Explain to me why 144p exists on YouTube. Who the fuck would watch a video in that resolution in the year twenty-sixteen?
Not everyone has a 10k display, autismofag.
Maybe it's old content and magic doesn't work how you think it does?
>>55436824
Why encode higher resolution videos in 144p then? The only feasible use to use it is for just listening to the audio but then you may as well just have an audio stream only, which can use less bandwidth.
>>55436805
Mobile, poorfag DSL, dial up.
>I don't need this, so remove it
This mentality has to stop. If you don't need it, then don't use it.
>>55436805
I use it all the time because slow internet. I can watch it in higher resolutions, but it'll be slower (especially above 720p), but if I am just listening to the audio then I will set it to 144p and switch tabs.
>>55436805
OP, 144p is the only reason I was able to watch YouTube for three years. Where I lived there was an ISP with a monopoly who makes you pay about 80$ a month for 1mbps down.
Without 144p, I literally couldn't have played any videos.
>>55437048
where do you live anon?
I don't understand either. It's completely unwatchable for everything, why not offer an audio-only mode instead?
Luckily we can do just that with the likes of youtube-dl, but it should still be a native feature in YouTube.
Because indians.
I woulda fucking loved that years back when I was on dial up, not this overkill 240p bullshit.
>>55436805
Native Americans who are so noble and pure that they live a life without need or want for more than 20 pixels.
>>55437063
What? It's completely watchable in 144p, especially animated videos.
iOS apps require a low bandwidth stream in order to be published in the app store.
It's not that bad.
https://youtu.be/ftH_YRWazkM
>>55436805
I rarely use it but then there are times when I'm on absolute garbage internet since I travel. Why remove an option just because NEETs who stay at home all day on a good connection don't use it?
>>55436805
Since those videos won't take much space compared to some stupid 8K 360° VR vids they have no need to remove them.
>>55437115
youre fucking blind mate
>>55436873
Doesn't audio sound like shit on 144p videos?
>>55437115
why is juniel always so high...
>>55436824
I-is that what I think it is?
>>55437345
yes, anime
The quality is pretty impressive when you consider the fact that its 80 Kbps.
A 2 hour movie would only be 70MB.
>>55437399
High bandwidths have diminishing returns.
>>55436805
>>55436805
I'm using it because I only have mobile Internet.
Well I live in a very very remote place in a forest, I only have 7 neighbours in a several km2 area. And the best I can get is 350kb/s.
>>55437411
My mobile connection is about 3 times faster than my home one.
>>55437399
Now imagine how good 80kbps could look with the AV1 codec.
DVD quality movies might even be possible at 100-150MB.
>>55437469
sure mobile might be able to run higher xxxxp videos but i dont want to spend my entire data cap on one video
people with low bandwidth
144p is a workable stream for starting right away while you buffer 240 and 360 and ultimately 4k
god damn it people how are you this fucking stupid?
>>55437431
That's actually no excuse. Low amount of subscribers = more speed. Your country must have shit infrastructure. I bet you pay out of your ass for that, too?
>>55438476
What are data caps? If my carrier implemented caps (they won't), I'd switch to another carrier.
the real question is why did they add it after they added 8k? Like 240p was small enough.
>>55438505
do you understand that in a scenario where your ISP feels safe imposing data caps, other carriers might not be available in the same area?
you seem to think that substituting one variable in your life qualifies you as imagining a hypothetical scenario. that's not how the world works. the only way data caps might be implemented would be if the entire ISP regime in your country were different. it's not that one factor; it's a dozen.
stop acting like an idiot (or if you're not acting, then post less).
>>55437326
Why?
>>55438510
probably to start sooner and incrementally upgrade like >>55438490 pointed out.
you can bet that 144p was in use, but not a selectable option, for a while before it became selectable.
144p doesn't need to exist really. 240p or the native resolution, whichever is lower. Honestly, the native resolution should always be an option.
>>55438580
>the native resolution should always be an option.
in practice, isn't it?
i can't think of any major devices these days that are shooting at lower than 720p. the only reason we have 360 and lower on uploads going up in 2016 is because youtube/google/alphabet realizes that
1) some people watch at lower resolutions for reasons that /g/ can't fathom (for reasons that boil down to autism), and
2) buffering 1080p for 1 second is, inexplicably, a pain point that can be remedied by buffering 144p for 0.1 second and slowly ratcheting up the quality and basically inlining it as the video plays.
>>55438526
Well, that's called a monopoly if there is no competition. That leads to fucking customers up the ass because customers have no other option. That's wrong too. In most places there's legislature to prevent that.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp
>>55438598
not all videos on youtube are recorded with a camera
It's there mainly for Linux users because many of them can't afford a GPU
>>55438605
Or, as these guys called it, an ogliopoly: http://www.alternet.org/economy/how-big-cell-phone-companies-are-getting-away-ripping-you-each-month
>>55438605
yeah. nobody here (except perhaps you?) is unaware of what a monopoly is and the issues surrounding one. we're trying to deal with it, but the laws surrounding monopoly industries are shitty, poorly enforced, and hard to reform.
you make it sound like you've never heard of how broken the ISP game is in the US. do you need us to find you some introductory links for people who are kind of clueless about this stuff? i don't think anyone here needs an explanation of what a monopoly is, but you might need a primer on how US internet service got so bad.
