4 ms·

The licenses have already been paid for the hardware implementation, that doesn't explain, eg, Chrome's refusal to leverage hardware decoding (and stop burning

The licenses have already been paid for the hardware implementation, that doesn't explain, eg, Chrome's refusal to leverage hardware decoding (and stop burning so much power on laptops).

zamadatix 4y ago
Chrome leverages hardware decoding in general it just doesn't support h.265 at all, hardware or software.
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  Let's just say HEVC Patent Pools got greedy and demanded a per-software license, either paid by Windows (who decided not to pay) or by Chrome (who also decided not to pay). https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=31318663&goto=item%3Fid%3D31317989%2331318663 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=31318663&goto=item%3Fi...
jitl 4y ago
Chrome and Mozilla both want their competitor format AV1 to “win”. Plus, partial support is a burden - one of the patent holders might come by and ask you to prove you didn’t accidentally violate one of their patents while fastidiously only using that approved hardware. I think there’s a lot of lawyer risk there below the waterline.
- floatboth 4y ago
  It would also be extremely confusing to support something with only hardware decoding. People running supported hardware would start saying things like "Firefox supports HEVC" which would sound plainly wrong to someone with unsupported hardware.
  - formerly_proven 4y ago
    On the other hand, basically all platforms of the last few years support hardware decoding of HEVC. nVidia does, Intel does, AMD does... so pretty much for every PC made in the last ~six or so years: - You paid the royalties for HEVC, possibly multiple times - It can almost certainly encode and decode HEVC without breaking a sweat - You (practically) can't use it ("if it's not on the web, it's dead")
  - kfarr 4y ago
    Yes a decade ago this was the Firefox approach to h264 -- leverage OS/hardware support if available. Can confirm horrible experience for devs and viewers
- ksec 4y ago
  Google already paid the Max Cap for HEVC patents on their Pixel Phone and other hardwares. Turning on Hardware acceleration option on Chrome isn't a partial support or cost issues. It was simply an ideology issue.
znpy 4y ago
The correct way to see this is probably that licenses have already been patented for the existing implementations, and dropping support for future ones means money saving.
devwastaken 4y ago
I don't buy the patent argument. AV1 is not unique, it would not be hard to find some similarities in the math and argue infringement of one of tens of thousands of patents these companies sit on. The companies simply don't want to upset the largest tech companies, though apple already buys from them.
- themerone 4y ago
  The AOM foundation has spent millions on legal reviews. There is always a chance of something slipping through, but that could happpen with any technology. Someone unknown company could come forward with a claim that h.265 infringes on a patent.
rasz 4y ago
2009 https://www.cdrinfo.com/d7/content/lenovo-sued-mpeg-2-patent-infringement https://www.cdrinfo.com/d7/content/lenovo-sued-mpeg-2-patent... 2019 https://www.juve-patent.com/news-and-stories/cases/nokia-and-lenovo-go-head-to-head-in-germany/ https://www.juve-patent.com/news-and-stories/cases/nokia-and... lenovo had enough in 2020 https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/10/lenovo_seeks_to_render_nokias/ https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/10/lenovo_seeks_to_rende...

The licenses have already been paid for the hardware implementation, that doesn't explain, eg, Chrome's refusal to leverage hardware decoding (and stop burning so much power on laptops).

zamadatix 4y ago

Chrome leverages hardware decoding in general it just doesn't support h.265 at all, hardware or software.

gjsman-1000 4y ago
Let's just say HEVC Patent Pools got greedy and demanded a per-software license, either paid by Windows (who decided not to pay) or by Chrome (who also decided not to pay). https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=31318663&goto=item%3Fid%3D31317989%2331318663 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=31318663&goto=item%3Fi...

jitl 4y ago

Chrome and Mozilla both want their competitor format AV1 to “win”. Plus, partial support is a burden - one of the patent holders might come by and ask you to prove you didn’t accidentally violate one of their patents while fastidiously only using that approved hardware. I think there’s a lot of lawyer risk there below the waterline.

floatboth 4y ago
It would also be extremely confusing to support something with only hardware decoding. People running supported hardware would start saying things like "Firefox supports HEVC" which would sound plainly wrong to someone with unsupported hardware.
- formerly_proven 4y ago
  On the other hand, basically all platforms of the last few years support hardware decoding of HEVC. nVidia does, Intel does, AMD does... so pretty much for every PC made in the last ~six or so years: - You paid the royalties for HEVC, possibly multiple times - It can almost certainly encode and decode HEVC without breaking a sweat - You (practically) can't use it ("if it's not on the web, it's dead")
- kfarr 4y ago
  Yes a decade ago this was the Firefox approach to h264 -- leverage OS/hardware support if available. Can confirm horrible experience for devs and viewers
ksec 4y ago
Google already paid the Max Cap for HEVC patents on their Pixel Phone and other hardwares. Turning on Hardware acceleration option on Chrome isn't a partial support or cost issues. It was simply an ideology issue.

znpy 4y ago

The correct way to see this is probably that licenses have already been patented for the existing implementations, and dropping support for future ones means money saving.

devwastaken 4y ago

I don't buy the patent argument. AV1 is not unique, it would not be hard to find some similarities in the math and argue infringement of one of tens of thousands of patents these companies sit on. The companies simply don't want to upset the largest tech companies, though apple already buys from them.

themerone 4y ago
The AOM foundation has spent millions on legal reviews. There is always a chance of something slipping through, but that could happpen with any technology. Someone unknown company could come forward with a claim that h.265 infringes on a patent.

rasz 4y ago

2009 https://www.cdrinfo.com/d7/content/lenovo-sued-mpeg-2-patent-infringement https://www.cdrinfo.com/d7/content/lenovo-sued-mpeg-2-patent... 2019 https://www.juve-patent.com/news-and-stories/cases/nokia-and-lenovo-go-head-to-head-in-germany/ https://www.juve-patent.com/news-and-stories/cases/nokia-and... lenovo had enough in 2020 https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/10/lenovo_seeks_to_render_nokias/ https://www.theregister.com/2020/12/10/lenovo_seeks_to_rende...