2 ms·

Because people prefer to destroy ecology and user experience than pay one symbolic dollar for a lifetime license

_carbyau_ 4y ago
That symbolic dollar causes so much overhead though. Who tracks who has bought or not bought it? Should users/software devs/hardware makers pay? For potentially billions of users/software copies/devices across many national jurisdictions. I click the x265 video link. And now the browser/OS/hardware have to do a dance to determine if I am allowed to watch the video or not. Or because that is a big hassle, don't bother. Use x264 until AV1 is supported.
- hedora 4y ago
  Are windows codec packs still a thing? That worked fine back in the day. They're welcome to talk to me about licensing their $1 patent for personal use after they track me down (though, chances are, I already accidentally own a license to it anyway.)
- SemanticStrengh 4y ago
  I've seen bigger dances.. https://apps.microsoft.com/store/detail/extensions-vid%C3%A9o-hevc/9NMZLZ57R3T7 https://apps.microsoft.com/store/detail/extensions-vid%C3%A9...
  - _carbyau_ 4y ago
    Ha! That doesn't apply to Mac, Linux, iOS, Android. Which the browsers support and consist of far more devices. Relying on every user to honorably-do-the-right-thing AND every OS/browser/video software to coordinate to make it happen is foolish. Nice in an ideal world, doesn't work in practice. Don't get me wrong. I am all for the maker of the codec getting some monetary reward for their clever work. But this is a dumb way to do it.
    - SemanticStrengh 4y ago
      Nono it's much simpler than that. The code (e.g shipping x265 decoder) is open-source and cross platform. You don't have to pay multiple time per O.S, the browser should be the (optional) source of the payment hence it can author every user is legal. Why can Firefox use h264 currently for free? Because Cisco pay for everyone. It's a small amount that would cost nothing (anyone could crowdfund it). H265 was shipped for free on Microsoft edge pre chromium. I suppose Microsoft paid for everybody and the real cost is less than 1 dollar per user. The browser could sync the license validity either via an account (e.g Google) which is already synchronised to the browser anyway, or via the sync mechanisms that already enable to sync history/favorites between OSes But yeah doing like Cisco, Microsoft and Apple (every safari support h265) is the easy way, it doesn't cost them more than a few millions, which is usually allocated in vaporware anyways (fuschia I'm looking at you)

That symbolic dollar causes so much overhead though. Who tracks who has bought or not bought it? Should users/software devs/hardware makers pay? For potentially billions of users/software copies/devices across many national jurisdictions. I click the x265 video link. And now the browser/OS/hardware have to do a dance to determine if I am allowed to watch the video or not. Or because that is a big hassle, don't bother. Use x264 until AV1 is supported.

hedora 4y ago
Are windows codec packs still a thing? That worked fine back in the day. They're welcome to talk to me about licensing their $1 patent for personal use after they track me down (though, chances are, I already accidentally own a license to it anyway.)
SemanticStrengh 4y ago
I've seen bigger dances.. https://apps.microsoft.com/store/detail/extensions-vid%C3%A9o-hevc/9NMZLZ57R3T7 https://apps.microsoft.com/store/detail/extensions-vid%C3%A9...
- _carbyau_ 4y ago
  Ha! That doesn't apply to Mac, Linux, iOS, Android. Which the browsers support and consist of far more devices. Relying on every user to honorably-do-the-right-thing AND every OS/browser/video software to coordinate to make it happen is foolish. Nice in an ideal world, doesn't work in practice. Don't get me wrong. I am all for the maker of the codec getting some monetary reward for their clever work. But this is a dumb way to do it.
  - SemanticStrengh 4y ago
    Nono it's much simpler than that. The code (e.g shipping x265 decoder) is open-source and cross platform. You don't have to pay multiple time per O.S, the browser should be the (optional) source of the payment hence it can author every user is legal. Why can Firefox use h264 currently for free? Because Cisco pay for everyone. It's a small amount that would cost nothing (anyone could crowdfund it). H265 was shipped for free on Microsoft edge pre chromium. I suppose Microsoft paid for everybody and the real cost is less than 1 dollar per user. The browser could sync the license validity either via an account (e.g Google) which is already synchronised to the browser anyway, or via the sync mechanisms that already enable to sync history/favorites between OSes But yeah doing like Cisco, Microsoft and Apple (every safari support h265) is the easy way, it doesn't cost them more than a few millions, which is usually allocated in vaporware anyways (fuschia I'm looking at you)