On my Apple TV, iPad, Safari on Mac, I can watch 4K almost everything, from iTunes to Netflix to Disney+ to Vimeo... just not YouTube. And I can watch 4K YouTube on almost everything else, from Roku to Amazon to ChromeCast, just not my Apple stuff.
So, why, and more importantly, when's it all just going to be fixed?
When standards and companies collide
The short answer is that, unlike HD where pretty much everyone supported H.264 for video encoding and decoding, 4K has been split between almost everyone, including Google, supporting H.265 aka HEVC, and YouTube, supporting only a competing codec, VP9.
Since YouTube won't support HEVC and Apple won't support VP9, their shared users and customers — us — well, we get screwed right in the middle.
The good news is, the next, next-generation codec, AV1, seems to be supported by just about everyone again, including Apple and YouTube. So, once we get out of these awkward, angsty tech teenage years, it should be smooth viewing again. When will that be? Well, that brings me to the long answer.
H.264 and VP8
H.264 was and is the codec standard for HD video up to and including 1080p. But, the issue with it, is that it's not free and open source. It has to be licensed from a patent-pool company, MPEG-LA, which charges a royalty for that license.
In the early days, there was a lot of uncertainty about those licenses and royalties, but it eventually calmed down to the point that virtually everyone came to support H.264. Even Google and YouTube.
There was a problem though — free and open-source software. The companies and people who worked on and distributed free and open-source software that required video encoding and decoding couldn't and wouldn't support a licensed, royalty-based codec.
And Google's VP-series, back then VP8, became the only really viable alternative.
Now, just because Google or anyone else says or wants their codec to be FOSS-friendly doesn't automagically mean it is. Patents are a minefield and infringement is capricious and cares nothing about intent. So, Google eventually had to reach an agreement with MPEG-LA and everything was as cool as that kind of cool can be.
Then came 4K, and 8K on the horizon, and HDR, High Dynamic Range, and all sorts of video that promised to be far larger than anything H.264 or VP8 could efficiently handle at anything approaching usable compression rates.
And that's their one job — take giant media files, toss away everything the human eye can't really tell has been tossed away, crunch everything else to the full extent of math, and then provide the smaller file size with the least processing overhead possible.
H.265 vs. VP9
H.264 was replaced — after a much more complicated and nightmarish set of patent pooling agreements — by H.265, the High-Efficiency Video Codec, or what's commonly referred to by their entrant for most unnecessary acronym ever, HEVC. And, like H.264 before it, H.265, while still subject to licensing and royalties, has gotten widespread adoption by almost everyone in the industry, including and especially all the 4K and HDR movies and shows we're all streaming now all the time.
Everyone but YouTube.
Because this time, instead of supporting H.264 the way they had with HD, YouTube chose to only support VP9, the successor to VP8, and the main alternative for 4K and HDR video.
Why doesn't Google support HEVC as well? I've never seen anything approaching an official answer to that. Some have guessed that it's because they don't want to license it and pay royalties to HEVC pool, but that didn't stop them from supporting H.264 in the past. Others have guessed that it's because YouTube doesn't want to have to transcode videos into both VP9 and HEVC, but that's what they're doing for every video up to 1080p still anyway.
My guess is that the simple answer is probably the correct one: Because they're YouTube, dammit, and they don't want to. And they're big enough and powerful enough to get away with it. At least so far.
Since Google supports VP9 on its own devices, including Android and Chrome, including Chrome on the Mac, and others like Roku and Amazon have added support for it to their products, YouTube has largely been proven right.
Except for Apple.
Apple has added support for HEVC down to the silicon level, so everything up to and including 4K and HDR plays back incredibly smoothly and efficiently on Apple hardware from the iPhone to the Apple TV, and in Apple software from the TV app to Safari.
But Apple hasn't added any support, like not at all, for VP9, not even Safari, where it's not pretty much the only major browser in the business to lack that support.
Why doesn't Apple support VP9 not even in Safari? One guess is that, like VP8, just because Google wants it to be license and royalty-free doesn't mean it really is and future agreements or litigation could come back and bite everyone in the ass — and when it comes to exposure, Apple's got a very big ass to bite in this game.
Another, simpler, and probably more correct guess is because they're Apple dammit, and they don't want to. And they're big enough and powerful enough to get away with it. At least so far.
Again, let me know your guess in the comments.
And while Google does software-based VP9 decoding in Chrome on the Mac, as do other browsers not named Safari, they either can't or won't in the more highly restricted iOS environment and even more highly restricted tvOS environment, so no software decode in the YouTube app on iPhone, iPad, or Apple TV.
