![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the VP9 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The history section of this article reads like a list from a diary and is overly precise and detailed. Look at WP:NOTDIARY. It should be rewritten as prose such that the key events are described in relation to their continued importance over time. Editors wanting to add to the history section should consider updating or replacing existing sentences rather than just adding yet another line on the end. Rincewind42 (talk) 07:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
As of the time of this writing, Google has not released any patent grants for VP9, and the statement that it is an "Open and royalty-free" codec based on a marketing statement doesn't really give any proper reference to claim this.
In fact, it's been a point of discussion at the Mozilla legal department, see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1026707 A Google representative has made a statement that Google "should" release proper licensing "soon", but nothing concrete has happened in the month or so since this was stated.
With the wide-spread pushing of Google through Google-owned products that obviously don't have to worry about patent grants (YouTube, Chrome, ChromeOS, etc.) and the lack of clear licensing, it's also a point to consider for everyone incorporating/using VP9 in the library included in many Open Source operating systems (libvpx includes it since 1.3.0, a silently rolled out point release).
In short, the codec itself is patent-encumbered without a patent grant at this time. The implementation is proprietary and copyrighted by Google Inc. The implementation Source is released, but the actual use of VP9 is not within the realm of FOSS without a proper patent grant.
Perhaps someone can investigate this and adapt this Wikipedia article accordingly to make an accurate representation about the current state of licensing and about the codec not necessarily being open, nor royalty-free. The current state of affairs is that Google may at any time claim royalties if they so choose...
Wolfbeast (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Some of those "hardware" codecs are OpenCL implementations – software. Is it worth pointing out such an implementation detail for the sake of absolute correctness? In all fairness, there are firmware blobs in H.264 "hardware" too! 84.214.220.135 (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
For some reason, this wiki page states that Polaris supports VP9 encoding. It does not, or at least not natively.
--Xaymar (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
While I personally support the use of webm, the style of the article feels at times like an advertisement of VP9 to me, especially passages like "with the clear development perspective and support from the industry demonstrated by the founding of the Alliance for Open Media, as well as the pricey and complex licensing situation of HEVC it is expected that users of the hitherto leading MPEG formats will often switch to the royalty-free alternative formats of the VPx/AVx series instead of upgrading to HEVC." I went ahead an tried to make the introduction a bit more neutral, but right now I'm leaving the rest as is, with the addition of a warning template. --Yury Bulka (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Karakarga70
I think I know where the issue is: the table is formatted in a really weird way. It is only for devices with accelerated decoding, but the additional column is asking for encoding (it's not a mistake, all references inside point to encoding information). Which means that those Gforces can be added to the list, because the referenced | support table from nVidia tells under decoding table the state of VP9 decoding.
But for the check in the last column, they must support encoding. I hope I didn't mix up anything. Does that make sense? — K4rolB (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
The table under "Hardware implementations" is outdated, not properly maintained and has become redundant because almost every GPU and SoC released in the past five years supports VP9 decoding and encoding hasn't taken off and unlikely it ever will considering AV1 is all the rage nowadays. I suggest we delete this table altogether and maybe mention only holdouts, i.e. companies/chips which do not support VP9 which I can't think there are any nowadays. VP9 has become sort of commodity. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)