You realize there's a big world outside of the web browser, right?
It's not so big. More than half of YouTube views were from mobile in 2016. Regardless of whether that's mobile browser or mobile app, it's bigger than any other electronics category.
And yet, I cannot plug a flash drive with my music in Opus format into my 2017 model car's stereo and expect it to play.
I can't help you with your buyer's remorse. I can tell you that Vorbis and Opus audio and VP8 and VP9 video play just fine on my iPhone 7. VLC for iOS works well. Maybe get an iPhone 7 and plug it into your car.
And I should also add that all browsers support Opus in WebRTC (even Safari in Safari 11) and Opus is mandatory to implement on Android since Android 5. Skype also uses Opus (the SILK encoder comes from Skype).
But better quality audio at the same bitrate is always welcome for the YouTube and Netflix use case where users might be watching at home with good speakers
Why doesn't the Internet Protocol require royalties? Why doesn't TCP require royalties? Why doesn't HTTP require royalties? Why doesn't HTML require royalties? Why doesn't PNG require royalties? Why doesn't baseline JPEG require royalties? Why does the W3C Patent Policy require that all web standards be royalty-free?
How much innovation do you believe would have happened on the web if you had to pay rent on every layer of the stack?
What's special about video that it can't conform to the established norms of web standards? There's nothing special about it. VP9 achieves it and AV1 will achieve it. HEVC does not.
VP9 has virtually zero mindshare outside the Googleplex
Netflix uses VP9. Wikipedia uses VP9. And, of course, even though it's inside the Googleplex it's difficult to ignore that YouTube uses VP9. YouTube no longer offers 4K video to Safari by default due to Safari's lack of VP9 support.
AV1, on the other hand, looks very compelling... it actually has broad industry support, from big players like Microsoft, Cisco, Netflix, Google, all the way down to silicon makers like Broadcom, Xilinx, RealTek, ARM, AMD, and NVIDIA.
Right. Just like VP9. When will Apple add VP9 support?
It's disingenuous to complain that Apple isn't going to include AV1 when it isn't - and won't be - ready before High Sierra.
Show me where I complained that AV1 won't be in High Sierra. Quote me. Maybe re-read what I wrote.
Can someone explain to me how this is bad when both nvidia and amd's newer cards do hardware HEVC encoding?
Because the royalty licensing cost is passed on to you as the end user. You're paying extra for the codec rent. Additionally, there are, for example, content distribution royalties. So a company like Netflix is paying extra for merely transmitting HEVC content over the Internet and those costs also get passed on to you as the end user. Additionally, the Velos Media patent pool hasn't even announced its royalty rates. Who knows what they'll charge.
In the end, this anti-web licensing creates a pay-to-play environment where only the big boys can afford to play. I don't know about you, but that's not the web I want.
Secondly, as a end user if I want to play back HEVC videos there are many arm TV boxes I can get for under $100 which do hardware HEVC decoding.
There are many ARM TV boxes that you can get for under $100 which do VP9 decoding. There will be plenty of ARM TV boxes which you can get for under $100 which do AV1 decoding once AV1 is finished.
Formats, like HEVC, which require payment for patent royalties work against your individual interests. Don't support such formats.
The main problem with HEVC is the patent licensing. In order to use HEVC you need to get 3 different patent licenses from 3 different patent pools (MPEG LA, HEVC Advance, and Velos Media).
There are some companies with HEVC patents, like Technicolor, which aren't in any patent pool so you also need to get a patent license from them. Technicolor says they have done this "to enable direct licensing" of their HEVC patents. Sounds convenient.
The patent licensing situation has reduced the x265 developers to begging the patent pools for better licensing terms. I recognise the x265 team is trying to make a buck but I think they'd be better off focusing on building an AV1 implementation than throwing their lot in with HEVC. HEVC's licensing is just not web friendly.
