Slashdot Mirror


Netflix's Secrets to Success: Six Cell Towers, Dubbing and More (variety.com)

Variety gets access to the people at Netflix who take care of the tech: Netflix has its own cell towers. Netflix wants to test its app running on mobile devices under a variety of conditions available around the world, so the company decided to bring the operating equipment of six cell towers to its Los Gatos offices. "Minus the towers," quipped Scott Ryder, the company's director of mobile streaming. The cell tower equipment is housed in the company's mobile device lab, where they are joined by a number of cabinets that look like fancy Netflix-themed fridges, but in reality are Faraday cage-like boxes to suppress any outside interference, and also make sure that those experimental cell towers don't mess up phone reception on the rest of the campus. Each of these boxes can house dozens of devices, and emulate certain mobile or Wi-Fi conditions. "We can make a box look like India, we can make a box look like the Netherlands," Ryder said. Altogether, Netflix runs over 125,000 tests in its mobile lab every single day.[...]

Netflix just re-encoded its entire catalog, again. To optimize videos for mobile viewing, Netflix recently re-encoded its entire catalog on a per-scene basis. "We segment the videos into shots, we analyze the video per shot," said the company's director of video algorithms Anne Aaron. Now, an action scene in a show may stream at a higher bit rate than a scene featuring a slow monologue -- and users with limited bandwidth are set to save a lot of data. A few years back, 4 GB of mobile data would get you just about 10 hours of Netflix video, said Aaron. Now, members can watch up to 26 hours while consuming the same amount of data. Netflix previously re-encoded its entire catalog on a per-title basis, which already allowed it to stream animated shows at much lower bitrates than action movies with a lot of visual complexity. The next step for the company will be to adopt AV1, an advanced video codec developed by an alliance of companies that also includes Apple, Amazon, and Google. Aaron said Netflix could start streaming in AV1 before the end of this year, with Chrome browsers likely being first in line to receive AV1 streams.

78 comments

  1. Cell towers by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

    So they have cell towers, but they don't have cell towers. Nice.

  2. AV1? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    How many people will actually be using AV1?

    A few days ago, Netflix said that 70%+ of viewing happens on a TV, which implies a smart TV or a set top box and almost all of them use H.264.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:AV1? by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I predict around 30%.

    2. Re:AV1? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      You assume Apple and Google will allow software decoding of AV1, which is extremely bad for battery life.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:AV1? by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      I do assume that, but I am a moran.

    4. Re:AV1? by olsmeister · · Score: 1

      This is for mobile viewing. Hence the cell towers that aren't cell towers. The goal is to reduce data usage.

    5. Re:AV1? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      It's a good thing Apple, ARM, Broadcom, Intel and Nvidia are backing the codec then, which should accelerate the availability of devices with hardware acceleration.

    6. Re:AV1? by theweatherelectric · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How many people will actually be using AV1?

      Everyone eventually. AV1 will be the codec of choice for all web video. It outperforms the other options and doesn't have the licensing hassles of H.264 or the licensing mess of H.265. The licensing of H.265 is so bad that even the founder and chairman of MPEG, Leonardo Chiariglione, thinks MPEG probably doesn't have a future.

      People will encode to H.264 for legacy devices, VP9 for current devices, and encode to AV1 for current desktops and future devices.

    7. Re:AV1? by guruevi · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem is that only high-end devices are just getting H.265 support and even then it's pretty spotty as to actual implementation and performance. If the industry keeps coming out with new codecs at this rate, we are going to have to adapt our chips to be more flexible, perhaps even programmable in the hardware decoder area which brings with it a whole slew of issues, both physical (heat, size and cost) as well as in software (does every piece of software get to upload its own decoders, if so, how, what if we need more or different versions).

      H.264 and VP8 is easy to find these days, VP9 and H265 is slowly but surely coming, releasing a brand new codec today will take 5 years to get it in the majority of high-end chip fabs and another 5-or-so years to go mainstream with at least 15-20y more years of having to have both available.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    8. Re: AV1? by reanjr · · Score: 1

      When you have to deal with patent licensing, introducing new codecs is slow and expensive; open codecs can find dominant market penetration very quickly.

