About 25-50% higher according to most estimates. There aren't any optimised decoders to really compare real-world performance though.
Happy to be proven wrong, but I'd imagine fairly soon.
H.265 is a superset of H.264, so much of the same hardware could probably be used. As for complexity, it seems H.265 is around 25-50% more complex for DECODING so certainly not unreasonable for current mobile devices.
The current Samsung Galaxy S4 advertised both HEVC support and Full HD (1080p) playback - not sure if they are both together however.
Agreed but 4x pixels does not equate to 4x bitrate for a given codec - typically more like 2x.
so maybe something like
4K H.265 = 75% * 200%* 1080p H.264 = 150% H.264
So not as bad as you'd think and a lot of current format stuff is still MPEG-2 as well so even more scope for improvement !!!
The specific encoder you use makes a HELL of a lot more difference than the codec/format. Other H.264 encoders don't come close to x264. If x265 doesn't get the same kind of open source development boost, x264 will continue to improve, and probably outperform the newer format, as proprietary codec developers just haven't shown themselves willing or able to do a good job of perceptual encoding, yet that's where the bulk of our non-pirated content comes from...
I'll assume by "proprietary codec developers" you actually mean developers who have closed source implementation of the encoder. In which case, the statement may not be completely unreasonable ie closed-source encoders have not kept pass with this open-source implementation due to less comphrensive (and less costly) implementation of the encoding tools.
The rest is complete rubbish though
So what if the bulk of non-pirated comes from closed source encoders
The specific encoder you use makes a HELL of a lot more difference than the codec/format. Other H.264 encoders don't come close to x264. If
Do you understand that H.265 is essentially a superset of H.264? You know, as in H.264 + extensions? How is x264 going to out-perform x265 given it is a subset of the later?
Do you understand that x264 uses a superset of the encoder algorithms implemented by other encoders? So what you attribute is primarily due to codec and then codec parameters and then software optimisations.
You could have said "I hate standards
Nope - think we agree on the numbers
$1 billion / 600 million users / 12 months = $0.139/user/month
US books sales were running about 80% hardcopy / 20% electronic in 2012 vs 85% / 15% in 2011
Current numbers of up towards 25% e-book share seem completely reasonable
However, the growth rates have plummeted and seems that e-books may top out at less than 30% market over the next few years
The biggest surprise is that the "new-ness" of ebooks may be wearing off
means that that consumer should pay a lot more in subscription fees than they bring in in ad revenue, especially considering that with a significant amount of the users opting out the value of the rest of the userbase drops.
That is really the guts of it
Ad revenue is actually tiny at around $0.15/mth/user up from closer to $0.05/mth/user last year
I agree the userbase is the product so you can't afford to push them away with too much advertising - the question is how to monetize the userbase.
And that's the problem
And your logic problem:
- it's not 10% * $10/mth subscription vs 100% * $1/mth ads
- it is (10% * $10/mth subs + 90% * $1/mth ads) vs (100% * $1/mth ads)
Replacing 10% of your user-base at higher profits ($10 vs $0.15) while retaining the ad-revenue for the rest kind of makes it a no-brainer.
As for Office - it still has something like 90-95% market share
Answer: Because it is not a failed model but is the traditional life-cycle of ANY business product.
The cycle is:
- develop a product
- create demand for the product
- monetize the demand
- continue until the life-cycle is over
Part of monetizing the product is to segment the market based on willingness/ability to pay. Premium vs ad-supported is a very easy and successful way to do that with media-type products.
Where this model fails is where there is not a viable business to start with and an attempt to monetize then completely fails - that was most of the original dot-com bubble of the late '90s
What businesses are you thinking you that built up large userbases before screwing it up?
Yikes - you butchered that analogy.
We can see where you started with the mantra "facebook (A) is not the product for users (B), but users (B) are the product for advertisers (C)"
You've concluded that "ads (A) don't finance users (B), users (B) are the target of ads (A)"
What has been proposed may actually make sense given it makes facebook the product for a group of customers:
- advertisers value the platform at $2/user per annum
- the subscription model suggested values the platform at $120/user per annum
- i'd guess that anyone who wanted ad-free would worth less $120 (ie 60x the average) to advertisers
Nothing wrong with fragmenting your market and cashing in the high-value component. Exactly what most of the media does - pay services for high value customers and throw low value advertising at the others. Think why cinemas still exist when TV viewers are the product for advertisers and that can be a free service????
To save you actually reading:
- yes, they tested them
- those authorities that knew how to test (i.e. blind tests) knew they didn't work
- those that didn't know how to test properly fell for the Ideomotor Effect
Disassembly of the devices showed they had NO active components - hence the lack of a power source (supposedly run on static electricity !!)
But more importantly, one can infer that there was a lot of corruption in the sales processes to a number of third-world and war-torn countries
Or in the UK in a city that debuted it after 27th December 1977
FYI - the UK release was London only until January 1978
26 Jan 1788 or 1 Jan 1901
Vulcan was never going to be chosen and these 2 have a good association to each other.
No problem there - you need to count like a journalist.
He started in 2003 (the 2000s) and stopped in 2013 (the 2010s)