5 ms·

So google should continue to be forced to pay royalties for a codec because Roku refuses to slightly increase the cost-of-goods by utilizing a newer chipset tha

by tw04 6y ago

So google should continue to be forced to pay royalties for a codec because Roku refuses to slightly increase the cost-of-goods by utilizing a newer chipset that supports AV1? On HN of all places, I'm surprised to see that the guy throwing his weight around to GET RID of proprietary codecs is being portrayed as the bad guy. I'm sure if you dig far enough into my history you'll find I have absolutely no sympathy for google under almost any circumstances, but in this case they're doing the right thing.

VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
> supports VP1 You mean AV1
yipeedipee 6y ago
I would understand if: A) Roku were not paying to have it on their platform B) Consumers weren't paying for the service as well.
- jsnell 6y ago
  But per the earlier reporting, Roku is not paying to have the app. The money is flowing in the opposite direction: they are taking a cut from both subscriptions and adds.
totalZero 6y ago
> On HN of all places, I'm surprised to see that the guy throwing his weight around to GET RID of proprietary codecs is being portrayed as the bad guy. When it comes to these gluttonous Big Tech companies, I tend to err on the side of the smaller guy. Your comment doesn't capture that dimension of the conflict.
- cmeacham98 6y ago
  Why? Roku had over $1 billion in revune in 2019 (couldn't find 2020 data) - they're massive. While Google is obviously bigger comparing their relative sizes doesn't seem to make much sense.
  - totalZero 6y ago
    Assuming this is a serious question: Roku net income was $67m for the Dec quarter versus Google at $15.2b. Two hundred Rokus still do not a Google make. And Google did even better ($17.9b) in the most recent quarter. Phrased differently, Google will probably earn more profit this year than Roku's entire market cap.
    - kbelder 6y ago
      Or, Google will make more profit this week than Roku did over the last couple years.
smileybarry 6y ago
Roku already supports VP9[1], a royalty-free codec. If getting rid of royalties was the true cause they can use that. 1: https://developer.roku.com/en-gb/docs/specs/media/streaming-specifications.md https://developer.roku.com/en-gb/docs/specs/media/streaming-...
- cpeterso 6y ago
  When I watch 4K YouTube videos in Firefox or Chrome on Windows, YouTube uses VP9. I don't see why YouTube could use the same 4K VP9 streams for Roku, like you suggested. Perhaps they have different requirements from partners for DRM content on YouTube TV?
- devrand 6y ago
  Only obvious limitation is that they only support that for HLS streams whereas YouTube normally uses DASH.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
coliveira 6y ago
That's not the issue. Google wants other companies to adapt to their software, not the other way around. Is the MS playbook all over again.
danbmil99 6y ago
Hear hear. (Disclaimer: I am founder of On2, bought by Google, ancestor of AV1) I have zero pity for Roku and the rest of the video streaming cartel. For years (decades in fact) these companies colluded to shove down everyone's throat an expensive, unwieldy, made-by-committee 1-size-fits-all technology (MPEG), with a get-out-of-court rule from the Justice dept not to target them with price fixing. That a small company like On2 was able to survive, much less eventually get acquired by Google (who have dutifully kept the VP* and AV1 codecs open-source) is really quite a miracle. There is depth to this story that has never been plumbed.
- danbmil99 6y ago
  Curious about the downvotes. AV1 is a true Free and Open Source technology,, with additional protection against patent trolls. Surely HN readers would prefer a world where this sort of solution at least co-exists (if not preempts) proprietary tech created by+for the benefit of a few large companies who protect it via a cartel of dubious patents. What is better for tech startups who don't have a legacy patent to bargain with the patent pool barons? (MPEG-LA) What is better for artists -- musicians, independent film makers, content creators in general -- a world where the popular devices fully support FOSS protocols, or a world where a few large media companies make back-room deals with tech giants (or just consolidate tech+content into FAANG megaliths)? This is not a trivial issue. I encourage everyone interested in this to do some research and common-sense thinking about how you want technology to evolve, and who you want controlling and exploiting that technology. It matters.
JediWing 6y ago
Average consumers don't care about codecs. Google runs a video streaming service. Paying codec royalties is a cost of doing business unfortunately. If we could snap our fingers and make it go away, then great but holding consumers hostage on some impractical FOSS crusade is ridiculous.

