User Tag List

  1. Akshay Masand's Avatar


    Although VP8, which was Google’s initial attempt at a royalty-free video codec didn’t gain much traction, the search giant is now focusing its efforts on ultra-high-resolution 4K video with its new VP9 codec, with a large scale unveiling with YouTube multiple hardware partners set to take place next week according to a new report.

    Google is expected to debut the new VP9 codec as an alternative to H.265 at next week’s Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, Nevada. According to GigaOm, VP9 is capable of streaming 4K video on YouTube with fewer bandwidth needs. The company is said to already have a slew of hardware partners that have pledged support, including ARM, Intel, Broadcom, Marvell, NVIDIA, Samsung, Sony Sharp and Toshiba. Unsurprisingly not among the list of initial hardware supporters is Apple.

    The successor to VP8 has been in development at Google for some time and the company has suggested its intention is not to completely replace H.265. Instead, Google says it hopes to create a royalty-free alternative that could ease bandwidth issues associated with 4K video content on its popular streaming site, YouTube.

    Francisco Varela, global director of platform partnerships at YouTube, dismissed speculation that VP9 versus H.264 would be “war of the video codecs.” Instead, he suggested that YouTube could add support for H.265 in the future, alongside VP9. He claimed that YouTube’s main goal is to reduce the amount of data necessary to stream ultra-definition 4K video. The new VP9 codec aims to reduce bandwidth necessary by half, and went as far as to predict that YouTube users will be “surprised” whenever a video has to stop to buffer by 2015.

    We’ll have to wait and see how the VP9 codec’s success pans out. If it truly does become successful, Apple may consider picking it up.

    Source: GigaOm

    Twitter: @AkshayMasand
    2014-01-05 03:26 AM
  2. buggsy2's Avatar
    Has Google's Schmidt used some Colorado weed? I'll be shocked if YouTube doesn't stutter and pause.
    2014-01-05 03:44 AM
  3. Zokunei's Avatar
    How can anyone reject a higher-efficiency codec that they don't even have to pay to use?
    Last edited by Zokunei; 2014-01-05 at 05:00 AM.
    2014-01-05 04:47 AM
  4. WHUDS's Avatar
    How can anyone reject a higher-efficiency codec that they don't even have to pay to use?
    Does Apple own rights? Apple seems to patent everything so why not CODECS ? How can you make money if its free?
    2014-01-05 05:56 AM
  5. c1972798's Avatar
    Again another thing Apple is left behind from its own stupidity.
    They never like to do anything that everyone else does so why are they so popular? I guess its all the Americans getting behind the locals as the rest of the world thinks the iPhone sucks.
    Last edited by c1972798; 2014-01-05 at 11:35 AM.
    2014-01-05 11:31 AM
  6. crouching's Avatar
    Its not a commercial format, thus I will not be using it. Sorry Google.
    2014-01-05 11:52 AM
  7. Scotty Manley Silberhorn's Avatar
    The pic shows us vp9 vs h.264. I feel like it show show vp9 vs h.265 since that will be its competition.
    2014-01-05 05:44 PM
  8. Quade321's Avatar
    Has Google's Schmidt used some Colorado weed? I'll be shocked if YouTube doesn't stutter and pause.
    The bit rate doesn't have to be higher, sooo.... No more strain on servers or bandwidth. Only higher quality. Love how everyone learned his name after the whole "Android is more secure than the iPhone" thing.

    Does Apple own rights? Apple seems to patent everything so why not CODECS ? How can you make money if its free?
    Some companies actually do things for their consumers that are good. Open source, free, those are things that end up making the world go around (Even Mac is based on FreeBSD (UNIX) sooo... yeah, can't say Apple makes it work without open source stuff). So, yeah, some companies just aren't assholes that look to patent the world and make sure no one can make money or take one ******* step without a patent infringement.
    Last edited by Quade321; 2014-01-05 at 08:05 PM.
    2014-01-05 08:00 PM
  9. politicalslug's Avatar
    If VP9 is significantly more efficient, at the same quality, than h.265, then I can see it gaining traction. If, however, VP9 is only equal to h.265 then I see it going nowhere. Microsoft's VC1 was just as good as h.264, and they were promising lower royalties than h.264, but in the end no one wanted to be tied to Microsoft alone. I think the same is true for Google. H.265 might have the highest royalties, but at least everyone has access to it.
    They can have my jailbreak when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
    2014-01-06 12:58 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD