trivial. I read that article back then. The protest over the fees being higher than the older ones got a lot of companies on edge. They were forced to back down. But large companies can pay millions a year for the licenses.
Free if your content is free, capped at $2.5 m if it isn't; looks to be trivial for Netflix, Google, Amazon, so yeah, trivial.
Not really, because Google does charge for advertising, and that counts.
Wasn’t Huawei bragging about their Kirin 970 - trying to steal some thunder just before Apples event? Sorry,Huawei, you’re not the first to put in a neural processor. You were the first to “announce” it, but it’s all vaporware until you ship devices (which Apple is). Even so, it’s not that big of a deal - neural processors are not that difficult to design (compared to a CPU or GPU) since they are optimized to perform a few basic tasks really well. The 970 still uses inferior ARM cores (instead of designing their own) or Mali GPUs (again, instead of designing their own). If they really wanted to impress people they should have made a completely custom SoC with their own CPU/GPU cores.
They took the easy way out by designing a much simpler component (nueral procesdor) and trying to make it appear more relevant than it is to make up for their lack of ability to design their own CPU/GPU.
Vapourware?
They didn't announce it and say, it's coming at some point.
They announced it, they showed it on stage and in the hands of the president, they had boards running the chip right there on the show floor, they had it in the hands of independent testers to test things like the CAT18 modem.
Vapourware? Yeah, whatever you say.
They even gave the date for the announcement of the first phone that will use it. It wasn't earlier because the Mate series is announced in October/November. If they wanted to be first with it shipping in a phone, they could. The processor has been in mass production for a while now and they need far less than Apple. If it isn't available today it's because they set a date and don't need to change it.
So you think neural processors are easy to design? They've been around for a while - but on mobile? No. If it were so easy, everybody would have one. They don't.
This is major step for whoever gets them onto a SoC. Major, but only the first one. Now software is needed.
Huawei develops their own SoCs. They could easily design their own CPU/GPUs too. They choose not too.
Be careful what you wish for. When the US government scuppered a deal for intel to ship Xeons to China for use in supercomputers the Chinese said, OK we'll brew our own. The result was the SW26010 and look what happened then. Do you know why Apple depends on other people's designs (not only manufacturing capacity) so much for key elements of its hardware? Because it chooses to. Just like Huawei. Just like everyone that has the resources to go it alone but chooses not to. There are things you prefer to do alone and others you don't.
Huawei is not using the latest ARM cores because it chose not to use them on the Kirin 970. It will use the latest cores on the following design. Using them on the Kirin 970 would have delayed the release. There are other reasons too. With this decision they still have a far better modem than anyone else, dual ISPs, a better sensor controller, the NPU, better efficiencies, far better GPU etc.
And even with the 960 (and below) they recently became the world's second largest handset manufacturer, moving past Apple. They even decided to pull out of the low end.
Apple designs its own chips because it wants differentiation with the rest of the market and is still using external IP on the GPUs on most of its phones and in many other areas. Let's face it, Apple has its biggest eggs in one basket. If the bottom falls out of that basket it wouldn't be a disaster for users, just Apple and Wall Street. The company would still be a billion dollar company. The same cannot be said of Huawei. Until relatively recently it wasn't even in the handset business. Huawei invests a lot in R&D but still has many agreements with other companies. Its phones are the fruit of many different IP agreements and of all kinds. Some are exclusive and some are not. Some involve shared IP and some don't.
Perhaps you are focusing too much on benchmarks and not seeing the bigger picture. Don't forget that Apple has had to play catch-up in many areas with their new phones.
Oh look, another brand new troll with 1 post agreeing with another well-known troll. Like we've NEEEEEVEEERRRR seen that before here at AI.
Like I've stated before, nothing gets the trolls going more than a discussion on Apple A-Series processors. It really bothers them to know just how far ahead Apple is compared to the Samsung and Qualcomm processors they're stuck using on their inferior devices.
