3 ms·

That's on the browser vendors. Google added HEVC support to Chrome in 104. It relies on decoders exposed by the host OS, negating the need to license a softwar

That's on the browser vendors. Google added HEVC support to Chrome in 104. It relies on decoders exposed by the host OS, negating the need to license a software decoder. There's no reason Firefox couldn't do the same. EDIT: Apparently, similar support showed up in nightly Firefox builds late last year, hidden behind `media.wmf.hevc.enabled`

kuschku 2y ago
> There's no reason Firefox couldn't do the same. > It relies on decoders exposed by the host OS, negating the need to license a software decoder. Windows requires you to pay (!) to get access to h265 decoding. Someone needs to license the decoder at some point, and that means you'll have to pay for it one way or the other.
- babypuncher 2y ago
  But the GPU vendors already provide this directly (Nvidia, Intel, and AMD). It can absolutely be done at no extra cost to the user. There are also open source software decoders that can be installed and play nice with WMF.
  - kuschku 2y ago
    > But the GPU vendors already provide this directly (Nvidia, Intel, and AMD). It can absolutely be done at no extra cost to the user. There are also open source software decoders that can be installed and play nice with WMF. Somehow I doubt that Nouveau or the in-kernel AMDGPU have paid the license fee for HEVC decoding, or that it works well with WMF...
    - babypuncher 2y ago
      We're just whittling down to a smaller and smaller subset of users. 99.9% of users shouldn't be made to go without just because 0.1% of users can't have it. Though even then, ffmpeg is open source and decodes hevc just fine. I get why browser vendors would not want to bundle ffmpeg, but that shouldn't stop them from leveraging it if the user already has it installed.