4 ms·

The biggest bummer of these machines is apples lack of vp9 hardware decoding in macos, it makes 4k youtube unwatchable. For high motion content (mountain biking

The biggest bummer of these machines is apples lack of vp9 hardware decoding in macos, it makes 4k youtube unwatchable. For high motion content (mountain biking videos) 4k is the only way to watch even on a tiny laptop screen due to youtube’s horrific compression. Its an absurd limitation considering the hardware has full support for it! I know it sounds insane but I returned mine for a quad core 13” mbp just to brute force software decode playback of these videos.

oarsinsync 7y ago
Not the perfect solution, but I think changing your user-agent to iOS makes youtube deliver x264 instead of vp9
- PascLeRasc 7y ago
  This Chrome extension will do it in a cleaner way: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/h264ify/aleakchihdccplidncghkekgioiakgal?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/h264ify/aleakchihd...
  - oarsinsync 7y ago
    Does anyone know of a similar Safari extension? Battery life remains a concern, and switching from vp9 to x264 is great, but then having to deploy Chrome instead feels like a 1 step forward, 2 steps backwards situation.
swebs 7y ago
Do hardware decoders for vp9 even exist?
- zerocrates 7y ago
  There's accelerated decoding on at least some of the modern mobile platforms, and from all the major graphics providers on laptop/desktop.
- vetinari 7y ago
  Any Intel GPU since Kaby Lake can decode VP9 in hardware. So can AMD since Raven Ridge[1] and Nvidia since GM206. On Android, it has been mandated by CTS for several years already. [1] Except Radeon VII, which is technically Vega.
givinguflac 7y ago
Using Brave or FF I can watch 4k no issues on my MacBook, though I wouldn't turn down lower power usage when doing so.
threeseed 7y ago
Google could support H.264 or H.265. The only reason they don't is because they want to push their format.
- untog 7y ago
  I wouldn't say it's the only reason. H264/5 are not royalty-free codecs. YouTube is a powerful tool Google can use to push a royalty-free codec, much like Apple used the iPhone to push people off Flash. It's one of few areas I agree with Google being heavy handed.
  - stephenr 7y ago
    What, over and above the H.264 licensing that covers them for 1080p content? It’s google doing what google always does: pushing a google controlled thing to become a “standard”.
    - untog 7y ago
      It's an open source, royalty free codec. I'd much rather use that than one owned and licensed by a private organisation, no matter whether Google develops it or not.
      - stephenr 7y ago
        It’s still patent encumbered, and if you happen to sue Google, because they do something shitty, you lose your patent grant.
        untog 7y ago
        How does that make H264 preferable?
        stephenr 7y ago
        It's not operated by a company with a penchant for abusing its 800 pound gorilla status?
ksec 7y ago
I am guessing for high motion content you mean 60fps video?
- umanwizard 7y ago
  No, they mean content where things are moving a lot. (Imagine how fast the picture is changing on a mountain biker’s GoPro...)
  - ksec 7y ago
    I don't see the relation of High Motion Video, ( Sports ) to Video Codec and Resolution. Why cant H.264 not be used? ( Which is the standard used world wide now for All Sporting Events )
    - xnyan 7y ago
      It's a huge topic and I'm not a professional, but tldr Google's implementation of h264 compression is not suitable for high motion video and the changes they would need to make in order to make it suitable are not worth it in view of the trade offs of size and other factors. Why can't a $1K general purpose computer efficiently decode a royalty-free codec (hint - it may have something to do with the fact that apple has a major stake in a competing for-pay closed codec). I really do like apple, but I see apple as microsoft 2.0 in this.
      - ksec 7y ago
        >Why can't a $1K general purpose computer efficiently decode a royalty-free codec Well the Codec is Royalty Free but not Patents Free. You only get to use it as long as you don't engage in patent litigations against Google. And Apple does not have an major stake in H.265 or H.264 or every H.26x codec. It has a very minor stake, in the an Open Codec, not closed. Comparatively Speaking every H.26x Codec is more open than VPx and even the new AV1 Standard [1] . So this is far from WMV or RMVB. I wonder if Google will support EVC / MPEG-5 as it is Royalty Free. [1] https://codecs.multimedia.cx/2018/12/why-i-am-sceptical-about-av1/ https://codecs.multimedia.cx/2018/12/why-i-am-sceptical-abou...

