There's no point in looking up references, because it's become quite clear you wouldn't care if I did.
I clearly show that over 85% of all cameras and content creation pushing to YouTube is in AVC or WMV, but somehow VP9 has wide adoption? Facts bounce off you like Teflon. Just because YouTube and Netflix can use VP9 is irrelevant if the customer's device doesn't. In the here and now, though, AVC is the common denominator that everybody supports - much like MP3. The existence of improved technology doesn't compel anybody to use it.
And yes, Google is investing in new codecs. I hope AV1 does great; it looks to outperform everything for the moment. Time will tell.
In this entire thread, the only place I said "think" and "believe" are specifically in refernce to the actions of Apple — and it is dishonest to say I know why Apple does anything.
Once again, you're trying to put words into my mouth that are contrary to what I actually said. Again, that's an asshole move.
And the average customer cares how much about the bitrate?
Let me answer that for you: more is always better. Years of dealing with low nitrate music and video has "taught" the average customer that a higher nitrate is better, efficiency be damned.
Being "better" has never been a sufficient reason to support a technology.
The fact that most uploads to YouTube are in AVC shows that most of the cameras and editing software pushing video do not use VP9.
The guys making the cameras and editing software don't see much reason to use VP9, and given AV1 is coming soon, it makes little sense to spend the time designing in support for VP9. H.264 works just fine for their purposes.
VP9 is only "free" in terms of licensing. Every adopter will have to spend for Engineering, QA, and support. There is a significant engineering cost to adoption. I've seen millions of dollars spent to adopt Free software - the licensing may be free, but it's only part of the total cost.
I'm not saying VP9 is bad - I'm saying that AV1 is, by all accounts far better. Spending money to support VP9 for a few months makes little sense.
* Both ATSC 3.0 and DVB-UHDTV adopted HEVC as their codec; this means new TV's in North America, Europe, Australia, and much of Asia and Africa will soon have HEVC built-in. Sattelite TV uses a variant of DVB, so it's probable they'll use HEVC for 4k as well, Digital Cable uses ATSC in the US - so that will also likely be HEVC. * Blu-ray 4k adopted HEVC. * Most professional 4k cameras use HEVC, as do quite a few consumer cameras.
There is a hard requirement for HEVC: TV & Movie Studios, TV broadcasters, and those working with 4k Blu-ray all have to use HEVC. It's not optional.
It's odd to see people throw a tizzy that Apple is adding support for a codec that is required by the next generation of virtually every broadcast video format. Broadcast isn't only market out there, but it is huge, and it will require HEVC in the near future.
Actually, my question is: why does an OS have to make that choice for people?
The same old usual, boring way: The OS maintainer says "Hey customers! We're including the libraries & paying the licensing so you can use [this codec]."
Apple has a pluggable system for codec support in QuickTime - if you want VPx, Theora, Opus -- get the plugin, and the codec works. It's not unlike adding a codec in GStreamer. That said, you can only install the codec plugin on a Mac.
For more special-purpose hardware (iOS and Apple TV), you can compile codec support into your app - VLC for iOS & tvOS includes VP9 and WebM support, for example.
I could perhaps see the point of Google choosing NOT to support a format in which you need pay royalties, but why would Apple NOT choose to support a free format in addition?
The fact that the format has zero cost to license does not make it gratis. Engineering hardware and software, QA, and providing tech support all cost money. The cost/benefit to has got to work out.
You don't say explicitly, but I'm going to guess you're referring to VPx (VP8/WebM and VP9). There are two decent reasons I'd ignore WebM and VP9: Hardware and AV-1:
* Hardware: Battery life is much better when encode & decode is done in hardware. Apple designs its own chips, so supporting VP9 would mean they'd spend time & money to support VP9 in hardware. The cost/benefit has to work out for them. * AV-1: Why bother with VP9 when 70-80% of all content uploaded to YouTube is in h.264, and ~0.4% is 4k or higher? The amount of native VP9 uploads is in the single digits, and h.264 is good enough. There's clearly time left in h.264's life to wait for AV-1 -- and skipping VP9 entirely.
Minor nitpick: HEVC doesn't have a single patent pool -- which is, of course, a big part of the problem.