I assume it doesn't help their "Apple is only good at marketing" when Apple designs their own chips and benchmarks prove that Apple leads the pack.
Yeh I think that is it alright. Its pretty odd posting too - who here cares about a chip that may or may not be in some Android manufacturer's phone sometimes the far future, and may be able to do something or other we also don't care about, because we have iPhones and this is an Apple centric site. There might be parts of the internet that could be more pre-disposed to this. Not here. And every freaking thread, the same argument.
(He is right about Apple needing to -- and going to -- sell more lower priced units but thats pretty obvious though. )
Not really odd. The article itself makes reference to competing systems (CPU,GPU,NPU) throws in Android and goes into the economics of Android handsets etc.
Apple centric, yes but not Apple exclusive and there are entries here that have little to do with Apple at all. I think it's nice to have informed opinion on different options. Apple centric is fine but an Apple bubble limited to people saying 'nice' things about Apple clearly isn't what this site is about. Also I only post in a relatively small amount of threads. Not every freaking one ;-).
I have added some more information on many of those points mentioned in the article and in response to other posters, and those on the A11.
All well and good until two posters jumped in to 'rattle the cage' a bit while adding little to nothing to the actual discussion.
Nothing really new but those comments were just personal attacks. Little more.
If this article was limited to Apple's efforts there would be little need to add third parties (unless someone brought it up in the comments) but that isn't the case.
On the other point, I would like to think that Apple needing to give us a better spread of pricing and product options was also very obvious but there are many people here who actively argued against me when I brought up the point. Even when supporting the point with all the relevant industry trends, they still said it was not going to happen. I was labelled the usual 'troll, idiot, shill' etc and told I was not in Apple's plans, Apple wouldn't cater to the lower end, it was a premium only brand, time to move on. You get the idea.
It will be interesting to see whether Apple decides to support Google’s codecs. It’s up to Apple to do that. Since it’s free to support, I can’t see why they wouldn’t, unless it just corporate rivalry on their part.
remember that Apple never supported FLAC for music either, but now they do. So that’s a change.
More like when will Google stop pushing their own inferior standards down everyone's throat and use the industry accepted HEVC (h.265) instead?
AFAIK, HEVC is entirely free to the viewer, so I'm not seeing that this is any issue for Google other than additional control of it's YouTube media ecosystem on the creation/upload side, and a relatively small license fee for HEVC content delivery.
I'm sure that Gatorguy will provide the details at some point.
Still, lots of YouTube content loses nothing at 480P, so me being forced to watch anything at 1080P quality in lieu of 4k isn't going to cause me any grief.
The license fee depends on usage. The more Google sends down the pipe, the more they pay. It could amount to several million a year for them. It’s not trivial.
I don't know that those are the final numbers, but the fees look trivial, although not free.
They aren’t trivial. I read that article back then. The protest over the fees being higher than the older ones got a lot of companies on edge. They were forced to back down. But large companies can pay millions a year for the licenses.
Free if your content is free, capped at $2.5 m if it isn't; looks to be trivial for Netflix, Google, Amazon, so yeah, trivial.
Not really, because Google does charge for advertising, and that counts.
"Services that do not charge for content, including ad-supported services such as YouTube and Facebook would not be charged an HEVC content royalty."
It will be interesting to see whether Apple decides to support Google’s codecs. It’s up to Apple to do that. Since it’s free to support, I can’t see why they wouldn’t, unless it just corporate rivalry on their part.
remember that Apple never supported FLAC for music either, but now they do. So that’s a change.
More like when will Google stop pushing their own inferior standards down everyone's throat and use the industry accepted HEVC (h.265) instead?
AFAIK, HEVC is entirely free to the viewer, so I'm not seeing that this is any issue for Google other than additional control of it's YouTube media ecosystem on the creation/upload side, and a relatively small license fee for HEVC content delivery.
I'm sure that Gatorguy will provide the details at some point.
Still, lots of YouTube content loses nothing at 480P, so me being forced to watch anything at 1080P quality in lieu of 4k isn't going to cause me any grief.
