2 ms·

But if an application merely uses the graphic's drivers API to decode a stream, presumably the GPU vendor (and therefore the buyer) already paid for those licen

But if an application merely uses the graphic's drivers API to decode a stream, presumably the GPU vendor (and therefore the buyer) already paid for those licensing costs? Otherwise the hardware wouldn't support h265, right?

mimsee 5y ago
Perhaps there are software patents involved in the codecs and a license for those is different from the hardware ones
galad87 5y ago
Right, but neither Google neither Mozilla wants to support it even if they don't need to pay a cent.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  They'd both have supported it if the codec was offered freely to all users for any purpose. But it wasn't, so they'd be letting the entire internet be held to ransom if they supported it.
AshamedCaptain 5y ago
That's actually not entirely clear to me. Which is another reason to avoid H265 altogether.... I mean, even if say Chrome started using the hardware decoders, do you think someone from the MPEG-LA would _refrain_ from suing Google since "they're just using the Windows API"? It's already not rare to have to pay both for the hardware _and_ the software in this world.