5 ms·

VP9 uses a retarded amount of CPU compared to h264, so I can't blame Apple for not wanting to implement it.

• phkahler 10y ago
  >> VP9 uses a retarded amount of CPU compared to h264, so I can't blame Apple for not wanting to implement it. h264 uses a retarded amount of bandwidth compared to VP9, so I can't blame Google for not wanting to implement it. Google is still providing a choice here, except for 4K where it costs them twice as much. Apple on the other hand has no excuse for not implementing both. There is also a free low-power hardware implementation of VP9 which Apple (who makes their own SoC) could choose to use but hasn't.
  • ebbv 10y ago
    > which Apple (who makes their own SoC) could choose to use but hasn't. They don't make their own SoC for their laptop and desktop machines, which is who this primarily affects. 4K on iPhones doesn't matter since they only have 2560x1440 resolution.
    • LeoNatan25 10y ago
      iPhone 7 Plus, the latest and largest phone, has a 1080x1920 display.
      • ebbv 10y ago
        Yeah you're right I got it mixed up which of my displays my phone had the same resolution as. :P
    • Oletros 10y ago
      They can use Intel built-in hardware decoding
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
• Oletros 10y ago
  Slylake and Kaby Lake have hardware decoding of VP9