The license fee depends on usage. The more Google sends down the pipe, the more they pay. It could amount to several million a year for them. It’s not trivial.
I don't know that those are the final numbers, but the fees look trivial, although not free.
They aren’t trivial. I read that article back then. The protest over the fees being higher than the older ones got a lot of companies on edge. They were forced to back down. But large companies can pay millions a year for the licenses.
Free if your content is free, capped at $2.5 m if it isn't; looks to be trivial for Netflix, Google, Amazon, so yeah, trivial.
Not really, because Google does charge for advertising, and that counts.
"Services that do not charge for content, including ad-supported services such as YouTube and Facebook would not be charged an HEVC content royalty."
Yes. I stand corrected on that. I just read the revised licensing terms. In the first public release, they did charge for ad supported content. But, they still will charge Google for their YouTube subscription streams, because the new licensing specifically states that subscription streaming must be licensed, and paid for. That can be up to $2.5 million a year. In addition, the cap for large corporate, or institutional use is $40 million, according to those new terms. So, not unsubstantial for manufacturers. The total yearly cap for streaming plus other content is $5 million a year.
It will be interesting to see whether Apple decides to support Google’s codecs. It’s up to Apple to do that. Since it’s free to support, I can’t see why they wouldn’t, unless it just corporate rivalry on their part.
remember that Apple never supported FLAC for music either, but now they do. So that’s a change.
Maybe on a Mac or AppleTV, but decoding 4K video is rather computational intensive, and therefore Apple has implemented h.265 decoding in hardware on the iPhone. While it may be free of licensing costs to use VP9, implementing a hardware decoder for it is not. Therefore Apple can implement it in software, but that means the video might lag, because its too computational intensive to decode in software, or even if it's fast enough it will have a negative impact on the power consumption and battery life.
I think it's better if every streaming service could agree on one standard like HEVC.
You don’t actually know that. Older Apple devices can’t hardware decode any of this, it’s only since the A9 that it can be done, and only since the A10 that it can be done properly. So this isn’t a real issue. And there’s no reason to believe that Apple couldn’t use hardware decode if they wanted to. The hardware and software are all their own. If they wanted to, they could use it and decode it.
How do you know that Apple's A-series chips only offer HW decoding of HEVC with the A9? And what is "improper" about how the A9 does it v the A10?
This seems to go against your previous comments about the A10 in the Apple TV 4K being overkill, as I seem to recall you stating. If the A9 can't decode the codec "properly" then the A10 series would be the minimal option, especially when talking about HEVC for 2160p content with 10-bit color.
Because Apple said so. And as the A9 can decode it, the A10x was overkill. The A10 does better than the A9. Why the X version? For games, not for video.
Yup.
Also remember that slide (for iOS9 at WWDC?) that had h.265 support listed and then in the final release and launch of the 6S all mention of h.265 was suddenly missing - most likely due to those licensing issues.
It will be interesting to see whether Apple decides to support Google’s codecs. It’s up to Apple to do that. Since it’s free to support, I can’t see why they wouldn’t, unless it just corporate rivalry on their part.
remember that Apple never supported FLAC for music either, but now they do. So that’s a change.
More like when will Google stop pushing their own inferior standards down everyone's throat and use the industry accepted HEVC (h.265) instead?
AFAIK, HEVC is entirely free to the viewer, so I'm not seeing that this is any issue for Google other than additional control of it's YouTube media ecosystem on the creation/upload side, and a relatively small license fee for HEVC content delivery.
I'm sure that Gatorguy will provide the details at some point.
Still, lots of YouTube content loses nothing at 480P, so me being forced to watch anything at 1080P quality in lieu of 4k isn't going to cause me any grief.
The license fee depends on usage. The more Google sends down the pipe, the more they pay. It could amount to several million a year for them. It’s not trivial.
I don't know that those are the final numbers, but the fees look trivial, although not free.