Luckily, the HEIF image format is content format agnostic (presentation and slides). In principle you could use HEIF with VP9 or with AV1. Apple may never support VP9 but I don't think they can avoid adding support for AV1 in future. AV1 will have too many advantages over HEVC (better performance, royalty-free licensing) to ignore.
Use Rust. It's not at version 1.0 yet but it's promising. See some comments on Rust's benefits for security. And some blog posts by Andrew Ruef and Patrick Walton.
Yes, I have had a currently open bug with FF21.0--that got worse with 22.0.
Where's the bug? Link to it.
And I and the other watchers of the bug I opened at Mozilla will dispute your contention that Chrome uses more memory. Simply not true!
Did you not look at the memory usage charts from Tom's Hardware? Chrome uses more memory than other browsers. This has been my consistent experience as well as Tom's Hardware's as well as most everyone's. Look at another memory usage chart from Tom's. They use Chrome's memory usage tool to measure it. Even Google disagrees with you.
I won't be downloading any new versions of Firefox--nor will I enable automatic updates--until they fix the danged memory leaks that have been present since they began their whirlwind upgrade cycle with FF 4.0.
What memory leaks? If you've found new ones, have you reported them? Significant progress has been made in Firefox's memory usage in the last three years. Do you read the memshrink progress reports? If you don't, maybe you should.
Chrome is a handy replacement for what used to be a reliable friend--Firefox.
Surely you realise that Chrome uses more memory than Firefox. Look at a comparison of browser memory usage with a single tab open and multiple tabs open. If you're happy with Chrome's memory usage, you'll be happy with any browser's memory usage.
VP9 produces video about the same size and quality as H.265 (Google I/O talk on VP9, though they of course weren't using x265 to compare), VP9 support is already in Chrome (with Firefox and Opera likely to follow soon) and the reference VP9 implementation is BSD-licensed. What's the advantage of H.265 over VP9 and what does x265 in particular offer over this new version of WebM (VP9+Opus)?
All the more reason to consider using new programming languages like Rust which are built with memory safety in mind. Better programming languages are by no means a silver bullet for security problems, but they help.
The "killer feature" for me on Gmail is conversation view, where it groups messages together in conversations, so instead of a ton of disparate emails, they're grouped together in a single line and can be seen in sequential order. Back when I switched over to Gmail, it was the only thing that had this feature, and now I find it indispensable, though it does sometimes screw up (since email was never designed to actually have this in the first place). Do other clients have this yet?
To be disruptive, a device has to attract developers and users.
The developers and applications already exist. It's easy to make existing HTML5 applications installable to Firefox OS. Just add an app manifest and an application cache manifest. It would be easy for ZeptoLab, for example, to make Cut the Rope installable to Firefox OS.
This one hasn't even got a hardware vendor.
You should read one of Telefonica's press releases. Firefox OS has both operators and hardware manufacturers.
Slashdot Mirror
You realize there's a big world outside of the web browser, right?
It's not so big. More than half of YouTube views were from mobile in 2016. Regardless of whether that's mobile browser or mobile app, it's bigger than any other electronics category.
Google's WebRTC
It isn't "Google's" WebRTC. All browsers implement WebRTC, even Safari 11. Here's a blog post about Microsoft's WebRTC implementation in Edge.
More than half of YouTube views came from mobile devices in 2016. The embedded market for video isn't bigger than mobile.
And yet, I cannot plug a flash drive with my music in Opus format into my 2017 model car's stereo and expect it to play.
I can't help you with your buyer's remorse. I can tell you that Vorbis and Opus audio and VP8 and VP9 video play just fine on my iPhone 7. VLC for iOS works well. Maybe get an iPhone 7 and plug it into your car.
Opus
And I should also add that all browsers support Opus in WebRTC (even Safari in Safari 11) and Opus is mandatory to implement on Android since Android 5. Skype also uses Opus (the SILK encoder comes from Skype).
Why single out Apple?
