4 ms·
Or they could just send the video uncompressed and then it would take even less hardware resources to decode on the client side. Why, in a sense it would be a l
by HappMacDonald 1y ago
Or they could just send the video uncompressed and then it would take even less hardware resources to decode on the client side. Why, in a sense it would be a lot more like decoding analog television signals at that point. (Not least of which since few clients would have the network bandwidth to handle more than 360-480p of that ;)
- antonkochubey 1y agoVP9 is not more bandwidth efficient than H.264. You’re thinking of AV1 here, which is only encoded by YouTube for VERY popular videos.
- jorvi 1y agoIt wouldn't have taken less hardware resources, because would you look at that.. we find h264 hardware decode even in bottom-of-the-barrel mobile CPUs. Pure CPU and even GPU decoding of video codecs is enormously expensive powerbudget-wise. Not to mention the fact that a mobile radio would have to be kept on high power constantly to pull in that 1Gbit/s stream. You can be snarky all you want, it was a terrible move by Google. ;)