They aren’t trivial. I read that article back then. The protest over the fees being higher than the older ones got a lot of companies on edge. They were forced to back down. But large companies can pay millions a year for the licenses.
Free if your content is free, capped at $2.5 m if it isn't; looks to be trivial for Netflix, Google, Amazon, so yeah, trivial.
Not really, because Google does charge for advertising, and that counts.
"Services that do not charge for content, including ad-supported services such as YouTube and Facebook would not be charged an HEVC content royalty."
You're only looking at two of the four standards groups that claim to have patents reading on h.265. But when you find that there are two more and one of them has signaled they'll be much more aggressive with their licensing demands and may decide to demand royalties for content that is streamed using h.265....
It will be interesting to see whether Apple decides to support Google’s codecs. It’s up to Apple to do that. Since it’s free to support, I can’t see why they wouldn’t, unless it just corporate rivalry on their part.
remember that Apple never supported FLAC for music either, but now they do. So that’s a change.
More like when will Google stop pushing their own inferior standards down everyone's throat and use the industry accepted HEVC (h.265) instead?
AFAIK, HEVC is entirely free to the viewer, so I'm not seeing that this is any issue for Google other than additional control of it's YouTube media ecosystem on the creation/upload side, and a relatively small license fee for HEVC content delivery.
I'm sure that Gatorguy will provide the details at some point.
Still, lots of YouTube content loses nothing at 480P, so me being forced to watch anything at 1080P quality in lieu of 4k isn't going to cause me any grief.
The license fee depends on usage. The more Google sends down the pipe, the more they pay. It could amount to several million a year for them. It’s not trivial.
I don't know that those are the final numbers, but the fees look trivial, although not free.
They aren’t trivial. I read that article back then. The protest over the fees being higher than the older ones got a lot of companies on edge. They were forced to back down. But large companies can pay millions a year for the licenses.
Free if your content is free, capped at $2.5 m if it isn't; looks to be trivial for Netflix, Google, Amazon, so yeah, trivial.
Not really, because Google does charge for advertising, and that counts.
"Services that do not charge for content, including ad-supported services such as YouTube and Facebook would not be charged an HEVC content royalty."
You're only looking at two of the four standards groups that claim to have patents reading on h.265. But when you find that there are two more and one of them has signaled they'll be much more aggressive with their licensing demands and may decide to demand royalties for content that is streamed using h.265....
"We believe that HEVC technology is unparalleled when it comes to video compression, so if performance and highest quality are the objectives, we don’t think there is a comparison. As it relates to royalties, we know that VP9 incorporates patented technologies, including some of the patents being licensed by Velos Media for HEVC. And, while AV1 has not yet been publicly released, it may also incorporate patented technology from many parties."
That's why Google indemnifies all of its users, but it doesn't mean that VP9 or AV1 are completely clean IP.
Still, none of this answers the question of why Google wouldn't cough up a paltry $5m per year to deliver HEVC, so I'll just state, because they can get away with that.
Me, I'm of the set of Apple users that isn't watching high quality Youtube content anyway, so if 1080P is the best I get, I can live with that. Apple could provide a software solution, with the attendant higher power drain, so it's not like this is fully settled.
It will be interesting to see whether Apple decides to support Google’s codecs. It’s up to Apple to do that. Since it’s free to support, I can’t see why they wouldn’t, unless it just corporate rivalry on their part.
remember that Apple never supported FLAC for music either, but now they do. So that’s a change.
More like when will Google stop pushing their own inferior standards down everyone's throat and use the industry accepted HEVC (h.265) instead?
AFAIK, HEVC is entirely free to the viewer, so I'm not seeing that this is any issue for Google other than additional control of it's YouTube media ecosystem on the creation/upload side, and a relatively small license fee for HEVC content delivery.
I'm sure that Gatorguy will provide the details at some point.
Still, lots of YouTube content loses nothing at 480P, so me being forced to watch anything at 1080P quality in lieu of 4k isn't going to cause me any grief.
