 |
 |
Google to show off open VP9 codec for 4K video at CES
|
|
|
|
|
MacNN Staff
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status:
Offline
|
|
Google's YouTube will be showing of a 4K-capable video codec, VP9, at next week's CES in Las Vegas, according to GigaOm. The format is being presented as an alternative to H.265, and will be open and royalty-free. To avoid the lack of support that killed off Google's VP8, the company has signed up 19 hardware partners, including Samsung, Sharp, Toshiba, ARM, Intel, Broadcom, and Marvell. At CES, 4K YouTube steaming will be demonstrated at booths belonging to LG, Sony, and Panasonic. YouTube's global director of platform partnerships, Francisco Varela, states that YouTube's use of VP9 is not meant to exclude other standards. "This certainly isn't a war of the video codecs," he says, adding that VP9 is just the first announcement YouTube is making about 4K. That could imply that YouTube will support both VP9 and H.265.
Varela comments that VP9 should not only support 4K at acceptable bitrates but cut the amount of bandwidth needed for regular HD videos in half. "By 2015, you'll be surprised every time you see that spinning wheel," he claims. VP9-cable hardware is expected to reach PCs and mobile devices first, and come to TVs in 2015. It could also be adopted by non-Google video services.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2011
Status:
Offline
|
|
So it's ad free? No consumer data mining? No consumer location tagging? No hidden agenda to generate ad and data reports for advertising agencies? Completely free, open source, licensing fee free? Will it support iOS equally as Android?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Too F'ing Cold, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Jubeikiwagami 
So it's ad free? No consumer data mining? No consumer location tagging? No hidden agenda to generate ad and data reports for advertising agencies? Completely free, open source, licensing fee free? Will it support iOS equally as Android?
It's a CODEC... do you even know what that means?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2011
Status:
Offline
|
|
It's from Google. Do you even know what that really means?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2009
Status:
Offline
|
|
...it means you will have to pay royalties to use it to the rest of the industry...
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Too F'ing Cold, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
It just goes to show that people like Jubeikiwagami are confusing what the *real* privacy issues of today's digital era are. Hint, it's not Google... (it's the United States government).
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
So Google's going to provide a compression codec that seems to be no better than h.265 (only 2x better than h.264 according to the article which is approximately the same as h.265) yet is 100% controlled by Google? Why would anyone or any company support this if Google is not paying them to support it or at least Google providing a huge amount of support to implementing it? With Google having 100% control of the codec Google can change the implementation at will? Why would anyone or any company risk that unless they're getting direct support from Google, and how will Google make that back?
It's not a codec war? Who are they kidding? Why would Google spend the money to develop it, pay (or pay for the support of) others to implement it, and NOT eventually charge royalties?
Sure Google will make money off it through Google services (and ads) like YouTube, but Google makes most of its money off of OTHER services. However, Google will make the most money off this through services that use this instead of some other standard than Google's such as h.265 by some means that is specific to Google. If Google made just as much money off of the use of some other codec it makes no sense for Google to do this.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern California
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Maitland, FL
Status:
Offline
|
|
The reason VP8 failed is not due to a lack of hardware partners, it's because it was, like Android, based on stolen technology that had serious patent issues (exactly as Steve Jobs said). It will be interesting to see if Google has broken with tradition and created something original, or if naming this "VP9" is a hint that it's business as usual on this one.
|
|
Charles Martin
MacNN Editor
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2009
Status:
Offline
|
|
@Grendelmon:
Since Google has been openly collaborating with the NSA for years, it's largely the same thing. And their previous image/video encodings have been unnecessary at best, and significantly worse than the competition at worst (as in "codec which takes twice as much space to reach the same quality as the competition"), and their demo code/shipped plugins tend to do unsavory things like phoning home.
Really, the industry should just tell Google to stuff it.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top