You do realise the current codec is from 2003 right? The tech has made leaps and bounds since and the newer versions just cost a shitload more

I really don't know where you are getting your information.

Google are the ones that has championed advanced codecs like hevc(h265) and VP9.... back in 2003 we were using flash.

Google recently moved everything over to VP9 as recently as 2017. And they started working on the VP9 codec in 2013. And Hevc is even supposed to be better than tha, and is probably what Stadia is using.

200mbps, the highest offered in my area, but I'll have to move as I can't afford this area anymore, so it'll be going down significantly.

Yes you are partly right but i do like to point out that the h.264 first theoretical draft dates from 2003. 

The one caveat being that Netflix uses a bunch of different codecs so it can play on all those different devices.  I think this is still the case.

Stadia may not necessarily have the same restriction given that it requires chrome to begin with thus might not need all those different codecs.  However, not sure I believe their claimed bandwidth needs.  30Mbs for 4k/60p seems okish.  They might need more bandwidth to account for the controller and some other stuff.  But why so much for 1080p/60fps?  Seems like it should be more like 10Mbs. 

No doubt about that. But google sure as hell is not using h.264.

Google are the ones that made the VP9 codec originally released in 2012. And specifically to compete with h.264 and now h.265. Vp9 is currently like 45% better than h.264 and about 10% better than h.265. If streaming mostly uncompressed data vp9 will need like 120Mbs for a 4k@60 stream. Bt what we se on youtube (and ultimately Stadia) must be compressed but that is also where vp9 hines, almost lossless compression (or at least very passable) which is why they can get it down to like 50Mbs for a 4k/60 stream.

VP10 is in development, and should be around 30% better than VP9..... but there isn't even an eta on that yet much less other chipsets supporting it.

But make no mistake, google is at the bleeding edge of video encoding tech, and all I am saying.... unless there is some sort o wizardry or serious tomfoolery..... there is no chance in hell that you get a 4k/60 stream with 30Mbs..... unless said stream has been compressed to all hell and back at which point you will be better off just streaming at 1080p/60 while using that same 30Mbs budget for mostly lossless compression.

And the funny thing is google's very own spec documentation for vp9 states that a 1080p/60 stream will use a max bandwidth of 30Mbs.

Oh..... I know all this cause I do a lot of transcoding for my HTPC.

Yes I am aware of that too..... that's why I was being very generous with google when I said that we should at the very least double their bandwidth if not triple it. 

And yes there are a lot of different ways to go about encoding, but the thing is that whatever netflix needs to do for encoding, becomes like 5 times harder when it comes to stadia..... cause all netflix is is a video player. And it has the luxury of buffering video. It also has the luxury of optimizing codecs on a file by file basis (or even a frame by frame) and use that specific profile on that specific file. So when there is that mostly black screen it can get more aggressive on the compression using less of your bandwidth for the active stream allowing it to buffer more of the video.

Stadia cannot do anything I just mentioned above. They have to adopt compression on a service wide basis as opposed to a game by game/file by file/frame by frame basis. And there will never been the option to buffer anything for them.... that is why the actual bandwidth requirement is as high is it is for even their 1080p streams. What you are saying about optimizing is just something stadia cannot do. Because of the very unpredictable nature of a game. With a movie/show whose frame output is fixed and predictable yes you can do things like that. With games, you can't. Google has to assume that at all times you are going to demand the most of their system, and build their system around accommodating that. Thats why you have stress tests.

Don't get me wrong,for people that have like 70Mbs to 100Mbs this will be great for them. They will get completely artifact free streaming cause even when their network/ISP fluctuates (and these things always do) their bandwidth drops to a level that still will exceed what the "true" minimum speed is for 4k/60fps. The rest of us.... wel we won't be that lucky.

Why I have an issue with this is that its obvious google knows about this... and even looking at Phil's quote, its clear they are trying to somehow gloss over this thing. Its misinformation at its finest.

Victoria B.C. enjoying the 20 degree early spring weather.

A decent bitrate 1080P, 60fps stream shouldn't need anymore than 6Mbps... And a low bit-rate 1080P, 60fps can be done even at 3Mbps.
You can also do low-quality 4k, 60fps at 12Mbps... But the ideal rate would be around 32Mbps, but a moderate 20Mbps bitrate would be passable.

Twitch streamers would know what I am talking about, intimately.

False. If the video decoder doesn't support a specific codec, then it falls onto the CPU to pick up the slack via software method, if the CPU is insufficient, then the video stream will be choppy.
If Google wishes to implement H.266 encoding (Which is 50% more efficient at compression than H.265/HEVC) then the bulk of devices on the market today will simply not be up to task.

False? Its money you would have spend on a tv/phone or ipad anyway....