Now, some people will tell you HEVC is also technically better than VP9, and others will of course argue that no, VP9 is actually technically better than HEVC, and they'll all shake their tiny Vader fists at each other on every subreddit they can.
It's worth noting, as I've said before, that while Apple supports HEVC and only HEVC across their products, Google is actually kind of fragmented here. They support VP9 and only VP9 for 4K playback and beyond on YouTube but on their Pixel phones, they support HEVC and only HEVC for 4K capture.
And that's actually pretty telling. If you want to blame one or the other, let me know who you choose to hold accountable in the comments, but for me, ultimately, for users, for customers, we don't care. We don't. We just want all our content, including all our YouTube to work on all our stuff, including all our Apple devices.
And it's not our job to make it all just work. It's YouTube's and Apple's.
Enter Alliance for Open Media Video 1 — or AV1.
AV1 is the next, next-generation video codec. It's open and royalty-free, like Google's VP series, and Google has bought-in to the extent they've shelved VP10 for AV1, which is about as bought in and bought in can be.
Apple has also joined the Alliance for Open Media which means AV1 could enjoy the near-universal support of, never mind HEVC, but H.264 before it.
There will still be patent issues to work out, because there are always patent issues to work out, and it'll still take a while, because you can never expect these things until you actually see them, but if everyone does their job and puts users and customers first, we could just be looking at codec peace in our time.
Rene Ritchie is one of the most respected Apple analysts in the business, reaching a combined audience of over 40 million readers a month. His YouTube channel, Vector, has over 90 thousand subscribers and 14 million views and his podcasts, including Debug, have been downloaded over 20 million times. He also regularly co-hosts MacBreak Weekly for the TWiT network and co-hosted CES Live! and Talk Mobile. Based in Montreal, Rene is a former director of product marketing, web developer, and graphic designer. He's authored several books and appeared on numerous television and radio segments to discuss Apple and the technology industry. When not working, he likes to cook, grapple, and spend time with his friends and family.
VP8 should never have existed, and thus VP9 is in the same boat. There was potential to have to pay license fees for using H.264 and 265, but they have never charged for it. Ever. So there's that. Google and Youtube thought they could make the world dance to their tune. But everyone laughted and pointed. Who pays money to Youtube to watch videos? Look at the recent numbers. Apple+ is already bigger than any of their competition except Netflix and Amazon Prime. Disney is likely to catch up and pass, but the rest? Non-starters.
YouTube has become a horrible site, full of ads, purposefully slows down on non-Google browsers, automatically unsubscribes people from channels, constantly causing problems for the video creators. I had to uninstall the YouTube app because it was just so horrible to use
TL;DR The short answer is, the standards have not been worked out yet. Some of us have been thru this crap MANY times. VHS/Beta video. SQ/QS/Discrete 4 channel audio. HD DVD/Blu Ray DVDs. To name but 3. "When standards and companies collide" indeed. It ALWAYS happens this way. It's nothing to get worked up about. Just relax, it will all work out in the end. As always, the market will decide.
Exactly! It reminds me of the Sony ATRAC vs MP3 as well as Memory Stick vs SD Card. Why do we have to keep going through these electronic growing pains? it's 2019 and the consumers still get stuck in this "limbo" game, where we have to wait it out while the companies fight it out to who is bigger and who is the winner? In the meantime, all the consumers hate you for it. I guess the big companies just don't get it.
Big companies completely get it. All companies want THEIR standard to prevail, because then they are receiving license money/royalties instead of paying it. That is the only thing they are concerned about. Thus, the market decides. Vote with your money. When 90% of digital camera users buy cameras with SD cards and 10% buy cameras with Memory Sticks, Memory Sticks eventually go away and SD card becomes the 100% standard. Same thing happened with Beta/VHS, ATRAC/MP3 and HD DVD/Blu Ray DVD. "Why doesn't Apple support VP9 not even in Safari?" Because Apple did not invent it. See above.
Hope this gets sorted out soon. We need 4K on our iOS devices :(
"But Apple hasn't added any support, like not at all, for VP9, not even Safari, where it's not pretty much the only major browser in the business to lack that support." Pretty sure that sentence does not say what you meant it to say.
more interesting is why do look YouTube videos more saturated in Firefox than in Safari? Are browsers not using the the same display LUT? If I like to enjoy 4K+ videos on Firefox I got may get more resolution but I loose the correct colors, assuming Safari doing the right thing.
Thank you for signing up to iMore. You will receive a verification email shortly.
There was a problem. Please refresh the page and try again.