    9. Re:AV1? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the industry keeps coming out with new codecs at this rate, we are going to have to adapt our chips to be more flexible...

      When a chip gets the ability to offload something, it doesn't necessarily get the ability to offload the entire thing. It may instead have routines for doing the parts that don't process well in pure software.

      These routines may have a lot of similarities between different codecs. That doesn't mean you don't need hardware revisions, but they might not have to be as extensive as what they might appear. Also if an algorithm becomes more popular that might be the direction the hardware drifts, while reverting more and more to software to support older encoding methods.

      For instance a key part of doing AES encryption are doing AES rounds. I believe that is what Intel offloads, as opposed to the entire algorithm.

    10. Re:AV1? by roca · · Score: 1

      Google allows software decoding of VP9 in Chrome, so presumably they'd allow AV1.

      A lot of people running browsers are on mains electricity where power consumption is not much of an issue, but bandwidth consumption is.

    11. Re:AV1? by roca · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The H265 rollout has been slow because its licensing is such a disaster. Why would you be in a rush to ship H265 when you have no idea how much you will have to pay patent holders for the units you are shipping?

      AV1 does not have this problem. It's a no-brainer to implement and ship it ASAP. Within two years all new chips will have it.

      Soon it will become clear that H265 will see very little usage outside broadcasting. The H265 patent pools will drop any pretense of encouraging broad H265 adoption and focus on extracting maximum revenue from those vendors foolish enough to have shipped H265 in advance of a clear licensing story. As soon as the inevitability aura around H265 dissipates, the non-TV vendors will drop it like a hot potato.

    12. Re:AV1? by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      they don't need to care if apple or google "allow" it on mobiles where they deploy their own app and can use whatever sw or hw codecs they want if they want...

      what they would need to worry would be if there's enough power to do it and about the user experience. ...

      and the bit about the mobile towers? pssh. standard thing if you have the money for it and can't think of some other way to simulate a crappy network with high ping times, high ploss but sometimes high bandwidth.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    13. Re:AV1? by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      The problem is that only high-end devices are just getting H.265 support

      H.265 support is irrelevant at this point. Twice as many devices can decode VP9 than can decode H.265 and AV1 outperforms H.265. So the straightforward encoding approach is to use H.264 and VP9 now and look to AV1 in future.

      we are going to have to adapt our chips to be more flexible

      Maybe. Or maybe there's a good opportunity for special purpose USB or Thunderbolt devices that offer accelerated video encoding and decoding. I'd quite like a small, cheap device that could give me accelerated AV1 encoding.

      releasing a brand new codec today will take 5 years to get it in the majority of high-end chip fabs

      Not so for AV1. Hardware manufacturers have been involved in AV1 development from the start. They'll have hardware prototypes ready when the AV1 bitstream is frozen. The time to market will be shorter because of it, even more so because content distribution companies (like Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, and YouTube) have made clear their intention to adopt AV1.

    14. Re:AV1? by jonwil · · Score: 1

      But that group doesn't include Qualcomm who make one of the most popular mobile SoCs on the market (Snapdragon) and its Adreno GPU (and whatever hardware video decoding the Snapdragon parts use these days). If Qualcomm doesn't get on board with AV1 then many Android devices simply wont have the support for it in hardware.

    15. Re:AV1? by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Why would TV networks, TV equipment (transmitter and receiver makers) and everyone else involved in TV (most of whom currently broadcast in either MPEG2 or MPEG4) want to adopt H.265 given the patent minefield it entails and the costs involved instead of pushing for open codecs like AV1? I dont think any networks (in the US at least) are broadcasting in H265/HEVC yet so there is no reason AV1 couldn't become the codec of choice for the next ATSC standard after MPEG2 and MPEG4... (unless there is either something specific about H265 that makes it suitable for TV transmission in a way AV1 is not or the H265 patent holders control enough of the TV industry in some way)

    16. Re:AV1? by theweatherelectric · · Score: 2

      Qualcomm includes VP9 support. They'll include AV1 support as well.

    17. Re:AV1? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Dude, my instructions are right in my name!

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    18. Re:AV1? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      That still doesn't make the remaining 30% of users magically hardware-accelerated AV1, only new phones will have it.

