Chrome 60 Beta Rolls Out With VP9 Improvements, New Developer Features

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Chrome 60 Beta Rolls Out With VP9 Improvements, New Developer Features

Following last week's Chrome 59 debut, Chrome 60 is now in beta...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Chrome-60-Beta

[karasu]

"VP9 changes in Chrome 60 include support for using it with an MP4 container"

This sounds very backward, like the time where you didn't know which codec you needed to read you AVI file. I wonder what practical use case the devs have in mind.

[uid313]

Now that Chrome 59 finally got GTK3 support, I hope we will soon see Wayland support too.

[Nille]

I wonder what practical use case the devs have in mind.

MP4 is as a container well known. its not perfect, but it works.

[microcode]

MP4 is as a container well known. its not perfect, but it works.

I just don't know of a tool, community, or individual which encourages or even mentions using MP4 to contain VP9. I'm sure ffmpeg can do it, but I don't understand how anyone could adopt VP9, but fail to adopt Matroška or at least the WebM subset of it. I mean, sure, you can put basically anything with a FOURCC in MP4, but why?

[Hibbelharry]

See how peaceful is to use Chrome, this news has only 3 comments. Firefox has 23. A voice of wayland believers can be heard everywhere. Wayland was invented to reduce the maintenance burden of the X windowing system. Now they maintain two windowing systems, very clever.

X11 will die, even if it will take some more years. The ones doing good choices will get all the juice a little bit earlier, xfce and debian retards will wait a bit longer and do some more funny trolling. Very amusing.

[carewolf]

MP4 is as a container well known. its not perfect, but it works.

It is actually pretty crap, barely works, and little is known about it because it is so damned obscure and complicated.

For instance, as you all failed to notice here: There IS no such thing as an MP4 container, MP4 is a H.264 or H.265 in a QuickTime container). So the MP4 container, is just a wrong way of saying QuickTime unless you only ever mean to wrap H.264 or H.265.

[microcode]

It is actually pretty crap, barely works, and little is known about it because it is so damned obscure and complicated.

For instance, as you all failed to notice here: There IS no such thing as an MP4 container, MP4 is a H.264 or H.265 in a QuickTime container). So the MP4 container, is just a wrong way of saying QuickTime unless you only ever mean to wrap H.264 or H.265.

Not exactly, while based on qtff/mov it's not quite the same. QTFF was expanded to MPEG-4 Part 12, which was simultaneously expanded and deprecated by MPEG-4 Part 14 (MP4 container we know today).

But yeah, it's pretty messy nonetheless. I guess there's still technically no reason not to support VP9 in it.

[andreano]

"VP9 in an MP4 container"

I wonder what practical use case the devs have in mind.

DRM probably — there is nothing like MPEG Common Encryption for WebM. I think it's no coincidence Netflix is pioneering this.