The MPEG LA's license pool is one of them, but there are pools controlled by HEVC Advance, Technicolor, one from Velos Media...
So instead of one license body trying to shakedown customers, there are four -- and the price to license HEVC is at least 4x that of AVC. There's a reason HEVC has been around for four years and hasn't seen significant adoption... they've priced themselves out of the market.
I personally think Apple is adding support to HEVC because it's the ISO codec, it's available now, and a codec adopted by for 4k Blu-ray, as well as a lot of the UHD video cameras -- Apple is clearly supporting their "pro" creative users. It makes sense to support HEVC across the board.
Also, for your claim that you've never bought anything based on an advertisement?
Huy Fong Sriracha. They've never spent a dime on advertising.
There's also a bunch of similar things - I generally have never cared what brand of lumber I've bought, what brand of carrot (or beef) the grocery store carries.
But overall, we're so flooded with advertising that your point is very well made.
Both weather and markets are incalculably complex, and small changes do make big differences over the long term - whether the tiny gust of air from somebody talking about the weather in London, or some kid buying his first share of stock.
I'm aware that the link explicitly states that the impact of the butterfly effect on weather is overstated... but the point is that even small changes in air current does change the weather as time progresses.
Most of those things you listed have also value only in its scarcity. If there was a massive oversupply of gold it wouldn't be worth what it is.
Diamonds are an excellent example of this:
Diamonds are extremely expensive
Gem-quality diamonds are actually fairly abundant. Large, perfect diamonds aren't as rare as their price would suggest
Diamonds are practically worthless to everybody but the few who control the stockpiles of unsold gems, and they have Jewelers by the throat, effectively controlling the entire supply.
According to one estimate, Bitcoin takes an estimated 15 TWh per year to keep functioning; it takes ~41,000 MWh per day, and it works out to 178 kWh for each transaction.
At the cost of electricity from my local utility, that works out to an energy cost of $15.67 per transaction.
I realize there's nuance to the story; that "mining" is where the energy "actually" goes... but since "proof of work" for a transaction requires mining, and the difficulty of finding a nonce is increased as more miners try to strike gold... we can't really separate the cost of transactions from the cost of mining BTC.
In contrast, once gold is out of the ground & refined, transactions are relatively cheap (gold is heavy, and gold certificates greatly mitigate that problem.) The transaction cost for gold has only decreased over time. Even in the world of fiat currencies like the US Dollar, the cost per transaction is a fraction of a penny.
More traditional ways of ensuring security in financial transactions are currently thousands of times less energy intensive/expensive than BTC; as it becomes more difficult to mine coins, I don't see BTC transaction costs dropping.
While Jobs was a Raw Fruitinarian for a while, it's important to note that diabetes != cancer; they're totally different diseases;
We've discovered a 'link' between diabetes & pancreatic cancer, but we're not sure which way the arrow points - it may be that pancreatic cancer may be a cause of diabetes, but not the reverse).
The nine months between the cancer diagnosis and the start of treatment was likely a far bigger problem; given the debilitating nature of most cancer treatments, it's not unusual for patients to delay treatment, in spite of the risks.
who killed himself by trying to cure cancer using quack remedies rather than actual medicine.
Steve did use actual medicine: he was diagnosed in 2003, and had surgery nine months later to remove the tumor. The particular type of cancer he was initially diagnosed for has an unusually good prognosis for Pancreatic cancer. He was one of the "unlucky" few for whom the surgery wasn't curative. The doctors apparently suspected the cancer spread to his liver, and they took the unusual step of replacing it. That put him on anti-rejection drugs.
Because of the anti-rejection drugs his immune system is compromised: if there's any cancer left, the cancer cells grow completelyunchecked, and the prognosis is extremely poor; the only thing left at that point is palliative care (ie. make him comfortable while he dies).
When medicine says "sorry, we can only make your death less painful", I can't fault anyone for turning to alternative medicine.
The media is, on the whole, hostile to every president. It comes with the job; competing interests and no way to actually meet them all.