      In fact, is there any phone available with hardware-accelerated AV1 right now?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    19. Re:AV1? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      The H264/5 and VP8/9 patents do cover more than just that particular codec. They cover each other and also other codecs, even the open source ones. Releasing any codec these days is rife with patent issues.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    20. Re: AV1? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      For mobile you want a codec that is hardware supported. That takes time. Desktops can run software decode and be OK.
      Criteria for hardware support boils down to what you can get OEMs to pay for. You put the bare minimum to keep pace with your competitors (so h.264 and now h.265) or you include codecs that you have to charge a license fee to enable (h.265 has been like this so far). Some things like VP8 and VP9 have made it in as well, mostly due to requirements for some Google devices and the subsequent competition between chip vendors to be in those devices.

      You don't find too many chip vendors putting stuff in just because it's an open standard. There has to be a real market that translate into a sale for us to spend silicon on a feature.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    21. Re:AV1? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Qualcomm are being bought by broadcomm, so this might be one thing that could actually be a good outcome

    22. Re:AV1? by iampiti · · Score: 1

      H264 was approved in 2003, that's 15 years ago. I don't think it's too bad. H265 is much newer but AV1 is essentially a response to h265's horrible licensing requeriments.
      In addtiion, eventually making substantial improvements on existing codecs will get so hard that major codecs will be current for a long time so I don't think we're going to see many major codecs in the coming years. Also, with the backers AV1 has it looks like it'll be the dominant codec in the years to come

    23. Re:AV1? by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Not if the guy running things in the US has anything to say about it they wont...

    24. Re:AV1? by lenovosupport001 · · Score: 1

      Soon it will become clear that H265 will see very little use outside the broadcast. H265 focuses on patent pools, encouraging adoption of comprehensive H.265 adoptions, and obtaining maximum revenue from those vendors who send H 265 before the obvious licensing story. As soon as H-265 indispensability halo is destroyed, non-tv vendors will leave it like a hot potato. Google Support

      --
      thank you for visiting us...Lenovo technical support
    25. Re:AV1? by Scaba · · Score: 1

      What would Vladimir Putin care about video codecs?

    26. Re:AV1? by jonwil · · Score: 1

      I was referring to https://news.slashdot.org/stor... :)

  3. Netflix gets suckier ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once upon a time Netflix filtered by Language ...
    Once upon a time Netflix filtered subtitles ...
    Once upon a time Netflix did not play video until you told it to do so ...
    Once upon a time Netflix had a rating system that worked (with stars) ...

    And then ... they rolled back all these features so that ...

    Netflix no longer "derates" shows that are not in a language you understand ...
    Netflix no longer "derates" shows that have subtitles (due to being in languages you do not understand) ...
    Netflix now starts playing video willy nilly with no way to stop it ...
    Netflix has an indeciferable rating system (some stupid % and the thumbs up/down) and no way to tell if you already watched something ...

    Netflix is dying. If something that works "like netflix used to" comes along, netflix will go bankrupt in a week.

    1. Re:Netflix gets suckier ... by taxman_10m · · Score: 1

      On the plus side they added a "Skip Intro" button for some shows.

    2. Re: Netflix gets suckier ... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Netflix no longer "derates" shows that have subtitles (due to being in languages you do not understand) ...

      For normal people, that's a feature, not a bug. One would almost prefer penalizing dubbed media...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re: Netflix gets suckier ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't have much to watch, if I didn't watch subtitled content. I definitely want subtitles on english-language content. While I understand written english well enough for slashdot and enjoying LOTR untranslated, I can't listen to it. All those dialects, actors that mumble because that fits the scene, or scenes with background noise. Much better with subtitles, I read 10x faster than they talk.

      Subtitles are a personal preference. Illiterates and dyslectics hates them, obviously. Those with hearing problems want subtitling even for their own language. And the rest of us is somewhere inbetween.

      Any sane system for rating content based on subtitles, need alternatives like:
      * never, don't wanna read, don't obscure my movie with text
      * preferably not for languages z & y, but preferably for all others
      * don't care for language x & y, preferably for others
      * subtitles always better than not having them
      * must have

    4. Re:Netflix gets suckier ... by Rob+Lister · · Score: 1

      Netflix now starts playing video willy nilly with no way to stop it ...