The license fee depends on usage. The more Google sends down the pipe, the more they pay. It could amount to several million a year for them. It’s not trivial.
I don't know that those are the final numbers, but the fees look trivial, although not free.
They aren’t trivial. I read that article back then. The protest over the fees being higher than the older ones got a lot of companies on edge. They were forced to back down. But large companies can pay millions a year for the licenses.
Free if your content is free, capped at $2.5 m if it isn't; looks to be trivial for Netflix, Google, Amazon, so yeah, trivial.
Not really, because Google does charge for advertising, and that counts.
"Services that do not charge for content, including ad-supported services such as YouTube and Facebook would not be charged an HEVC content royalty."
You're only looking at two of the four standards groups that claim to have patents reading on h.265. But when you find that there are two more and one of them has signaled they'll be much more aggressive with their licensing demands and may decide to demand royalties for content that is streamed using h.265....
"We believe that HEVC technology is unparalleled when it comes to video compression, so if performance and highest quality are the objectives, we don’t think there is a comparison. As it relates to royalties, we know that VP9 incorporates patented technologies, including some of the patents being licensed by Velos Media for HEVC. And, while AV1 has not yet been publicly released, it may also incorporate patented technology from many parties."
That's why Google indemnifies all of its users, but it doesn't mean that VP9 or AV1 are completely clean IP.
Still, none of this answers the question of why Google wouldn't cough up a paltry < $5m per year to deliver HEVC, so I'll just state, because they can get away with that.
Me, I'm of the set of Apple users that isn't watching high quality Youtube content anyway, so if 1080P is the best I get, I can live with that. Apple could provide a software solution, with the attendant higher power drain, so it's not like this is fully settled.
No we DON'T know that VP9 incorporates even a single patent controlled by MPEG-LA, nor do they make that claim. Read the actual joint announcement of the royalty-free agreement between Google and MPEG-LA. What we do know is that VP9 has zero IP infringement claim danger from MPEG-LA. They make no claims of any infringement and agreed to a license to make it a settled issue.
As for Velos Media there's three issues at play. Velos will of courseclaim they have patents that will be infringed by AV1. They can say whatever they wish. MPEG-LA said the same about VP8/9 yet never could prove there was. In the end all it amounted to was bluff and bluster. A bit of FUD, a little anti-PR, perhaps even a few veiled threats are to be expected whenever a competitor comes on the scene. Velos is playing the same game IMO.
Second Velos issue: How much might Velos Media decide to charge content producers and/or providers in royalties on top of what they want from device producers incorporating h.265? If they had no future plan to demand content royalties too they would not be raising that specific issue in their Q&A IMHO. HEVC users can't say they weren't forewarned.
Third issue? Velos is actively soliciting more patent owners who potentially have IP reading on h.265 which makes it a distinct possibility that licensees of the standard may be subject to even higher future royalty demands even if HVEC Advance should decide for whatever reason not to raise rates. Having a well-supported royalty-free option to h.265 might be one of those reasons not to get too demanding, another plus for encouraging a competing CODEC.
So with the licensing and royalties uncertainty surrounding HEVC why wouldn't Netflix, Microsoft, Google and a dozen other media-dependent techs be working on a royalty-free CODEC? It would be bad business not to, don't you agree? Uncertainly in business is to be avoided if at all possible, whether it's Apple designing their own chipsets and techniques and CODECS to avoid it or whether it's the companies committing to AV1 in order to have more reliable control over their own business plans.
I realize that only by ignoring Velos and whoever else has said (or will) that they want a piece of h.265 is the only way that you can claim there's no real costs involved, but Velos Media and the other patent holders who chose not to team up with HVEC Advance/MPEG-LA will beg to differ. Just because a hated company is in the mix with a competing CODEC doesn't mean the greed surrounding h.265 is better.
It will be interesting to see whether Apple decides to support Google’s codecs. It’s up to Apple to do that. Since it’s free to support, I can’t see why they wouldn’t, unless it just corporate rivalry on their part.
remember that Apple never supported FLAC for music either, but now they do. So that’s a change.
