3 ms·

It's a codec developed by Google, for Google, and Google will happily abandon it. From the article: > After pushing out and upgrading to VP8 and VP9, Google is

It's a codec developed by Google, for Google, and Google will happily abandon it. From the article: > After pushing out and upgrading to VP8 and VP9, Google is moving on to its next codec, called "AV1," which it hopes will someday see a wide rollout. I still can't see how this is a win.

virtue3 6y ago
Aren't Vp8/9/av1 all open codecs tho? I don't really see what the issue is. Vp8 seems to be the most supported on all platforms without melting your intel CPU. At least from when I was deploying a webRTC solution to a larger customer base last year. > In May 2010, after the purchase of On2 Technologies, Google provided an irrevocable patent promise on its patents for implementing the VP8 format This is significantly better than even h264 in terms of patents/royalties. Would you mind elaborating on your hate? There's nothing for google to abandon here? It's already out in the wild.
- dmitriid 6y ago
  > Would you mind elaborating on your hate? How did you even come up with this question? Please go an re-read my original question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27035059 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27035059 and the follow-up from me: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27035112 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27035112 and from another person: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27036150 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27036150 But yeah, sure, I hate hate hate VP9 smh
saynay 6y ago
VP9 is meant to be a parallel to h264, and AV1 to h265? VP9 running on custom circuits being equivalent speed to h264 running on custom circuits seems like a win for VP9? Since VP9 isn't royalty encumbered the way h264 is, that could well be a win for the rest of us too.
- dmitriid 6y ago
  > Since VP9 isn't royalty encumbered the way h264 is, that could well be a win for the rest of us too. I can only repeat myself: "Google creates dedicated custom proprietary processors which can process VP9 at roughly the same speed as a 20-year-old codec". How is this a win for anyone but Google (who is already eyeing to replace VP9 with AV1)? "The rest of us" are very unlikely to run Google's custom chips. "The rest of us" are much more likely to run this in software, for which, to quote the comment I was originally replying to, "without dedicated processors, VP9's encoding is roughly 4.5x as slow as H.264". Note: I'm not questioning the codec itself. I'm questioning the reasoning declaring this "a big win for the open format(s)".

virtue3 6y ago

Aren't Vp8/9/av1 all open codecs tho? I don't really see what the issue is. Vp8 seems to be the most supported on all platforms without melting your intel CPU. At least from when I was deploying a webRTC solution to a larger customer base last year. > In May 2010, after the purchase of On2 Technologies, Google provided an irrevocable patent promise on its patents for implementing the VP8 format This is significantly better than even h264 in terms of patents/royalties. Would you mind elaborating on your hate? There's nothing for google to abandon here? It's already out in the wild.

dmitriid 6y ago
> Would you mind elaborating on your hate? How did you even come up with this question? Please go an re-read my original question: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27035059 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27035059 and the follow-up from me: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27035112 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27035112 and from another person: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27036150 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27036150 But yeah, sure, I hate hate hate VP9 smh

saynay 6y ago

VP9 is meant to be a parallel to h264, and AV1 to h265? VP9 running on custom circuits being equivalent speed to h264 running on custom circuits seems like a win for VP9? Since VP9 isn't royalty encumbered the way h264 is, that could well be a win for the rest of us too.

dmitriid 6y ago
> Since VP9 isn't royalty encumbered the way h264 is, that could well be a win for the rest of us too. I can only repeat myself: "Google creates dedicated custom proprietary processors which can process VP9 at roughly the same speed as a 20-year-old codec". How is this a win for anyone but Google (who is already eyeing to replace VP9 with AV1)? "The rest of us" are very unlikely to run Google's custom chips. "The rest of us" are much more likely to run this in software, for which, to quote the comment I was originally replying to, "without dedicated processors, VP9's encoding is roughly 4.5x as slow as H.264". Note: I'm not questioning the codec itself. I'm questioning the reasoning declaring this "a big win for the open format(s)".