3 ms·

They are switching their product, youtube, to av1. If youtube couldn't use av1 then it would be device manufacturers who are abusing their power. Can you explai

They are switching their product, youtube, to av1. If youtube couldn't use av1 then it would be device manufacturers who are abusing their power. Can you explain the abuse here? AV1 is an open and royalty free standard.

dmitriid 4y ago
They are not "switching youtube to AV1". They are "using their dominant market power to force everyone else to switch first to VP9 and then to AV1, or else" Device manufactures couldn't care less about AV1. And yet, Google made AV1 support mandatory for Android, Android TV etc.
- Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
  Or else... what? As you say, hardware manufacturers are holding back codec progress. It's google's product, they can force manufactures to comply, but it's not abuse because it's a better and open standard. All consumers benefit from this move.
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    > Or else... what? Or else they wouldn't get Youtube, or get Android, or both etc. > As you say, hardware manufacturers are holding back codec progress. Google: releases several codecs in quick succession Google: uses dominant market position to force everyone to adopt these codecs [1] HN: Why do device manufacturers stifle progress? > it's not abuse because it's a better and open standard. The mere fact of it being better or open doesn't make what Google is doing any less of an abuse of their position. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33285373 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33285373
    - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
      >The mere fact of it being better or open doesn't make what Google is doing any less of an abuse of their position. Except it literaly does. Abuse in the market it not defined by the loss of another company but by the loss of the consumer. Anti-competition laws are ultimately meant to protect the consumer. The consumer. "Abusing" a company in itself is perfectly fine: it's a free market after all.
      - dmitriid 4y ago
        Chose one, or two https://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/h_00511.html https://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/h... Abuse of dominance occurs when a dominant business (or group of businesses) engages in activity that stops or substantially reduces competition in a market. These anti-competitive activities may be: predatory (incurring short-term losses to eliminate a competitor and gain future market power); exclusionary (trying to prevent a business from operating in a market); disciplinary (trying to punish a business); or intended to adversely affect competition (e.g., by making other companies want to compete less and denying consumers the benefit of competition)

dmitriid 4y ago

They are not "switching youtube to AV1". They are "using their dominant market power to force everyone else to switch first to VP9 and then to AV1, or else" Device manufactures couldn't care less about AV1. And yet, Google made AV1 support mandatory for Android, Android TV etc.

Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
Or else... what? As you say, hardware manufacturers are holding back codec progress. It's google's product, they can force manufactures to comply, but it's not abuse because it's a better and open standard. All consumers benefit from this move.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  > Or else... what? Or else they wouldn't get Youtube, or get Android, or both etc. > As you say, hardware manufacturers are holding back codec progress. Google: releases several codecs in quick succession Google: uses dominant market position to force everyone to adopt these codecs [1] HN: Why do device manufacturers stifle progress? > it's not abuse because it's a better and open standard. The mere fact of it being better or open doesn't make what Google is doing any less of an abuse of their position. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33285373 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33285373
  - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
    >The mere fact of it being better or open doesn't make what Google is doing any less of an abuse of their position. Except it literaly does. Abuse in the market it not defined by the loss of another company but by the loss of the consumer. Anti-competition laws are ultimately meant to protect the consumer. The consumer. "Abusing" a company in itself is perfectly fine: it's a free market after all.
    - dmitriid 4y ago
      Chose one, or two https://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/h_00511.html https://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/h... Abuse of dominance occurs when a dominant business (or group of businesses) engages in activity that stops or substantially reduces competition in a market. These anti-competitive activities may be: predatory (incurring short-term losses to eliminate a competitor and gain future market power); exclusionary (trying to prevent a business from operating in a market); disciplinary (trying to punish a business); or intended to adversely affect competition (e.g., by making other companies want to compete less and denying consumers the benefit of competition)