cloudmobile

macplusplus said:

A codec is nothing without hardware implementation.

Not even close to being true. Most codecs are software only and do not require extra hardware because the CPU can handle them just fine. For example: what is the hardware implementation of audio formats like *.mid, *.aac and *.mp3? There isn't one because your MacBook Pro doesn't need specialized hardware to decode a 20 megabyte *.mp3 file. ITunes can handle that just fine by itself. 

Now granted for THIS, 4K/8K video compression you will need new GPU designs and such to support it so in this case that is why Intel, ARM and others are on board. But in general terms, nope.

genovelle said:

gatorguy said:

jbdragon said:

gatorguy said:

Oh I SO look forward to @ericthehalfbee 's reaction to Apple finally buying into the Google-led royalty-free alternative to HEVC.  We've had numerous discussions in the past about this, some relatively recently.

Apple didn't do that!!! Google's is VP8 which went no where, and now followed by VP9. Which is what Google is using for YouTube in HD and why Apple doesn't support it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VP9

AV1 which is what Apple has finally signed onto is being developed by the Alliance for Open Media (AOMedia) In which Amazon, ARM, Cisco, Facebook, Google, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Mozilla, Netflix, Nvidia, and now Apple have signed onto as Founding Members. Along with others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_Open_Media

It's not Google-led. As for royalty-free, give it time, I'm sure someone will be suing them, maybe the Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG).

As I read it Google rolled their next version VP10 into AV1 and serves as basis for the codec being finalized by the Open Media Alliance. 
https://www.xda-developers.com/av1-future-video-codecs-google-hevc/

So yeah Apple is buying into into Google's vision, and that's OK. The more rabid Apple fans and loudest Google-haters have more of an issue with that than Apple themselves do, so trust what Apple chooses as several of the most vocal members here would normally suggest. . 

Not really Google’s Vision. Apple rightly choose not to use anything that Google controlled. They got burned with maps when they decided to complete on phones and held back features like turn by turn for years to make Apple look bad. They are supporting this because it is a merger of three platforms and Google’s control will be limited. Here is a quote from the article you linked. “Cisco was developing Thor for use in their videoconferencing products, and Xiph was developing Daala (a codec designed to be substantially different from all previous codecs, in order to prevent any possibility of patent claims). All three codecs (Thor, Daala, and VP9/VP10) were looking quite promising, but the split efforts were stifling their development and adoption, so the three organizations came together and merged their codecs into one (AV1), and created the Alliance for Open Media to further the development and adoption of this joint codec. AV1 aims to take the best parts of each of those three codecs, and merge them into a royalty-free package that anyone can implement.”

Sure ... if you ignore the fact that it was Google's idea to begin with. And this was never going to be something that Google "controlled" to begin with. No one controls open standards. That's the whole point. And yes, other entities to contribute to open standards. Hence the "open" and community" nature of it. The only issue was that no one else was willing to join in and support the open standard because they wanted to maintain and monetize their own. That would have happened whether it was Apple, some international standards body like ISO or IETF etc. proposing it, just as it has in the past long before Google existed and/or before they bought YouTube and launched Android and was just a search engine. But now that technology and market conditions have changed, everyone else is just now coming around to the idea that Google started promoting TEN YEARS AGO. 

It is hilarious. When Google stopped supporting Flash in Android, you guys were quick with the "Steve Jobs was right so take that Google fans!" comments. (Never mind that Android's support of Flash was very useful in helping Android gain adoption internationally and thus was a valid business and technology decision at the time.) But now when Apple joins an effort that Google recognized the need for due to their buying and operating YouTube way back in 2006 and had to deal with issues and gain expertise that Apple did not have as a result and had to spend the next 10 years getting other entities to join their efforts finally forcing Apple to act or else risk getting locked out, you guys say "nope has nothing to do with Google at all." And by the way, Google didn't even develop VP8 and its predecessors. On2 Technologies did. In 2008, Google bought On2 Technologies and immediately open-sourced VP8. If Google wanted to "control it" they would have never open-sourced it. But Google wanted this because they anticipated this business need which no one else has. And because Google didn't have their own proprietary video formats to license and monetize. (Meanwhile Google had to pay licensing fees on everyone else's formats.)