You think Obama didn't have news media hating on him? It was about the equivalent time in his presidency that "Obamacare" was coined, he passed a massive (and controversial) bailout bill, and bumper stickers with him photoshopped as "the joker", and "why so socialist" was everywhere — to say nothing of the birther crowds, and newspapers & talk radio saying he'd repeal the 2nd amendment. He was famous even among the Democrats for being unable to relate with the average American. There was at least as much unsubstantiated bullplop published against him as President Trump.
Clinton tried his own healthcare bill, with Hillary leading the effort. That hatred still burns strong 24 years later!
W.Bush was allegedly a blithering idiot that "stole the election" in Florida, and was asleep at the wheel before 9/11.
Regan was amazingly good at handling criticism from the press; he was so good that he earned the nickname "The Teflon President" because the press couldn't get anything to stick, in spite of some actual scandals like Iran/Contra.
The simple fact is our society respects people who take their lumps with some class and style, and unlike Regan, President Trump doesn't know how to do it.
President Trump handles criticism very differently than earlier presidents. For one, reporters who interview him say that he speaks a little too casually, and often is the leak, which does him no favors. The other is that he "hits back" when criticized, even over trivial things.
Most kids who survived an American high school know that fighting back against a crowd that's teasing you will only make matters worse.
The President of the United States has been the nation's punching bag for a very long time; there's just nothing new about scathing presidential criticism.
Look: I've not really said anything in this thread defending (or promoting) anything the Democrats have done. To me, it's a turd from a different animal. Different, but it's still a turd.
I've watched the (global) political shitshow long enough to know that however much I like (or dislike) any given administration, in the end not much really happens because the Federal government was designed to be a roadblock — specifically to avoid waves of major changes with each new election (as is found in other nations).
Ultimately, the rules are in place, and I've become more interested in watching how the players play the game. The Democrats played poorly, and they did poorly in the election.
The Trump administration's biggest fault, from my perspective, is that the number of "rookie PR mistakes" isn't tapering off. We shouldn't be too surprised that they happen- he's never held public office before. There's just a lot of "they could have handled that better."
Between Jeff Bezos buying the Washington Post, and Ms. Jobs buying the Atlantic...
Bottom line: Very wealthy individuals appear to believe that the problem with print media isn't the reporting, but the fact that printing presses are not needed as much as datacenters.
Nixon's crime was "Obstruction of Justice" by firing everybody involved until he got to somebody who would halt the investigation.
There was zero evidence that he was involved with Watergate, or that it was done on his orders. Conjecture sure; but no hard proof. (Unless you count the missing minutes in his tapes as "proof" - no court would).
If there actually was proof that Nixon was directly involved in watergate, he would have been screwed to the wall faster than you can say "wha?".
I don't think that trump can require an investigation to report everything before it's complete; but I do agree his best bet is to just let the Special Counsel do his thing. Mueller hasn't been investigating for 8 months; he was only called as special council back in May 17th. Sure, time has passed, but not 8 months.
It was a bit more than two years between the Watergate breakin and Nixon's resignation; If that is any sort of guide, then the current investigation will be going for quite some time.
That's not necessarily a bad thing for Mr. Trump - he'll no doubt have to deal with a lot of butthurt until the investigation is over, but if he's cleared before the 2018 midterms, that can be a very good thing for Mr. Trump and the Republican Party, and it'll be much more likely to be in the public memory for the 2020 election.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, it'll stream just fine in AVC.
I rarely stream video via web browser or phone.
No, I mean Teflon. Sticky things like facts dont bounce unless there's something like teflon to prevent adhesion.
None of my devices use VP9, because here's no point.
There's no point in looking up references, because it's become quite clear you wouldn't care if I did.
I clearly show that over 85% of all cameras and content creation pushing to YouTube is in AVC or WMV, but somehow VP9 has wide adoption? Facts bounce off you like Teflon. Just because YouTube and Netflix can use VP9 is irrelevant if the customer's device doesn't. In the here and now, though, AVC is the common denominator that everybody supports - much like MP3. The existence of improved technology doesn't compel anybody to use it.
And yes, Google is investing in new codecs. I hope AV1 does great; it looks to outperform everything for the moment. Time will tell.
In this entire thread, the only place I said "think" and "believe" are specifically in refernce to the actions of Apple — and it is dishonest to say I know why Apple does anything.
Once again, you're trying to put words into my mouth that are contrary to what I actually said. Again, that's an asshole move.
I'm thinking from the viewpoint of a content consumer, not a streaming provider.
Consumers don't care about codecs, and they've been conditioned that higher bitrates are better.
Reducing bandwidth (and cost) is the content provider's problem. Google and Netflix are both rich companies. They can buy more bandwidth.
I said: Years of dealing with low nitrate music and video has "taught" the average customer that a higher nitrate is better, efficiency be damned.
You claim I said the opposite?!? Serious asshole move, there.
Hah. Nitrate != bitrate. Autocorrect FTW!
And the average customer cares how much about the bitrate?
Let me answer that for you: more is always better. Years of dealing with low nitrate music and video has "taught" the average customer that a higher nitrate is better, efficiency be damned.
And for those "months"in the transition, you can use AVC or AV1. VP9 isn't necessary.
Believe me, customers will never notice the difference.
Being "better" has never been a sufficient reason to support a technology.
The fact that most uploads to YouTube are in AVC shows that most of the cameras and editing software pushing video do not use VP9.
The guys making the cameras and editing software don't see much reason to use VP9, and given AV1 is coming soon, it makes little sense to spend the time designing in support for VP9. H.264 works just fine for their purposes.
VP9 is only "free" in terms of licensing. Every adopter will have to spend for Engineering, QA, and support. There is a significant engineering cost to adoption. I've seen millions of dollars spent to adopt Free software - the licensing may be free, but it's only part of the total cost.
I'm not saying VP9 is bad - I'm saying that AV1 is, by all accounts far better. Spending money to support VP9 for a few months makes little sense.
And if you *dont* use a browser/device that has VP9, you'll never notice the difference. AVC is "good enough"
My point is more or less that if you haven't adopted VP9 by now, there's a good business case that you should save your money and wait for AV1.
HEVC definitely makes sense for Apple:
* Both ATSC 3.0 and DVB-UHDTV adopted HEVC as their codec; this means new TV's in North America, Europe, Australia, and much of Asia and Africa will soon have HEVC built-in. Sattelite TV uses a variant of DVB, so it's probable they'll use HEVC for 4k as well, Digital Cable uses ATSC in the US - so that will also likely be HEVC.
* Blu-ray 4k adopted HEVC.
* Most professional 4k cameras use HEVC, as do quite a few consumer cameras.
There is a hard requirement for HEVC: TV & Movie Studios, TV broadcasters, and those working with 4k Blu-ray all have to use HEVC. It's not optional.
It's odd to see people throw a tizzy that Apple is adding support for a codec that is required by the next generation of virtually every broadcast video format. Broadcast isn't only market out there, but it is huge, and it will require HEVC in the near future.
Actually, my question is: why does an OS have to make that choice for people?
The same old usual, boring way: The OS maintainer says "Hey customers! We're including the libraries & paying the licensing so you can use [this codec]."
Apple has a pluggable system for codec support in QuickTime - if you want VPx, Theora, Opus -- get the plugin, and the codec works. It's not unlike adding a codec in GStreamer. That said, you can only install the codec plugin on a Mac.
For more special-purpose hardware (iOS and Apple TV), you can compile codec support into your app - VLC for iOS & tvOS includes VP9 and WebM support, for example.
I could perhaps see the point of Google choosing NOT to support a format in which you need pay royalties, but why would Apple NOT choose to support a free format in addition?
The fact that the format has zero cost to license does not make it gratis. Engineering hardware and software, QA, and providing tech support all cost money. The cost/benefit to has got to work out.
You don't say explicitly, but I'm going to guess you're referring to VPx (VP8/WebM and VP9). There are two decent reasons I'd ignore WebM and VP9: Hardware and AV-1:
* Hardware: Battery life is much better when encode & decode is done in hardware. Apple designs its own chips, so supporting VP9 would mean they'd spend time & money to support VP9 in hardware. The cost/benefit has to work out for them.
* AV-1: Why bother with VP9 when 70-80% of all content uploaded to YouTube is in h.264, and ~0.4% is 4k or higher? The amount of native VP9 uploads is in the single digits, and h.264 is good enough. There's clearly time left in h.264's life to wait for AV-1 -- and skipping VP9 entirely.
Minor nitpick: HEVC doesn't have a single patent pool -- which is, of course, a big part of the problem.
The MPEG LA's license pool is one of them, but there are pools controlled by HEVC Advance, Technicolor, one from Velos Media...
So instead of one license body trying to shakedown customers, there are four -- and the price to license HEVC is at least 4x that of AVC. There's a reason HEVC has been around for four years and hasn't seen significant adoption... they've priced themselves out of the market.
I personally think Apple is adding support to HEVC because it's the ISO codec, it's available now, and a codec adopted by for 4k Blu-ray, as well as a lot of the UHD video cameras -- Apple is clearly supporting their "pro" creative users. It makes sense to support HEVC across the board.
Roughly 80% of YouTube videos are uploaded in h.264, and the amount of 4k & 8k video uploaded hovers around 0.4%. It doesn't look like Apple has much to lose by ignoring VP9 entirely.
That said, I doubt anybody will ignore AV-1 (nor can they afford to).
Also, for your claim that you've never bought anything based on an advertisement?
Huy Fong Sriracha. They've never spent a dime on advertising.
There's also a bunch of similar things - I generally have never cared what brand of lumber I've bought, what brand of carrot (or beef) the grocery store carries.
But overall, we're so flooded with advertising that your point is very well made.
Weather benefits from the fact that clouds don't change behavior because we talk about them.
I dunno, we do have the butterfly effect.
Both weather and markets are incalculably complex, and small changes do make big differences over the long term - whether the tiny gust of air from somebody talking about the weather in London, or some kid buying his first share of stock.
I'm aware that the link explicitly states that the impact of the butterfly effect on weather is overstated... but the point is that even small changes in air current does change the weather as time progresses.
Most of those things you listed have also value only in its scarcity. If there was a massive oversupply of gold it wouldn't be worth what it is.
Diamonds are an excellent example of this:
Diamonds are practically worthless to everybody but the few who control the stockpiles of unsold gems, and they have Jewelers by the throat, effectively controlling the entire supply.
In the end, the true value of an item isn't what you paid for it, but what you can sell it for. Have you ever tried to sell a diamond?
Gold doesn't take a large amount of computation time (and energy) for a transaction to take place.
According to one estimate, Bitcoin takes an estimated 15 TWh per year to keep functioning; it takes ~41,000 MWh per day, and it works out to 178 kWh for each transaction.
At the cost of electricity from my local utility, that works out to an energy cost of $15.67 per transaction.
More conservative estimates put the cost up to 94 kWh/transaction - which is "only" $8.27 per transaction.
I realize there's nuance to the story; that "mining" is where the energy "actually" goes... but since "proof of work" for a transaction requires mining, and the difficulty of finding a nonce is increased as more miners try to strike gold... we can't really separate the cost of transactions from the cost of mining BTC.
In contrast, once gold is out of the ground & refined, transactions are relatively cheap (gold is heavy, and gold certificates greatly mitigate that problem.) The transaction cost for gold has only decreased over time. Even in the world of fiat currencies like the US Dollar, the cost per transaction is a fraction of a penny.
More traditional ways of ensuring security in financial transactions are currently thousands of times less energy intensive/expensive than BTC; as it becomes more difficult to mine coins, I don't see BTC transaction costs dropping.
While Jobs was a Raw Fruitinarian for a while, it's important to note that diabetes != cancer; they're totally different diseases;
We've discovered a 'link' between diabetes & pancreatic cancer, but we're not sure which way the arrow points - it may be that pancreatic cancer may be a cause of diabetes, but not the reverse).
The nine months between the cancer diagnosis and the start of treatment was likely a far bigger problem; given the debilitating nature of most cancer treatments, it's not unusual for patients to delay treatment, in spite of the risks.
who killed himself by trying to cure cancer using quack remedies rather than actual medicine.
