Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 23rd May 2010 09:41 UTC
Benchmarks Now that Google has opened up VP8, the big question is obviously how it'll hold up to H264. Of course, VP8 already wins by default because it's open source and royalty free, but that doesn't mean we should neglect the quality issue. Jan Ozer from StreamingMedia.com has put up an article comparing the two codecs, and concludes that the differences are negligible - in fact, only in some high-motion videos did H264 win out. As always, this is just one comparison and most certainly anything but conclusive. Update: Another comparison. I can't spot the difference, but then again, I'm no expert.
Thread beginning with comment 426233
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

So, the world should just stick to a patent-encumbered codec because Apple was too short-sighted to think about the possibility of different codecs becoming popular? Are you really that full of Apple?

On top of that, as someone else already pointed out, you present the wrong view on the hardware side. As the CEO of ARM already explained, Cortex-A8 and Snapdragon processors already have the right hardware to accelerate VP8 - you just need to write the correct software. How else do you think Google is going to add VP8 acceleration to existing Android phones with Gingerbread?

As usual, your world revolves around Apple, but that you would be able to twist and turn something like switching to an open and royalty-free codec as anti-competitive is just beyond me. It is borderline idiotic.

Reply Parent Score: 5

mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

So, the world should just stick to a patent-encumbered codec because Apple was too short-sighted to think about the possibility of different codecs becoming popular?


At what point did I say that? Show me. That statement shows how little of what you read you actually comprehend. You talk about spin yet that is ALL you ever do. You claim to report on what's news yet you consistently present "the news according to Thom" and expect everyone to buy your drivel, berating those who dare to have a different opinion.

On top of that, as someone else already pointed out, you present the wrong view on the hardware side. As the CEO of ARM already explained, Cortex-A8 and Snapdragon processors already have the right hardware to accelerate VP8 - you just need to write the correct software. How else do you think Google is going to add VP8 acceleration to existing Android phones with Gingerbread?


The point that you miss as someone who has very obviously never put anything on the line in business themselves is that the YouTube app is already on the iPhone, and Google as much as Apple, have benefited from it being there, so why should Apple have to write anything so that an existing app can keep working? Why should users have to upgrade their phone's OS so they can keep using an existing app? Users will never blame Google for the YouTube player not working any more, they will blame Apple, who will have had no part in breaking it. Bad vibe for Apple, Google wins on the Android front. Anti-competitive. If you'd spent any appreciable time in support you'd know that, but alas.

As usual, your world revolves around Apple, but that you would be able to twist and turn something like switching to an open and royalty-free codec as anti-competitive is just beyond me. It is borderline idiotic.


I realize you have issues comprehending anything business, so let me clarify for you. IMPLEMENTING an open and royalty free codec is fine. Great in fact. SWITCHING on the other hand is a problem if it damages your competition in another market. It would be like Microsoft going into the hard drive business and restricting Windows to only support hard drives from the company they set up. Worse in fact, because at least the existing Windows users could keep using what they had, unlike the existing iPhone users who's app will be broken.

And my world doesn't revolve around Apple. I happen to make significantly more money from non-Apple business. My issue is that you and people like you claim that anyone who defends Apple on anything are caught in a reality distortion field, yet it's very obvious that the opposite is true. Your absolute distain for Apple is so obvious it's ridiculous, borderline idiotic even, to the point where your world revolves around hating Apple. Your articles have constant snipes at them even when the content has absolutely nothing to do with them, and I've yet to see you published a wholly positive article about them like you regularly do about other vendors. Then you have the hide to claim that you're not anti-Apple.

Go and spend ten or fifteen years in business for yourself putting your money and your family's very survival on the line then I might have some respect for your views. Until then just report the news because your spin has nothing to back it up.

Reply Parent Score: 2

smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

I understand what you're trying to say here and you have a couple of good points, but you're missing some important stuff as well.

Google is already restricting Youtube to a single format, so switching doesn't restrict anything further. In fact, I'd guess they'll probably keep a 360p copy around in h264 just for compatibility, at least for a while. They can get away with saying you'll need VP8 support if you want the higher resolutions.

Also, I can guarantee you that Google themselves would write the VP8 acceleration code if Apple allowed them. Heck, Apple could just allow Flash to run on their phones, and that would be taken care of for them by Adobe. Also, isn't that kind of the point of writing a mobile phone OS? What are we paying Apple to do, if it isn't to enable content support in their OS? No one is stopping them from implementing the support, just like we expect them to ship the phone with a browser that can view most websites on the internet without problem. So I think that argument is fairly weak.

Where I think you do have an argument is that Google has the power to change things maliciously, and that would indeed be bad. I just don't think they are here.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

... why should Apple have to write anything so that an existing app can keep working?...


Why would Apple require that a large number of developers must rewrite their apps for them to be included in their app store? Why can the same not be required of Apple? I do not understand the indignation.
Apple as a company has managed to segment out a group of customers that are both wealthy and stupid at the same time. The only positive thing that Apple has ever done for the IT industry is to show that such a segment exists and that large sums of money can be sucked from it with very little effort.

Go and spend ten or fifteen years in business for yourself putting your money and your family's very survival on the line then I might have some respect for your views. Until then just report the news because your spin has nothing to back it up.


Poisoning the well, if that is the level of discourse that you can come up with, then I'm sure Apple has some wares that will accommodate you just fine.

Reply Parent Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

The point that you miss as someone who has very obviously never put anything on the line in business themselves is that the YouTube app is already on the iPhone, and Google as much as Apple, have benefited from it being there, so why should Apple have to write anything so that an existing app can keep working? Why should users have to upgrade their phone's OS so they can keep using an existing app? Users will never blame Google for the YouTube player not working any more, they will blame Apple, who will have had no part in breaking it. Bad vibe for Apple, Google wins on the Android front. Anti-competitive. If you'd spent any appreciable time in support you'd know that, but alas.


Apple's fault.

Apple knows perfectly well that the policy for web standards, and hence HTML5, is "ROYALTY-FREE", yet Apple still shipped millions of i-devices with no support for open codecs, but instead supported only a patent-encumbered codec.

http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/
Abstract

The W3C Patent Policy governs the handling of patents in the process of producing Web standards. The goal of this policy is to assure that Recommendations produced under this policy can be implemented on a Royalty-Free (RF) basis.


Apple's fault. Apple should pay the cost.

Perhaps Apple can ask Google to code a VP8 accelerator for the iPhone/iPad/iPod, and Apple can then upgrade everybody's i-device for free. That is just about the only way that I can see how Apple can extract themselves from their current PR mess.

Edited 2010-05-24 10:34 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4