6 ms·

Microsoft Edge does support AV1, but weirdly only through a Microsoft Store extension [1], even though Chrome has support built-in. This actually really sucks b

Microsoft Edge does support AV1, but weirdly only through a Microsoft Store extension [1], even though Chrome has support built-in. This actually really sucks because in practice hardly any normal consumers would bother to install a strangely named extension, and so web developers have to assume it's largely unsupported in Edge. Safari ties support to a hardware decoder, which I suppose is understandable to avoid accidental battery drain from using a software codec, and means eventually in some year's time support can generally be relied upon when enough new hardware is in use. But that won't happen with Edge as things stand! I think it's high time the web had a single audio and video codec choice that is both open and widely supported, which is why I've proposed support for AV1 and Opus for the Interop 2024 effort [2] [3]. [1] https://apps.microsoft.com/detail/av1-video-extension/9MVZQVXJBQ9V https://apps.microsoft.com/detail/av1-video-extension/9MVZQV... [2] https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop/issues/485 https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop/issues/485 [3] https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop/issues/484 https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop/issues/484

CrendKing 3y ago
Microsoft Edge USED to support AV1 through the extension, but decided to disable the support altogether since v116. The "Can I use" website [1] has the up-to-date information on this. [1] https://caniuse.com/av1 https://caniuse.com/av1
- AshleysBrain 3y ago
  Huh, I didn't know that, good point! Even weirder though. Hopefully it's a prelude to built-in support.
  - jug 3y ago
    This can be treated as a rumor but I heard a Microsoft developer on Mastodon hint that they had been having trouble with a patent troll, so maybe that's the reason behind the kind of obnoxious workaround too. But that they were dealing with it.
    - miohtama 3y ago
      AV1 was supposed to be the patent and royalty free contender?
      - Omin 3y ago
        It's supposed to be royalty free, but there are patents for the techniques used in it which are used defensively. If someone has a patent to a technique used in AV1, then they could still demand royalties and some patent trolls have been trying. Wikipedia has a section on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV1#Patent_Claims https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV1#Patent_Claims
        jorvi 3y ago
        Wasn’t part of AV1’s charm that anyone trying to sue an AV1 licensee would be nuked from orbit by the legal expertise and patent trove of the collective AV1 companies / AOM?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - croes 3y ago
        I doubt that a codec will exist without patent claims once it is widely used.
        champtar 3y ago
        Just wait 25 years and you should be good
      - nikanj 3y ago
        Alas the USPTO is happy to grant patents on anything under the sun, so you’ll never know when someone shows up with a patent for ”simulating a television broadcast via decompressing stored video on a computer” or something similarly broad. And searching for applicable patents opens you to more liability, so you just gotta go in blind and hope for the best
- ZeroCool2u 3y ago
  Is there no explanation as to why they removed support and added it as a MS Store bundle? Seems really strange.
asabla 3y ago
> ...which is why I've proposed support for AV1 and Opus for the Interop 2024 effort... A very nice initiative! Feels like we've been lagging behind on development in this area for some time. And with a wider support (in both hardware and software) more actors should be able to enter this field in the future. I really hope this gets enough traction in a near future!
dcgudeman 3y ago
Although this thread is about AVIF (the image format based on AV1) it claims that Edge is not supported due to licensing issues: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/75459594/why-doesnt-edge-support-avif-images https://stackoverflow.com/questions/75459594/why-doesnt-edge... I bet the same licensing issues are also holding back AV1 on edge.
- thomastjeffery 3y ago
  Yet no information on what the licensing issue is... This is ridiculous.
  - baggy_trough 3y ago
    Patent trolls probably.
    - thomastjeffery 3y ago
      I don't accept the vague claim of "patent trolls" as enough for Microsoft to bar support of AV1 in Edge. This is extra bad when you consider what Microsoft does to pressure people into using Edge, despite Edge itself being literally Chromium with features disabled.
jorvi 3y ago
> Safari ties support to a hardware decoder, which I suppose is understandable to avoid accidental battery drain from using a software codec I still have a pretty deep dislike for Google for turning on AV1 for everyone in Chromium. It’s the ultimate “fuck you, I care more about my bottom line than your user experience”. Edit: and clown HN rears its head again. I guess cutting users their battery life to a third is worth it as long as Google saves a little bandwidth?
- AshleysBrain 3y ago
  Doesn't the Media Capabilities API [1] provide a way to determine if a codec is "power efficient" (presumably meaning hardware supported)? So then you can switch to another codec if AV1 isn't hardware-supported. [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Media_Capabilities_API/Using_the_Media_Capabilities_API https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Media_Capab...
  - jorvi 3y ago
    That might be, but on (most?) Chromium browsers you have to install h264ify to force-disable AV1/VP9 on devices that have no AV1 hardware decode. What is even more annoying is that you can only do a full disable. You can’t disable AC1/VP9 video decode but leave image decode intact.
    - AshleysBrain 3y ago
      What I'm saying is in an ideal world web content should be able to detect whether some codecs are not hardware-accelerated, and so such workarounds should not be necessary. Of course, lots of naive web content might just check if it's supported and use it anyway... but surely the big sites like YouTube get this right? Software decode has its uses - if you just want a small GIF-style looping clip, hardware support doesn't matter much, and it's nice to have one codec that can be relied upon to work everywhere.
      - blibble 3y ago
jiggawatts 3y ago
Don’t forget an image codec with HDR (10-bit) support! Jesus wept, this is just a still frame from any of: h.265, AV1, or VP9. Those, or a JPEG XL file. None of these work in general, especially outside of the Apple moat. Oh, sure, you can buy a $4000 flagship Nikon camera that can output HDR files in HEIF format, but they won’t open on Windows and look garbled on Apple devices. This is so stupid now that the iOS version of Adobe Lightroom can edit HDR photos and export them in three formats… none of which can be viewed as HDR on any iOS device! I’ve never ever seen this kind of retardation before — software that is this fundamentally incompatible with the only OS it runs on! I go on this rant approximately annually. It’s been about a decade. I expect to be stuck using SDR JPG for another decade at this rate.

CrendKing 3y ago

Microsoft Edge USED to support AV1 through the extension, but decided to disable the support altogether since v116. The "Can I use" website [1] has the up-to-date information on this. [1] https://caniuse.com/av1 https://caniuse.com/av1

AshleysBrain 3y ago
Huh, I didn't know that, good point! Even weirder though. Hopefully it's a prelude to built-in support.
- jug 3y ago
  This can be treated as a rumor but I heard a Microsoft developer on Mastodon hint that they had been having trouble with a patent troll, so maybe that's the reason behind the kind of obnoxious workaround too. But that they were dealing with it.
  - miohtama 3y ago
    AV1 was supposed to be the patent and royalty free contender?
    - Omin 3y ago
      It's supposed to be royalty free, but there are patents for the techniques used in it which are used defensively. If someone has a patent to a technique used in AV1, then they could still demand royalties and some patent trolls have been trying. Wikipedia has a section on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV1#Patent_Claims https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV1#Patent_Claims
      - jorvi 3y ago
        Wasn’t part of AV1’s charm that anyone trying to sue an AV1 licensee would be nuked from orbit by the legal expertise and patent trove of the collective AV1 companies / AOM?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - croes 3y ago
      I doubt that a codec will exist without patent claims once it is widely used.
      - champtar 3y ago
        Just wait 25 years and you should be good
    - nikanj 3y ago
      Alas the USPTO is happy to grant patents on anything under the sun, so you’ll never know when someone shows up with a patent for ”simulating a television broadcast via decompressing stored video on a computer” or something similarly broad. And searching for applicable patents opens you to more liability, so you just gotta go in blind and hope for the best
ZeroCool2u 3y ago
Is there no explanation as to why they removed support and added it as a MS Store bundle? Seems really strange.

asabla 3y ago

> ...which is why I've proposed support for AV1 and Opus for the Interop 2024 effort... A very nice initiative! Feels like we've been lagging behind on development in this area for some time. And with a wider support (in both hardware and software) more actors should be able to enter this field in the future. I really hope this gets enough traction in a near future!

dcgudeman 3y ago

Although this thread is about AVIF (the image format based on AV1) it claims that Edge is not supported due to licensing issues: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/75459594/why-doesnt-edge-support-avif-images https://stackoverflow.com/questions/75459594/why-doesnt-edge... I bet the same licensing issues are also holding back AV1 on edge.

thomastjeffery 3y ago
Yet no information on what the licensing issue is... This is ridiculous.
- baggy_trough 3y ago
  Patent trolls probably.
  - thomastjeffery 3y ago
    I don't accept the vague claim of "patent trolls" as enough for Microsoft to bar support of AV1 in Edge. This is extra bad when you consider what Microsoft does to pressure people into using Edge, despite Edge itself being literally Chromium with features disabled.

jorvi 3y ago

> Safari ties support to a hardware decoder, which I suppose is understandable to avoid accidental battery drain from using a software codec I still have a pretty deep dislike for Google for turning on AV1 for everyone in Chromium. It’s the ultimate “fuck you, I care more about my bottom line than your user experience”. Edit: and clown HN rears its head again. I guess cutting users their battery life to a third is worth it as long as Google saves a little bandwidth?

AshleysBrain 3y ago
Doesn't the Media Capabilities API [1] provide a way to determine if a codec is "power efficient" (presumably meaning hardware supported)? So then you can switch to another codec if AV1 isn't hardware-supported. [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Media_Capabilities_API/Using_the_Media_Capabilities_API https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Media_Capab...
- jorvi 3y ago
  That might be, but on (most?) Chromium browsers you have to install h264ify to force-disable AV1/VP9 on devices that have no AV1 hardware decode. What is even more annoying is that you can only do a full disable. You can’t disable AC1/VP9 video decode but leave image decode intact.
  - AshleysBrain 3y ago
    What I'm saying is in an ideal world web content should be able to detect whether some codecs are not hardware-accelerated, and so such workarounds should not be necessary. Of course, lots of naive web content might just check if it's supported and use it anyway... but surely the big sites like YouTube get this right? Software decode has its uses - if you just want a small GIF-style looping clip, hardware support doesn't matter much, and it's nice to have one codec that can be relied upon to work everywhere.
    - blibble 3y ago

jiggawatts 3y ago

Don’t forget an image codec with HDR (10-bit) support! Jesus wept, this is just a still frame from any of: h.265, AV1, or VP9. Those, or a JPEG XL file. None of these work in general, especially outside of the Apple moat. Oh, sure, you can buy a $4000 flagship Nikon camera that can output HDR files in HEIF format, but they won’t open on Windows and look garbled on Apple devices. This is so stupid now that the iOS version of Adobe Lightroom can edit HDR photos and export them in three formats… none of which can be viewed as HDR on any iOS device! I’ve never ever seen this kind of retardation before — software that is this fundamentally incompatible with the only OS it runs on! I go on this rant approximately annually. It’s been about a decade. I expect to be stuck using SDR JPG for another decade at this rate.