Because Microsoft, Google, and Mozilla have joined. Apple is the last major browser maker who hasn't.
VP6-VP8 adoption stand at an effective Level of Zero
VP6 and VP7 were used by Flash and by Skype, VP8 is mandatory to implement on Android and is used in video calls, and VP8 is used in WebRTC.
But better quality audio at the same bitrate is always welcome for the YouTube and Netflix use case where users might be watching at home with good speakers
Patents support innovation
Why doesn't the Internet Protocol require royalties? Why doesn't TCP require royalties? Why doesn't HTTP require royalties? Why doesn't HTML require royalties? Why doesn't PNG require royalties? Why doesn't baseline JPEG require royalties? Why does the W3C Patent Policy require that all web standards be royalty-free?
How much innovation do you believe would have happened on the web if you had to pay rent on every layer of the stack?
What's special about video that it can't conform to the established norms of web standards? There's nothing special about it. VP9 achieves it and AV1 will achieve it. HEVC does not.
HEVC is out now
VP9 is out now and has broader use than HEVC.
as well as software players like Microsoft and Apple
Microsoft supports VP9 in Edge.
VP9 has virtually zero mindshare outside the Googleplex
Netflix uses VP9. Wikipedia uses VP9. And, of course, even though it's inside the Googleplex it's difficult to ignore that YouTube uses VP9. YouTube no longer offers 4K video to Safari by default due to Safari's lack of VP9 support.
set top boxes, etc. that support VP9
Roku has VP9 support, Chromecast Ultra has VP9 support, Android phones have VP9 support, etc, etc.
AV1, on the other hand, looks very compelling... it actually has broad industry support, from big players like Microsoft, Cisco, Netflix, Google, all the way down to silicon makers like Broadcom, Xilinx, RealTek, ARM, AMD, and NVIDIA.
Right. Just like VP9. When will Apple add VP9 support?
It's disingenuous to complain that Apple isn't going to include AV1 when it isn't - and won't be - ready before High Sierra.
Show me where I complained that AV1 won't be in High Sierra. Quote me. Maybe re-read what I wrote.
In the meantime, let's acknowledge that Apple hasn't joined the Alliance for Open Media. When will Apple join?
this isn't a problem
If it wasn't a problem then the Alliance for Open Media wouldn't exist and they wouldn't be developing AV1.
But it does. And they are.
What do they have?
Apple has a number of patents in the MPEG LA pool.
Can someone explain to me how this is bad when both nvidia and amd's newer cards do hardware HEVC encoding?
Because the royalty licensing cost is passed on to you as the end user. You're paying extra for the codec rent. Additionally, there are, for example, content distribution royalties. So a company like Netflix is paying extra for merely transmitting HEVC content over the Internet and those costs also get passed on to you as the end user. Additionally, the Velos Media patent pool hasn't even announced its royalty rates. Who knows what they'll charge.
In the end, this anti-web licensing creates a pay-to-play environment where only the big boys can afford to play. I don't know about you, but that's not the web I want.
Secondly, as a end user if I want to play back HEVC videos there are many arm TV boxes I can get for under $100 which do hardware HEVC decoding.
There are many ARM TV boxes that you can get for under $100 which do VP9 decoding. There will be plenty of ARM TV boxes which you can get for under $100 which do AV1 decoding once AV1 is finished.
Formats, like HEVC, which require payment for patent royalties work against your individual interests. Don't support such formats.
I ran Sierra for some months... then eventually reformatted and went back to El Capitan.
Why?
The main problem with HEVC is the patent licensing. In order to use HEVC you need to get 3 different patent licenses from 3 different patent pools (MPEG LA, HEVC Advance, and Velos Media).
There are some companies with HEVC patents, like Technicolor, which aren't in any patent pool so you also need to get a patent license from them. Technicolor says they have done this "to enable direct licensing" of their HEVC patents. Sounds convenient.