      The 'back' button stops it just fine on my U.I. As far as them doing away with the rating system: I'm fine with that since it was utter bullshit anyway. I don't recall it ever having a way to filter for language ... but I believe you.

    5. Re:Netflix gets suckier ... by Rob+Lister · · Score: 1

      Netflix is dying.

      In what world is it dying? This chart ... https://www.statista.com/chart... Shows steady and consistent growth.

      If something that works "like netflix used to" comes along, netflix will go bankrupt in a week.

      So we agree it is currently the best thing going.

    6. Re: Netflix gets suckier ... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      My country used to pat itself on the back for having world-class movie dubbing, but those decades are a matter of past, and whenever I hear something dubbed, I vomit. Especially in those cases where I had heard the original before. Not only are those voices often obnoxious on their own but it also feels like they're competing who butchers the original voice the most. I agree with the occasional mumbling problems; that is why I prefer English subtitles on English shows. For any other language, well, I take whatever is there, but it's mostly English subs, too.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  4. "up to" == "less than" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just a reminder.

    1. Re:"up to" == "less than" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Re:"up to" == "less than""

      more like SIGNIFICANTLY less than

    2. Re:"up to" == "less than" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a correction. "up to" != "less than". There's always that one value where the "up to" value == the "less than" value, which actually makes "up to" != "less than". For example, "up to 10" is not the same as "less than 10".

  5. Losers gonna lose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dems will lose again in 2018, and yet again in 2020. They have nothing to offer.

  6. Titilating Extremus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is.

    Not.

    1. Re:Titilating Extremus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh man, I'm in a 90s hacker movie! You're pretty badass.

  7. That's great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad their movies and shows are shit. At least it's latency-free shit, I guess.

  8. Familiar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Now, an action scene in a show may stream at a higher bit rate than a scene featuring a slow monologue

    I distinctly remember scene groups doing this back in the day for Xvid rips of DVDs

    1. Re:Familiar by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The good old days of 3-pass vs 2-pass encoding questions.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Familiar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was also common to encode the final credits using a lower-quality profile. It was all about getting the best possible rip onto a 700MB CD and some groups were fucking amazing at it.

      So yes, doing this is at least 15 years old.

    3. Re:Familiar by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Hey, the marketing team worked very hard to make changing to VBR seem like a major accomplishment only possible through an enormous expenditure.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    4. Re:Familiar by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      VBR seem like a major accomplishment

      It's more involved than that.

  9. So there they test their nex Hit Seires by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    StingRay.

  10. Real Secret by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't want to watch stale, static, commercial laden crap.

    Netflix lets me watch content that is NOT stale, static, and laden with commercials.

    Give the people what they want, what a concept!

    I tried explaining this to the cable company, when they wanted me to sign up for cable. Their main selling point was they DOUBLED the amount of stale, static commercial laden crap, since I could now time-shift, and watch the same stale, static commercial laden crap, at a slightly more convenient time.

    I understand the cable companies now want to slightly reduce the amount of commercials. I still have to watch at a specific location, at specific times, on a specific device, on an approved device, and watch commercials, but hey, LESS commercials.

    They are catching up..

  11. 26 hours of Video on 4GB? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    They are either orders of magnitude better at encoding than everyone else on the face of the planet, of their quality must be shit.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re: 26 hours of Video on 4GB? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Maybe on a phone, it's not as noticeable? But at least they found out about two-pass encoding...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:26 hours of Video on 4GB? by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      The answer is that they're better at encoding than everyone else.

  12. Commitment to reliability by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've heard a mixed bag coming out of Netflix re: developer experience, but one thing I admire is their effort toward a reliable user experience.

    From testing everything down to minutiae, to designing things so that failure is simply another regular and expected state to move forward from... most companies do not commit the time/funds to do this sort of thing.

    This practical engineering is much cooler to me than Facebook/Google's latest me-too Javascript libraries that iteratively steal the next good established idea from desktop coding and call it innovation.

