3 ms·
>VP9 was always going to be dead in the water. What? Youtube has >70% of the online video market, and primarily uses VP9 [0]. To be fair, VP9 isnt commonly use
by ac29 11y ago
>VP9 was always going to be dead in the water.
What? Youtube has >70% of the online video market, and primarily uses VP9 [0]. To be fair, VP9 isnt commonly used outside of google, but to discount the market leader in online video as "dead" is disingenuous at best.
[0] http://www.statista.com/statistics/266201/us-market-share-of-leading-internet-video-portals/ http://www.statista.com/statistics/266201/us-market-share-of...
- threeseed 11y agoYouTube doesn't primarly use VP9. It uses H.264 on iOS, Safari, IE, Flash, Consoles, TVs and a lot of Android devices. Those combined are a sizeable amount of traffic. And I would argue that the driver of higher end content e.g. 1080p, 4K is not going to come from YouTube but from Netflix, Amazon, Apple and illegal content which a lot of people watch on consoles. Nothing has fundamentally changed to see this being anything other than a repeat of what happened with H.264/VP9.
- ac29 11y agoYou're right, it is more complicated than I assumed. I use Chrome/Linux where nearly 100% of videos are served VP9. According to this [0] 61-69% of browsers support VP9, but I cant find a good source as to what percentage of youtube is actually served with VP9. However, in the last year 25,000,000,000 hours of VP9 video have been served on youtube [1]. Maybe this is a minority of web video, but its hardly dead. [0] http://caniuse.com/#search=vp9 http://caniuse.com/#search=vp9 [1] http://youtube-eng.blogspot.com/2015/04/vp9-faster-better-buffer-free-youtube.html http://youtube-eng.blogspot.com/2015/04/vp9-faster-better-bu...
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]