thealexweb Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 And it starts, soon to come a pay version of youtube with some "channels". All part of the plan. What the hell are you talking about? xD That's not Google's business model, they don't really do pay for things :p Yes there making a few channels with original content but I can't see that going anywhere fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Udedenkz Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Considering the quality on YouTube generally sucks anyway I don't see the big deal. Compatibility? Hardware support on all cheap computers these days? Also, technology doesn't stand still... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George P Global Moderator Posted April 20, 2011 Global Moderator Share Posted April 20, 2011 What the hell are you talking about? xD That's not Google's business model, they don't really do pay for things :p Yes there making a few channels with original content but I can't see that going anywhere fast. Youtube doesn't make money, it's a resource hog to say the least. There will be some sort of "pro" subscription based version of Youtube in the future, you can bet on it. The reason Google paid a crap load of money for something so minor as a codec (VP8) and then just handed it out for free wasn't because they're nice guys. Using h264 to stream on the web is royalty free for google as long as youtube is free, that's how it goes. IF/when Google wants to start to charge for some part of Youtube they'll have to then pay h264 licensing, they don't want to, and thus we get WebM. It's as simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thealexweb Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Youtube doesn't make money, it's a resource hog to say the least. There will be some sort of "pro" subscription based version of Youtube in the future, you can bet on it. The reason Google paid a crap load of money for something so minor as a codec (VP8) and then just handed it out for free wasn't because they're nice guys. Using h264 to stream on the web is royalty free for google as long as youtube is free, that's how it goes. IF/when Google wants to start to charge for some part of Youtube they'll have to then pay h264 licensing, they don't want to, and thus we get WebM. It's as simple as that. Google at the moment breaks even on YouTube it's stopped making a loss on it (more than can be said for MS's online division :p) and maybe like Opera and Mozilla, Google didn't want to be dictated to by some aggressive patent group :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ichi Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Youtube doesn't make money, it's a resource hog to say the least. There will be some sort of "pro" subscription based version of Youtube in the future, you can bet on it. The reason Google paid a crap load of money for something so minor as a codec (VP8) and then just handed it out for free wasn't because they're nice guys. Using h264 to stream on the web is royalty free for google as long as youtube is free, that's how it goes. IF/when Google wants to start to charge for some part of Youtube they'll have to then pay h264 licensing, they don't want to, and thus we get WebM. It's as simple as that. The way you put it, it sounds as if it was some sort of evil plan including Larry Page laughing hysterically in a candle-lit office. People use Youtube because it's convenient and free. If any of those two features were to change, people would eventually move to some alternative service. As simple as that. Paid services or not, doesn't it make sense for Google to switch to a codec with a clear, wrote down perpetually royalty free license instead of relying on MPEG-LA promises about the future of h264's conditions for royalties collection? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George P Global Moderator Posted April 20, 2011 Global Moderator Share Posted April 20, 2011 Google at the moment breaks even on YouTube it's stopped making a loss on it (more than can be said for MS's online division :p) and maybe like Opera and Mozilla, Google didn't want to be dictated to by some aggressive patent group :) How is that different from what I said? "they don't make money on it" Breaking even isn't making money. And the fact is Youtube is a huge resource hog hardware wise. Nice little dig at MS too, though that has no point in this at all. Your last part doesn't counter what I said at all either, "aggressive patent group", like I said they don't want to pay a fee later, my point still stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MS Bob 11 Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 The question is are videos transcoded ONLY in WebM or ALSO in WebM? If H.264 is gone for new videos, Google just damaged YouTube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George P Global Moderator Posted April 20, 2011 Global Moderator Share Posted April 20, 2011 The way you put it, it sounds as if it was some sort of evil plan including Larry Page laughing hysterically in a candle-lit office. People use Youtube because it's convenient and free. If any of those two features were to change, people would eventually move to some alternative service. As simple as that. Paid services or not, doesn't it make sense for Google to switch to a codec with a clear, wrote down perpetually royalty free license instead of relying on MPEG-LA promises about the future of h264's conditions for royalties collection? If you want to think the VP8/WebM move was done with rainbows and butterflies all around that's fine, whatever works for you. The fact is that this is a calculated business move for the future, if you don't see it then I can't help you. Having a paid, pro version of youtube with extra and exclusive content/features DOESN'T mean the current free version goes away, what it does mean is that if google were to do it today, or before they grabbed VP8 and still used h264 fully they'd have to pay the fee. The point is they don't want to pay royalties, and want to make money out of youtube, not just break even. I never questioned the sense of the switch, if you don't want to pay and have fear of getting charged then sure, but don't sit there and tell me this has nothing to do with their long term goals for Youtube. Why do you think they're trying to add exclusive content? Why do you think they're working on Google TV? It's time people think out ahead and not just for the short term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ichi Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 The question is are videos transcoded ONLY in WebM or ALSO in WebM? If H.264 is gone for new videos, Google just damaged YouTube. And the answer is (who would have thought :p ) right there in the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ichi Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 If you want to think the VP8/WebM move was done with rainbows and butterflies all around that's fine, whatever works for you. :rolleyes: The fact is that this is a calculated business move for the future, if you don't see it then I can't help you. And that's exactly what I meant, only that the "calculated business move" can include a lot of things other than (or "in addition to") a paid version of Youtube. It just makes business sense for Google to switch to WebM, no matter what their specific plans would be. Even if they were to keep Youtube as it is, it would still be a sensible choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamawesomewicked Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 If you want to think the VP8/WebM move was done with rainbows and butterflies all around that's fine, whatever works for you. The fact is that this is a calculated business move for the future, if you don't see it then I can't help you. Having a paid, pro