Ah, so you not only don't know what you're talking about, you also don't actually use this stuff like everyone else does. I understand. It's why you're so out of touch. It makes sense.
Yes. Browsers than support VP9 make up 80% of the market. Consider Despacito and, yes, consider it slowly. Like all YouTube video, it's streamed in VP9 when the browser supports it. That's 2.4 billion views in VP9, 600 million in H.264.
Facts bounce off you like Teflon
I think you're confusing teflon with rubber or possibly a trampoline. Don't worry, kid. One day you'll get there. Stay strong!
I claim you don't know what you're saying. You spout "beliefs" and "feelings". You say "trust me" and "believe me". I don't trust or believe you. And why would I? Why would anyone? The weight of practical evidence from actual internet video services against your narrow and vague reasoning is too great.
Believe me, customers will never notice the difference.
I don't believe you. YouTube already established that VP9 produces a measured difference for customers and viewers. Your perspective is narrow. You're not thinking globally.
And YouTube encodes them all to their preferred bitrates and resolutions. It doesn't matter what format you upload to YouTube, it always re-encodes it. YouTube transcoded their catalog to VP9 to add VP9 support a few years ago.
Roughly 80% of YouTube videos are uploaded in h.264
The upload format is irrelevant. YouTube supports many upload formats. The uploaded file is re-encoded to new H.264 chunks and transcoded to VP9 chunks at YouTube's preferred bitrates and resolutions. VP9 is YouTube's leading distribution format. Watch any YouTube video in a browser that supports VP9, right click on the video, select Stats for nerds, and you'll see that almost always the video is VP9 with the occasional H.264 video.
none of the HEVC licensing bodies charge a royalty/content distribution fee.
You don't know that. You don't know that because the third HEVC patent pool, Velos Media, hasn't announced their licensing terms. You don't know that because some companies, like Technicolor, are not in any patent pool and you must negotiate a separate HEVC license with them.
No point wasting time on HEVC's licensing mess. Just use VP9 now and use AV1 later. They really are royalty-free for all use cases.
The need for hardware accelerated decode is overstated anyway. 1080p VP9 video from YouTube works fine in Firefox on an 11 year-old dual core desktop. My iPhone 7 plays VP9 video just fine in VLC for iOS.
They have decided. AV1 will be their preferred codec. AV1 already outperforms H.265 and companies like Bitmovin are adding support for it now. You can try an AV1 demo with Firefox Nightly.
Yes, that was when there was still hope that the patent licensing mess would be resolved.
H.265 licensing has only become worse. Three patent pools (MPEG LA, HEVC Advance, Velos Media, one of which has not even announced terms, and companies like Technicolor who are not in any patent pool so you need a separate license from them. It's complete a joke. H.265 licensing is simply impractical.
It's cheaper and simpler to go with royalty-free formats like VP9 today and AV1 in future.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, so you not only don't know what you're talking about, you also don't actually use this stuff like everyone else does. I understand. It's why you're so out of touch. It makes sense.
Maybe you mean I'm bulletproof. But be careful viewing that video! It streams in VP9. You might get to like it.
All of mine do, because it's easy to use.
but somehow VP9 has wide adoption?
Yes. Browsers than support VP9 make up 80% of the market. Consider Despacito and, yes, consider it slowly. Like all YouTube video, it's streamed in VP9 when the browser supports it. That's 2.4 billion views in VP9, 600 million in H.264.
Facts bounce off you like Teflon
I think you're confusing teflon with rubber or possibly a trampoline. Don't worry, kid. One day you'll get there. Stay strong!
Don't pout. Just use VP9 be happy. Later on you can use AV1 as well. It'll be great.
I'm thinking
That's a start.
they've been conditioned that higher bitrates are better.
Touchy-feely nonsense. Where's your evidence?
Google and Netflix are both rich companies. They can buy more bandwidth.
They're investing in better codecs. They're not in the Alliance of Open Media for the fun of it.
You claim I said the opposite?!?
