5 ms·

A more glaring problem is video, where the widespread lack of hardware acceleration for VP8, VP9, or whatever variant Youtube happens to serve by default today

by niftich 10y ago

A more glaring problem is video, where the widespread lack of hardware acceleration for VP8, VP9, or whatever variant Youtube happens to serve by default today will burn software decoding cycles [3] (and battery life) while H.264 would decode in hardware buttery smooth. Given that VP9 is in no way superior to H.264 [1][2], this is purely an ideological push to favor their own format over a more widely supported another, and is a clear detriment to users. [1] http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/Editorial/Featured-Articles/The-Case-for-VP9-100833.aspx http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/Editorial/Featured-Ar... [2] https://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/200925/files/article-vp9-submited-v2.pdf https://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/200925/files/article-vp9-... [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13226309 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13226309

ensignavenger 10y ago
In no way better? Isn't VP9 free, whereas H.264 requires patent licenses?
- niftich 10y ago
  Not for H.264 made available at no cost on the public Internet [1]: "Internet Broadcast AVC Video (not title-by-title, not subscription) - no royalty for life of the AVC Patent Portfolio License" For any other uses (like Netflix, Youtube RED, and other subscription, pay-per-view and similarly commercial uses), once a company exceeds the yearly cap in license payments, they need not pay more. In 2016 the cap is $8.125 million, from 2017 to 2020 the cap is $9.75 million. [1] http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Documents/avcweb.pdf http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Documents/avcweb.pdf
  - ensignavenger 10y ago
    But that is still not "in no way better."
  - clouddrover 10y ago
    > Not for H.264 made available at no cost on the public Internet [1]: That's only the content license. You still have to pay for the encoder and the decoder. > from 2017 to 2020 the cap is $9.75 million. So using VP9 saves them $9.75 million per year in licensing fees alone, never mind the bandwidth cost savings from better compression. That's a strong financial incentive to switch to VP9 today and AV1 later when it's ready.
clouddrover 10y ago
> Given that VP9 is in no way superior to H.264 [1][2], YouTube and Netflix disagree with you: https://youtube-eng.googleblog.com/2015/04/vp9-faster-better-buffer-free-youtube.html https://youtube-eng.googleblog.com/2015/04/vp9-faster-better... http://techblog.netflix.com/2016/08/a-large-scale-comparison-of-x264-x265.html http://techblog.netflix.com/2016/08/a-large-scale-comparison... http://techblog.netflix.com/2016/12/more-efficient-mobile-encodes-for.html http://techblog.netflix.com/2016/12/more-efficient-mobile-en... The real world experience of YouTube and Netflix across a wide variety of video says VP9 outperforms H.264. It's not ideology, it's practicality. > and is a clear detriment to users. Read the YouTube engineering blog post on VP9. They're optimizing for bandwidth and quality. VP9 allows them to get their users better quality at lower bandwidth.

by niftich 10y ago

ensignavenger 10y ago

In no way better? Isn't VP9 free, whereas H.264 requires patent licenses?

niftich 10y ago
Not for H.264 made available at no cost on the public Internet [1]: "Internet Broadcast AVC Video (not title-by-title, not subscription) - no royalty for life of the AVC Patent Portfolio License" For any other uses (like Netflix, Youtube RED, and other subscription, pay-per-view and similarly commercial uses), once a company exceeds the yearly cap in license payments, they need not pay more. In 2016 the cap is $8.125 million, from 2017 to 2020 the cap is $9.75 million. [1] http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Documents/avcweb.pdf http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Documents/avcweb.pdf
- ensignavenger 10y ago
  But that is still not "in no way better."
- clouddrover 10y ago
  > Not for H.264 made available at no cost on the public Internet [1]: That's only the content license. You still have to pay for the encoder and the decoder. > from 2017 to 2020 the cap is $9.75 million. So using VP9 saves them $9.75 million per year in licensing fees alone, never mind the bandwidth cost savings from better compression. That's a strong financial incentive to switch to VP9 today and AV1 later when it's ready.

clouddrover 10y ago

> Given that VP9 is in no way superior to H.264 [1][2], YouTube and Netflix disagree with you: https://youtube-eng.googleblog.com/2015/04/vp9-faster-better-buffer-free-youtube.html https://youtube-eng.googleblog.com/2015/04/vp9-faster-better... http://techblog.netflix.com/2016/08/a-large-scale-comparison-of-x264-x265.html http://techblog.netflix.com/2016/08/a-large-scale-comparison... http://techblog.netflix.com/2016/12/more-efficient-mobile-encodes-for.html http://techblog.netflix.com/2016/12/more-efficient-mobile-en... The real world experience of YouTube and Netflix across a wide variety of video says VP9 outperforms H.264. It's not ideology, it's practicality. > and is a clear detriment to users. Read the YouTube engineering blog post on VP9. They're optimizing for bandwidth and quality. VP9 allows them to get their users better quality at lower bandwidth.