3 ms·

> Cloud and streaming services are big beneficiaries of codec technologies. Newer, better codecs dramatically reduce their storage requirements and provide ultr

> Cloud and streaming services are big beneficiaries of codec technologies. Newer, better codecs dramatically reduce their storage requirements and provide ultra-high resolution videos without buffering or latency issues, enhancing the services that they charge users to watch or sell advertisements around. At present, these companies are not contributing to the cost of the codec technologies they rely on. This is, of course, wrong. These companies are contributing to the cost of the codec technologies they rely on by now building those technologies. Through, for example, contributing to the development of AV1: https://aomedia.org/membership/members/ https://aomedia.org/membership/members/ The web (and the internet generally) is premised on open, royalty-free formats and protocols that everyone is free to implement. It's how it works and how it has always worked. There is nothing at all special about audio and video formats. Audio and video formats on the web can and should be royalty-free just like everything else.

charcircuit 3y ago
>There is nothing at all special about audio and video formats Some formats are able to compresses better without losing details. If there is a superior codec, not having open licensing is not a deal breaker.
- kevingadd 3y ago
  If the codec lacks hardware decode support and lacks a supremely efficient software/gpu accelerated decoder on end user devices, it's not actually a useful codec even if it's superior. And you won't get widespread availability if the codec is expensive.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    Hardware accelerated H.264 is widespread and not openly licensed
    - kevingadd 3y ago
      It's still the case that web browsers have to ship software H264 decoders because it's 2023 and you still can't rely on being able to HW decode it on every device Also, h264 predated the wide availability of HW video codecs in general, so software decoding was the thing for quite a while and that provided a motivation for HW decoding. It's an ancient codec, it shouldn't be surprising that eventually everyone got decode support for it. In 2023 if you're proposing people adopt a new codec with sw decode only, why should they eat significantly reduced battery life + higher patent fees when they already have hardware decoders for h264 and vp9? It's a losing argument. I also can't speak to this with confidence but I suspect Apple choosing to use H264 single-handedly advanced support for it. If they were to do the same thing with H265 or AV1 in a strong way we'd probably see the same effect.
- clouddrover 3y ago
  > not having open licensing is not a deal breaker Which is what everyone says right up until the point it does become a deal breaker, such as with the rumblings about content royalties. The better approach is to stick with the royalty-free licensing principles the web is built on from the start: https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent/ https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent/ Royalty-free internet and web standards have unlocked massive value (and massive profits) for all participants on the web. Audio and video formats can and should stick to these same principles.

charcircuit 3y ago

>There is nothing at all special about audio and video formats Some formats are able to compresses better without losing details. If there is a superior codec, not having open licensing is not a deal breaker.

kevingadd 3y ago
If the codec lacks hardware decode support and lacks a supremely efficient software/gpu accelerated decoder on end user devices, it's not actually a useful codec even if it's superior. And you won't get widespread availability if the codec is expensive.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  Hardware accelerated H.264 is widespread and not openly licensed
  - kevingadd 3y ago
    It's still the case that web browsers have to ship software H264 decoders because it's 2023 and you still can't rely on being able to HW decode it on every device Also, h264 predated the wide availability of HW video codecs in general, so software decoding was the thing for quite a while and that provided a motivation for HW decoding. It's an ancient codec, it shouldn't be surprising that eventually everyone got decode support for it. In 2023 if you're proposing people adopt a new codec with sw decode only, why should they eat significantly reduced battery life + higher patent fees when they already have hardware decoders for h264 and vp9? It's a losing argument. I also can't speak to this with confidence but I suspect Apple choosing to use H264 single-handedly advanced support for it. If they were to do the same thing with H265 or AV1 in a strong way we'd probably see the same effect.
clouddrover 3y ago
> not having open licensing is not a deal breaker Which is what everyone says right up until the point it does become a deal breaker, such as with the rumblings about content royalties. The better approach is to stick with the royalty-free licensing principles the web is built on from the start: https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent/ https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent/ Royalty-free internet and web standards have unlocked massive value (and massive profits) for all participants on the web. Audio and video formats can and should stick to these same principles.