More like when will Google stop pushing their own inferior standards down everyone's throat and use the industry accepted HEVC (h.265) instead?
AFAIK, HEVC is entirely free to the viewer, so I'm not seeing that this is any issue for Google other than additional control of it's YouTube media ecosystem on the creation/upload side, and a relatively small license fee for HEVC content delivery.
I'm sure that Gatorguy will provide the details at some point.
Still, lots of YouTube content loses nothing at 480P, so me being forced to watch anything at 1080P quality in lieu of 4k isn't going to cause me any grief.
The license fee depends on usage. The more Google sends down the pipe, the more they pay. It could amount to several million a year for them. It’s not trivial.
I don't know that those are the final numbers, but the fees look trivial, although not free.
They aren’t trivial. I read that article back then. The protest over the fees being higher than the older ones got a lot of companies on edge. They were forced to back down. But large companies can pay millions a year for the licenses.
Free if your content is free, capped at $2.5 m if it isn't; looks to be trivial for Netflix, Google, Amazon, so yeah, trivial.
Not really, because Google does charge for advertising, and that counts.
"Services that do not charge for content, including ad-supported services such as YouTube and Facebook would not be charged an HEVC content royalty."
You're only looking at two of the four standards groups that claim to have patents reading on h.265. But when you find that there are two more and one of them has signaled they'll be much more aggressive with their licensing demands and may decide to demand royalties for content that is streamed using h.265....
"We believe that HEVC technology is unparalleled when it comes to video compression, so if performance and highest quality are the objectives, we don’t think there is a comparison. As it relates to royalties, we know that VP9 incorporates patented technologies, including some of the patents being licensed by Velos Media for HEVC. And, while AV1 has not yet been publicly released, it may also incorporate patented technology from many parties."
That's why Google indemnifies all of its users, but it doesn't mean that VP9 or AV1 are completely clean IP.
Still, none of this answers the question of why Google wouldn't cough up a paltry < $5m per year to deliver HEVC, so I'll just state, because they can get away with that.
Me, I'm of the set of Apple users that isn't watching high quality Youtube content anyway, so if 1080P is the best I get, I can live with that. Apple could provide a software solution, with the attendant higher power drain, so it's not like this is fully settled.
No we DON'T know that VP9 incorporates even a single patent controlled by MPEG-LA, nor do they make that claim. Read the actual joint announcement of the royalty-free agreement between Google and MPEG-LA. What we do know is that VP9 has zero IP infringement claim danger from MPEG-LA. They make no claims of any infringement and agreed to a license to make it a settled issue.
As for Velos Media there's three issues at play. Velos will of courseclaim they have patents that will be infringed by AV1. They can say whatever they wish. MPEG-LA said the same about VP8/9 yet never could prove there was. In the end all it amounted to was bluff and bluster. A bit of FUD, a little anti-PR, perhaps even a few veiled threats are to be expected whenever a competitor comes on the scene. Velos is playing the same game IMO.
Second Velos issue: How much might Velos Media decide to charge content producers and/or providers in royalties on top of what they want from device producers incorporating h.265? If they had no future plan to demand content royalties too they would not be raising that specific issue in their Q&A IMHO. HEVC users can't say they weren't forewarned.
Third issue? Velos is actively soliciting more patent owners who potentially have IP reading on h.265 which makes it a distinct possibility that licensees of the standard may be subject to even higher future royalty demands even if HVEC Advance should decide for whatever reason not to raise rates. Having a well-supported royalty-free option to h.265 might be one of those reasons not to get too demanding, another plus for encouraging a competing CODEC.
So with the licensing and royalties uncertainty surrounding HEVC why wouldn't Netflix, Microsoft, Google and a dozen other media-dependent techs be working on a royalty-free CODEC? It would be bad business not to, don't you agree? Uncertainly in business is to be avoided if at all possible, whether it's Apple designing their own chipsets and techniques and CODECS to avoid it or whether it's the companies committing to AV1 in order to have more reliable control over their own business plans.
