3 ms·

It is - by far - the most efficient royalty-free video codec. That's got nothing whatever to do with YouTube.

skrrtww 4y ago
Isn't HEVC comparable? It may lack some sheer bandwidth efficiency, but it seems to make up for that with less compute cost. And the entire M1 line has hardware and software HEVC support. edit: Oh, you said royalty-free. Fair I guess? I guess I'd be pretty annoyed if I decided to encode some personal project I ended up making money from with my M1's HEVC encoder and got dinged by royalty police.
- MBCook 4y ago
  As of iOS 16 Safari supports WebM/VP9. So there is a parent free choice. The codec patent is insane, you’re right. Pay to encode, pay to decode. Everybody pays.
MBCook 4y ago
I understand it is the most efficient (unless h265, which is patented, is better). My point about YouTube is it gives Google power. They can say “we’re doing this with billions of hours of video” and people must follow. They can demand chips that encode faster. Or decode faster. Or say “No YouTube app on your custom gizmo device without VP1 support.” They have the power to force changes in the market the way a startup or even Microsoft don’t. Those two would have to convince people the change is worth it to everyone. Google just does it, and others follow because it’s now there. I’m basically arguing Google abused their position as opposed to Apple.
- kuntau 4y ago
  Apple is the king of abusing position with ios. No sideload app, payment must go through their 30% cut, no other browser allowed, etc..
  - raydiatian 4y ago
    Depending on your perspective, edging Facebook out of their own market as well (Mobile privacy)
  - girvo 4y ago
    For sure! …but that doesn’t mean Google doesn’t also abuse their position. Billion dollar corporations are not our friends, and the only interest they have is about what’s in our wallets.
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    Google released three different video codecs in the span of 6 years, and expected everyone to jump and support them, even in hardware. Now that's abusing market position. Timeline: VP8: 2010 VP9: 2013 Google: we're going to slow down the release of new codecs to once every 18 months VP10 became AV1: 2015 For some reason they've stopped, but I wouldn't put it past them to continue with fire and motion again.
- Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
  Using open standards can almost never be abuse because nobody controls it. The reason Google wants it benefits everyone who streams video. MV3 is a better example. It's technically "open" but it is removing functionality. I don't think anyone here disagrees with you that Google has power. But someone always has power; in the tech world it's mostly uses for profit. In this case it happens to benefit everyone and we should be happy about it.

Isn't HEVC comparable? It may lack some sheer bandwidth efficiency, but it seems to make up for that with less compute cost. And the entire M1 line has hardware and software HEVC support. edit: Oh, you said royalty-free. Fair I guess? I guess I'd be pretty annoyed if I decided to encode some personal project I ended up making money from with my M1's HEVC encoder and got dinged by royalty police.

MBCook 4y ago
As of iOS 16 Safari supports WebM/VP9. So there is a parent free choice. The codec patent is insane, you’re right. Pay to encode, pay to decode. Everybody pays.

MBCook 4y ago

I understand it is the most efficient (unless h265, which is patented, is better). My point about YouTube is it gives Google power. They can say “we’re doing this with billions of hours of video” and people must follow. They can demand chips that encode faster. Or decode faster. Or say “No YouTube app on your custom gizmo device without VP1 support.” They have the power to force changes in the market the way a startup or even Microsoft don’t. Those two would have to convince people the change is worth it to everyone. Google just does it, and others follow because it’s now there. I’m basically arguing Google abused their position as opposed to Apple.

kuntau 4y ago
Apple is the king of abusing position with ios. No sideload app, payment must go through their 30% cut, no other browser allowed, etc..
- raydiatian 4y ago
  Depending on your perspective, edging Facebook out of their own market as well (Mobile privacy)
- girvo 4y ago
  For sure! …but that doesn’t mean Google doesn’t also abuse their position. Billion dollar corporations are not our friends, and the only interest they have is about what’s in our wallets.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  Google released three different video codecs in the span of 6 years, and expected everyone to jump and support them, even in hardware. Now that's abusing market position. Timeline: VP8: 2010 VP9: 2013 Google: we're going to slow down the release of new codecs to once every 18 months VP10 became AV1: 2015 For some reason they've stopped, but I wouldn't put it past them to continue with fire and motion again.
Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
Using open standards can almost never be abuse because nobody controls it. The reason Google wants it benefits everyone who streams video. MV3 is a better example. It's technically "open" but it is removing functionality. I don't think anyone here disagrees with you that Google has power. But someone always has power; in the tech world it's mostly uses for profit. In this case it happens to benefit everyone and we should be happy about it.