    "We segment the videos into shots, we analyze the video per shot," said the company's director of video algorithms Anne Aaron. Now, an action scene in a show may stream at a higher bit rate than a scene featuring a slow monologue

    Video encoders have supported constant quality modes for quite a while that already do this very effectively. I'm guessing they don't do this out of some need for precise control or for hardware compatibility. It's obviously not a wasted effort, but it's unfortunate that Netflix is needing to reinvent the wheel here.

  13. Lol, what an egotist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He also doesn't think development will improve as rapidly as it has in the past without MPEG... which I call BS on. Without the huge patent minefield of the MPEG consortium and ancillary players, there will be an opportunity for patent covenants that will protect the community from NPE aggression, while also leading to new video encoding developments as various parties have needs that must be met. Netflix for instance will not rest on its laurels, nor will Amazon, Google, or many other big players who need video encoding not just for selling media from their respective web services, but also for pushing new iterations of devices with build in video decoding for the new standards. Most people don't realize there have been at least 3 iterations of decoding hardware just in the time that Android cellphones have become popular. Without the right decoding hardware the

  14. And yet I still can't download HD by slickwillie · · Score: 1

    even though all my equipment is capable of 1080P, I don't have the "approved by Netflix" devices.

    1. Re:And yet I still can't download HD by theweatherelectric · · Score: 2

      I don't have the "approved by Netflix" devices

      Here are the resolutions Netflix delivers various viewer software (seems to vary depending on the DRM schemes available in different browsers and platforms) .

      And here's a Firefox add-on to get 1080p Netflix video in Firefox.

    2. Re:And yet I still can't download HD by slickwillie · · Score: 1

      I want to download on my slowish DSL so I can play later on my TV.

  15. Re:Q: We can take Snowden anytime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Who leaked Vault7 to WL" - not Snowden according to any sources that I can find.

  16. All good stuff, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...they need to put some effort into sorting out the home screen once you sign in, for a start:

    - Half watched stuff that you didn't like is constantly there to "continue watching"
    - No ability to hide anything I'll just NEVER watch
    - The suggestions I see are often pretty dismal. i.e., not all comedy is the same type. Just because I watched X, doesn't mean I'll like Y.

  17. AV1 vaporware ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The bitstream was supposed to be frozen for more than one year now !!!
    Does someone have information about the new (new new new new) ETA

  18. How many people will actually be using AV1? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    10 = Their authors on github.

    Av1 ?
    Freeze the bitstream or it does not exist !

  19. Chrome first? by Wootery · · Score: 1

    Netflix could start streaming in AV1 before the end of this year, with Chrome browsers likely being first in line to receive AV1 streams.

    But Chrome is a famously poor choice for Netflix - it only supports 720P, despite that it's apparently possible to force 1080P playback with tweaks.

    (To be clear, the 720P limitation appears to be Netflix's doing, not Chrome's.)

    1. Re:Chrome first? by Rob+Lister · · Score: 1

      But Chrome is a famously poor choice for Netflix - it only supports 720P, [netflix.com] despite that it's apparently possible to force 1080P playback with tweaks. [github.com] (To be clear, the 720P limitation appears to be Netflix's doing, not Chrome's.)

      Firefox also. Edge will support 4K. IE and Safari will support 1080. I'm not sure if it is a Netflix thing or a Silverlight/DRM stardards thing. Or some combination. For my laptop, it doesn't matter.

    2. Re:Chrome first? by Wootery · · Score: 1

      Very unlikely to involve Silverlight. Netflix in IE/Edge doesn't use Silverlight, it uses HTML5/EME. Same goes for their Windows app.

  20. Decoding by DrYak · · Score: 1

    You assume Apple and Google will allow software decoding of AV1, which is extremely bad for battery life.

    Apple :
    No, they wont. They have high stake in H265 patents.
    (I am actually surprised that there are part of the alliance)

    Google:
    Yes, they will. AV1 is also designed to be easy to implement in hardware and in GPGPU acceleration.
    Means that, there will be some implementations on whatever is closest to a OpenCL / Vulkan combo available on the hardware.
    So even before AMD, Nvidia, and the other hardware manufacturer of the alliance start shipping dedicated AV1 hardware on their GPU, the GPU will already be able to offload a significant bit.

