Comment on Firm quietly boosts H.264 streaming license fees from $100,000 up to staggering $4.5 million
pricklypearbear@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Hope this pushes the royalty-free alternatives more. That’s a crazy jump.
I still wonder why video is about the only thing for which a restricted format is still the “industry standard”?
We nowadays take photos in JPEG or WebP format, draw raster images in PNG or WebP format, vector graphics in SVG format, our documents are PDF or OOXML or ODF or HTML, all of which are (at least technically) open standards. Video is the only thing that still mostly runs on formats with restrictive patents.
AV1 is getting note and more common
Which royalty free alternatives exist?
Theora, VP8, VP9, and AV1 are the ones that come to mind.
What about Matroska? That was open to begin with, wasn’t it? Is it not good for streaming?
MKV is a container format for bundling together streams of audio, video, and text. It does not provide the actual video compression, which is still typically h.264 or h.265.
The other answer you got hits it on the head already.
Here’s an additional piece of info you might like: The webm container format is actually a specific subset of Matroska. The big players in the web recognised that it was a very useful open container format and adopted it for the web. They took a subset to make implementation in browsers easier and more uniform.
Didn’t Dolby just sue Snap for using AV1? Claiming it uses similar techniques to h264 or 265 or something?
Shit I hadn’t heard of that. That makes me sad. I know from reading developer blogs at the time that they tried to use less established techniques in some places to try and avoid similarities. Let’s hope it proves to be enough in the lawsuit. That would be horrible if some dusty encumbant can crush the new codec at a critical time of its global adotion.
Believe its similar techniques to h.265 for AV1. That’s still going on…not sure if it will go anywhere.
VibeSurgeon@piefed.social 1 day ago
AV1 already wins handily as a codec, and the only thing keeping it from being adopted more broadly than is currently the case is lack of hardware decoders on older hardware. This problem naturally solves itself as old hardware gets replaced.
Even then, dav1d is a remarkable piece of software, and software decoding is pretty viable for AV1 thanks to it. Many places have already adopted AV1, and you should expect to keep seeing it get adopted as time goes on.
RedSnt@feddit.dk 1 day ago
AV1 has recently gotten involved in a lawsuit by Dolby saying that they’re breaking like 5 of their patent, so there’s some issues there as well.
VibeSurgeon@piefed.social 1 day ago
These things always happen because of how dumb software patents are. There’s no guarantee the lawsuit will stick, nor do I necessarily expect it to
deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 14 hours ago
It’s even worse than that: the USPO abrogated their responsibility to evaluate patents for prior art and conflict with other patents to the courts.
So they just issue patents willy nilly and expect courts to decide which ones ‘win’.
plz1@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Better hardware encoder support would help, too. It’s insanely inefficient to encode without that dedicated hardware, compared to h264/h265, where dedicated hardware support is there.
I was hoping Apple would add it when they shipped the M4, and now M5, but nope.
VibeSurgeon@piefed.social 1 day ago
Hardware encoder support I think is generally less critical. Decoding is the process that needs to happen real-time, while most encoding can be done far in advance, unless you’re live broadcasting or operating at YouTube-scale.
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 4 hours ago
On a media server encoding is typically done in real time
plz1@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
While I agree, my point was that encoding needs to be more efficient, both in time, and resource consumption. That isn’t quite there yet, for AV1. It is improving, albeit slowly.