But now because of 4K everyone else has the same needs that Google has had since buying YouTube. So now they want in. Including Apple. Those are the facts no matter how you want to spin them. Had Apple been the one to buy YouTube instead of Google, they would have come to the same conclusion long ago too. 

georgie01 said:

So what is with this article saying how the Pixel had the top activations?

http://bgr.com/2017/12/27/pixel-2-vs-iphone-x-christmas-sales/

1. Shorter time period.
2. U.S. only versus global

Do not think that Apple having their smart speaker on the market would have impacted much. You have to remember that this vaunted "Apple ecosystem" thing is mostly hype. The vast majority of people in this alleged "ecosystem" only own 1 Apple device or at most two. Meaning that they may own an iPod or iPad or a MacBook, but few is the household that owns all 3, and even fewer is the household that owns other devices like the Apple Watch and the Apple TV. 

So, most people who own an iPad or iPhone own Windows PCs, not Macs, and access iTunes on Windows 7 or Windows 10. Lots of MacBook owners LOVE Samsung Galaxy devices. Most also own Rokus or smart TVs by Samsung/Sony/Vizio instead of Apple TV boxes ... or they own Playstations, Nintendos or XBox consoles. So the vast majority of the folks who bought the $29-$79 Echo products are like those: people who are Apple device owners but are not Apple ecosystem people. They mix and match devices from various platforms according to their needs and desires. Such people are going to be far more likely to spend $20 for an Echo Dot that they can control with their Alexa app on their iPhone 6s or 7 than spend $350 for an Apple speaker. Only a diehard Apple ecosystem type is going to have an interest in that. 

And by the way ... even a diehard Apple ecosystem type would still not necessarily be against buying an Echo Dot ... just as lots of them have no problem owning a Samsung smart TV.

brakken said:

What these idiots fail to understand is, that if they succeed in destroying Apple, then they won’t be able to keep using their iPhones. 

I expect we’ll now have to enact bills on how many documents can be ordered in ehat timeframe. 

No one is trying to destroy Apple. Qualcomm is merely trying to get Apple to pay the same for their IP for the iPhone 7, 8 and X as Apple paid for the 3G, 4, 5 and 6. The difference between what Apple wants to pay and what Qualcomm wants Apple to pay is a fraction of the licensing costs that Apple tried to use to drive Samsung from the mobile business, and ultimately succeeded in driving HTC from the mobile business because where HTC agreed to Apple's licensing demands Samsung fought back in court and wound up paying Apple far less as a result, even though they sold many times more devices than HTC ever did. In other words, it was Apple who was trying to use the courts and trade commissions to destroy the competition. In contrast, Qualcomm wants Apple to make and sell as many iPhones as possible because that is more money for Qualcomm. Realize this: Apple sold far fewer iPhone 3Gs than they will iPhone 8/X and they charged much less for the iPhone 3G than they do for the 8 and X. To pretend that this lawsuit poses any sort of threat to Apple's bottom line is hilarious. Even if Apple loses, Apple will either 1) raise the price of the iPhone accordingly or 2) find someone else in their supply chain to squeeze to make up the difference. And if Apple wins, no, they aren't going to lower the cost of iPhones or do anything else to pass that money onto consumers. It will just go into their coffers. Meaning you won't benefit unless you are a stockholder, and even if you are a stockholder, this lawsuit amounts to pennies compared to Apple's $850 billion valuation so you won't see much action on that front either. And finally: Qualcomm's IP is based on obsolete 2G/3G/CDMA tech. Within 5 years and possibly within 3 years, no one is going to be using that stuff anymore anyway. Verizon, for instance, will turn off their 2G and CDMA networks by the end of 2019. (Sprint still uses CDMA too, but who knows whether they will still be in business by then.) So by the time the final appeals are heard on this case, it will be a moot point, and the battle will be over how much Apple has to pay Qualcomm for their IP in Apple devices sold in the past. Something that both Apple and Qualcomm know by the way. Qualcomm is trying to maximize how much they can get for their IP while it still has some value. Apple wants to drag this out until the 2G/3G/CDMA patents are economically worthless and then use that as leverage to get Qualcomm to settle for as little as possible.