version of youtube with extra and exclusive content/features DOESN'T mean the current free version goes away, what it does mean is that if google were to do it today, or before they grabbed VP8 and still used h264 fully they'd have to pay the fee. The point is they don't want to pay royalties, and want to make money out of youtube, not just break even. I never questioned the sense of the switch, if you don't want to pay and have fear of getting charged then sure, but don't sit there and tell me this has nothing to do with their long term goals for Youtube. Why do you think they're trying to add exclusive content? Why do you think they're working on Google TV? It's time people think out ahead and not just for the short term. There will be no paid version / pro version of youtube. Period. Youtube would sink faster than the titanic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boz Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Ah wouldn't have been nice if iOS had Flash enabled since they don't have webM support so you could watch YouTube videos. Its going to be funny not being able to watch YouTube on iOS? Ah the irony. This is great news towards, royalty free web for video. There will be no paid version / pro version of youtube. Period. Youtube would sink faster than the titanic. It will be. YouTube is doing 2 things now. Premium VOD service and live streaming service. You will still have free stuff but now you will be able to rent movies too or watch live events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boz Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Right. Until Google locks it up like they did with honeycomb. :whistle: What? You can't "lock up" open source. Honeycomb is not "locked up" the open source release is delayed due to technical reason not because it's locked up. It will still be published as open source. You are mistaking google not allowing honeycomb running manufacturers from modifying honeycomb if they still want to use non-open source google services such as maps, navigation, mail, marketplace and put google logo on that device. It has nothing to do with android/honeycomb being open source. Learn to make a difference instead of believing apple stupid propaganda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperAFK Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 The question is are videos transcoded ONLY in WebM or ALSO in WebM? If H.264 is gone for new videos, Google just damaged YouTube. Youtube has never exactly been a paragon of good quality video. I highly doubt the vast majority of people would notice any difference if all the videos were webm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OuchOfDeath Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 I'm pretty sure Google will continue to encode for h.264 as well for the forseeable future. And yes quality wise nobody's going to notice. While h.264 is obviously superior in its quality there is a point where a codec only needs to be "good enough" to become standard. That's how mp3 has not been replaced as the "standard" codec with superior alternatives out there. It's simply "good enough". On a slightly unrelated note, Google was supposed to be removing h.264 from Chrome. It's still here in the latest stable release though (I triple checked, it's here). Does anyone have any details on this? I was under the impression that it was supposed to be gone by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George P Global Moderator Posted April 20, 2011 Global Moderator Share Posted April 20, 2011 :rolleyes: And that's exactly what I meant, only that the "calculated business move" can include a lot of things other than (or "in addition to") a paid version of Youtube. It just makes business sense for Google to switch to WebM, no matter what their specific plans would be. Even if they were to keep Youtube as it is, it would still be a sensible choice. What are we actually arguing over here? I never said it wasn't a smart move I just see it as the first step into something bigger, and that just so happens to be a part of Youtube that they can get money from directly through some added service with exclusive content and or features. I honestly don't see where this isn't the case seeing the other moves they've also made fit in. No ones done anything to actually counter my opinion if you will, only saying "it'll die if they charge for it!". I never said they had to take away the free part as it is now. There will be no paid version / pro version of youtube. Period. Youtube would sink faster than the titanic. I don't get this line of thinking, why would adding a 2nd option with extra features and exclusive content that you pay a subscription for mean youtube would sink? Doing a higher tier doesn't mean you have to or even will dump the free option we have now. Out of the millions of visiters youtube gets each day even if 10% of them buy into a "pro" version it'd probably be enough to finally let it start making money. In the end this is a business not a charity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manish Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Its going to be funny not being able to watch YouTube on iOS? Ah the irony. In keeping with our goal of making videos universally accessible, we will continue to support H.264 as an important codec for video on YouTube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePitt Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 so they dont even have to pay nothing!. Its a win win situation. They dont have to pay for the format and they take your privacy, all for same price, FREE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boeing 787 Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 MP4 and WebM samples from 720p video: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted April 21, 2011 Veteran Share Posted April 21, 2011 Which is which? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epk Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 MP4 is a container and that's not even the same frame :whistle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boeing 787 Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 Which is which? First is mp4 and the second is webm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reacon Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 I did a spectrogram analysis on the new audio codec used. Old videos had a cutoff shelf at 11 Khz, the new codec drops at about 17 Khz. Youtube music fans rejoice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Udedenkz Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 MP4 and WebM samples from 720p video: Please compare 1080p 24FPS 30-50Mbit Video (3D is possible) with an WebM equivalent. Technology doesn't stand still, 3D and high-quality 1080p are the future for the web. Also provide CPU usage when playing the formats, this is *VERY* important. Also tell what you are using: Windows Media Player? Media Player Classic? Flash for MP4 and Chrome for WebM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boeing 787 Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 Please compare 1080p 24FPS 30-50Mbit Video (3D is possible) with an WebM equivalent. Technology doesn't stand still, 3D and high-quality 1080p are the future for the web. Also provide CPU usage when playing the formats, this is *VERY* important. Also tell what you are using: Windows Media Player? Media Player Classic? Flash for MP4 and Chrome for WebM? 1. Youtube doesn't support 30-50Mbit, that I know of, plus most people have slow cable or DSL lines so it's pointless. 2. WebM will also improve, no guarantee that mp4 will be the better format in say 5 years. 3. If you want the best video quality today that only leaves BluRay. Plenty of movies plus Dolby True HD surround sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts