4 ms·

Unless VP9 decoding is implemented in hardware chips like H.264 is and H.265 is going to be, it'll likely fail. It sucks, but I'd much rather have a "non-free"

Unless VP9 decoding is implemented in hardware chips like H.264 is and H.265 is going to be, it'll likely fail. It sucks, but I'd much rather have a "non-free" codec that plays smoothly on all my devices than a "free" codec with lag issues on everything but my computer. Try playing 1080P H264 videos on your tablet/phone without using the H264 hardware decoder and you'll know what I mean. Decoding H265 and VP9 will likely be even more resource intensive than decoding H264 already is And really, does the closedness of H264/H265 really matter at all for the end users? x264 seems pretty free to me, what is the difference in reality?

modeless 14y ago
Hardware support for VP8 exists, though it's not widespread as of yet. Tegra 3 has it. http://www.nvidia.com/object/tegra-3-processor.html http://www.nvidia.com/object/tegra-3-processor.html As with most software, the closedness of H.26X matters a lot more to developers than users.
- wmf 14y ago
  I think the last developer who cared was Firefox and even they gave up.
  - gillianseed 14y ago
    Firefox has native vp8/webm support. I know as I use it when I visit Youtube pretty much everyday and watch webm (vp8) videos. I don't have flash installed.
    - homosaur 14y ago
      Does YT default to this if you go there with a newer Firefox?
      - sp332 14y ago
        No, but you can opt-in at https://youtube.com/html5 https://youtube.com/html5
      - gillianseed 14y ago
        I would assume so, since when I clicked at the link sp332 provided, it says that I'm not part of the HTML5 trial, and asks me to join.
    - ComputerGuru 14y ago
      I don't think that's what he meant. Firefox was the last browser to refuse to use (not just ship, but to even use already-installed) patent-encumbered video codecs. i.e. even if you had an h264 decoder on your PC, Firefox would refuse to play h264-encoded videos. This was their (very obstinate) stance for years, and has been a source of much consternation within the FF community, as theirs was the only browser to refuse to play many online videos not available in vp8 or theora. They finally gave in last month and will now use an h264 decoder if such a decoder is installed on your PC (though FF does not ship with, nor (to the best of my knowledge) will ever ship with, such a decoder).
  - newguysob 14y ago
    Well Google promised to support them then they backed off.
    - gillianseed 14y ago
      They did support them, they released VP8 royalty free and supports it on Youtube. What 'support' were you referring too?
- taligent 14y ago
  H.264 has never mattered for developers either. Windows, OSX, iOS and Linux have all had OS libraries that developers could use to handle H.264 content. This will continue with H.265.
  - lmm 14y ago
    It's mattered for professional developers. It was an issue at my last^2 company, which was not exactly large (~100 employees).
ajross 14y ago
x264 isn't remotely free to you. If you use that encoded video in any business capacity at all that doesn't meet the "free internet content for end users" definition, you're going to hear from them MPEG-LA lawyers about licensing. And note that isn't a license they're offering, just a promise. They can change their mind at any time. And a quibble about words: h.264 isn't "closed". The standard is well-understood and easily available, and there are free high-quality implementations of both sides of the codec. What you mean to say is that it is "proprietary" and that its use is subject to IP laws and licensing restrictions.
- Silhouette 14y ago
  x264 isn't remotely free to you. If you use that encoded video in any business capacity at all that doesn't meet the "free internet content for end users" definition, you're going to hear from them MPEG-LA lawyers about licensing. Are you sure you're not scaremongering just a bit here? For one thing, the royalties typically don't kick in until projects have reached a significant size. Using H.264 is explicitly free up to that point for those users, even if you accept the validity of the patents etc. Moreover, it seems unlikely that lawyers would trouble a lot of small companies anyway, at least in places like Europe. Firstly, they'd have to notice them. Secondly, they'd have to know that the use wasn't properly authorised (since bringing a groundless lawsuit in a loser-pays system can be expensive -- you don't see the equivalent of the xxAA shakedowns over here for similar reasons). Thirdly, are heavyweight industry lawyers really going to risk a legal action that could set a precedent that these patents are unenforceable, destroying their entire business model across an entire continent, just to extract a modest amount of licensing fees from a small business? If they wanted to pick that fight, I suspect the unlucky business having to defend itself would suddenly find itself with a lot of well-financed friends.
nextparadigms 14y ago
It will be, and I'm sure most video players will support it, too, just like they are supporting VP8 now.

modeless 14y ago

Hardware support for VP8 exists, though it's not widespread as of yet. Tegra 3 has it. http://www.nvidia.com/object/tegra-3-processor.html http://www.nvidia.com/object/tegra-3-processor.html As with most software, the closedness of H.26X matters a lot more to developers than users.

wmf 14y ago
I think the last developer who cared was Firefox and even they gave up.
- gillianseed 14y ago
  Firefox has native vp8/webm support. I know as I use it when I visit Youtube pretty much everyday and watch webm (vp8) videos. I don't have flash installed.
  - homosaur 14y ago
    Does YT default to this if you go there with a newer Firefox?
    - sp332 14y ago
      No, but you can opt-in at https://youtube.com/html5 https://youtube.com/html5
    - gillianseed 14y ago
      I would assume so, since when I clicked at the link sp332 provided, it says that I'm not part of the HTML5 trial, and asks me to join.
  - ComputerGuru 14y ago
    I don't think that's what he meant. Firefox was the last browser to refuse to use (not just ship, but to even use already-installed) patent-encumbered video codecs. i.e. even if you had an h264 decoder on your PC, Firefox would refuse to play h264-encoded videos. This was their (very obstinate) stance for years, and has been a source of much consternation within the FF community, as theirs was the only browser to refuse to play many online videos not available in vp8 or theora. They finally gave in last month and will now use an h264 decoder if such a decoder is installed on your PC (though FF does not ship with, nor (to the best of my knowledge) will ever ship with, such a decoder).
- newguysob 14y ago
  Well Google promised to support them then they backed off.
  - gillianseed 14y ago
    They did support them, they released VP8 royalty free and supports it on Youtube. What 'support' were you referring too?
taligent 14y ago
H.264 has never mattered for developers either. Windows, OSX, iOS and Linux have all had OS libraries that developers could use to handle H.264 content. This will continue with H.265.
- lmm 14y ago
  It's mattered for professional developers. It was an issue at my last^2 company, which was not exactly large (~100 employees).

ajross 14y ago

x264 isn't remotely free to you. If you use that encoded video in any business capacity at all that doesn't meet the "free internet content for end users" definition, you're going to hear from them MPEG-LA lawyers about licensing. And note that isn't a license they're offering, just a promise. They can change their mind at any time. And a quibble about words: h.264 isn't "closed". The standard is well-understood and easily available, and there are free high-quality implementations of both sides of the codec. What you mean to say is that it is "proprietary" and that its use is subject to IP laws and licensing restrictions.

Silhouette 14y ago
x264 isn't remotely free to you. If you use that encoded video in any business capacity at all that doesn't meet the "free internet content for end users" definition, you're going to hear from them MPEG-LA lawyers about licensing. Are you sure you're not scaremongering just a bit here? For one thing, the royalties typically don't kick in until projects have reached a significant size. Using H.264 is explicitly free up to that point for those users, even if you accept the validity of the patents etc. Moreover, it seems unlikely that lawyers would trouble a lot of small companies anyway, at least in places like Europe. Firstly, they'd have to notice them. Secondly, they'd have to know that the use wasn't properly authorised (since bringing a groundless lawsuit in a loser-pays system can be expensive -- you don't see the equivalent of the xxAA shakedowns over here for similar reasons). Thirdly, are heavyweight industry lawyers really going to risk a legal action that could set a precedent that these patents are unenforceable, destroying their entire business model across an entire continent, just to extract a modest amount of licensing fees from a small business? If they wanted to pick that fight, I suspect the unlucky business having to defend itself would suddenly find itself with a lot of well-financed friends.

nextparadigms 14y ago

It will be, and I'm sure most video players will support it, too, just like they are supporting VP8 now.