by tw04 6y ago

VWWHFSfQ 6y ago

> supports VP1 You mean AV1

yipeedipee 6y ago

I would understand if: A) Roku were not paying to have it on their platform B) Consumers weren't paying for the service as well.

jsnell 6y ago
But per the earlier reporting, Roku is not paying to have the app. The money is flowing in the opposite direction: they are taking a cut from both subscriptions and adds.

totalZero 6y ago

> On HN of all places, I'm surprised to see that the guy throwing his weight around to GET RID of proprietary codecs is being portrayed as the bad guy. When it comes to these gluttonous Big Tech companies, I tend to err on the side of the smaller guy. Your comment doesn't capture that dimension of the conflict.

cmeacham98 6y ago
Why? Roku had over $1 billion in revune in 2019 (couldn't find 2020 data) - they're massive. While Google is obviously bigger comparing their relative sizes doesn't seem to make much sense.
- totalZero 6y ago
  Assuming this is a serious question: Roku net income was $67m for the Dec quarter versus Google at $15.2b. Two hundred Rokus still do not a Google make. And Google did even better ($17.9b) in the most recent quarter. Phrased differently, Google will probably earn more profit this year than Roku's entire market cap.
  - kbelder 6y ago
    Or, Google will make more profit this week than Roku did over the last couple years.

smileybarry 6y ago

Roku already supports VP9[1], a royalty-free codec. If getting rid of royalties was the true cause they can use that. 1: https://developer.roku.com/en-gb/docs/specs/media/streaming-specifications.md https://developer.roku.com/en-gb/docs/specs/media/streaming-...

cpeterso 6y ago
When I watch 4K YouTube videos in Firefox or Chrome on Windows, YouTube uses VP9. I don't see why YouTube could use the same 4K VP9 streams for Roku, like you suggested. Perhaps they have different requirements from partners for DRM content on YouTube TV?
devrand 6y ago
Only obvious limitation is that they only support that for HLS streams whereas YouTube normally uses DASH.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

coliveira 6y ago

That's not the issue. Google wants other companies to adapt to their software, not the other way around. Is the MS playbook all over again.

danbmil99 6y ago

Hear hear. (Disclaimer: I am founder of On2, bought by Google, ancestor of AV1) I have zero pity for Roku and the rest of the video streaming cartel. For years (decades in fact) these companies colluded to shove down everyone's throat an expensive, unwieldy, made-by-committee 1-size-fits-all technology (MPEG), with a get-out-of-court rule from the Justice dept not to target them with price fixing. That a small company like On2 was able to survive, much less eventually get acquired by Google (who have dutifully kept the VP* and AV1 codecs open-source) is really quite a miracle. There is depth to this story that has never been plumbed.

danbmil99 6y ago
Curious about the downvotes. AV1 is a true Free and Open Source technology,, with additional protection against patent trolls. Surely HN readers would prefer a world where this sort of solution at least co-exists (if not preempts) proprietary tech created by+for the benefit of a few large companies who protect it via a cartel of dubious patents. What is better for tech startups who don't have a legacy patent to bargain with the patent pool barons? (MPEG-LA) What is better for artists -- musicians, independent film makers, content creators in general -- a world where the popular devices fully support FOSS protocols, or a world where a few large media companies make back-room deals with tech giants (or just consolidate tech+content into FAANG megaliths)? This is not a trivial issue. I encourage everyone interested in this to do some research and common-sense thinking about how you want technology to evolve, and who you want controlling and exploiting that technology. It matters.

JediWing 6y ago

Average consumers don't care about codecs. Google runs a video streaming service. Paying codec royalties is a cost of doing business unfortunately. If we could snap our fingers and make it go away, then great but holding consumers hostage on some impractical FOSS crusade is ridiculous.