Here are the resolutions Netflix delivers various viewer software (seems to vary depending on the DRM schemes available in different browsers and platforms) .
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.
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.
For over a year we've been treated to the fantasy that Windows 10 on ARM was the same as Windows 10 on x86.
No one thought that. Microsoft has been very clear from the outset what Windows 10 on ARM offers.
64-bit apps will not work.
Incorrect. 64-bit ARM applications will work, of course. And Microsoft has always said the initial target for x86 emulation was 32-bit applications. That was announced in 2016.
It cannot use x86 drivers.
Of course it can't. Why would anyone think it would?
Well, that thing that is now two releases ahead of Waterfox. Waterfox is stuck at Firefox 56. They say they'll be developing a "new" browser, but it's unclear what that means exactly.
NoScript works in Firefox 57+. Giorgio Maone, the author of NoScript, says Firefox's add-ons API is the best of any current browser. So that one's solved for you.
clearly indicates that it can/will send data to Mozilla
So turn telemetry off in the settings. It's under Privacy and Security -> Firefox Data Collection and Use. While you're there you also might want to set the Tracking Protection setting to "always". That's what I do.
In WaterFox 56.0.3 the highest result I got was: WebAssembly.instantiate took 1369.3 ms (9 MB/s)
In Firefox 58.0 the lowest result I got was: WebAssembly.instantiate took 222.5 ms (55.6 MB/s)
Waterfox will continue to fall behind as new Firefox releases come out. Eventually Waterfox will have to bite the bullet and rebase on whatever the latest Firefox is at that time.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
The answer is that they're better at encoding than everyone else.
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.
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.
Problem solved.
ad tracking companies is paying Mo$illa to cripple their browser
Firefox has built-in tracking protection. Set it to "always" to have it turned on at all times. See the documentation.
Is that also part of the evil plan of these ad tracking companies?
Or waterfox.
But it's stuck at Firefox 56, which is now two major versions behind. Consequently Waterfox doesn't have things like the new WebAssembly compiler. Compare Waterfox and Firefox in this WebAssembly compilation benchmark.
The Waterfox project says they'll be developing a “new” browser, whatever that means. Maybe they'll be switching engines to Blink or WebKit.
For over a year we've been treated to the fantasy that Windows 10 on ARM was the same as Windows 10 on x86.
No one thought that. Microsoft has been very clear from the outset what Windows 10 on ARM offers.
64-bit apps will not work.
Incorrect. 64-bit ARM applications will work, of course. And Microsoft has always said the initial target for x86 emulation was 32-bit applications. That was announced in 2016.
It cannot use x86 drivers.
Of course it can't. Why would anyone think it would?
Yes, just use DuckDuckGo. Problem solved.
Well, that thing that is now two releases ahead of Waterfox. Waterfox is stuck at Firefox 56. They say they'll be developing a "new" browser, but it's unclear what that means exactly.
YouTube Algorithm May Be Open To Manipulation By 'Bad Actors'
You leave Jean-Claude Van Damme alone! He tries his best.
"An armed society is a society of cows"?
Yes. Cows with guns.
You've linked to two separate projects. Here's a better link.
I use uBlock Origin and have Firefox's tracking protection set to always on. Forbes seems like it works for me.
NoScript for one
NoScript works in Firefox 57+. Giorgio Maone, the author of NoScript, says Firefox's add-ons API is the best of any current browser. So that one's solved for you.
Firefox is somehow "faster"
It sure is. Try turning on Firefox's Tracking Protection. Set it to "always" and you will halve your average page load time.
Then there's the Firefox of today.
Oh good. Another pointless, content-free "Firefox kicks puppies!" post from an anonymous coward.
Yet breaking nearly all extensions
All the extensions I use continue to work, and so do over 8,000 other extensions. Your experience is not universal.
For years we've had Firefox users saying that they just want a fast, extensible, secure browser.
And that's what Firefox is. Maybe get outside a bit more and get some perspective.
The data is always collected even if it's not transmitted
Cool, where's it stored? These content-free claims are boring. If you've got claims to make back them with evidence.
Cryptocurrency is solves problems and isn't going anywhere.
So.. cryptocurrency is going nowhere?
You know damn well Waterfox will release an update based on this release.
When? Unsurprisingly, a single developer is outperformed by a team of developers. Waterfox is now two releases behind Firefox.
But God forbid someone suggest you might be wrong.
I'm not wrong. Firefox 58 massively outperforms Waterfox 56.0.3 in WebAssembly compilation.
Merely disabling these privacy-invading, malware-like aspects of Firefox is not sufficient.
Yes it is. Disable it and be happy.
but your test is certainly unfair to Alex and Waterfox
Nope, perfectly fair. I tested current release against current release. Waterfox 56.0.3 was released on the 12th of January.
The add-on is not supported for Firefox 57 and above
They have a Chrome version. If they want to support Firefox 57 and above they could just port the Chrome version to Firefox.
clearly indicates that it can/will send data to Mozilla
So turn telemetry off in the settings. It's under Privacy and Security -> Firefox Data Collection and Use. While you're there you also might want to set the Tracking Protection setting to "always". That's what I do.
Firefox 52+ were the finishing touches to it.
No, there have been further performance improvements since 52. Try this simple example of the improvement in WebAssembly complication times.
In WaterFox 56.0.3 the highest result I got was: WebAssembly.instantiate took 1369.3 ms (9 MB/s)
In Firefox 58.0 the lowest result I got was: WebAssembly.instantiate took 222.5 ms (55.6 MB/s)
Waterfox will continue to fall behind as new Firefox releases come out. Eventually Waterfox will have to bite the bullet and rebase on whatever the latest Firefox is at that time.