    Your battery won't suffer as bad as if everything was 100% decoded by the ARM CPU core.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Decoding by the_other_chewey · · Score: 1

      You assume Apple and Google will allow software decoding of AV1, which is extremely bad for battery life.

      Apple : No, they wont. They have high stake in H265 patents. (I am actually surprised that there are part of the alliance)

      Apple don't seem to be a member, see the list of alliance members
      (scroll to "ALLIANCE MEMBERS", there's no anchor to link to...)

    2. Re:Decoding by theweatherelectric · · Score: 2

      Apple don't seem to be a member

      To quote from the page you linked (emphasis added): "The Alliance for Open Media is governed by founding member companies: Amazon, Apple, ARM, Cisco, Facebook, Google, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Mozilla, Netflix and NVIDIA."

      The logo isn't on the page but Apple has joined the Alliance for Open Media at the highest membership level which is "founding member" (even though they weren't a member from the start). The membership terminology is poor.

  21. That's actually the plan by DrYak · · Score: 1

    The problem is that only high-end devices are just getting H.265 support

    (which is also due to the patent mess and thus nobody being in a hurry to jump into the bandwagon)

    If the industry keeps coming out with new codecs at this rate,

    If you look, "the industry" is more or less grouping around two entities :
    - the MPEG which still tend to design codecs the old way (file patents and monetize through licensing)
    - and the Alliance for Open Media, where basically any industry member that has anything to do with video in their business is represented (the whole chain from the camera to the mobile device receiving the stream seem to be represented) with a completely different approach to financing it (these are video companies. they earn money from video any way : be it selling hardware, services, etc. they don't need to sell AV1, they only need to get rid of the licensing madness of h265. Making an open/free codec makes entirely sense for them)

    So we're not bound to see dozens of new codecs, we're basically only expecting 2 :
    - whatever MPEG comes up with after H265
    - AV1
    given the list of members behind AV1, it's bound to be supported by most software and hardware pretty fast.

    we are going to have to adapt our chips to be more flexible, perhaps even programmable in the hardware decoder area

    Congratulation, you've successfully described a compute shader.
    More seriously : GPU have flexible blocks - the compute shaders available to Vulkan and OpenCL. They might not be as efficient as a dedicated core, but they are deffinitely better than a naked CPU core. AV1 is on purpose designed in a way to be easily implemented on a GPU, and decision are taken in this favor.

    H.264 and VP8 is easy to find these days,

    Yes.

    VP9 and H265 is slowly but surely coming,

    h265 is *very slow* at coming, mostly due to the patent minefield making manufacturer less in a hurry to support it.

    releasing a brand new codec today will take 5 years to get it in the majority of high-end chip fabs and another 5-or-so years to go mainstream with at least 15-20y more years of having to have both available.

    Unless the chip manufacturer are part of the process. Which is the case (ARM, AMD, Nvidia, Broadcom, etc.)
    They are considering hardware implementation while the AV1 is being designed and contributing appropriate feed-back.
    - compute shader code will be available at codec release time (you'll be able to have decent performance on smartphone on day 1).
    - the manufacturer plan to have chips ready within one year.
    - means by 3 year (counting the current 2 year churn) there will be a lot of smartphone native-capable on the market.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  22. Question... by Ranbot · · Score: 1

    Does Netflix do any similar optimizing for streaming to TVs? TV/non-mobile streaming is typically not subject to data caps or paying per amount of data, like mobile data, so the financial incentives to optimize the streams are different. Just wondering...

    1. Re:Question... by iampiti · · Score: 1

      Likely yes. Your home connection may not be metered but they have to pay for bandwidth no matter where you watch the content so they have the incentive to reduce bandwith usage in every case

    2. Re:Question... by Ranbot · · Score: 1

      OK... So, Netflix streams are metered on their side, right? (I think you inferred that, but didn't say it outright. I don't mean to be pedantic; I just don't want assume anything.)

    3. Re:Question... by iampiti · · Score: 1

      Yes (I think). I mean, I'm not 100% sure how bandwidth works for a company like Netflix but I believe they pay by volume so it makes sense to reduce usage as much as possible

  23. Netflix's secret to not sucking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Testing.

    Wow. Whod've thought?

  24. Bad Jacob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, we get it, Netflix over-encodes their video so that it generally looks like crap.