I realize that only by ignoring Velos and whoever else has said (or will) that they want a piece of h.265 is the only way that you can claim there's no real costs involved, but Velos Media and the other patent holders who chose not to team up with HVEC Advance/MPEG-LA will beg to differ. Just because a hated company is in the mix with a competing CODEC doesn't mean the greed surrounding h.265 is better.
The only thing I would disagree with is the “greed” aspect. There are companies who distribute hardware, software, and/or content. Obviously they don’t want to pay anything. Then there are those who make hardware and software encoders and decoders. They make some of their money from that, so of course they want to get paid. That’s not greed. You could also say that the distributer’s are cheap. That works too.
while we, the consumer, may pay a tiny amount of money that’s tied up in the product we use, or buy, because of those fees, it’s just pennies a year. So we don’t see any real, direct costs from this. We can afford to sit on the fence about any proposed standards. To us, it’s not relevant which one is used.
but these free standards don’t seem to get developed until after a viable commercial version is developed, and released. Google’s versions, while just dandy for most people aren’t quite as good as the commercial ones out there. They always seem to be a partial step behind. We’ll have to see how AV1 turns out. It’s surely interesting that they’re not just agreeing to go with one owned by Google, though Google is in the AV1 group too.
my question is why Apple isn’t in that group too. They do have some of their own patents in HEIF and HEVC. I doubt that would be a major reason though.
Well written article, but I have to challenge the opinion that it's Google's fault alone that "Apple TV 4K can't play Youtube 4K". If Apple really cared THAT much about user experience, they would cough up the cash for the license and die space for the silicon required, instead of trying to strong-arm Google, and then work on a solution in the background...
Well written article, but I have to challenge the opinion that it's Google's fault alone that "Apple TV 4K can't play Youtube 4K". If Apple really cared THAT much about user experience, they would cough up the cash for the license and die space for the silicon required, instead of trying to strong-arm Google, and then work on a solution in the background…
VP is royalty free.Apple pays royalties for MPEG Group codecs. Google is the one trying to use their dominance with YouTube in order to force everyone else to use their "free" codec by artificially disallowing 2160p content from using H.264 or H.265 despite 1) already paying for the licenses of paid content, 2) those MPEG codecs having no costs for free videos, and 3) being less efficient codecs too boot.
Well written article, but I have to challenge the opinion that it's Google's fault alone that "Apple TV 4K can't play Youtube 4K". If Apple really cared THAT much about user experience, they would cough up the cash for the license and die space for the silicon required, instead of trying to strong-arm Google, and then work on a solution in the background…
VP is royalty free.Apple pays royalties for MPEG Group codecs. Google is the one trying to use their dominance with YouTube in order to force everyone else to use their "free" codec by artificially disallowing 2160p content from using H.264 or H.265 despite 1) already paying for the licenses of paid content, 2) those MPEG codecs having no costs for free videos, and 3) being less efficient codecs too boot.
Comments
This seems to go against your previous comments about the A10 in the Apple TV 4K being overkill, as I seem to recall you stating. If the A9 can't decode the codec "properly" then the A10 series would be the minimal option, especially when talking about HEVC for 2160p content with 10-bit color.
Apple centric, yes but not Apple exclusive and there are entries here that have little to do with Apple at all. I think it's nice to have informed opinion on different options. Apple centric is fine but an Apple bubble limited to people saying 'nice' things about Apple clearly isn't what this site is about. Also I only post in a relatively small amount of threads. Not every freaking one ;-).
I have added some more information on many of those points mentioned in the article and in response to other posters, and those on the A11.
All well and good until two posters jumped in to 'rattle the cage' a bit while adding little to nothing to the actual discussion.
Nothing really new but those comments were just personal attacks. Little more.
If this article was limited to Apple's efforts there would be little need to add third parties (unless someone brought it up in the comments) but that isn't the case.
