[acdha]

What user benefit would there have been? Any format added has a maintenance cost (ever notice how many security updates are found in AV code) so there would have had to be some compelling benefit versus the MPEG standards they already supported.

That's especially important for battery-powered devices since the primary WebM codec (VP8) didn't offer a reason to switch from H.264 and would had to be implemented in software rather than using the optimized hardware on the device (this is why YouTube playback performance is so much worse on most systems unless you disable WebM support in your browser).

[gsich]

User benefit? They can play videos, vs. they can't. Huge benefit for a vastly used codec.

[untog]

Vastly used? I'm not so sure about that. Vastly used in tandem with H264 when required? Absolutely.

If iOS can hardware decode H264 but not WebM it actually isn't in the user's interest to support WebM, because it'll reduce incentive to provide H264 versions of content, which means iOS users will experience battery drain faster.

It might not be particularly fair, but it does make sense.

[wlesieutre]

Native apps like VLC can play WebM on iOS with software decoding, but as you say it murders the battery.

If Apple supported that in browsers I'd bet that Google or other companies would switch their video hosting over, much to the detriment of anyone who watches videos on an iPhone. It's an open standard so clearly they're doing the pro-consumer good thing!

[gsich]

It would give an incentive to Apple to support hardware decoding.

[acdha]

Again, who benefits from this? You’re talking about duplicating a ton of work simply to have approximately the same quality.

You can contrast this with AV1 which is also a lot of work but which delivers better quality at smaller sizes. It’s not surprising that they picked that option instead.

[gsich]

Everyone.

[pwinnski]

Apple does support hardware decoding, just not of webm.

[gsich]

Yes, vastly used. Just look at Youtube. Besides it's a free codec.

How do you know what's in the users interest? A choice between "Video playing" vs. "Video not playing" is pretty obvious to me. (And I am a user too)

If battery really is a concern (assuming it is), just make it an option not to play videos if they require software decoding.

Besides that, users usually (an assumption I made, just as you did) don't watch lengthy videos (1-2 hours) on an iOS device.

[untog]

> Yes, vastly used. Just look at Youtube.

The service that also provides H264 versions of its content, you mean? Which is the point I already made.

> How do you know what's in the users interest? [...] If battery really is a concern (assuming it is)

Well, Apple is heavy-handed with its users. They make a lot of assumptions about what is best for them, and this is one of them.

> don't watch lengthy videos (1-2 hours) on an iOS device.

I suspect Netflix would disagree with you.

[gsich]

They don't know whats best for them if there is a user who wants something different. You might invoke appealing to the mass here, that doesn't make it true however.

Netflix on an iPhone? Probably not. At least not holding it in your hand for 2 hours.

[acdha]

> Netflix on an iPhone? Probably not. At least not holding it in your hand for 2 hours.

Do you have data to support this or are you just assuming that your personal tastes are universal? I see quite a few people watching videos on phones or tablets – ever see parents loading up their kid’s iPad before a flight?

[untog]

> They don't know whats best for them if there is a user who wants something different.

Obviously. But that's not how Apple works. You do things their way, or you get an Android phone/Windows laptop. They make the choices for users, and judging by market share a very solid number of people are very content with that arrangement.

[Terretta]

YouTube is not ‘vastly’. Get back to us when it’s ‘vast’ among commercial content providers.

Contrary to your point about not watching on iOS, I, and everyone I know, watch all content on an iOS device, both in the living room and on the go.

There is certainly a segment of the market that is using misc devices or “casting” to USB sticks plugged into TVs, but the 4K TV owning cord cutters I know tend to also own iPhones and use Apple TVs.

We saw this shift happen even more when iOS (and TvOS) gained SSO across apps with the “TV” app as indexer, and another bump when Amazon Prime released.

[gsich]

Why not? Just go by traffic. Youtube default to VP9 on Chrome, so yes it is vastly used. Netflix can't even display 4K on the desktop properly.

If you watch in the living room (on TV) you are not watching it on the iOS device. By that I mean the screen of the iOS device. Being in the living room, watching on TV, means you have no battery issue. Watching on your device means literally that, watching it on your device with your devices' screen. Not some casting or streaming to other displays.

[MBCook]

So what you’re saying is since Google has manipulated the environment so that Google’s preferred codec is the most used on Google‘s website, which happens to be the largest video site on the Internet… that means Google’s codec is better.

If we ignore YouTube, which Google controls to their own benefit, what’s the percentage of WebM/VP9 versus H264/H265?

[acdha]

It’s only vastly used if you mean “YouTube transcodes all of their H.264 into VP8 so you can hear your CPU fan”. It’s exceedingly rare to see a webm file without a corresponding MP4 file.

[clouddrover]

It depends on the resolution. YouTube stopped offering 4K H.264 encodes about a year ago:

http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/News/Online-Video-New...

Apple might never add VP9 support but 4K video from YouTube will work again once YouTube starts encoding to AV1 and Apple adds AV1 support.