Steve did use actual medicine: he was diagnosed in 2003, and had surgery nine months later to remove the tumor. The particular type of cancer he was initially diagnosed for has an unusually good prognosis for Pancreatic cancer. He was one of the "unlucky" few for whom the surgery wasn't curative. The doctors apparently suspected the cancer spread to his liver, and they took the unusual step of replacing it. That put him on anti-rejection drugs.
Because of the anti-rejection drugs his immune system is compromised: if there's any cancer left, the cancer cells grow completelyunchecked, and the prognosis is extremely poor; the only thing left at that point is palliative care (ie. make him comfortable while he dies).
When medicine says "sorry, we can only make your death less painful", I can't fault anyone for turning to alternative medicine.
Fuck cancer.
The media is, on the whole, hostile to every president. It comes with the job; competing interests and no way to actually meet them all.
You think Obama didn't have news media hating on him? It was about the equivalent time in his presidency that "Obamacare" was coined, he passed a massive (and controversial) bailout bill, and bumper stickers with him photoshopped as "the joker", and "why so socialist" was everywhere — to say nothing of the birther crowds, and newspapers & talk radio saying he'd repeal the 2nd amendment. He was famous even among the Democrats for being unable to relate with the average American. There was at least as much unsubstantiated bullplop published against him as President Trump.
Clinton tried his own healthcare bill, with Hillary leading the effort. That hatred still burns strong 24 years later!
W.Bush was allegedly a blithering idiot that "stole the election" in Florida, and was asleep at the wheel before 9/11.
Regan was amazingly good at handling criticism from the press; he was so good that he earned the nickname "The Teflon President" because the press couldn't get anything to stick, in spite of some actual scandals like Iran/Contra.
The simple fact is our society respects people who take their lumps with some class and style, and unlike Regan, President Trump doesn't know how to do it.
President Trump handles criticism very differently than earlier presidents. For one, reporters who interview him say that he speaks a little too casually, and often is the leak, which does him no favors. The other is that he "hits back" when criticized, even over trivial things.
Most kids who survived an American high school know that fighting back against a crowd that's teasing you will only make matters worse.
The President of the United States has been the nation's punching bag for a very long time; there's just nothing new about scathing presidential criticism.
Look: I've not really said anything in this thread defending (or promoting) anything the Democrats have done. To me, it's a turd from a different animal. Different, but it's still a turd.
I've watched the (global) political shitshow long enough to know that however much I like (or dislike) any given administration, in the end not much really happens because the Federal government was designed to be a roadblock — specifically to avoid waves of major changes with each new election (as is found in other nations).
Ultimately, the rules are in place, and I've become more interested in watching how the players play the game. The Democrats played poorly, and they did poorly in the election.
The Trump administration's biggest fault, from my perspective, is that the number of "rookie PR mistakes" isn't tapering off. We shouldn't be too surprised that they happen- he's never held public office before. There's just a lot of "they could have handled that better."
Between Jeff Bezos buying the Washington Post, and Ms. Jobs buying the Atlantic...
Bottom line: Very wealthy individuals appear to believe that the problem with print media isn't the reporting, but the fact that printing presses are not needed as much as datacenters.
Nixon's crime was "Obstruction of Justice" by firing everybody involved until he got to somebody who would halt the investigation.
There was zero evidence that he was involved with Watergate, or that it was done on his orders. Conjecture sure; but no hard proof. (Unless you count the missing minutes in his tapes as "proof" - no court would).
If there actually was proof that Nixon was directly involved in watergate, he would have been screwed to the wall faster than you can say "wha?".
I don't think that trump can require an investigation to report everything before it's complete; but I do agree his best bet is to just let the Special Counsel do his thing. Mueller hasn't been investigating for 8 months; he was only called as special council back in May 17th. Sure, time has passed, but not 8 months.
It was a bit more than two years between the Watergate breakin and Nixon's resignation; If that is any sort of guide, then the current investigation will be going for quite some time.
That's not necessarily a bad thing for Mr. Trump - he'll no doubt have to deal with a lot of butthurt until the investigation is over, but if he's cleared before the 2018 midterms, that can be a very good thing for Mr. Trump and the Republican Party, and it'll be much more likely to be in the public memory for the 2020 election.