>>55438621
so are you saying that people are recording screens at less than 720p in any appreciable proportion?
i'm sure that there are people uploading very low resolution videos. i'm sure people with cameras are doing that. but the proportion is so small that we can dismiss them (unless you're using them as part of a mathematical proof for the existence of lower resolution videos in 2016, but i neither agreed nor desired to take that on, because it sounds like something you would prove without any suspense or debate)
The human eye cant even see the difference after 150p anyway
>>55438498
It's not the amount of subscribers.
It's literally his physical location.
It would be too expensive for an ISP to deploy anything more usable to be used by 7 people.
>>55438668
if our eyes arent reel why does i smell toasted bred
>>55438633
>Wintendo users actually believe that
>>55438539
That nigga right you know.
At some point, lowering the resolution also fucked the audio. I think the entire video bitrate was lowered.
Didn't hear that recently tho.
>>55436805
It exists because the youtube app thinks I have 1 kb down
I use it for when I'm listening to podcasts
720p should be default this is pissing every isp out there to force better speed.
>>55439810
720p is outdated
1080p is good
>>55437048
I'm a poorfag in England using a PAYG mobile broadband dongle and it's the same for me. The connection is so slow and weird that I even get weird layout glitches loading regular webpages and the ISP adds additional compression to .jpegs that makes them look really ugly. When I wanted to install Microsofts free Visual C# Express I had to download a torrent because my internet is so slow that direct download files above 100MB always disconnect before finishing. Slow internet is shit :(
>>55438636
Alternet is leftist garbage, opinion disgarded
>>55436805
Africa
>>55436805
I rather have an "audio only" option rather than 144p.
but that wouldn't work cause ads
>>55440122
works for sputnikfy
>>55436873
Youtube does have separate audio and video streams nowadays. You can see them if you use "-F" in youtube-dl.
The android app newpipe has an option to play just a video's audio, and it uses those audio streams.
I live in NZ and our net here is practically 3rd world, 144p works well if I want to listen to something and play games and not lag
>>55436805
Not everyone has 500mbps of connection for shitposting like you faggot
>>55440126
I don't use it so idk what i'm talking about.
but isn't that because it's a paid service or at least has a premium part?
>>55440221
Yes, kinda like your mom.
>>55436805
For some reason YouTube sometimes bugs out and refuses to buffer at 480p or higher but 360p and 144p works.
>>55436805
lol people still watch youtube?
i haven't watched a video on youtube in like 2 years, All the good shit is on liveleak now.
>>55440294
>YouTube sometimes bugs out
Never happened to me, that's probably your connection, not YouTube.
>>55440365
Sometimes when I click on a video, it refuses to buffer at all unless I choose 240p. But when I click on another video on the side bar, it would instantly load a 1080p video no problem. I doubt it's my connection.
>>55437326
For podcast like videos it wouldn't be so bad.
Anyway I assume it is a fallback to stop the video buffering. This costs content creators a lot when their videos aren't watchable.
>>55439824
Display resolutions above 720p are uncommon.
https://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php
1 1366x768 17.73%
2 640x360 15.15%
3 1024x768 9.02%
4 1920x1080 7.09%
5 667x375 5.48%
6 568x320 5.17%
7 1280x800 3.43%
8 1280x1024 3.32%
9 1600x900 3.28%
10 1440x900 2.89%
Because of Verizon and AT&T cucks who don't have unlimited high speed data. When they use up their higu speed data in the first week they get network speeds reduced to dial-up or slower.
Even with 144p videos, they have to wait like 30 minutes for a 5 minute 144p video to completely load.
The rest of the world is streaming 1080p videos on their phone 24/7.
>>55437173
There are people who are autistic enough to go to a concert just to look at a fucking screen?
I'm at a loss of words
My theory is 144p was created for Free (French ISP) because Free when saturate connexion to Youtube.
>>55439824
720p is totally sufficient for streaming internet video.
>>55444351
It's the feeling of being there I guess
>>55444324
this
>>55444276
But fucking why? I am assuming this is laptop data, not TV data (hopefully) because 1080p TVs are like 100 dollars. Still though having a less than 1080p laptop for a daily drive that isn't >13 inches is retarded.
>>55444276
>667x375
Windows 3.0 PCs had more than that in the early 1990s
If your poor, share a shit (2Mbit or less) internet connection with many people, have shit datacap or have dial-up then 144p is better than not watching anything. May be hard for an amerifat with a Maccy D's on every corner to believe but for a third world shitter it's all they've got. It's also best for audio only since the data streams are separate.
>>55436805
for people with bandwidth caps listening to music