On the other point, I would like to think that Apple needing to give us a better spread of pricing and product options was also very obvious but there are many people here who actively argued against me when I brought up the point. Even when supporting the point with all the relevant industry trends, they still said it was not going to happen. I was labelled the usual 'troll, idiot, shill' etc and told I was not in Apple's plans, Apple wouldn't cater to the lower end, it was a premium only brand, time to move on. You get the idea.
Each to their own, though.
A good summery is here:
http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/Editorial/Featured-Articles/HEVC-Advance-Releases-Revised-Licensing-Terms-108230.aspx
Also remember that slide (for iOS9 at WWDC?) that had h.265 support listed and then in the final release and launch of the 6S all mention of h.265 was suddenly missing - most likely due to those licensing issues.
Read this and then tell me no one using HEVC/h.265 should have worries about what the costs are.
http://velosmedia.com/technology/q-and-a/
That's why Google indemnifies all of its users, but it doesn't mean that VP9 or AV1 are completely clean IP.
Still, none of this answers the question of why Google wouldn't cough up a paltry $5m per year to deliver HEVC, so I'll just state, because they can get away with that.
Me, I'm of the set of Apple users that isn't watching high quality Youtube content anyway, so if 1080P is the best I get, I can live with that. Apple could provide a software solution, with the attendant higher power drain, so it's not like this is fully settled.
As for Velos Media there's three issues at play. Velos will of course claim they have patents that will be infringed by AV1. They can say whatever they wish. MPEG-LA said the same about VP8/9 yet never could prove there was. In the end all it amounted to was bluff and bluster. A bit of FUD, a little anti-PR, perhaps even a few veiled threats are to be expected whenever a competitor comes on the scene. Velos is playing the same game IMO.
Second Velos issue: How much might Velos Media decide to charge content producers and/or providers in royalties on top of what they want from device producers incorporating h.265? If they had no future plan to demand content royalties too they would not be raising that specific issue in their Q&A IMHO. HEVC users can't say they weren't forewarned.
Third issue? Velos is actively soliciting more patent owners who potentially have IP reading on h.265 which makes it a distinct possibility that licensees of the standard may be subject to even higher future royalty demands even if HVEC Advance should decide for whatever reason not to raise rates. Having a well-supported royalty-free option to h.265 might be one of those reasons not to get too demanding, another plus for encouraging a competing CODEC.
So with the licensing and royalties uncertainty surrounding HEVC why wouldn't Netflix, Microsoft, Google and a dozen other media-dependent techs be working on a royalty-free CODEC? It would be bad business not to, don't you agree? Uncertainly in business is to be avoided if at all possible, whether it's Apple designing their own chipsets and techniques and CODECS to avoid it or whether it's the companies committing to AV1 in order to have more reliable control over their own business plans.
I realize that only by ignoring Velos and whoever else has said (or will) that they want a piece of h.265 is the only way that you can claim there's no real costs involved, but Velos Media and the other patent holders who chose not to team up with HVEC Advance/MPEG-LA will beg to differ. Just because a hated company is in the mix with a competing CODEC doesn't mean the greed surrounding h.265 is better.
while we, the consumer, may pay a tiny amount of money that’s tied up in the product we use, or buy, because of those fees, it’s just pennies a year. So we don’t see any real, direct costs from this. We can afford to sit on the fence about any proposed standards. To us, it’s not relevant which one is used.
but these free standards don’t seem to get developed until after a viable commercial version is developed, and released. Google’s versions, while just dandy for most people aren’t quite as good as the commercial ones out there. They always seem to be a partial step behind. We’ll have to see how AV1 turns out. It’s surely interesting that they’re not just agreeing to go with one owned by Google, though Google is in the AV1 group too.
my question is why Apple isn’t in that group too. They do have some of their own patents in HEIF and HEVC. I doubt that would be a major reason though.
If Apple really cared THAT much about user experience, they would cough up the cash for the license and die space for the silicon required, instead of trying to strong-arm Google, and then work on a solution in the background...