oarsinsync 7y ago

Not the perfect solution, but I think changing your user-agent to iOS makes youtube deliver x264 instead of vp9

PascLeRasc 7y ago
This Chrome extension will do it in a cleaner way: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/h264ify/aleakchihdccplidncghkekgioiakgal?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/h264ify/aleakchihd...
- oarsinsync 7y ago
  Does anyone know of a similar Safari extension? Battery life remains a concern, and switching from vp9 to x264 is great, but then having to deploy Chrome instead feels like a 1 step forward, 2 steps backwards situation.

swebs 7y ago

Do hardware decoders for vp9 even exist?

zerocrates 7y ago
There's accelerated decoding on at least some of the modern mobile platforms, and from all the major graphics providers on laptop/desktop.
vetinari 7y ago
Any Intel GPU since Kaby Lake can decode VP9 in hardware. So can AMD since Raven Ridge[1] and Nvidia since GM206. On Android, it has been mandated by CTS for several years already. [1] Except Radeon VII, which is technically Vega.

givinguflac 7y ago

Using Brave or FF I can watch 4k no issues on my MacBook, though I wouldn't turn down lower power usage when doing so.

threeseed 7y ago

Google could support H.264 or H.265. The only reason they don't is because they want to push their format.

untog 7y ago
I wouldn't say it's the only reason. H264/5 are not royalty-free codecs. YouTube is a powerful tool Google can use to push a royalty-free codec, much like Apple used the iPhone to push people off Flash. It's one of few areas I agree with Google being heavy handed.
- stephenr 7y ago
  What, over and above the H.264 licensing that covers them for 1080p content? It’s google doing what google always does: pushing a google controlled thing to become a “standard”.
  - untog 7y ago
    It's an open source, royalty free codec. I'd much rather use that than one owned and licensed by a private organisation, no matter whether Google develops it or not.
    - stephenr 7y ago
      It’s still patent encumbered, and if you happen to sue Google, because they do something shitty, you lose your patent grant.
      - untog 7y ago
        How does that make H264 preferable?
        stephenr 7y ago
        It's not operated by a company with a penchant for abusing its 800 pound gorilla status?

ksec 7y ago

I am guessing for high motion content you mean 60fps video?

umanwizard 7y ago
No, they mean content where things are moving a lot. (Imagine how fast the picture is changing on a mountain biker’s GoPro...)
- ksec 7y ago
  I don't see the relation of High Motion Video, ( Sports ) to Video Codec and Resolution. Why cant H.264 not be used? ( Which is the standard used world wide now for All Sporting Events )
  - xnyan 7y ago
    It's a huge topic and I'm not a professional, but tldr Google's implementation of h264 compression is not suitable for high motion video and the changes they would need to make in order to make it suitable are not worth it in view of the trade offs of size and other factors. Why can't a $1K general purpose computer efficiently decode a royalty-free codec (hint - it may have something to do with the fact that apple has a major stake in a competing for-pay closed codec). I really do like apple, but I see apple as microsoft 2.0 in this.
    - ksec 7y ago
      >Why can't a $1K general purpose computer efficiently decode a royalty-free codec Well the Codec is Royalty Free but not Patents Free. You only get to use it as long as you don't engage in patent litigations against Google. And Apple does not have an major stake in H.265 or H.264 or every H.26x codec. It has a very minor stake, in the an Open Codec, not closed. Comparatively Speaking every H.26x Codec is more open than VPx and even the new AV1 Standard [1] . So this is far from WMV or RMVB. I wonder if Google will support EVC / MPEG-5 as it is Royalty Free. [1] https://codecs.multimedia.cx/2018/12/why-i-am-sceptical-about-av1/ https://codecs.multimedia.cx/2018/12/why-i-am-sceptical-abou...