The patent licensing situation has reduced the x265 developers to begging the patent pools for better licensing terms. I recognise the x265 team is trying to make a buck but I think they'd be better off focusing on building an AV1 implementation than throwing their lot in with HEVC. HEVC's licensing is just not web friendly.
Luckily, the HEIF image format is content format agnostic (presentation and slides). In principle you could use HEIF with VP9 or with AV1. Apple may never support VP9 but I don't think they can avoid adding support for AV1 in future. AV1 will have too many advantages over HEVC (better performance, royalty-free licensing) to ignore.
Use Rust. It's not at version 1.0 yet but it's promising. See some comments on Rust's benefits for security. And some blog posts by Andrew Ruef and Patrick Walton.
Apple has never worked with the NSA to create a backdoor in any of our products
So Apple has worked for the NSA to create a backdoor in their products. I understand.
why? you want nvidia only piece of shit hardcoded by former nvidia employee?
SteamOS also works on AMD and Intel GPUs.
Yes, I have had a currently open bug with FF21.0--that got worse with 22.0.
Where's the bug? Link to it.
And I and the other watchers of the bug I opened at Mozilla will dispute your contention that Chrome uses more memory. Simply not true!
Did you not look at the memory usage charts from Tom's Hardware? Chrome uses more memory than other browsers. This has been my consistent experience as well as Tom's Hardware's as well as most everyone's. Look at another memory usage chart from Tom's. They use Chrome's memory usage tool to measure it. Even Google disagrees with you.
I won't be downloading any new versions of Firefox--nor will I enable automatic updates--until they fix the danged memory leaks that have been present since they began their whirlwind upgrade cycle with FF 4.0.
What memory leaks? If you've found new ones, have you reported them? Significant progress has been made in Firefox's memory usage in the last three years. Do you read the memshrink progress reports? If you don't, maybe you should.
Chrome is a handy replacement for what used to be a reliable friend--Firefox.
Surely you realise that Chrome uses more memory than Firefox. Look at a comparison of browser memory usage with a single tab open and multiple tabs open. If you're happy with Chrome's memory usage, you'll be happy with any browser's memory usage.
Google's strategy for making surveillance of user Internet activity more difficult for U.S. and foreign governments
So.. the only organisation conducting invasive surveillance of my Internet activity will be Google? I'm most relieved.
VP9 produces video about the same size and quality as H.265 (Google I/O talk on VP9, though they of course weren't using x265 to compare), VP9 support is already in Chrome (with Firefox and Opera likely to follow soon) and the reference VP9 implementation is BSD-licensed. What's the advantage of H.265 over VP9 and what does x265 in particular offer over this new version of WebM (VP9+Opus)?
All the more reason to consider using new programming languages like Rust which are built with memory safety in mind. Better programming languages are by no means a silver bullet for security problems, but they help.
Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! the remix: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRm0NDo1CiY
No one uses WebM.
YouTube does. Wikipedia does. Wired Video does. Microsoft's Channel 9 does. Revision3 does. Et cetera and so on.
The "killer feature" for me on Gmail is conversation view, where it groups messages together in conversations, so instead of a ton of disparate emails, they're grouped together in a single line and can be seen in sequential order. Back when I switched over to Gmail, it was the only thing that had this feature, and now I find it indispensable, though it does sometimes screw up (since email was never designed to actually have this in the first place). Do other clients have this yet?
Yes: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/addon/gmail-conversation-view/. My experience has been that webmail is inferior to having a mail client. Even simple things like correctly displaying email which contains styled HTML content doesn't work in, for example, Gmail.
To be disruptive, a device has to attract developers and users.
The developers and applications already exist. It's easy to make existing HTML5 applications installable to Firefox OS. Just add an app manifest and an application cache manifest. It would be easy for ZeptoLab, for example, to make Cut the Rope installable to Firefox OS.
This one hasn't even got a hardware vendor.
You should read one of Telefonica's press releases. Firefox OS has both operators and hardware manufacturers.