I claim you don't know what you're saying. You spout "beliefs" and "feelings". You say "trust me" and "believe me". I don't trust or believe you. And why would I? Why would anyone? The weight of practical evidence from actual internet video services against your narrow and vague reasoning is too great.
Believe me, customers will never notice the difference.
I don't believe you. YouTube already established that VP9 produces a measured difference for customers and viewers. Your perspective is narrow. You're not thinking globally.
Let me answer that for you: more is always better.
Yes, more quality at a reduced bitrate via VP9 and then AV1. You make the case for VP9 and AV1 well.
AVC is "good enough"
Not really. Netflix streams 1080p H.264 at 7500 kbps. That's a lot of wasted bandwidth. VP9 and especially AV1 will do better.
Spending money to support VP9 for a few months makes little sense.
It won't be for a few months. It will be a gradual transition from VP9 to AV1. You don't think Netflix is using VP9 for the fun of it, do you?
Your loss. The quality's impressive for the bitrate.
Not really. Bitmovin has already done demos of live streaming with AV1.
Try this AV1 demo with Firefox Nightly. 720p video at 500kbps.
All of those still need encoding.
And YouTube encodes them all to their preferred bitrates and resolutions. It doesn't matter what format you upload to YouTube, it always re-encodes it. YouTube transcoded their catalog to VP9 to add VP9 support a few years ago.
70-80% of all content uploaded to YouTube is in h.264
YouTube transcodes everything to VP9 at their preferred resolutions and bitrates. The upload format doesn't matter.
~0.4% is 4k or higher
VP9 outperforms H.264 at all resolutions.
skipping VP9 entirely
It wasn't skipped. The practical reality is that VP9 has been used for years.
Software decoding is a possible choice, but requires so much power that it is infeasible on anything but a laptop or desktop.
VP9 video plays back perfectly in software on my iPhone 7 using VLC for iOS.
Roughly 80% of YouTube videos are uploaded in h.264
The upload format is irrelevant. YouTube supports many upload formats. The uploaded file is re-encoded to new H.264 chunks and transcoded to VP9 chunks at YouTube's preferred bitrates and resolutions. VP9 is YouTube's leading distribution format. Watch any YouTube video in a browser that supports VP9, right click on the video, select Stats for nerds, and you'll see that almost always the video is VP9 with the occasional H.264 video.
It's generally super-easy to implement or accelerate in hardware compared with Google and other open source or patent free codecs.
And yet there's lots of VP9 hardware accelerated devices out there. Implementing VP9 hardware acceleration is clearly not that hard.
none of the HEVC licensing bodies charge a royalty/content distribution fee.
You don't know that. You don't know that because the third HEVC patent pool, Velos Media, hasn't announced their licensing terms. You don't know that because some companies, like Technicolor, are not in any patent pool and you must negotiate a separate HEVC license with them.
No point wasting time on HEVC's licensing mess. Just use VP9 now and use AV1 later. They really are royalty-free for all use cases.
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensors.aspx
That's the AVC (aka H.264) patent pool. The MPEG LA's HEVC patent pool is different. Microsoft and Google, for example, are not part of it.
running that in order for VP9 hardware decode.
No. VA-API on Linux has had accelerated VP9 encoding and decoding for a long time.
The need for hardware accelerated decode is overstated anyway. 1080p VP9 video from YouTube works fine in Firefox on an 11 year-old dual core desktop. My iPhone 7 plays VP9 video just fine in VLC for iOS.
You really should follow the links. YouTube disagrees with you. Netflix disagrees with you. And so do I.
Netflix hasn't decided
They have decided. AV1 will be their preferred codec. AV1 already outperforms H.265 and companies like Bitmovin are adding support for it now. You can try an AV1 demo with Firefox Nightly.
back in 2014
Yes, that was when there was still hope that the patent licensing mess would be resolved.
H.265 licensing has only become worse. Three patent pools (MPEG LA, HEVC Advance, Velos Media, one of which has not even announced terms, and companies like Technicolor who are not in any patent pool so you need a separate license from them. It's complete a joke. H.265 licensing is simply impractical.
It's cheaper and simpler to go with royalty-free formats like VP9 today and AV1 in future.