Good. No one stops Apple from supporting free codecs. Google should have done something of the sort a long time ago. But they didn't, and proliferated H.264 usage.
>> VP9 uses a retarded amount of CPU compared to h264, so I can't blame Apple for not wanting to implement it.
h264 uses a retarded amount of bandwidth compared to VP9, so I can't blame Google for not wanting to implement it.
Google is still providing a choice here, except for 4K where it costs them twice as much. Apple on the other hand has no excuse for not implementing both. There is also a free low-power hardware implementation of VP9 which Apple (who makes their own SoC) could choose to use but hasn't.
> which Apple (who makes their own SoC) could choose to use but hasn't.
They don't make their own SoC for their laptop and desktop machines, which is who this primarily affects. 4K on iPhones doesn't matter since they only have 2560x1440 resolution.
Indeed, Google not doing something sooner is what caused Firefox to accept a proprietary h264 blob, leading to the eventual acceptance of h264 as a required codec in the WebRTC standard.
